around elsewhere in order to see what effects may be bound up with it for me (Kant 70). In this quote, Immanuel Kant addresses whether an action’s moral worth, such as telling the truth, is able to be considered good no matter the circumstances. Kant already established to have moral worth an action must be done from duty, have its moral worth from the maxim, or the intention, that a person wills in doing it, and to be done in reverence of the law (Kant 66-68). Kant sees telling the truth for the sake of duty as having moral worth as it is already in line with what he believes gives an action moral worth.
The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.”
Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source (Philosophy Basics n.d.) While is believe that there are certain actions that are right or wrong, I do not believe that it is regardless of the context of the act. It is wrong to kill, but how do you tell me that I am wrong if I kill a man n self defines because he is attempting to rape me.
When creating a law, we must consider ethics. Laws should be based on what we believe to be right and just; this concept, of course, seems to be very ambiguous—this is because the concept is very ambiguous. Although, at first glance, one may believe the concept to be straightforward, it becomes clear, in cases such as that of Swiss Chem TU, that the application of the concept is largely dependent on an individual’s interpretation of the notion. As a result of these ambiguities, two moral theories arise: the consequentialist moral theory, and the categorical moral theory.
Deontologist believe, for the most part, “that our moral obligations- whatever they are- are in some sense or to some degree independent of consequences” (LaFollette 9). Basically, if one’s moral obligations were not to cheat, though the best outcome will be achieved, he or she shouldn’t cheat even though they may fail without doing so. The Overall outcome may result in getting caught and being disqualified. In other words, Mr. Armstrong’s decision to cheat broke Kant’s ethical guideline, regardless of his contributions or success thereafter. Morally, cheating is wrong, it’s a deception of one’s self and
Kenneth Lay, Mr. Jeffrey Skilling and the company CFO, Mr. Andrew Fastow .The management level of Enron Corporation had misconduct the code of ethics and fail to performing the duties of a corporation which is telling the truth of the situation of a corporation .Instead , they tried try to hide the truth of their financial status and create a false prosperity situation and make the public believe on them in order to support their shares prices . The misconduct of code of ethics by the management level by Enron corporation has led to the another question – The ultimate responsibility of a corporation towards society ? The ultimate responsibility of a corporation is to gain profit or become a stable economic unit ?
(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.
Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical. Kant also discussed the importance of perfect and imperfect duties in relation to good morality between humans.
What this means is that although initially the program was trying to be doing a “good deed,” by protecting us from threats, the deed is actually not good if the intentions are bad, or is for hidden motives. The one finding that took me back was the avoidance of detection, the lying to and false reporting to avoid detection, is unethical. I
De George argues that engineers have a moral obligation to blow the whistle only if: they have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that the engineer’s view of the situation is correct and the policy of the company is wrong (cite), and they have strong evidence that making the situation public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm (cite). De George claims that the
There were two prominent ideas from the Sandel text that applied to the ethical issue I chose to examine. John Stuart Mill had two theories about Utilitarianism and the valuing of life in regards to harm and autonomy. Secondly, was Kant’s determination of the moral valuing of life. Mill, a Utilitarian, discussed the notion of justice and that all people are cognoscente beings and, as such, are entitled to self-defense. Mill’s assertions are important because he determines that everyone has a right to act of their own volition, provided that they do not harm others.
Political authority refers to the power of the state or government to create laws that are expected to be abided by, and in turn be able to prosecute those who disobey them. These laws are moral obligations meant to ensure the good functioning of societies, and are presumably essential to minimise conflicts. In political philosophy, we are concerned with the legitimacy of political authority due to its apparent conflict with individual liberties and moral autonomy as brought up by Wolff. (quote Wolff- it is incompatible for a subject to comply with the commands of an authority merely because it is the command of the authority and for the subject to be acting morally autonomously) This essay seeks to explicate on Locke’s justification of political