R. G. Frey 's ' Moral Standing, The Value Of Lives, And Speciesism

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.

In this unit of Morality and Ethics, we examine Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics and its relationship and compatibility with several religious ethical approaches. As we learn from W.D. Ross’s book “The Right and the Good. Oxford,” Kant lived a rigid life in Konigsberg, Germany and he was a deontologist, thus rejecting the teleological position of determining to act based on consequences. Kant rejected the “theological

In the following paper, I will be arguing against rule utilitarianism and prove that the problems of act utilitarianism persist in this moral theory, especially regarding internal support in regards to cases of backward looking moral considerations. First, I will use an example to show the dilemma that rule utilitarianism creates. Then, I will use an objection from the rule utilitarian that will attempt to solve this dilemma. Finally, I’ll respond to the objection and conclude.

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

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.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

In an article based on an interview published in Time Magazine, “A Change of Heart About Animals”. Jeremy Rifkin expresses his views about the similarity behavior and emotional state between us humans and animals, with the purpose to change the way of how we see and feel about them. “We’re so skewed toward efficiency that we’ve lost our sense of humanity. What we need to do is to bring back a sense of the sacred”, Rifkin, argues. He supports his arguments with the findings of many researchers around the globe. Researchers that come from very prestigious institutions using different species of animals, we’re talking about crows, elephants, geese, etc. Not your ordinary lab rats and monkeys (which they don’t have anything

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.

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

What is morally right? People throughout time have pondered this question and yet there is still no overall idea set in stone. The story “The ones who walk away from Omelas”, by Ursula K. Le Guin, deals with the morally grey subject of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. The two philosophers who ideas will be used to help understand and reason with this subject are Kant and Mill. Immanuel Kant, the father of modern philosophy, argued for deontological ethics, in which mortality is based on duty and obligation. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, a famous 19th century philosopher, supported and revised the idea of Utilitarianism, a belief in which morality is based on which action yields the greatest quality and quantity of happiness. The story poses question like, “is allowing a child to suffer for the greater good morally right?”, and, “are people who walk away from this injustice morally right?”. Both of these philosophers would approach these questions from different angles and come to reflated conclusions. This paper will show that within the context of “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas” , even though at first the choices being made would see cruel, Mill ideas are the ones that present itself to be more correct.

Moral philosophy considers the role of morality in an individual’s life. In her essay, “Moral Saints”, moral philosopher Susan Wolf strives to establish what is wrong with morality. Wolf does this by examining the idea of Moral Sainthood, which teaches that an individual should be as morally perfect as possible. Through the analysis of two distinct products of Moral Sainthood, Wolf arrives at the conclusion that while there is nothing inherently wrong with morality, there are drawbacks when it dominates an individual’s life. In this paper, I will first establish the expectations that Wolf must meet in order to prove her argument. I will then present the two products of Moral Sainthood that she will be using as proof. After, I will raise an objection to the soundness of her argument. Lastly, by responding to what I believe Wolf would reveal as an oversight on my part, I will insist that her argument still is not consequential.

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.

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.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.