In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
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.
The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the
Duty as in that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. This theory asserts that an action is considered 'morally good ' because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Expressions such as "virtue is its own reward" and Duty for duty 's sake" are used to attest to the believe that in deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Since utilitarian 's believe that all actions must seek to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this would still apply even if that act harms an innocent person. A simple example would be that if a surgeon could save three lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy person, then this is entirely acceptable as it 's helping the greater number.
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 Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people
Dr. Schaller, a key player mentioned in this case, is closest to the deontological perspective. Not all of his views or actions align with this perspective, but his earlier views come the closest. “Right from the start, Schaller was uncomfortable about AHCCCS funding of transplants for several reasons. For one, he questioned whether a program with tight resources should be spending its money on high dollar, high risk procedures. After all, AHCCCS was intended as a general health program for the genuinely poor…[Schaller stated that the] AHCCS should provide ‘basic health care to poor people, not just cater to people who have real expensive health problems.” (Varley 1988, 318-319).
For instance, the authentic leader addresses to the universal unanimity; whereas the pseudo-transformational leader draws a line between “we-they” disparity in values, implying that “we” have innately good values and “they” do not. Therefore, what really does matter in this case is how the values of the leader are reflected in the actions. According to Burns (1978), the principal concept which defines the authentic transformational leadership is the existence of morally uplifting values which can trigger the transformation in the leader. As Hollander (1995) states, transformational leadership is moral when the truth is told, promises are kept, negotiations are fair and choices are free. And it is immoral
From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical. Kant also discussed the importance of perfect and imperfect duties in relation to good morality between humans. He suggested that although we have ‘moral leeway’ in how or when we perform imperfect duties, we must ensure that we always succeed in carrying out perfect duties: ‘they must be done’ as negative duties are ‘more stringent’ than positive duties (Kamm,
According to Kant’s point of view, a critical subject endowed with rational capacities is a sufficient condition for freedom. Reason ought to be seen as the highest priority in morality (Scruton, 2001, p.60), and it is the reason why Kant has often emphasized rationality and reason in his works. One of the most mentioned philosophical concepts from Kant is categorical imperative. Kant regards the concept of categorical imperative as a universal law, which is possible to make adoption in all rational beings. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative.
There are a few significant aspects of this definition. First, it shows utility, or the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is right for individuals to simply pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle, that is, moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.
Cathy’s may believe that his actions was virtuous, however; his comments and actions are in contrast to this ethical principle. Another ethical principle that can be applied to the case is the deontological theory of categorical imperative. Under this ethical principle Cathy could argue that he had a moral duty to state and follow the laws that are given from God asserting that we are bringing God’s judgement on ourselves when we try to redefine the definition of marriage. Also under this principle it is the responsibility of the business to do the greatest good for its stakeholders in general. When Cathy stated his stance against same-sex marriage he was not thinking of his customers or the employees of the organization.
He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).