However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions. For example, gifts of nature such as understanding, wit, and judgement, or gifts of fortune such as power, riches,
Also, a single person cannot make an expectation for themselves from committing a wrong action. Kant felt that if an individual makes an exception for oneself then its consider wrong and unfair. The propose of universal law is to bring good actions because Kant want good to be spread universally and everyone is treated equally. The second imperative is hypothetical, which mainly focuses on the idea of humanity. Kant mainly focuses on that we should treat individuals with humanity.
Again, Strawson clarifies the Basic Argument that moral responsibility is impossible, this time "in very loose- as it were conversational- terms"(219). In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.
Kant’s ethical theory Kant’s ethical theory relies on the principles that the only one thing, which is good without qualification, is a good will. In Kant’s term, a good will is a will, where all taken decisions are fully determined by the Moral Law or moral demands. He states that all talents of the mind, which can include intelligence, wit, judgment, courage and others can be definitely named as good traits, however, at the same time these qualities can also become extremely bad on the condition that the will of using them is not good. Kant believed that some kinds of actions should be prohibited, such as murder, theft or lying, even though the consequences of these actions would lead to bringing more happiness than the alternative (Bonevac, 2013). According to Kant, the categorical imperative is “what makes a will good is its conformity with the moral law”.
This imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement and that one should always treat others as ends in themselves and never as means to our ends. No one should not have their individual freedom compromised for some other end, in particular for the good of the society. Kantians moral deontological theory explicates the value of every person existing. He would believe the act of creating savior siblings is morally impermissible and that the act does not respect the child’s basic human rights. Kant believes that intentions do not promote goodwill or moral duty.
(James Rachels, 2014, p.35). Ethical subjectivism answers these questions because it claims there are no “objective” values in morality. In this view, moral thoughts are grounded in the person’s feelings, and nothing more. Though when it comes to objections, ethical subjectivism is no exception, it is even far more vulnerable that ethical egoism because of it’s claim that “ethics has no moral
In the first place, since all obligations are supreme, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts ( for instance, telling the truth about something or protecting somebody that you love). The second problem with his theory is that it doesn’t take feelings into account. What Kant does say is that any accidental maxims that would require coercing somebody into doing something without consent or deceiving someone is wrong ( O’Neill, 113). But what O’Neill says is that when we act on such maxims we treat others as mere means and as things rather than as ends in themselves. Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114).
Lord Devlin’s preoccupation is for society and his theory purports to be a practical and workable moral theory for fallible human being when he says that ‘ social reformers are not as patient as philosophers and we have not waited for minority groups to attain moral integrity” and that those who over emphasize individual freedom fail to realize that “the pimps leading the weak astray far outnumber spiritual explores at the head of the strong” whereas Professor H.L.A Hart’s primary concern goes to the freedom and right of self-determination of the individual and a lesser value on tradition and public opinion. It is clear that their approach to morality is different, where Lord Devlin is looking for consensual morality meanwhile Professor H.L.A Hart is concerned with amalgamation of moralities.
Proponents of this theory do not rely on a set of moral principles to determine how they should think or act. They also argue that; subjective individuals do not have the right to criticize or object to their actions; however, some find it possible to disagree (“Morality and Moral Theories”). The second theory, Ethical Egoism states that “right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest; also, that it is immoral to act contrary to your own self-interest” (“Morality and Moral Theories”). Proponents of this theory supports actions that maximizes self-interest. They claim that everyone is selfish because of human nature, which is a week point for this theory; given that morality encourages people to consider the interest and wellbeing of others.
It is argued that having a system of belief is more important than whether or not that system is true. That being said, regardless of whether a belief or system is true or false, one should still possess the right to evaluate it so. This however raises a possible division of belief (non unification) and as a result may corrupt society as it lacks unity. However such a "unified" society is not unified as such a unification is not possible with the nature of human beings. In fact the idea itself imposes certain ideologies that will not be collectively agreed upon by everyone, and as a result lacks unity, in fact trying to argue otherwise already illustrates the lack of unity as there is a conflict of ideas.