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.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another.
Kant divides duties into two groups- duties towards others and duties towards self. They are further subdivided into strict and meritorious duties. Lets consider these duties one by one in light of Categorical Imperative.
Another contention in defence of capital punishment is that the administration spares money by executing killers as opposed to supporting them in jail to the detriment of the group. So while the criminal is clearly not upbeat being detained forever, the satisfaction of the group is additionally reduced on the grounds that funds that could some way or another be allotted to education or public health are utilized for lodging the criminal. All in all, the utilitarian would advocate for capital punishment if the sacrifice of one criminal would produce more prominent bliss to the society as a whole. Every situation should be considered independently and the suitable punishment regardless of the degree of crime, depends on the judgment of which
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
This article looks at the ethics of two US presidents. Utilitarianism seeks the the optimal happiness over unhappiness. Rockler argues that Utilitarianism failed to measure pleasure and pain across societies because it is subjective. Contemporary utilitarianism abandoned the measure of pain and pleasure. Rather, they see it as the consequences
In The Birth of Tragedy, Friedrich Nietzsche’s descriptions of the Apollonian and Dionysian align with the writings of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, respectively. In Kant’s writing, he argues that man can eventually progress towards a utopian state from man’s reason. However, Kant’s picture of human nature is one of
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
When studying philosophy, a student becomes very aware of the contradiction and different opinions of highly remarked philosophers. Many students become frustrated with the opposition and question the importance of the study all together. Others choose to indulge in these differences to further their understanding beyond what he/she thought capable of beforehand. The obvious contradictions between Kant’s deontology, and Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism is a perfect example of such occasion in philosophy. However, even though these are two opposing philosophies, with very different ideas governing their conclusions, we should look to learn from both and apply the knowledge we identify with, thus creating our own philosophies. In this essay I wish to do exactly that; to compare and contrast these two ideologies in order to better understand them and help others do the same.
Deontology which is derived from the Greek words Deon (meaning obligation/duty) and logia (science/study) combined to be also known as duty or rule-based ethics or the study of duties or obligations. It is a branch of ethical theories that deals with ethics of conduct, which theories are based on the sort of actions people must perform. It is based on non-consequentialism where the ends do not justify the means and thus deontology is an approach to ethics in which a sense of duty or principle prescribes the ethical decision (Preston, 2007). Deontology affirms duties must be obeyed regardless of the consequences. The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas.
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.
Deontological ethical theory, is frequently identified with Immanuel Kant, as he believed from his theory of duty, that If something is wrong then it is always wrong. "Deontological ethical theory is an ethical theory that evaluates behavior in terms of adherence to duty or obligation, regardless of consequences" (Mitchell, 2015, p.455).Deontology considers that moral actions are equivalent to abiding by the rules.Basically this assists us in understanding which behaviors are acceptable and which are prohibited.
Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness
The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.
If a person is acting in accordance with duty, they feel inclined to do something, not that it is their duty to do it. A person who is giving to others in accordance with duty, could possibly be doing it because everyone else is and they want to protect their reputation. This person would give to others for the recognition, to be praised or simply because everyone else is giving. A person who is giving in accordance with duty is likely doing it because they feel inclined to or for self-interested reasons. In the case of the philanthropists, both people that Kant describe are acting from duty. Even though the two philanthropists react differently to the situation, they both ultimately end up giving because it is the right thing to do. Because they are acting from duty, their action has moral