The Two Shopkeepers- Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism Essay

Subsequently, to reference the example, Kant says, “that a dealer should not overcharge an inexperienced purchaser,” and, “where there is much commerce, the prudent merchant does not overcharge but keeps to a fixed price for everyone in general.” According to Kant, both of these actions are in accordance with duty. However, he also explains that one cannot assume that the storekeeper acted from duty. The

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

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

‘The relationship between Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and David Hume (1711-1776) is a source of wide spread fascination’ (Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Kant and Hume on Morality). Purpose of this essay is to provide Immanuel Kant’s claims on sympathy and David Hume’s assessment on it, backed up by their reasoning’s. By doing so, strong argument will separately be provided from both sides and the task then is to present my personal opinion on whose argument seems more compelling. David Hume’s assessment and arguments appear more compelling than Immanuel Kant.

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.

Immanuel Kant was one of the most important European philosophers and lived from 1724 to 1804. In his time he created Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Metaphysic of Morals. Kant starts by stating that “By identifying a good will as the only unconditional good, he denies that the principles of good willing can be fixed by reference to an objective good or telos at which they aim.” This ties into Kants next part of his work because it describes two shopkeepers that decided to act in the same way towards their customers, but are motivated differently. The shops are relatively located near each other. Both shops want the most business to gain the most profit. One shopkeeper decides to give back correct change only because he wants a good business reputation. This shopkeeper does not want his customers to go elsewhere if they think he is cheating them out of money. The customers could easily walk to another store to avoid being scammed. The other shopkeeper decides to give back the correct change to his customers because he thinks it is morally right to do so. He does this because he thinks it’s right to do this even if his shop business wasn’t affected. Kant states that “Action that would have been done by anyone who had a morally worthy maxim as action in accordance with duty.” This states that the shopkeeper has a duty to do the morally right thing when it comes to his customers. It all leads back to the fundamentals you learned

In the excerpt Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant presents a profound argument that how right an action is, is determined by intention of the principle that is being acted on. He believes that the outcome of an action is irrelevant because it is out of our control, it doesn’t matter if what we genuinely intended is accomplished. But, we can control the will behind the action. He explains, “The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of its willing, i.e. it is good of itself” (124). Kant uses an example of two shopkeepers that treat their customers in the same way, but are in fact motivated very differently. The first shopkeeper gives the correct change to the customer, but for selfish purposes. He is scared of getting caught for trying to cheat an inexperienced customer like a child. Plus, obtaining a good reputation of being an honest shopkeeper improves his business. The second shopkeeper gives honest change to the customer simply because he is an honest man, and it is morally right. Even though both shopkeepers did the

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

Over the semester, we discussed many philosopher’s ethical theories. The three main theories that are repeatedly discussed in ethics are Kant’s moral theories, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. It is important when debating ethics to come to our own conclusions and opinions on other’s theories. In this paper, I am going to discuss Kant’s moral theory, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, their differences, my own theoretical version, and how it applies to moral controversies. Kant spells out most of his moral theory is his work “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”.

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.

For Silber, Kantian consequentialism is benign because it does not concern the actual consequence of an action but rather the willed consequences. When agents act as the result of an imaginary law, expected or intended consequences of an act result. As we have seen Silber argues that the nature of Kantian consequentialism is subjunctive consequentialism as the inhabitants of consequences of an act all acted on maxims which were analyzed according to the subjunctive consequences of the action as spelled out in this sentence. As Silber’s simpler but less precise formulation “the moral man considers what other men would have to do if his maxim were a universal law” (Silber 213).

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?

Jean McGuire works as a sales representative for Sunrise Land Developers selling land to potential customers (hot prospects). Jean’s role as a land salesperson is to help the prospect make a decision to buy the property. When she is told by the Sales Director Wright Boazman to use a variety of effective “deal-closing techniques”, Jean realises such techniques are nothing more than a form of psychological manipulation in order to deceive customers into buying land. To make matters worse, due to the lack of sales in the past six months, Jean is afraid of expressing her views and feels pressured to catch up with other employees or else she might lose her job. Jean may have an ethical dilemma to either deceive customers or stay sincere; each choice, potentially affecting her employment. This essay will use a comparative analysis to discuss the characteristics of Jean’s ethical dilemma. In particular, it will explore the ethical issue by using consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories such as egoism, utilitarianism, and kantian ethics. Because most ethical dilemmas are complex. It is useful to look at the problem from multiple perspectives in order to make an informed ethical decision (Corey et al., 2011).

Philosopher Immanuel Kant considered moral rules categorical imperatives, meaning that they are absolute and unqualified commands for everyone, in every walk of life, without exception, not even for stressed professionals. Kant pursued moral principles that do not rest on likelihoods and that define actions as fundamentally right or wrong apart from any particular circumstances. A Kantian approach, which considers duty, fairness and rights, would force Barbara to terminate Wilson’s employment with NewComm, even though it would be unfair. It teaches a lesson to other employees to follow proper policies and procedures when it comes to contractual relationships with employers. Wilson did lie and defraud NewComm and for that Barbara can privately sit him down and explain all the reasons why he is being dismissed. For Kant the source of moral justification is the categorical imperative. In order for an act to be categorically imperative, it must be thought to be good in itself and in conformity to reason. Overall,