Kant's Deontology Analysis

3. When fighting a war there are always situations where the wrong person is killed in the process or customs and cultural norms of locals might be violated, but the successes of the Kill / Capture program do seem to balance out the

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.

Is doing what is right always the right thing to do? According to Kant, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but simply the motive that is behind that action (McCormick, n.d.).Immanuel Kant was a western philosopher that is still considered to be the most proponent concerning deontological, or duty based ethics and is thus considered very influential in the development of western philosophy. In that regard, If the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not on the outcome that is achieved by the action, but by the motive behind the action, then the action would be different (just or unjust), since the motive that can give an act moral value does not exist and cannot arise from Kant’s idea of universal principles of reason.

Disregarding these cases, from the understanding of the judicial standpoint Kant believes one must be punished for the murder of another human being by means of taking their life, as seen in the quote above. Kant argues one imposes their will on another individual when they take that individual’s life. Due to this fact, to justly punish one who committed murder, the judicial system must impose on one’s will in the same manner as they did their victim’s will. Moreover, Kant argues killing a murder must be done to protect the greater good of humanity. Furthermore, to Kant, this punishment of a murder is consistent with his belief every human being is an autonomous being. He argues one who wills the amoral action which is not accordance with the

Looking at case study 1 considering the theories we have discussed during this THL 270 course, I have decided to advise Sarah to lie on her resume. When I first examined this case study at the beginning of this course, I advised Sarah of the same thing as I do now, but my ethical reasoning was different. I originally took the standpoint of John Stuart Mill and his theory of Utilitarianism. I said my reasoning was this because she would be doing a greater good for a greater number of people by lying. I do not discredit this theory now, but I feel my ethical reasoning’s align more with another theory. I also have formed greater understandings of theories presented in this course to better advise Sarah.

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 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

Based on the end of the reading, Kant broke his writing into three sections with a brief explanation how each section transitions from the common rational knowledge of morality to philosophical, from popular moral philosophy to metaphysic of morals, and the final section from the metaphysic of morals to the critique of the pure practical reason.

     Utilitarianism is a consequential perspective, in that, a decision in based on the effects it ----will have on society and what it will generally lead to. Also, the utility or usefulness of an action is determined by the amount of happiness that will result. Therefore, no action in itself can be deemed wrong; consequence alone are the important matter. Using this principle, one should consider the possible results of each potential action.

The implication of Kant’s Deontological Ethics is that a human being should not make a promise if they don’t intend on keeping it. As well as, a human being should not lie or break a promise for the sake of achieving or escaping from something because in the end they will suffer more rather than benefit from it. Kant says that if a human being wants to make a false promise, then they should ask themselves this, “Is there going to be any consequences from this lie?” If not, then it can be an advantage to the person. Kant talks about the imperatives as good: hypothetical; attainment of something else and categorical; good in itself. According to Kant, humans’ action should always be viewed at the same time as an end (59). No, this cannot be

Immanuel Kant is the founder of deontological ethics. The term deontology comes from the Greek word, “deon”, meaning duty. The theory states that people are morally obligated to act within a certain set of rules or principles, regardless of whatever outcome. An action is considered to be morally permissible not because of the product of the action, but because of the characteristics of the action itself. In relation to abortion, would Kant feel as if it is morally wrong or morally permissible?

Immanuel Kant had the idea that only humans are rational. If Kant were alive today, I believe that he would accept Kanzi as an end in himself. I think that Kant would conclude that Kanzi has many rational capabilities just like humans. Based on how I defined a person earlier, It’s safe to say that Kanzi fits in this category.

Deontological Ethics and Immanuel Kant Kant’s theory of ethics was named deontological theory by Jeremy Bentham. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher in 18th century. Kant is a father of the modern philosophy. He believed that all philosophers should address two main questions.

If a philosopher who follows Kant’s Deontology theory had to be one of the Jury member for a case in a court house that involves someone who the judge is considering to give the death penalty. The philosopher would agree that the individual should be put to death. For the reason that the individual broke the law and committed a crime that shouldn’t have been done be anyone who are govern under the law. Also the Philosopher would believe that the rules should be follow no matter what happen that cause the individual to break the rules in the first place. The Philosopher would believe that the person intention when committing the crime was not good so the individual would have to deal with the consequence of their action. For example if an individual was found guilty for planning to kill another person and end up getting caught. The philosopher would say since the individual was plan ways to kill the victim then their intentions was not right. The individual that is being charge for the crime intended to break the laws and murder the person so that the individual will not live any more. The prisoner had prepare different ways he or she wanted to try to take the life of another individual. As a result the prisoner would deserve to be punish and the charges that were bought on to the individual should not be drop. For the reason that the prisoner knows that he was breaking the law and he or she was intension was not to help the individual who end up being

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