Moreover, our 'actions' might also lack our 'doing something' since they are just results of conditions and events (Solomon, 2002). However, to reject the very premise of the theory would mean accepting the idea that life is just a string of unrelated events. Per contra to determinism, one can support the indeterminist theory. Here we find the complete rejection of determinism, highlighting the fact that not every event has a cause. A point of contention between the two is the denial of "the freedom that we all directly experience when we choose"
In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.
(ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Principles of Kant’s Theory Kant’s theory was actually based on the following five points: • Moral view of Kant is Categorical Imperative. • Universitality: No moral statement can be valid if it cannot be universal. • Intrinsic Values: Every human is an end in itself and not a mean to some other end.
In his theory of moral Kant puts aside emotions and disregards human body. According to Kant rationality is the basic need of human being. Kantianism is a part of deontological ethics and is always in contrast of utilitarianism, which emphasizes the consequences. In Kant’s perspective actions are approved or disapproved in and by themselves. Peoples’ rights should never be violated, even if it brings good consequences.
This thought obviously goes against Schmitt's conception of sovereignty. According to Martel's analysis, 'neither God nor king is able to set a definitive path for sovereign authority, thus avoiding idolatry in both its theological and political guises. In their defeat and failure, these plays depict what today seems impossible: a politics that is not over-determined by sovereignty, a zone that effectively ‘knows [or has] no eschatology’.' For instance, Benjamin mentions 'a real state of emergency' that it is necessary to bring about. In Martel's view, this state can be achieved only through the divine violence.
It talked about Ray Hyman's quote that parapsychology is solely focused around discrediting the invalid theory. In examination plan, the invalid speculation is customarily used to depict the comes about that would regularly be normal. This is not interesting to parapsychology as it is a system that is utilized as a part of all science. This does not make parapsychology unscientific. It is suitable to perceive that parapsychology has not thought of a worthy theory to depict the sensations that are constantly watched, however that does not negate the exploratory methodology to the
He displays his characters in various situations without any significance to their moral position of right and wrong. These characters reach their ends only as result of chance and not according to their moral position. Johnson‘s verdict is that it is always a writer’s moral duty to make this world a better place to live through his works. In his opinion Shakespeare could not perform his
Utilitarianism makes ethical decisions based on the results that the action will cause. However, for the Kantian theory, it is believed that human reason is the only pure good, and they disregard the consequences. Kant discusses that the mentioned human reason should be devoid of the influence of desires or emotions. This opposes the Utilitarian view that ignores motives of an action as not important and approves the consequences. According to Kant, a purely good act is performed due to the person’s obligation to the categorical imperative.
This course of action cannot simply be justified through consequentialist views such as the DDE, where the overall outcome is the only important decision factor. Non-consequentialist factors are of equal importance in the morality of an action. When viewing MacAskill’s cases and his response to the harm-based objection, it is important to consider the non-consequentialist, right-based theory of Libertarianism that maintains if an act violates a right, then it is morally wrong; individual rights are a fundamental element in deeming an action morally permissible. Libertarians do not focus on consequences when evaluating actions, instead believing that rights are so important that they must not be violated even to produce better consequences. This belief goes directly against the DDE, which evaluates an action solely based on the consequences produced.
All that matters in the making of a decision is the purpose behind it and not the consequences that follow. For a decision to ascribe to Kant’s theory, the thinking behind it cannot depend on circumstance: it must have the capability of being universalized without destroying society. Kant believed that it is our duty to preserve life at any cost and that moral decisions cannot be guided by our emotions but by ‘reasoned duty’. He claims that if humans use reasoned duty to get to an ethical conclusion that is acceptable, only then can they perform this reasoned duty. (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).