The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.
In the article “What Makes Right Acts Right” by W.D Ross, he debates the about idea of duties and how humans in general understand if their actions are correct. Ross mentions that humans do not deliberately execute their duties because of the consequences resulting from those duties. Rather, they perform those duties because of an innate form of common sense that humans possess inside of themselves. One example of this is the act of fulfilling a promise that an individual made to themselves or others not because of the end results but because of their sense of “duty.” Ross’s moral theory can be thought of as a compromise between utilitarianism and Kantianiasm. Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of:
Kant’s notion of freedom connects to morality, which displays contrast between duty and inclination, explaining how only the motive of duty, doing the right thing for the right reason, confers moral worth of an action. Kant believes that everything in nature, including humans, “works in accordance with laws,” that all actions must be appointed by law, The formula of universal law that basically states how you should treat humanity as an end rather than as a means. He says we should only act upon the maxim, a principle that gives a reason for action, without contradiction.
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people? Utilitarianisms would answer the question in the affirmative and change the track so only one person has to suffer. However, we have to question if the Utilitarianism is applicable to such ethical questions (Smart & Williams, 1973). This essay will outline several strength and weaknesses of the Utilitarianism devised by Jeremy Bentham. Firstly, the Utilitarianism will be outlined, secondly some strength and weaknesses are explained by employing examples, and thirdly several solution approaches for dilemmas Bentham’s Utilitarianism is facing will be sketched.
Immanuel Kant and John Samuel Mill have various similarities and differences on how we see the world. Where both will have, different ideologies referring to the cases of rescue I and rescue II. Kant and Mill are similar in multiple ways where both recognize the moral rules where Kant calls them duties and Mill calls them subordinate principles. Both have the subordinate principles where not to lie, no to stealing, and deprive from liberty from others. Appealing the consequences of the derived duties, where Kant considers the consequence of Maxim to become a universal law of nature, Mill considers the consequence of kind action. Evaluating the morality within ourselves they evaluate morality on the principle of what is wrong or right. As equally
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.
Utilitarianism and Deontology are two major ethical theories that influence nursing practice. Utilitarian principles of promoting the greatest good for the greatest amount of people parallels the nursing tenet of beneficence. Deontological principles of treating individuals with dignity, and promoting the well-being of the individual parallels the nursing tenet of non-maleficence. Utilitarian and Deontological principles can be utilized to resolve ethical dilemmas that arise in the nursing profession. The purpose of this paper is to define utilitarianism and deontology, discuss the similarities and differences between the two, and to address an ethical dilemma utilizing utilitarian and deontological principles.
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Kantianism may be a normative ethical theory by Immanuel Kant within the eighteenth century. Kant’s deontological stance begins with the sovereignty of reason. philosopher was attempting to uncover an ethical system based mostly strictly on reason within the hope it might turn out an ethical philosophy that's objectively true and universally valid. philosopher thought it absolutely was necessary to base our actions on a reason as a result of that's the sole thanks to make sure that our morality is objective and in no method narcissistic. therefore Kantians would argue that the peace officer mustn't let the mob have the person as a result of it's against the universal ethical duties and rules which might forestall him from surrendering the suspect
As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty.
The concept of ethics entails systemizing, justifying, and recommending right and wrong conduct. It involves in practical reasoning: good, right, duty, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, and choice. Humanity has questioned this concept of ethics and ‘good’ for as long as it has survived, as it deals with real-life issues such as “what is morally right and wrong?” and “how do people ought to act?” Such ethical dilemmas can be found in people’s everyday lives, and although appears to be a straightforward question, there is much debate over which standard of behavior people should abide to when responding to certain situations, and determining what is morally right or wrong.
The final ethical theory is Kant’s deontology. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who admire the stoics for their dedication to performing their duties and playing their part. He based his theory on duties, obligations, and rights. Its main focus is that everyone has an inherited right. It highlights the importance of respecting a person autonomy. Autonomy is a person ability to lead a self-directing life. Unlike egoism and utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology looks into how the information was gather to determine if its ethical to use. Because of the focus on how the information was gather Kant’s deontology would consider the using of the information as unethical. It takes into consideration what the Jewish prisoners were submitted to during
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals. I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls.
But since he did not tend to produce happiness for the greatest number of people or not adjust his actions according to their consequences, it would be doubtful to relate Eichmann to Kant’s ethical views in the direct way. Eichmann abused and misinterpreted Kantian ethics in order to absolve himself of guilt during the trial. When the judge asks him that if he came across the idea of categorical imperative, then (during the World War 2)? Eichmann says that he met the Kantian ethics during his early life, but not think about it much until the war. Even the answer of Eichmann demonstrates how wrong Kantian ethics had been misused and misinterpreted by him. Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”