Kantian Theory

Making the most of the advantages of policies does not assure equality or examine moral questions which people value greater than other consequences. Nevertheless, utilitarianism offers a basis for public policy.

153). In essence, utilitarianism is maximizing everyone’s happiness, which can almost be considered a universal acceptance (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). Jeremy Bentham is one of the proponents of modern utilitarianism and states, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). In business utilitarianism shares the nonmoral views that the best decision that had no moral conflict would be to maximize profit, which would be the greatest good of the company and its employees (Boylan, 2009, p. 162). Utilitarianism does not always hold true in some minds. Utilitarianism does not take into account motives of the people (Boylan, 2009, p. 165). “If one acts in accord with the general principle and its corollaries, then one is moral” (Boylan, 2009, p. 165).

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

James Rachels argues against utilitarianism on the bases of justice, rights, and backward looking reasons. In this paper I will address Rachels reasoning for rights to be a means of denying a consequentialist view, counter-examples to support his reasons, and why utilitarianism ultimately should be rejected. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which only the maximum amount of happiness for the most amount of people matters. It is a consequence based philosophy where an action is morally right if it benefits the majority of society, which creates many loop holes for injustice. Utilitarianism opens a door to exploit others in a morally inept fashion, allowing people to believe their actions are right when actually they are morally wrong.

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

In Pojmans essay Strengths and Weakness of Utilitarianism he describes this theory as “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative.” (105) For example if you decide to give ice cream to a group of children there may be a net increase in happiness which would mean the action is morally correct however if there are a few children who are lactose intolerant then those children may feel left out therefore there may be a net increase but morally we know it is unfair for one child to not get a treat therefore we that may be considered

Act Utilitarianism plays an important role on maximizing benefits for the most people. The moral worth of any action is judged by how much the benefits gained for all perceptive beings. While some individuals may suffer from these actions, utilitarianism holds that the conduct may still be ethical if it does more good for a greater number of people than it harms.

Utilitarianism – “Ethical choices that offer the greatest good for greatest number of people” (Ethics Textbook, pg. 8)

As a result of continued human suffering and questions of morality, many ethical theories have been developed over time to guide humans on how to coexist, differentiate between right and wrong, and live a “good” life. Many times, these different ethical theories seem to contradict one another, but all are conceived with the intention to guide morally just lives. Deontology is the most applicable theory of ethics because Deontology possesses a universal categorical imperative encompassing the ideas of having a “good will” and making decisions based on duty. The idea of having a universal categorical imperative prompts decision making that is increasingly based on duty, impartiality, justice, and considering how a particular decision will

After reading many moral theories online, anyone could be left wondering what to believe. In the final chapter 13 from “The Elements of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels outlined what he thought would be a satisfactory ethical theory.

Utilitarianism is be rejected because it is counter-intuitive(Cahn 129). The two acts are of equal. Here

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.

“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 limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.