Kant's Deontological Approach Essay

In the past few months I have been introduced to several different ethical theories, but three of those theories stood out in my mind, Deontological theory, Consequentialist ethics Rule Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics theory. Deontological theory a non-consequentialist theory that does not accept consequences as the basis of right and wrong, but focus instead on our duties and intentions of one’s action. On the other hand, Rule Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory that defines a morally right rule or practice as one that promotes overall good. Virtue ethics believes that one has to have specific character traits like loyalty, compassion and generosity that have moral values in a person without any underline principles or actions guiding them.

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.

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.

From Christian-princible based ethics I believe we must follow the moral rules which are provided for us in the Ten Commandments. Although this seems likea a case where the rules should be bent the law does not indorce torturing as a means to get answers we want provided. Due to the laws being what they are in the United States it would not be right to torture

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

In the dilemma A, the bomber scenario, the two best two ethical systems in which would address this issue would be utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory. These two address the bomber scenario by one agreeing that it is ethical to torture the bomber in order to find the location in which the bombs are while the other believes that it torturing the bomber might not work.

Kantian moral theories make a very strong argument for why torture is wrong just in its definition. If we are using someone in a way which they have not directly consented to this means we are using them as a mere means which is exactly what Kant proposes we avoid (O’Neil, 1986, p.45). Torcher, by definition, cannot be consented to. If it could be, it wouldn’t be called torture. That person would have asked for it and they would have a reason to gain something out of the situation. “The Formula of the End in Itself applies to the intentions on which one acts-not to some prettified version that one may avow”

Kant was a deontologist. Kant’s categorical imperative conditions, “never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 14). Each action taken by a human is based on a maxim or a rule of action. By the same token, he believed that humans should not act in a manner that cannot be universalized for everyone

“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.

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

a dress - which does not in fact suit her - just to make her feel

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