Deciding on an action or policy today many people will observe the decision and look to see if it is moral or not. On the other hand, people will look for the outcome of that action and the effects it will have on people. The argument when deciding based on moral beliefs, or solely on the consequences has always been a debate. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses not on the action itself, but the consequences that come from those actions. In a point in time people began to look at their own philological teachings on the topic of morality and ethics. One being Kantian ethics which was formed by Immanuel Kant. Kant’s ethical theory is an example of deontological moral theory, that focuses not on the consequence of an action, and …show more content…
At the same time, it considers the interest of everyone equally (rule utilitarianism). Utilitarian’s believe happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value. In the eyes Kant, not everyone deserves to be happy. But, for utilitarianism the goal is to generate the greatest amount of happiness with the least amount of harm. The most notable difference between the two theories is morality and happiness. Kant uses ‘the categorical imperative’ to decide what the moral duties of humans are. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is the formulation of humanity. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” -Immanuel Kant. The formulation of humanity argues that rational humans can never use someone as mere means, and rational beings must be treated as ends to themselves, using someone as a mere means is immoral because we aren’t following our duty. This idea of the formulation of humanity differs from the views of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism looks at the right and wrong of an action only through the outcome or consequence of that action. Utilitarianism rejects the moral codes and would use a person as mere means just to get the greatest amount of happiness, even if that means sacrificing a person just so the greater good is happy. A reply
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.
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states something is considered to be right when it does the most good for most the most amount of people (Duignan 2015). This theory doesn’t consider the feelings of the individual; it considers the feelings of the majority (Duignan 2015). Utilitarianism is very different from relativism, which takes into account the totality of circumstances, this philosophical theory states that what is considered to be right or wrong can vary depending on people and society (Rachels 2015).
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.
The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is
Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go
Ethics is one part of philosophy that will always be studied, and like most subjects in philosophy, will never be viewed the same by everyone. There are so many cultures that have so many different beliefs about the way a person's life should be lived out. Things like religion, poverty, and mental health all contribute to our beliefs in ethics. Some people believe that the mental state of a person or the motive for that person committing a crime should be factors when sentencing time comes. Others think that no matter the situation, a crime is a crime, and no compassion should be felt for the guilty. In the studies of philosophy these beliefs are put into two categories:
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
In a simplistic sense Utilitarianism, originally established by Jeremy Bentham, is the ethical and teleological theory which maintains it is the total consequences of an action which determines its rightness or wrongness; that is, it is not just my happiness which should be taken into account but the happiness of everyone concerned. However, although this is the classical approach to Utilitarianism, this theory as be interpreted in numerous ways- in this essay I will focus on three (Act, rule and preference utilitarianism). Another approach to moral philosophy was put forward by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. As a Deontologist Kant faces the same problems
Media, defined as a mean of mass communication that reaches and influences the general audience. When the media is combined with moral theories, known as the guides for humans to figure out what actions are either right or wrong, it creates a balance in our entertainment about what is ethical or not to display on society. By having various Moral Theories and none of them being one 100 percent perfect, it causes humans to create their own satisfactory moral theory. My own satisfactory moral theory, in essence, is a combination of being able to take into consideration my personal relationships while still making an impact in my community, society and the world. Having morals in the media is what allows us to know when one may cross the line.
Immanuel Kant was an influential philosopher that looked at ethics and morality from a different perspective from Utilitarians. Kant believed that people are obligated to follow
An instance where utilitarianism is not beneficial is if there were a bomb in a major city and the daughter of the alleged terrorist is in custody, although she may be innocent she is leverage. In this situation it would be morally wrong to torture her but if no action is taken then thousands of innocent lives die. Kantianism is on the basis of treating everyone with respect as a means and not a mere of means. Kantianism is not rooted in selfishness but relates to the general population relevant to yourself.
Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were
Jeremy Bentham founded Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is to defend the view that those acts that produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people are right and good” (Deininger 2015). This theory focuses on the outcome of an action that leads to good. The action considered to be good to the greatest number of people affected by action. Immanual Kant Moral theory is applied to everyone no matter what the situation is. Appling it to all people regardless of the scenario faced. “The Kant’s basic moral principle is comparable for his moral philosophy to the principle of utility for utilitarians. It is Kant’s test for right and wrong” (McKinnon 2015).
In this essay, I will be discussing an article about a woman who starved her two horses. I will address the issue about whether or not the woman’s action was ethical. I will use the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to support my argument. I will also suggest a different course of action the woman could have taken to be justified, through both ethical theories.
Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who wrote his famous ethical theory which says that reason but not consequence is the base of morality. This means there are certain things which we ought to do and certain things which we ought not to do because we are being rational. Kant was a deontologist/non consequentialist who believed that the rightness and wrongness of an act depends on the nature of the actions or on the morals. Moral view of Kant is categorical imperative which means clear order and there is no chance of doubt or flexibility in any case. Secondly universality or objectivity of a rule is crucial for it to be valid. Personal ideas and views are not to be considered in fact only what is universally acceptable will be valid (the rules on which everyone equally agrees should are valid and acceptable).We must be consistent in the judgments and rules we make, they should be same for everyone Goodwill is an important element, the intentions must always be very pure and right. All these principles reinforce the principle of respecting the intrinsic value. Kant’s theory supports the a priori knowledge which is based on the innate ideas and reasoning which is