Shelby Bryant
Professor Brandon Underwood
Ethics and Society
21 March 2017
3) Kant and Ross represent two very different forms of deontological ethical theory. Begin by explaining what their two theories have in common. Explain Kant’s categorical imperative. Pick an example and show how his position compares to Ross’ notion of prima facie obligations.
Ross and Kant do represent very different forms of deontological theory although Ross did implement some aspects of Kantian deontology. Both believed there to be duties or moral obligations that we are to follow when making ethical decisions. Kant called his categorical imperative or perfect and imperfect duties. Ross called his prima facia duties, but both agree there are some cases
…show more content…
Ross believes it’s our life experiences that make us sounder to make moral decisions. We are all going to fall short of our expectations to reach the ultimate morality or in a sense divinity. We are all created in God’s image, but we are all imperfect as humans. As humans we are always faced with some sort of moral decisions all the time, but how we make those decisions are what defines who we are. For example, if I pay a traffic ticket to avoid a fine or worse being arrested I will have done the right thing, but my action will have no moral significance. Only if I pay the loan out of a sincere sense of personal obligation and a willing adherence to principle will my right action also be morally good according to Kant. Where Ross would argue that paying that traffic ticket may be morally right we have other obligations and considerations that need to be taken into consideration when deciding what is morally right. The biggest difference between the two is that Ross does allow some grey area, and room for mistakes. Where Kant wouldn’t allow any room for error because there shouldn’t be any. If you deem something to be morally right it better be for the good of society. What we have are two philosophers that are building their theories off of other philosophers that came before them. Neither of them have a complete handle on what is deemed moral nor what is ethical, but what we have is a basis of design. Both believed in doing what was right, but what is right is
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.
Immanuel Kant's deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person's will or intention of acting. Kant's theory can be categorized as a deonotological because "actions are not assessed to be morally
Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we
Immanual Kant theorised that moral rules are based on reason, in other words the ability to think and form logical judgements.(2) He believed that this moral reasoning is a priori, which meant that there is no knowledge needed of the outcome of an action to know if it is right or wrong.(2) His theory is an example of a deontological theory – the
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.
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.
Question 2: Morality tells us what we ought to do, and imposes upon us duties which it would be wrong not to fulfill. Yet Kant claims, in Chapter Two of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, that autonomy—the ability
Kantian deontology follows the notion that our actions are based on solely on duty. This duty is derived from reason and is based on principle. It is upon this principle that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined. By stating that our actions are based on duty alone, Kant implies that one’s feelings and emotions do not play a role in morality. Simply put, emotions have no moral worth. Therefore, a person
Kant believes that all people come to moral conclusions about right and wrong based on rational thought. Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty. Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.
The key to (i) is to be found in his insistence on the cognitive certainty of the following metaphysical thesis. Even if the phenomenal self is completely determined causally, the moral self is free because it is noumenal (see the Critique of Practical Reason 28-34, 43-52, 55-59, 100-106; hereafter Practical Reason). He claims that the noumenal self is a cause imminent in "experience" because it is an "efficient cause through Ideas" (50). In short, Kant rejects the formation of moral habits through repetition in order to protect radically the freedom of the moral agent from phenomenal and scientific determinism. The key to (ii) is Kant's rejection of Aristotle's following advice. Since the cognitive results of a kind of reasoning is determined by its subject matter, it is foolish to require of moral reasoning the certainty and precision one can expect
Do you think Kant is right to claim that the Categorical Imperative is the fundamental principle of morality? If so, why? If not, why not? Explain your opinion with an argument.
Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be
3. Explain in detail the second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative. List two actions which are morally impermissible according to this theory, and briefly explain why. (3 points)
3. Sir William David Ross’ Prima Facie Duties Theory: Ross believed that it was important to consider consequences when faced with a moral dilemma However, like Kant, he did not believe that consequences were the sole determination as to whether an action was right or wrong. Ross’ theory is considered a deontological theory because he believed that there is a set of rules that all people must obey in order to meet their moral obligations, regardless of the consequences.
Deontology as promoted by Kant on the other hand denies that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences. It is based on a set of moral rules, and the right action is supposed to be the one that conforms with these rules, whereas certain other types of action are morally forbidden. Deontology seems to appeal to common sense as duties include special obligations to family and