In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history. Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie.
Utilitarianism as Democracy Is utilitarianism the “philosophy of democracy”? In my opinion utilitarianism is the “philosophy of democracy.” Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. The reasons I think it is democratic is because it suggests that the greatest good or happiness is for the greatest number and mentions that all are valued. I think, majority rules systems are controlled by utilitarian legislators.
THERE is, and always has been, a widespread belief in Fate, or Destiny, that is, in an eternal and inscrutable Power which apportions definite ends to both individuals and nations. This belief has arisen from long observation of the facts of life. Men are conscious that there are certain occurrences which they cannot control, and are powerless to avert. Birth and death, for instance, are inevitable, and many of the incidents of life appear equally inevitable. Men strain every nerve for the attainment of certain ends, and gradually they become conscious of a Power which seems to be not of themselves, which frustrates their puny efforts, and laughs, as it were, at their fruitless striving and struggle.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences. While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) Therefore, it can be concluded that moral maxim is the standard of deciding whether an action is moral or not.
For instance, the authentic leader addresses to the universal unanimity; whereas the pseudo-transformational leader draws a line between “we-they” disparity in values, implying that “we” have innately good values and “they” do not. Therefore, what really does matter in this case is how the values of the leader are reflected in the actions. According to Burns (1978), the principal concept which defines the authentic transformational leadership is the existence of morally uplifting values which can trigger the transformation in the leader. As Hollander (1995) states, transformational leadership is moral when the truth is told, promises are kept, negotiations are fair and choices are free. And it is immoral
Bentham already faced this no easy task, as holding that pleasure motivates every action could explain how a moral principle that is characterized by selflessness and attention, however, to the generality of men? His response (broadcast until today all hedonism) is that there is also a pleasure, which also tend, coupled with altruism involves promoting the happiness of others. Thus, the principle of hedonistic utilitarianism is possible, but why is a moral duty? Bentham simply responds that this principle is unprovable, because it is a simple and first principle. Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom.
Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.