This action is done regardless of the consequences afterward because duty is more important. To determine what rules are valid, the Categorical Imperative has two important checks: the rules must be universally applicable, meaning anyone can do follow it and it will not change due to certain circumstances; and that the rules must never make other people use people purely for the purpose of achieving his or her goals. If a rule passes those checks, it is valid and must be follow. Analyze: While there is no real list of rules based on Kantianism, I will base Jean 's decision on morality. Evaluating the first point, Jean broke the second clause of the Categorical Imperative: using other as a purely as a mean to an end.
The reasoning of this belief is that the woman is who will have the responsibility of caring for that child and it is her body. The issue, however, with this reasoning is that it does not deal with the morality of the issue or take into consideration whether abortion is right or wrong. In Webster 's dictionary, abortion is defined as the "termination of a pregnancy often accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of an embryo or fetus." It is the killing of an unborn child. Even though morality is hard to describe, the bulk of society complies that murder is wrong; therefore, abortion should be expressed as immoral as well.
In the Fountainhead Rand states, “The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed, or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.” Equality is a creator.
A categorical imperative is a commanding statement that can be applied universally. If a world cannot be imagined in which a particular maxim is universally followed, then it can be said that individuals have a perfect duty not to perform this action. For example, if a maxim states that one will break promises, a world must be imagined in which every promise is broken. This is counterintuitive because if all promises are broken, then the premise of a promise means nothing in the first place. In this case, it can be said that an individual has a perfect duty to not break their promises.
He seems to have his mind made up and determined to kill her, however, he still cannot say out loud. “It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul,-- / let me not name it to you, you chaste stars!-- / it is the cause” (5, 2, 1-3). By repeating the words “it is the cause” Othello seems to be convincing himself that killing Desdemona is the right thing to do, he is unable to say that he is going to kill her out loud because he still really cares about her and loves her, however, he feels the need to kill her because his jealousy for her fake affair has overpowered those feelings. As he approaches his wife, he puts out the candle he is holding and gets ready to kill her. “Put out the light, and then put out the light” (5, 2, 7).
However, Medea also ends up proving that her husband was right because her actions were indeed barbarous. Even though Medea’s aim was to take revenge on Jason, she took that extra step and killed her innocent children, implying to readers that her actions were far from justifiable. Despite Jason’s hurtful doings towards
And for you mothers who are victims of domestic violence from those cowards, here is a phone number that you can call: (1800) 799-SAFE or (1800) 799-7233. They are professionals that will tell you what to do that will benefit you and your kids. As an abused mother, don’t even think about killing your baby’s daddy for abusing you. If you do kill him, know that you also killed your children, because they will end up without a father and a mother (orphans). Their
The end does not justify the means. This was the principal ethical theory of Immanuel Kant and made up his ‘Categorical Imperative’, a deontological argument which showcased how certain actions are fundamentally wrong, such as murder, lying or torture and can therefore, never be justified. Contrastingly a utilitarian would claim that the ends do in fact justify the means and would enact a focus on outcomes in deciding whether or not an action is morally permissible. In 2002 Jakob Von Metzler, a boy of just twelve years, was kidnapped and a police officer threatened the kidnapper, Magnus Gafgen, with torture in an attempt to find and save the child. Gafgen told the officer that he had killed the boy and then disclosed the location of the body.
It does not matter if it eventually costs him his life, but that was how he was raised. In addition, he becomes obsessed with protecting women and bringing their criminals to justice, even though his mother was the very first person to destroy his life. For example, the little girl’s kidnapping case. He sees in him the terrible way that he affected the little girl’s life, physically and mentally. Therefore, he thinks about torturing him in a way that he could feel a similar pain as the little girl.
The further discussion on Kant’s standpoint and strategy please see Helga Varden’s discussion on the case of Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door in Kant 's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis. Precisely, Mill claims the Categorical Imperative, is actually a disguised version of the utilitarian principle, Mill says ‘‘This remarkable man… does… lay down a universal first principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this: — ‘So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings’. But when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility,