The Long Standing Debate On Ethics

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

What exactly does the term “ethics” mean? When asking this question among several different groups of people, I’m sure all of their answers would be different in many ways, but would all draw the general theme that ethics is somewhat of a study of what is right and what is wrong. This is a mostly correct conclusion, except for the fact that it encompasses not only determining what is right and wrong, but attempting to systemize and defend those ethical positions which one holds. Almost all of the controversial headlines you see in the media today involve some sort of question of ethics. Abortion. Healthcare. (“Should we take money from the rich and give to the poor to pay for medical expenses?”) Gun laws. Euthanasia, etc. The topic I want

The categorical imperative suggests that a course of action must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The course of action taken can also be reasoned by its ability to be seen as a universal law. Universal laws have been deemed as unconditional commands that are binding to everyone at all times. Kant

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Kant upheld systematic laws as the model of rational principles. A characteristic of systematic laws is that they are universal, such as the law that when heated, gas will expand. Kant thought that moral laws or principles must have universality to be rational. He derives the categorical imperative out of the notion that we should be willing to adopt those moral principle that can be universalized, that is, those which we can imagine that everyone could act upon or adopt as their principle. Thus, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is, “Never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a universal law (P.31).” By maxim, he means the rule or principle on which you act. Consider the example Kant gives of giving a false promise. Making false promises is wrong and therefore could not be a universal law, because every rational being would not adopt this as a principle of action. In the Hill case, if Paul Hill kills the doctor than it is morally permissible for everyone else to kill someone they disagree with. Therefore, Hill’s actions were not justified, because killing cannot be a universal law.

Kant’s ethics is the most influential expression of an approach to ethics known as deontology, which is often contrasted with consequentialism. The distinctive feature of deontology is that it approves or disapproves of actions in and of themselves. For instance, according to Kant, lying is always wrong because we cannot will it as a universal maxim that lying is okay. The consequentialist view, by contrast, argues that moral value lies not in our actions but in their consequences. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential forms of consequentialist ethics. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance,

Mill 's Utilitarianism and Ross ' Intuitionalism both use moral intuitions as core components of their moral theories, but their valuation of these intuitions in making morally sound decisions differ. I will argue that it is this misevaluation of moral intuition in the Utilitarian tradition that makes the moral theory unstable and prone to criticism. Ross ' deontological approach to moral intuitions provides a more believable, and morally acceptable account of the role these intuitions play in making ethical decisions. In this paper, I will begin with underlying both Ross ' and Mill 's valuation of moral intuitions in the framework of their moral theories, followed by a brief explanation of each philosopher 's view of “what makes an act moral”. Having established these I will, with the aid of a brief anecdote, describe my difficulties with Mill 's utilitarian approach to ethics. Finishing with an assessment of some utilitarian complaints about Ross ' theory. Ultimately Utilitarianism provides a commendable theory for widely applicable and practical moral action, but its inability to address conflicts with strong moral intuitions weakens its argument. Ultimately Ross ' more flexible, yet not relativistic, deontological intuitionalism becomes a more attractive moral theory.

Since ancient times people have been questioning the morality of their decisions. Many turned to religion to guide their actions, while some fortunate few could spend the time to decide for themselves. Reality has a way of clouding judgment, but having a clear understanding of what is and isn't moral acts as a lodestone on the path to making moral decisions. The principals of morality have not changed much in the span of recorded history, so understanding the thoughts of those fortunate thinkers before us is an important catalyst to developing a strong moral code of our own. But, there have been thousands of such thinkers in the past, so it becomes prudent to limit the scope of our evaluation. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two very important ethical philosophers in western thought who hold contrasting but similarly influential opinions on what constitutes a moral action. To summarize the question: Between Kant's Deontological ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism, which is the best approach to making moral decisions?

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Immanuel Kant, a renowned German philosopher, once said that we should always " act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This statement represents the first categorical imperative, and it is one of the pillars of Kantian ethics; It states that one should always act based upon moral values that would make sense if everyone in the world acted based on those values. Imagine John wants to steal a car ; According to Kant's first categorical imperative, John's action is immoral. John is acting under the maxim of stealing, but life would be nonsensical if everyone acted under this same maxim under all circumstances. The second categorical imperative that Kant proposed states that “Act

Kant firmly believed that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether or not our duty is fulfilled. Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative was “the supreme principal of morality, and determined what our moral duties are” (Kantian Ethics). The Categorical Imperative is expressed as, “acting only on a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (“Internet”). A maxim is defined as a rule or principle on which you act. The command basically stated that you are not allowed to do anything that you wouldn’t allow everyone else to do. In other words, one is not able to make an exception of oneself. For example, if one expects others not to steal from one, one is not allowed to steal from anyone else. More precisely, it stated that every maxim one acts on must be one that one is willing to argue that everyone would act on if one was in a similar situation. For instance, if one wants to lie to get something one wants, one would have to be willing to argue that everyone lies to get what he or she wants. This makes the maxim universal.

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with

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

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.