Along with this, I do agree with Kant’s idea that a person should do something such as tell the truth or aid someone in need if it is the right thing to do. Kant’s idea differs from Aristotle’s theory in a couple of ways. For starters, Kant believes that one should make decisions or do something based on whether or not they think it is the right thing to
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
One of these philosophers is Kant, another one is Aristotle. For Kant, our moral decisions depend on some duties and we ought to act as required by our choices but for Aristotle, if our decisions aim at some goods, they are absolutely ethical. In my opinion, Aristotelian arguments for moral decision
In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, in my opinion, is the most appropriate approach to ethics and morals. It is an example of a deontological ethic that is based on reason. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics is an example of teleological ethics that uses both reasons and feelings in order to
Focusing on the emotions of the people and taking care of their passion is a moral and ethical norm which should never be forgotton. Kant mainly considered this value in his theory as an important factor. Objective theory: Objective theory is a give and take theory in which beyond the desires passions and feelings of a certain person the desires of is considered with equal morality. Basically it is the opinion of everyone. Kant’s ethical theory is based on objective morality that involves the happiness of everyone.
First, a hypothetical imperative and other categorical imperative. Both these tell to be morally correct but prior is done to create a win-win situation, by establishing a good relationship which could be helpful in the future and the latter tells to make an action which is morally correct no matter what the consequences be, good or
Rule utilitarian’s believe that they must obey the rules and must have a moral code in order to fulfill and maximize happiness and pleasure. Meaning that rules and laws that produce better results should be enforced. Rule utilitarianism focuses on the deontological theories, meaning that their principle is that we as human beings should not do evil, and should be optimistic and that the good will follow after that. This type of theory focuses on the rules and duties that the individual must use in order to reach the greater happiness and pleasure. In addition, rule utilitarianism has adapted a couple of outlooks that emphasize the importance of the moral code after the action has been committed.
I disagree with her because I think it is not a good solution. It is just clearing the issue not solving a problem. In my idea when we see something we have to choose the positive parts of it and try to improve them and we have to find ways to change the negative parts. I believe that chivalry is a good manner even if there is some misjudgment about it today or even if it has some problems, but the main point of chivalry is still good. I think forgetting a good behavior and trying to leave it in the past is not logical.