Deontological theory

Applying the logic and wisdom of the masters to racial prejudice generally makes it fairly obvious that such prejudice is wrong. Kant, who recognized that all people have a duty, would have most likely argued against such racial prejudice and pointed out that it is the duty of all people to ensure that a neighborhood is policed without prejudice. This would, in some cases, mean standing up against a police force that refused to acknowledge its own racial prejudice. Kant knew that all people deserve

According to Lucas and O’Neil, we should determine the moral permissibility of an action by seeing whether the action is universally justified by those around us. Furthering on this idea, one cannot act in a way that places you as the sole exception to principles that we otherwise believe rightly obligate everyone else. Furthermore, one ought never to perform an action without the full knowledge and consent of those involved. Through this idea, Kantian ethics aims to eliminate deceit by granting

In the Book III. Of Morals by David Hume, believes that reason cannot be a motivator for moral actions. He believes and elaborates the idea that his reasoning regarding morals all depends on the understanding and passions one may have towards subject. Everyone has a character/ and or beliefs which they can then make judgments based from their belief. Morals just have an influence action and how passionate the person is towards the idea. Morals have nothing to do with with reason. Someone can do whatever

The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant regards moral actions as right or wrong regardless of context or circumstance. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves as opposed to the consequences; what one should do in practice should be thought of as substantive concepts. Along with our fundamental ability to recognise this, Kant strongly believed that it is our duty as individuals to utilize our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right

Every person ask the question, what is morally right or wrong and how we can decide it? The answer for this question varies from person to person or from culture to culture and many more reasons which are going to be discussed further. First of all we need to know about ethics, as according to ethics we decide, what is morally right or wrong? Either it is action or decision. So Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts

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)

Let us begin from how Nietzsche frames genealogy first and foremost as a “genealogy of morals”. Accordingly, it is crucial that we understand what Nietzsche takes morality to be. According to Richard Schacht, 'morals […] are most properly thought of as a loosely related family of norms pertaining to human conduct of various sorts […]' . Moreover, Schacht adds that morals are to be seen in relationship with our 'forms or spheres of life […] the various sorts of sociocultural formations and configurations

2. Formula of Universal Law In his attempts to explain the concept of morality and the moral worth of an action in the form of duty (Kant, 16), Kant develops three moral theories that he referred to as Categorical Imperatives that entail unconditional commands which abide to rationality. According to Kant, the concept of morality must be based on Categorical Imperatives due to the fact that morality exists to command an individual’s actions, and the individual cannot claim that morality does not

1. “It is obvious that a man cannot just be; he can only be what he is by doing what he does; his moral qualities are ascribed to him because of his actions, which are said to manifest those qualities. But the point is that an ethic of Being must include this obvious fact, that Being involves Doing, whereas an ethics of Doing, such as I have been examining may easily overlook it. “The heroes and saints did not merely give us principle to live by……: they gave us an examples to follow.’’ ( Mayo, 314)