However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. 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.
Virtue ethics is more about ‘being’ whereas moral ethics is more about ‘doing’ (Rondall, 2014). In order to act and behave in a morally correct way, one has to have a character and virtues that will support it. Being a virtuous person will enable you to act according to moral principle; however you cannot act according to moral principle and do your duty if you do not have the virtues that allow for this. Kant suggests that good will is achieved through intent, contributing to the argument that one cannot act morally if their intentions have ulterior motives (Rondall, 2014). The motivation behind duty is having the respect for moral law, thus inferring that one has to have respect which is gained through practice, learnt by habituation and taught from example (Johnson & Cureton, 2016).
The Main Features of Kant’s Theory : The main features of the ethical theory presented in the foundation can be illustrated by considering one of Kant’s own example. “A man finds himself forced by need to borrow money. He well knows that he won’t be able to repay it ,but he also
In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself. The three different versions of Utilitarianism are, Act, Rule, and Preference Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism states that a person’s act is right if and only if it produces as many
Objection three states, “Further, the end is the term of action. But actions are of individuals. Now although men agree in their specific nature, yet they differ in things pertaining to individuals” (358). In this objection, the doubt is essentially that humans cannot all have the same last end because the last end is an action and actions are decided by the individual. To explain away this objection, Aquinas points out that “actions are of individuals, yet their first principle of action is nature, which tends to one thing” (359).
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
He analyzes the moral obligations that exist and states that if someone performs a moral duty but also acts on one of the four natural inclinations then the meaning behind their actions are weaker and therefore less important. An action performed for moral duty without any tendency towards natural inclination hold the truest form of moral duty that we should all strive to perform for others in order to become a better society that is more understanding and respectful of the people around us. With Immanuel Kant’s ideas on moral duty and inclination we can continue to further analyze our actions and the actions of others that we see to gain the best perspective possible. Teaching moral duties without reason may be simple but I believe it to be detrimental in the long run as these types of actions are the glue that holds us all together with our social interactions, pursuit of knowledge and desire to
This is supposed to allow us to determine which action has the most benefits or lower total costs and is therefore moral. On the other hand, under the rule utilitarianism, we look at individual acts to see whether they produce more pleasure than the alternatives. If the actions produce more pleasure or have lower costs, then they are the moral types of actions. Rule utilitarianism’s basic strategy is to limit utilitarian analysis to the evaluation of moral rules. Theorists came up with the rule utilitarianism as a response to different concerns critics had about utilitarianism.
[This principle] can be illustrated by the ‘lying promise’ example. If we all made lying promises whenever a need arose, Kant argues, the institution of promising would disappear, and hence the maxim, universalized, is not consistent with itself. (Uleman