The German philosopher Immanuel Kant 1724-1804 stated: "So, act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only. This Kant’s second version of his Categorical Imperative it means we should never use a person as a tool or puppet to achieve our objectives. Humans have free will to choose how to live their lives, to make laws governing morality. Only people could judge value and value items in our environment, therefore, individuals have value. Every person should be a valued part of a society. No one person is worth or have more importance than another is the moral standard. It is important for everyone is treated with dignity because only humans are rational agents. …show more content…
One must ascertain if the action is suitable for development into or become a maxim or universal law that can apply to everyone in a community. If the universal law could apply to everyone in the same situation with no changing or the maxim. These maxims where required to apply out with no deviation, no thoughts of circumstances or other considerations. Decisions made do not require our emotions, traditions, religions, authority, and happiness. Nor a person’s desires or intuition. Ethical maxims were the product of our sound, rational insights, using logic. We would know our maxims to be great truths and see them as moral duties. To know if our Universal laws were moral we only need to measure or test them using Kant’s categorical imperative. We start by stating the issue and the possible solution. Teachers in middle and high school are constantly asking students to stop talking and playing on their cell phones. The students’ ring tones when receiving text messages or phone calls takes away from the time the teacher spends teaching in her class. Teachers are catching students using their phones to cheat on the tests information
Also how some teachers deducted grades from students because of the use of cell phones during
Rubinkam’s Texting in Class is Rampant explains how most highschool and college students use their phones during class and lectures. Rubinkam reports that , “The anonymous survey of 269 Wilkes students found that nine in 10 admit to sending text messages during class-and nearly half say it's easy to do so undetected. Even more troubling, 10 percent say that they have sent or received texts during exams and 3 percent admit to using their phones to cheat.” Rubinkam uses logos to show how many students use their phones during class. The amount of students that do is frightening to most teachers because most teachers do not even notice it.
The wellbeing of other people is important. This theory also states that we should not use people merely as a means to an end. Instead “check that the act will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neal 412) which would promote giving money to the homeless person. We should try to act in a way that benefits others. At the same time, we cannot fulfill all what others want because “their wants are too numerous and diverse, and of course, sometimes incompatible” (O’Neal 414).
Amongst schools throughout the nation, the cell phone policy has been tested and altered to fit the restrictions on their use by students. The different advancements in technology have influenced many teachers and staff to allow leniency to cell phone use in the classroom, with the belief that they have purpose to assist in everyday learning. Others believe they have no place being on school property during school hours since loss, theft, or damage is possible. In addition, cellphones can be a distraction in classrooms which factors in faculty deciding what is to be done about cellular devices on the campus. The use of cell phones should not be in schools because of the amount of distraction it poses on kids, cheating that becomes easier in classrooms because of them, and the safety concerns it raises.
Although Kahn is convinced that a cell phone ringing in a class will leave the surrounding students “significantly impair[ed],” one might disagree about the level to which other students even notice (197). Be assured, there have been moments during class discussions where phones have gone off and no other student has noticed. Though I agree with much of what Kahn stands for, I am not persuaded that a ringing phone leaves students with such impairment. The average student can decide the amount to which such an event will influence their attention and be able to readjust if the event skewed them off course. While a cell phone in a classroom has the potential to distract one from the material being taught, the lack thereof has helped seen an increase in grade and an increase in extra credit
In Discourse on Method, by Rene Descartes, when Descartes describes his three methods that go toward ones provisional morality, one can see the comparisons in the “unspoken moral code” and the three maxims. I believe that not only do these maxims apply to everyone but they are in fact still applicable in today's time. For the first maxim, to obey the laws and customs of one's own country (Descartes, 19), it goes without saying that everyone is taught from an early age you must follow the rules to be considered a good person that contributes to society. Along with it being a personal moral code it seems that everyone has adopted this line of thinking to guide judgments and stray from unethical behavior. For example, since the law states you have to follow the speed limit if you were caught breaking that regulation you are given a ticket to try and deter the criminal behavior.
Most kids want to transport their phones to school. A common thing kids say is “ The teacher allows it though. ’’ Students and some teachers don’t know that cell phones in the classroom is unsatisfactory. Reasons for this are, it is a distraction, can be disguised as a gun, and can be used for cheating.
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.
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.
This tells people if their act is morally allowed. Rules become “maxim” of how people act. In the book it stated this about rules becoming a “maxim,” “In other words, would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all time? If so, then your maxim is sounds and your acts is acceptable” (Rachels. 130).
It dictates that we all have unconditional duties that we must always do, and uses the ‘categorical imperative’ to judge whether our actions are moral. The categorical imperative has 3 rules that must always be followed when making a decision, and these are the ‘ends’ rule, the ‘respect’ rule and the ‘univerisability rule’. These principle state that we must treat people as ends, not as means to an end, treat others with respect as if they were all rational moral agents, and our actions must be moral even when used by others in the same situation. It is evident that self-control is very important to follow this ethical
From will to duty to maxims to universal law, Kant moves onto insisting that we must treat others as ends in themselves, and not as means. In other words, it’s wrong to use people, as people are not things. A rational being, has dignity and the ability to naturally act in accordance to universal laws which do not pertain to our senses or heteronomous forces, we are thus born with free will. Furthermore, being autonomous beings, we must will in a way which is good for the sake of moral law. In Kant’s groundwork, we can deduce that because we are rational beings with a duty to act in accordance with this idea of a categorical imperative, we don’t need foreign incentive to do the right thing.
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. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.
Kant felt very strongly about how people were supposed to act. According to the Categorical Imperative, he said, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Rachels, 139). Since humans are so valuable, we need to treat them “as an end”. This means you need to treat them well; respect their rights, avoid harming them, and promote their welfare. To treat people “as an end” according to Kant is, “as beings who (can) contain in themselves the end of the very same action” (Rachels, 139).
Teachers don't want kids’ texting in class when they're trying to teach them important things. We should not bring cell phones in class because it can affect to their listening skills, first, it destruct students from the lessons, the students will keep texting and texting because the students is addicting of cell phones and they will never understand what is the lesson about. Second, the students could cheat on test; we all know that our society is more in high technology. There is Wi-Fi’s everywhere and also there are pocket Wi-Fi’s, broad bands, and load data’s that can use in surfing the net. So, if they take the test they can use their cell phones and cheat on the test.