Kant 's Deontology Theory And Ethics

Immanuel Kant believed that to live a good life is to lead a life of happiness. This is not saying that people should only live a life that brings them pleasure and satisfaction, as is often argued in Utilitarianism. Rather it is saying that to live a moral life is to live in a state of peace. For Kant, the Summum Bonum (highest good) describes the ideal, where there is both virtue and happiness.

From his deontological moral perspective, this is what Kant will have to say about this person that her activities are moral in view of the individual's will or expectation of acting. Kant's hypothesis can be ordered as a deontological because actions are not assessed to be ethically permissible on the establishment of results they yield, yet rather on the type of the specialist's will in acting, consequently his activities depend on obligation and not important. Kantianism is based on values of sayings, willing, and the unmitigated objective. An adage is a general run or principle elucidation what a man takes him to do and the conditions in which he takes himself to do it.

Kant was born in Germany in the Age of Enlightenment where Europe had two major events that changed it in terms of politics, social, and cultural. It was the Renaissance and the Storming of the Bastille in France and the eighteenth-century. A lot of scientists, writers, and philosophers have emerged, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean Jacques Rousseau, etc. These philosophers brought up new maxims, new theories that were taboo. In that perspective, Kant wrote Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, a book on Duty Ethics. For Kant, Duty Ethics is defined as a moral obligation, maxims that you cannot bind under any circumstances. The main two principles are the first principle of the categorical imperative and the second

For this reading, I understood it to be that Kant believes that our goals or actions are guided by these two kinds of ethics: the first one being that those who judges the rightness or wrongness of an action are based on the consequences of that action. This to me is the belief that people do certain actions or deeds only if it benefits the general population or the group. Subsequently, this kind of ethic is also considered as utilitarianism, which is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or done for the benefit of the majority. Furthermore, I might add an excellent quote by another Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, wherein he states that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” By contrast, the second kind of ethic according to Kant is the type of normative ethical theory that holds that actions are intrinsically good or bad and that their rightness or wrongness depend on their consequences. Subsequently, this type of ethic and/or belief, also known as non-consequentialist, is done in the notion that regardless of the consequence, that it is for the good of the situation or the person; and that it is one’s duty to act in accordance to the greater good.

Kant had the believe that to live a good life, it had to be led by happiness, but it doesn’t also mean that it should only bring you pleasure and satisfaction. It explains that when one’s wants to live in a state of peace they have to live a moral life.

Kant’s principle of autonomy is an important part of Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories. Though it may seem that such an important piece of Kant’s theory would be undeniable but there have been oppose its place in Kantian ethics. To provide evidence that Kant’s principle of humanity would stand up to arguments against autonomy. Initially, I will illustrate the purpose and reasoning of autonomy in the principle of humanity. I’ll then provide an argument attempting to disprove autonomy’s place in Kant’s theory including the concept of moral luck. Finally, I will address inconsistencies with this argument and how the principle of humanity is sustainable even with this opposition.

One of the beautiful things about Kantian ethics is that it is based on the individual. The individual can decide if their actions are worth doing to another person by weighing if the person would want the action done to them. The Kantian point of view is completely different from the Utilitarian point of view because the Kantian point of view deals with the individual, whereas the Utilitarian point of view deals with the group and the needs of the group. When you hear the words “basic human rights” or the word “right,” normally that responds to the individual, and rights in many cases are from the Kantian viewpoint. For instance, when a police officer responds to someone in need, they are responding from a Kantian viewpoint – the

Kant’s deontology gives us questions that can be ask to determined how ethical the using of the information would be. These questions are called Kant’s categorical imperative. The fist categorical is, “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law?” This means that you should only act in a way that you would allow others to act in the same way. In this case, you would have to be okay with being treated the same way that the Jewish prisoners were treated. It would be most likely that you would not want to be treated in the way. If for any reason the answer to this question is yes, then you would need to ask the second categorical imperative. The second categorical imperative is “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person

Each guide line for ethics is personal. My person view of ethics may differ from others around me. While, Immanuel Kant’s morals may be harsher than what society accepts today, there is a certain acceptance for his thought on categorical imperatives. However, with society being more developed than ever before, there may be some issues with Kant’s view as well. These issues can be understood, in this ethical dilemma, from what the executive committee’s intake will be. This ethical problem displays the fact that, each ethical issue will come down to personal principal and views.

1. The human being as explained by the Ubuntu theory is that of a relational being. A relational being is explained as someone who lives with an awareness of the interconnectedness of himself and other human beings. According to Ubuntu moral decisions revolves around the mind-set that a person is not the only entity affected by his decisions or actions. Moral decisions do not rely on a set of rules but rather on the basis of respect towards the community as whole.

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory. According to Bentham, the utilitarian principle discloses that the action of morally right when it promotes the maximum happiness for a majority of the citizens (Dion, 2012, p. 10). Therefore, utilitarianism can be expressed by, the greatest good for the highest number. In Ted 's situation, utilitarianism theory explains option in paying the inspector $500.00 would be most preferable as it will maximise happiness for Ted, his employees and the inspector.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)