Kant and Mill's Theories Essay example

For around $400 and a referral from a well-respected doctor, Dr. George Loutrell Timanus performed abortions from the 1920s until 1951 (Reagan 1997, 158). Dr. Timanus, like many private practice physicians in his specialty performed abortions for women who came to him with varying reasons such as “poverty, excessive childbearing, and illegitimacy” (Reagan 1997, 158). Despite the general disapproval of abortions, Dr. Timanus practiced out in the open and was available for those who needed him. Dr. Timanus’ execution of these operations showed that though abortions were illegal at the time, there were many doctors who were sympathetic with different maternal cases. His decision to do what he thought was morally correct over the few decades is significant because it shows a change in attitude towards abortions in comparison with that of the early twentieth century. However, in 1951 Dr. Timanus’ office was raided and he, along with those who worked with and for him, was arrested for illegally performing abortions. In the beginning of the 1950s, people started to question whether or not abortions should be legal, thus why Dr. Timanus believed that he was doing nothing wrong and was well within his rights as a physician. Despite the fact that there were people and doctors who had similar beliefs as he did, not one of Dr. Timanus’ colleagues came to his defense as he was trialed for his crimes (Reagan

What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents two cases known as Rescue I and Rescue II. In these cases, one must create a dissimilarity between doing and allowing. They must ask themselves what would be the moral thing to do. Philosophers have tried to explain the concept of morals and ethics and create systems to relate the two. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are both two of these kind of philosophers. They express conditions on morality which are then applied to an ethical position. These conditions both explained what they believed is right and wrong and who benefits from what, but they are very different. Mill and Kant’s ethical positions foil one another and are very necessary when being applied to Foot’s thought experiment. This begs the question if you will do things to save the greatest number, or if you would do things strictly because it feels right. In Rescue I and Rescue II, Mill would provide happiness for the 5 individuals, while Kant would give life to whomever needed it simply because of his “good will.”

In Roe vs. Wade abortion was deemed not only legal but morally acceptable. One might be surprised to know that not only this decision but our entire outlook on life is influenced and shaped by a cultural ideology. These ideologies serve as a lense through which our entire life is tinted. While not all ideologies are destructive, the real harm is done when on can not identify it and evaluate its morals and principles individually. This paper will seek to explore how how secular humanism extends to abortion, why this is detrimental, and how Christianity provides a better ideology.

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

In 1973, the case of Roe v. Wade took place. Abortion issues were discussed during this time and it was determined by the Supreme Court that the idea of conscience clause be initiated (Berlinger, 2008). Conscience clause legislation provides legal protection for health care workers that choose not to participate in treatment of care, if it violates their moral or religious belief (Berlinger, 2008). Beliefs on abortions, is an example of how the conscience clause legislation may cause a dilemma. The physician does not believe in abortions and during a routine visit the doctor discovered that the patient is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. Although the patient is currently asymptomatic, the physician understands that this puts the patient’s health at risk. What would the physician do to handle the situation? Under the conscience clause law, this physician would be protected, as performing an abortion goes against their religious or ethical beliefs. The physician would have to consider that although this goes against their beliefs, the patient’s health is at risk and subsequently cause an ethical dilemma. From the patient’s view, this law may be intrusive and violate their constitutional right of choice (Berlinger, 2008).

Kant’s categorical imperative is a natural conclusion of reason when searching for a moral guideline that does not depend on previous expense but reason alone. The categorical imperative can be explained in many different ways. Kant offers five formulations in his work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. The formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative can be considered a test. If your maxim passes the test then your actions under that maxim will be good. The formulations that Kant offers, they are not different rules in themselves, but different ways of stating the same thing. It is important to note that these formulations apply only to your maxim, or what you intend to do. The categorical imperative is based off of the assumption

In this essay I will cover the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. I will begin by covering Kant perspective of rational beings and his idea of a priori learning. I will then move on to his idea of categorical imparaitive. After Kant I will discuss Mill’s utilitarian theory regarding pleasure and pain. With a better understanding of those I will move to Mill’s idea of a posteriori and hypothetical imperative. Following the ideas of these philosophers I will attempt to depict their viewpoints of the issue of animal cruelty through experimentation. To conclude the essay I will state my stance and who’s side, if either, I take in the animal cruelty controversy.

At first it would appear that Kant presupposes human beings as the only species worthy of morality without giving any explanatory criterion. Kant develops one of his foundational doctrines called “The Categorical Imperative”, which can be summarized in the following sentence: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity in such a way, whether in ourselves or in others, as an end in itself” (Groundwork II). It seems that Kant believes that human beings bar none deserve what he calls ‘respect’ or what we are calling moral consideration.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

Important to realize is universal laws or moral rules are a necessary part of society. Without rules, society would not function properly, and a breakdown of humanity’s social structure would soon follow. If no one kept their word, then no one would be believed or trusted. Hence, nothing would ever be accomplished. It would stand to reason people must keep their commitments. Kant’s categorical imperative is defined by reason and binding for all rational people. (Rachels EMP 135) Kant maintains that “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law.” (qtd in Rachels EMP 130) To clarify, if one’s actions can be based on a rule or maxim that can be followed without exception by everyone,

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.