The Schiavos, Rule Utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics Essay

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.

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

     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:

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

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

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

A Kantian view on ethics prescribes that a person should act in such a way that if all people acted that way it would be okay. For example if you gave your promise to do something, you would always keep it because if everyone broke his or her promises it would defeat the purpose of a promise. He also believed that reason alone should be able to reveal what the ethical decision should be. Another view of Kants’, states that you should never treat people as a means to an end, but rather, as an ends in themselves. This means that we cannot use people in a manner in which we would not wish to be used.

The most common use of utilitarianism is by way of consequentialist moral theory. Consequentialists believe that an act’s rightness and wrongness depends solely on its consequences and nothing else. An act is right when the algebraic sum of total utility unit

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

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 contrast to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism, Kant was more focused on intent and action itself. This leads into one of Kantian ethics main ideals; you mustn’t treat another human being as a means to an end. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI) is a deontological theory, which relied heavily on his belief that humans are all capable of reason in the same manner, on the same level (A Brief Summary of Kant 's Categorical Imperative, 2012). Kant recognized 2 kinds of moral ‘imperatives’, a hypothetical imperative (what must be done to achieve a desired result) and Categorical imperatives (how one must act irrespective of one’s end goal/desires). For Kant, all moral duties were considered to be categorical, and should apply to everyone universally. Kant believes that truthfulness is the formal duty of everyone, regardless of what disadvantage it may cause to yourself or another (Kant, 1994). He illustrates this quite well by using his categorical imperative, saying that if all people were to lie, then all contracts and laws would lose their legitimacy. Kant also went on to point out that if we were to lie, even from a place of good intention, it is impossible to control the outcome(s) and we may be responsible for whatever comes from it (Kant, 1994). However if we were to tell the truth then we have upheld our duty and as such can shoulder no blame for any consequences.

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

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