Ethics Paper

Kant being the deontologist he is, has an ethical view based on duty; that human act by a moral system from our duties and obligations. Kant claims that the only thing that intrinsically valuable is good will. Morality has to focus on the idea of having a good will; it’s the unconditional good.

Utilitarianism is the concept that “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In summation, the consequentialist theory states, in reference to Dr. Peetush, that morally “good” actions are those that promote “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” For instance, if a utilitarian were faced with the dilemma of having to kill an innocent for the welfare of 100 other innocents, he would justify this action as morally correct as it, according to Hedonic Calculus, quantitatively produces the most benefit for the largest amount of people. Although utilitarianism is seemingly attractive, it is difficult to digest, as there are several key fallacies that unhinge the theory. This paper will criticize utilitarianism via Louis P. Pojman’s “no-rest” and “justice” objections and the utilitarian’s respective rebuttals, followed by further defense against utilitarianism.

Kant believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: first, can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Second, does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. More importantly, people are uniquely morally valuable. People are uniquely morally valuable because they have good will, which is constrained by reason to “respect the inherent dignity of all rational agents.” Everyone is of equal inherent dignity in virtue of having a free will (a will capable of goodness). Thus, we have no rational basis to favor our own will when acting. In short, people cannot use other people as mere means to achieve their goals, regardless the consequences, because we all have good will.

Act-utilitarianism, first of all, is an ethical theory that focuses on creating more good or happiness over bad. Effects of an action must be taken into account for everyone. Actions that directly cause the most goodness are morally right. For these reasons, everyone is considered to judge what will produce the most happiness overall. Also, every situation needs to be looked at as completely new and unique.

Kant believed that the only appropriate motive for an action is a sense of duty. A person should only do something solely because it is the right thing to do, no other motive is just. He also thought that acting purely out of inclinations was not moral at all. Kant defined a maxim to be the underlying principles motivating an action which determines its moral worth, not the end result.

“Utilitarianism is the concept that the moral worth of an action is determined exclusively by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people.”

Kant's concept of morality relies on good will, acting from duty, and categorical imperative. First, he asserts that the good will is always decent and its value will be remained even if it does not attain its moral motives. Second, he claims it is our moral duty that decides the rightness or wrongness of actions not the consequences. Third, Kant urges that categorical imperative is based on reason and it binds us despite of our desires; furthermore, he uses it a way of assessing intentions for a moral action.

Kant explains this law with the shopkeeper example. The shopkeeper who acts out of compassion is not cheating his customers but is not acting morally since the action is taken out of self-interest. The shopkeeper who acts out of duty is acting morally. The action taken is only right and has moral worth if it is taken due to moral duty regardless of the whether or not the outcome is positive or negative.

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that revolves around two concepts: happiness and consequentialism. It follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which is, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 239). Utilitarianists’ most vast idea is creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and to end pain and suffering with this principle by using Utilitarian Calculus. In Utilitarian Calculus, one would analyze the situation and as long as the action has a greater positive effect (more happiness) overall than a negative effect (pain and suffering) then the act is moral. Singer had many arguments when it comes to animal rights and speciesism.

Immanuel Kant is one of the most important and hardest philosophers in history. Kant’s thinking of philosophy is based on human autonomy, the understanding of human and their reasons. An action of moral worth is not the aftermath by the action, but the motive behind it. He argues that the only motives for these reasons are from universal principles, leading to his famous statement of categorical imperative: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” With this statement, we can understand Kant’s beliefs on the nature of synthetic a priori, the five formulae (formulations) he created, his argument on sexual harassment, and how rational moral laws on race and gender discrimination with real life issues in society today.

In Kant’s vast and dense collection of philosophy, there lies an entire moral code for people to follow. As one of the last traditional philosophers, Kant builds his tremendous philosophical system from the ground up, particularly discussing morality as it applies to people. Kant’s categorical imperatives, just one aspect of his moral law, applies to all situations and commands absolute authority. Kant formulates his moral code in several ways. First, he says to act as if the maxim of your action were to become a universal law of nature, and also to act in such a way that one never uses his or herself or any other person simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Kant flagrantly demands that people must not exploit one

Rule Utilitarian’s believe that the moral correctness of an act varies on the correctness of the rules that accepts it to accomplish the greatest good (Mill, 1863).

According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative is the supreme law of morality by which a particular rule that an individual takes as a maxim must be accepted by all rational beings. This universal acceptance is what judges an action to be always good, provided that the agent’s impartiality and independence are maintained over self interest. Therefore, the Categorical Imperative is the only valid criterion by which to decide whether an action is permissible. It is an unconditional and absolute obligation (duty), which even desire (inclination) cannot override. Duty derives from reason, which only humans possess, and thus they are the only beings capable of judging right from wrong. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a pure a priori form, that is, one that is based on theoretical as opposed to empirical deduction. It is a rational, voluntary choice derived from finality, instead of causality, where interests are put aside and moral duty is enforced.

Utilitarianism argues that the consequences of an action determine whether the decision is right or wrong. When the decision produces results that benefit a lot of people is considered appropriate (Timmons, 2002). The effects of an action that are important are those that produces positive results, which means that the types of action selected should yield a positive result. The purpose of morality is to increase the number of good deeds such as happiness and pleasure. The morality should be able to reduce the number of bad things such as unhappiness and pain from occurring in society.

The categorical imperative is the focal philosophical idea in the deontological moral rationality of Immanuel Kant. Kant trusted that the main thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says that the good will is not good on account of what it influences or finishes or as a result of its sufficiency to accomplish some proposed end; it is good simply because of its willing, i.e., it is good of itself. A maxim is the summed up tenet that characterizes the intentions in a man's actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of making the best decision in light of the fact that it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is dictated by regardless of whether it was endless supply