Prime Minister Of Denmark Essay

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

     Denmark Vesey was an African-American leader of an attempted slave insurrection in 1822. After many years as a slave, he won $1,500 in a lottery. Vesey used this money to purchase his freedom. He used his intelligence, energy, and luck to acquire considerable wealth and influence in South Carolina. All of these factors helped lead to the largest attempted slave revolt in American history. David Robertson’s book Denmark Vesey outlines his life as a slave, to his freedom, to his execution, and the consequences of the aftermath.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

For a given ethical dilemma, there is usually a dominant pair. Frequently, more than one must be considered, and sometimes all four. But, as Kidder

In response to this predicament, Rawls presents Contractualism, where what is right is what everyone would agree to behind a Veil of Ignorance. While behind this veil, an individual is not aware of their social class, sex, race, and any other psychological traits that may prevent one from making a fair judgement. Prioritizing autonomies while behind the Veil of Ignorance can be presumed to be fair and just. However, this theory is purely hypothetical and due to this fact, even if we can make ourselves be unaware of our social class, sex, race, and other psychological traits choices made behind the veil seem irrelevant to reality. Furthermore, agreement behind the Veil of Ignorance does not ensure that the decision is actually permissive because people may agree to a sacrifice if the probability of it happening to them is rare. For instance, people may agree to harvesting organs from healthy individuals to save a greater number of individuals but this does not mean that this act is morally permissible. I have presented how Rawls’ Contractualism fails to support Kantian Ethics which required prioritizing between one’s own autonomy against another’s. Even if the problem of conflicting autonomies were resolved, Kant’s theory still faces criticisms such as the fact that the theory does not respect an individual and their decisions as much as it respects autonomy, does not efficiently discourage unequal cruelty to non-autonomous agents, and does not imprint any value on

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

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.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Although her actions seem justified, it disagreed with Kantian Ethics. Kant would propose that her actions are unethical because firstly, she persuaded the German soldier. The soldier is genuinely nice to her, but she leads him on and exploits him. She knowingly used him as a means to accomplish her goal. Kant expressed that we should not use others as means by which we

The two views of truth have divergent consequences for ethics. Aquinas’ philosophy produces a tradition of moral clarity that endures to the present, while the philosophy of Kant leads ultimately to the cultural relativism and moral skepticism that are widespread in the modern world.

In Kantian ethics, self-interest and inclination are abandoned due to the sole emphasis on one’s duty. Hinman says that a middle ground of duty and inclination is a better foundation for morality. There is no reason to focus only on duty since there are other factors that contribute to an act’s morality.

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.