Kantian Perspective: Core Analysis

Utilitarian’s try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant, disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

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.”

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

Kantian ethics states that the action must be universally acceptable, in order to be moral. Thus, Jim cannot kill the man, it would not be a moral action,as killing is not a universally acceptable action. Secondly, another important part of Kant’s theory refers to humans, and how they should never be used as a means to an end. Instead, people should not be used as instruments for something else, no matter how worthy the aim may be. Thus, Jim would be killing the man in order to save the rest – so he would be using him as a means of achieving something else. Therefore, if he were to kill the man, in order to save the rest, his action would be

Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or

Through Kantanian thought there would be one rule that everyone is required to follow. This rule in the authors mind would be to do the right thing. In this situation through Kantanian thought the man should have been saved because that is the right thing to do. Weather it was because you wanted to or because they had a duty to it, it still should have been done. Since the men clearly didn’t want to do the right thing these men should have acted out of duty, which in Kantanian thought is a greater

You have the principle of humanity when talking about Kantian Deontology. The principle of humanity means treat humanity including yourself always as an end and never as a mere means. The right action I think Jim should take would be kill one of the Indians himself. If he kills one of the Indians than the rest of them would be let off. My choice of theory would be consequentialism. The reason why I choose consequentialism is because you have five principles that you can think about before you do something. When going through all five of the principles it’s going to be an outcome. The first would be identify what is good so that would be saving yourself, saving the Indians, and being smart and surviving. The second one would be identify what is bad which would be dying and killing the Indians. Next you must determine options which is to kill one of the Indians or kill none of the Indians. Also, try to kill the captain. Another one would be value of each open option and that would be lose one Indian and save many or kill no one and lose all Indians. Then you have the risk of losing your life and all the

He believed that motivation is the key source to acting from duty; the motivation of being a moral person. This means that an action should not be done because the outcome makes you happy, but because it is the morally right thing to do. This contrast Utilitarianism, as the idea of happiness is a requirement of morality, the happiness of the community determines morality. Kant also does not encourage using people as a means, but as a means to an end. Kant believes that because human beings have value, they should not be used just to fulfill a purpose. In the transplant case, the doctor would be using the one as a means to preserve the lives of the five. This action would be also be deemed morally wrong by

When it comes to guiding our moral actions, I believe that care ethics is the better moral philosophy to follow over Kantian deontology. While both moral philosophies strongly believe in defending the dignity of our fellow man, care ethics believes that nurturance and caring is the best way to defend a person’s dignity, as opposed to Kant who believe that our actions alone determine our dignity and worth. There are a number of reasons why one should choose care ethics over Kantian deontology. The first reason is that, in his moral philosophy, Kant chooses reason over feeling. The second reason is that Kant lacks compassion for the unique situations of others by suggesting that the principle of good is universifiable. The third reason is that Kant ignores how the consequences of our actions affect others. Finally, the fourth reason is that Kant implies that while we should all seek to perfect our moral selves, we are not responsible for the moral growth and perfection of others. Instead, we are merely obligated to help others and promote their happiness.

The issues of morality are most clearly expressed through examples of different methods of analyzing a situation. The case of Holmes, an officer in charge of a sinking ship, shows the striking differences between philosopher Immanuel Kant’s beliefs and those of the Utilitarians. After Holmes’ ship sinks, there are twenty passengers in a lifeboat that is only meant to hold fourteen people. There was no time to send out a signal for help before the ship sank, so no rescue is guaranteed and the nearest land is fifteen hundred miles away. Holmes decides to force the wounded passengers and those wearing life jackets off of the lifeboat and make his way to shore without them. This action

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Kant would definitely not endorse a paternalistic view. Paternalism is deciding for a person for their own good. Kant argues that a lie is “merely an intentionally false declaration towards another man... for it always injures another; if not individual, yet mankind generally (Vaughn 148). In the practice of medicine, there are instances where the truth would be better kept from the patients. However, Kant would not believe in doing this because he believes that we do not have the duty to lie even if it is to prevent harm to others. Patients are entitled to their autonomy and lying to a patient disrespects such ability to make decisions without the input of another person.

“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.