Kantianism And Deontological Ethics

“An irrational society is a society of moral cowards—of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles, and goals. But since men have to act, so long as they live, such as a society is read to be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values--- or from the thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility.” Ayn Rand explains that in order to survive in an irrational society, you have to overcome the fear of moral judgement, and let that be your responsibility. In “Anthem”, Equality 7-2521 understand the evils of an irrational society—which is fear of moral judgement.

In Kantian terms, there lies a set of moral principles that is universal and continues to apply to all humankind no matter the context or situation. In the minds of someone who believes in this ethical theory, their decision is always motivated by goodwill and that end never justifies the means, it is all about duty. A person who stands with the supreme court decision and is in favor of banning abortion across all states is someone who believes in the kantian ethics

(-- removed HTML --) Immanuel Kant's deontology and Jeremy Bentham's consequentialism are two of the most well-known moral theories in philosophy. They have conflicting views on ethics and offer different solutions to moral problems. Kant's deontology is centered around the idea that certain actions are inherently good or bad, while Bentham's consequentialism is focused on maximizing happiness or utility. This essay will compare and contrast Kant's deontology and Bentham's consequentialism. (-- removed HTML --) (-- removed HTML --)

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Since “any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate virtue”(1098a15), a good performance of function (which is a display of goodness) is virtuous. For example, a good lyre player is a virtuous player. In the previous part, he concludes that function of humans is rational activity, or the soul acting in accordance to reason. In humans’ case, a good performance of rational activity is thus a display of virtue. For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life.

“Therefore, no one rational or autonomous creature should be treated as mere means for the enjoyment or even the happiness of another” (O’Neil 6). We have a perfect duty to others, and that includes not using them as mere means. In Kant’s eyes, Jim would be using the Indian as a mere means. The man would not be able to truly consent to an “offer he can’t refuse” (O’Neil 3). Kant values human life because they are rational beings.

Otto Adolf Eichmann was one of the most important members of the Nazi Party who was accused of crimes against the Jewish people and humanity during World War 2. After the war, he went to Argentina to escape prosecution but was captured there by Israeli agents and was transferred to Israel to be judged. During the trial, Eichmann’s defense was based on Kant’s duty-based ethical theory and categorical Imperative since he overstated many times that he was only following orders. By enouncing Kantian ethical theory, Eichmann acquitted himself from moral guilt. Kant’s categorical imperative as known as The Formula Of The End

In his brief essay, “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives”, Immanuel Kant emphasizes how essential it is to be truthful and how our duty to be truthful outweighs any other duties we have to ourselves to ourselves or to humanity. Altruistic can be described as a genuinely moral act. People who are altruistic take action for the benefit of others and deem other people’s interests more important than their own interests. Kant believes that people should always do what is right, no matter what the outcome holds. I affirm that Kant believes praising truthfulness above all other duties because he believes it is morally wrong to hurt the dignity of others.

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

When France fell under the Nazi occupation, Andre and Magda Trocme did all in their power to save Jewish people from the vicious hands of the Nazis. As the Pastor of a town, Andre encouraged the people to give shelter for Jewish refugees. Even when the Vichy authorities order him to provide a list of the Jews in the town, he refused and said: "We do not know what a Jew is. We only know human beings" (Hallie, 1979, p.103). Was his lie just?

He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. The fundamental idea of Kant 's “critical philosophy” — especially in his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) — is human autonomy. He argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality. Therefore, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical

To simplify this, a way to say this is to treat humanity as rational beings, and not as a thing. Basically says that if we treat someone as a thing/mean you are disrespecting him, and that’s morally wrong. For example, if a person bribes you, and you don’t have any options but to accept the bribe, then you are a human being capable of making your own decisions because someone is threatening causes you aren’t able to make your own independent decision. However, based on Kant’s theory, bribery is morally wrong

The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.

One example that Ross gives is the keeping of a promise an individual made to someone not because it will promote the most happiness at the end, but because the individual had already made the promise and feels an innate duty to uphold it (128). Ross argues that people possess common sense because it is what lets an individual realize that they have more than one “conditional” duty in a situation. It allows that individual to favor the action of one duty more over the action of the

Analysis: Societies for centuries have searched for an answer to the enduring problem: “Who should rule us?” This question has been one of the central debates in political philosophy as well as in