This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain. Mill actually believes that people could not survive by only thinking themselves. In other words, people could not become more selfish as much as Kant stated because life force people to give importance to others. Since, they may be succeeding what they desire to do when they help each other on their necessities. Mill defends that people can accomplish individually of aims and closures ought to be considered some portion of their happiness.
They will not be able to value themselves or their lifestyle. John Galt was definitely right. If an individual does not choose to make a decision of how they are going to live, then he does not hold his life as a value. Choices are important and if a person does not make one, good or bad, you are choosing to let accomplishment slip by. The values one holds for themself shows the type of person they want to
While ethical relativism has its advantages, such as that it could create a peaceful society, that is not always the case. Relativism does not accept that certain moral values are universal. Just because cultures differ, that does not mean there are no moral values and norms, like murder or child abuse. Determining what is morally right or wrong is a difficult thing, and each individual has a different belief about it. So, by allowing everyone to follow their own moral code, it could lead to a chaotic society.
Furthermore, Nozick’s experiment highlights that even though the machine may provide us with momentary bliss, intuitively we feel that something is missing from the designed machine. We value the provided pleasure, but at some point, plateauing pleasure and happiness leaves us wanting beyond our selections. The experiment reveals that there’s something additional to pleasure that we value. Even if one designs such a machine we consequentially, would lose our yearning to “live” our true lives in actuality. Therefore, Nozick’s experiment illustrates that the argument for Ethical Hedonism is weak and that something beyond pleasure matters to
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
It is a truth in the core of our society, even if some individuals don’t yet realize it. While some may believe it is best to avoid sharing the truth or the whole truth, the moment you challenge them by asking to switch roles with their audience, opinions begin to change. I believe the problem lies within individuals believing it is better to shield others from the truth to protect feelings or ego. On the other hand, some feel exceeding the truth helps others feel better about themselves and their decision to use your company’s product or service. Both of these are moral dilemmas, and can cause more harm than shelter when used.
Being able to trust people is extremely important to our well-being and by committing to an act-utilitarian case by case evaluation method, people become less reliable and trustworthy. Rule-utilitarianism avoids this issue as they are are committed to rules which generate positive expectation effects which tells us how people are likely to behave. While rule-utilitarians do not deny that there are people who are not trustworty, it is clear that their moral code condemns violations of trust as wrongful rather than the act-utilitarian approach which supports the moral view that has the effect of undermining trust. We should, 'therefore accept rules against…breaking promises and violating people's rights because following them as a regular practice promotes general welfare' (Rachels,
The most important justification for not imposing liability for an omission is that it will restrict individual freedom. People should be at liberty to choose how they want to live. Punishing omissions is therefore a far greater infringement on personal liberty than punishing acts. There is no general duty to act because the law respects personal autonomy. Glanville Williams stated that omission liability should be exceptional and needs to be adequately justified in each instance and when it is imposed it should be in clear statutory
Values in this context embody the ideas, beliefs and morals of the researcher. The positivist and post positivist expect researcher’s values to be excluded from the study process as such biases will compromise the truth (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). In contrast, the critical theorist, constructivist and participatory proponents believe that the values of the researcher cannot be detached from the process. They argue that the ideas of the researcher are required to design, manage and create the research outcome, and that it is not acceptable to exclude values even if that were possible (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Nevertheless, critical theorist, constructivist and participatory proponents are split by their differences on the researcher’s level of influence in the research process.