As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty.
The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty. For Kant, his ethics are grounded on reason and pure reason alone. It is a matter of a priori vs a posteriori. A priori is knowing the truth of the judgement, regardless of empirical view. An example of a priori would be that a single …show more content…
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means…” (Kant 234). Jim would be using the one Indian man as a mere means to an end. To use them as a mere means is to involve them in a situation in “which they could not principle consent” (O’Neil 2). Even though it is stated that the villagers and the men against the wall are begging Jim to accept, it isn’t considered a principle consent if one has to be coerced to consent. Although we use people as means all the time, it is immoral to use them as mere means, which is take a subject and treat them as if they are an object that is only there to serve your interests. “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. By coercion, it takes away the rationality in oneself. If a utilitarian were in this situation, it would mean achieving the greatest number of happiness, but Kant is focused on intentions rather than consequences. “It is conceivable
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Tom is more concerned with making getting Jim out into a challenge than actually getting him out quickly and safely, because Tom feels that, “‘there’s more honor in getting him out through a lot of difficulties and dangers.’” He is willing to make his life more dangerous just to attain honor. He also puts attaining honor before Jim’s well-being, demonstrating how he values an honorable reputation above the lives of others.
Tom’s actions are selfish and he was willing to put Jim in harm's way for enjoyment. “Turn him loose! He ain't no slave; he’s as free as any cretur that walks this earth. Old Miss Watson died two months ago, and she was ashamed she was ever going to sell him down the river, and said so; and she set him free in her will.” (Twain 217).
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Huck goes on an adventure down river with Jim, a runaway slave. Throughout his journeys, Huck has to make many important ethical decisions, with many of them having to do with his friend Jim. Huck has been taught that slaves are property and should be kept by their owner, but his budding friendship with Jim made him ponder about whether or not he should turn him in. Huck learns to believe more in his heart’s own morals because of his friendship with Jim lasting longer and longer, allowing his own heart’s own morality to finally be used in order to make tough ethical decisions.
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.
And another of his most important events is to help Jim from dangers. Jim is a negro slave who escapes like him and seeing him as a friend, not a Negro slave, he learns from the past events that he loves and cares for others and tries to help
Mac badly beat the boy who was encouraged to burn the barn, but then felt remorse for doing so. Jim, on the other hand, thought that it was absolutely necessary for Mac to have beaten the boy and told him not to feel sorry for what he had done, because he did what he needed to. At this point, it is clear that Jim has changed. Mac even said “I’ve seen men like you before. I’m scared of ’em.
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
Kant also thought it was possible for pure reason to discover objective ethical truths. Kant believed that ethical truths must be categorical, universal, and be the product of reason. Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should always act in such a way that they could will that act should be a universal law. This means that Kant thought that it was best to do the right thing, even if the person didn’t want to. This view of ethics focuses on what is right to do.
For example, your parents gave you present for your birthday but you don’t like it, in this situation not telling that you don’t like the present will give out maximum utility as it makes them happy. According to Kantianism, we should never treat anyone merely as a mean, which means that you should tell the truth even if it hurts other
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.
Hyejin Jang Professor Writing DED 8 April 2016. 4. 7. Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality.
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