Contemporary virtue theories do not grasp nor represents the Aristotelian theory, because they think that it is impossible to escape the charge of relativism in virtue ethics. According to the relativist approach, ethical goodness is relative to each society depending on its traditions and practices. It is thought that virtue can only be outlined locally with reference to a single locale. Relativists reject the idea that there is a general rule, based on specific virtuous actions, that leads to the good life i.e. they reject that there is a single virtue (or norm of flourishing life) that is able to flourish the life of all human beings.
Utilitarianism makes ethical decisions based on the results that the action will cause. However, for the Kantian theory, it is believed that human reason is the only pure good, and they disregard the consequences. Kant discusses that the mentioned human reason should be devoid of the influence of desires or emotions. This opposes the Utilitarian view that ignores motives of an action as not important and approves the consequences. According to Kant, a purely good act is performed due to the person’s obligation to the categorical imperative.
This knowledge represents the features of the moral law (freedom from inclination, human dignity, the kingdom of ends, etc.) to us as morally valuable, which value inspires our assent to adopting morality per se as our end as though we were that way inclined, but does not emotively pull us toward the particular actions it recommends. In “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View”, Kant describes a kind of self-deception by which we undertake to behave as though we were morally inclined (151). He says that this self-deception, although counterfeit, is necessary and is meant to “lead man to virtue” (152). “Force accomplishes nothing in the struggle against sensuality in the inclination; instead we must outwit these inclinations” (152) – in the absence of true moral character, we can still achieve morality’s demands by pretending that we are moral.
He argued that fundamental concepts structure human experience, and that reason is the source of morality. Kant 's major work, the Critique of Reason aimed to explains the relationship between reason and human experience Introduction Kant based his ethical theory on three pillars this theory was called a "deontological" theory. These three pillars are connected to Kant 's concept of reason. This essay will discuss the role of reason according to Kant and Kant 's requirement that we must respect others and how reason is tied to autonomy. It will firstly explore reason according to Kant and discuss how
In Mill’s Utilitarian her action was justifiable and selfless, rather than have the whole group die an incurable transmitted disease it was in the groups best interest to eliminate the few infected ones for the survival of the whole crew. Kant will most certainly disagree with this because in Kant’s system, `all our moral duties are expressed in the form of categorical imperatives’ (Vaughn, pg. 164). His philosophical mindset coincides with Dale, who believe every life is important even when his wife was dying of cancer he still could not accept her fate. Both dale and Kant believe any interior motives to action cannot be regarded as good.
When considering how best to apply a moral framework to one’s own life, it can be helpful to look to Immanuel Kant’s book, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals to inform our actions. It is in this book that Kant develops his moral framework for all humans, and Kant introduces the ideas of a ‘supreme principle of morality’ and his famous ‘categorical imperative’. For the purpose of this paper, I will critically engage with Kant’s ideas surrounding the second formulation of the categorical imperative, the Formula of Humanity. I will begin by explaining what the supreme principle of morality is, and its relation to the Formula of Humanity. From this, I will offer an explanation as to why the Formula of Humanity is a plausible candidate
(ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Principles of Kant’s Theory Kant’s theory was actually based on the following five points: • Moral view of Kant is Categorical Imperative. • Universitality: No moral statement can be valid if it cannot be universal. • Intrinsic Values: Every human is an end in itself and not a mean to some other end.
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. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
Immanuel Kant tries very hard to put morality out there on how human beings should be treated and his theory can be seen as absolutely amazing. However to what extent can his theory be used and what are the strengths and weaknesses that occur from his theory? The strengths and the main points that stand out in Kant´s theory are, he emphasis the value of every human being, he shines light that some acts can always be perceived as being wrong and it provides certainty. In further detail the theory proceeds on the assumption that every human being is endowed with reason, should purely act out of duty and carry responsibility for one´s actions. It´s totality is easily understandable as well as applicable - do what is right, because it is right and the other way around, so to speak.
1. Dignity – • Dignity is the foundation of human ethics and morality. It is a very deep concept but basically it refers to a state or nature of deserving honor, respect and basic rights. • The idea of dignity looms large in the postwar landscape of public ethics. The Human Dignity originates from God, it explicates that every living being is created by God and posses a unique identity and this identity should be guarded, respected and honored irrespective of shape, size, color, gender or religion.