In the first half of my essay I shall present and discuss the advice that Kant would offer to a doctor, using his Formula of the Universal Law and Formula of Humanity. I will be explaining what each formula aims to show and how they relate to the possible choices the doctor has. From there, I will discuss whether the two formulas produce the same moral verdict and examine the potential connections between the formulas that make the similar moral verdicts possible. In these next few paragraphs, I will be explaining what the Formula of the Universal Law and Formula of Humanity are, then describe the type of advice Kant would offer based off these formulas. We are to imagine that a patient named George went to his favored health-provider, Dr. …show more content…
Smith to tell George the truth about the test and to let him make the decision of whether or not he wants to get tested on his own. The Formula of the Universal Law states that we are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (AK 4:421), meaning that we should only behave in ways in which we would be okay with other people behaving. The formula aims to show the importance of individuals behaving morally well for the sake that it is their moral duty. As well as to show individuals that a majority of times we would not will for our maxims to become universal law, but that we make exceptions for ourselves because we believe it is something we should do. This relates to Dr. Smith’s case because if she were to tell George that the procedure is routine and painless, she would be acting on the maxim that it is okay to lie because she believes it will result in positive consequences. She would not appreciate it someone else lied to her, even if it was for the sake of helping her, because they deceived her. If the individual truly believed that whatever action was necessary for the sake of Dr. Smith, then Dr.Smith would have also realized the importance of the action and came to the conclusion of doing it herself. In the case of George, she is making an exception to the rule of lying because she believes that George would be unable to come up with that conclusion himself, and takes it upon herself to make the decision for him. If this were to become universal law then everybody would lie because they would believe it to end in favorable consequences, even if it ends up being favorable only for themselves. This would result in a contradiction because not everyone would accept the lies because they know that it may only result in a favorable consequence for the
It is fathomable that it is an exceedingly difficult position to face and the decision the judge came up was equally challenging, however, there must be an alternative resolution. Whether we look to deontological the inquiry ethics and ethical decisions based on an emerging behavior the manner on this court case shed light on what is deemed “right” or the other hand who is honestly worth protecting. I have to irradiate that Immanuel Kant the German philosopher statement applies in this court case, “that all consequentialist theories missed something crucial to ethics by neglecting the concept of
Critiques of Kantian moral philosophy on the basis of emptiness come from a variety of thinkers and from many different schools of thought. For example, Mill claims the universal law permits commonly immoral behavior and can only become consistent by resorting to Utilitarianism. ‘ ‘All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur’’ (Mill.Uti.162). Mill criticizes Kant for failing to identify ‘‘the actual duties of morality’’ (Mill.
Moral Dilemmas of the Trolley Case Introduction This essay will explain what the Principle of Utility and the Formula of Humanity. This essay will outline three trolley cases (the Switch Case, the Fat Man Case and the Loop Case) and how the Principle of Utility and the Formula of Humanity apply in determining what is the moral thing to do when faced with any of these three scenario. This essay will also explain the action that I would take if faced with these cases.
Then there would be the aftermath of this instance, and the citizens might not appreciate being lied to and may
Kant’s early view 2.2. The Critique of Pure Reason 2.3. The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 2.4. The Critique of Practical Reason 2.5. The Metaphysics of Morals Chapter Three: Rethinking the Emptiness
Physician assisted suicide and/or Euthanasia is very controversial involving the topic of ethics. In ethics, when determining what is deemed substantially right or wrong, there is tremendous difficulty in finding a true black or white. To better explain, “physician assisted suicide is defined as the deliberate termination of a patient’s life by administering a lethal drug through a direct or indirect help from a physician” (Youngman, 2013). Throughout the text, what will be examined is assisted suicide influenced by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Since almost every ethical issue arises when a matter concerning two remarkably different possibilities conflict with one another, the theory of Immanuel Kant may be able to find a definitive solution to this concerning ethical issue pertaining to euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide.
This article talks about physician-assisted deaths from a Kantian theory standpoint, in the article it states that “the decision to ends one’s life is itself not autonomous” (Dinh, 478). Autonomy follows the idea of making own decisions for you, not others without inappropriate influence; Kant believes that this procedure violates autonomy and therefore should not be done. Although the article is slated from Kant’s viewpoint, it is also important to remember the other viewpoint. This topic is morally important in our society because such procedures occur today in our society.
The result is the application of the Hippocratic axiom “premium non nocere” (above all, do no harm), which combines the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence: “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them.” The
When you tell other people you feeling well when you feeling sick, you lying. You tell them that ’cause they have pain too, and you don’t want to add yours—and you lie. My Response: This quote really speaks to me because everyone can relate to it. Everyone lies, the reverend made that very clear but some people lie so much they hardly realize that they are doing it.
In The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the great Western thinker Immanuel Kant outlines some of his thoughts on some of the most fundamental of moral concepts, laying the groundwork for many future philosophers and students of ethics. Kant's ideas are, however, fairly challenging, both to modern-day readers of his works and to the thinkers of Kant's time that relied on contemporary utilitarian and hedonistic theories, or on objective good lists. Kant refutes these theories by promoting the examiniation of the act, rather than the consequences of the act, or the intentions behind it. Kant's sterile rejection of consequential pleasure, pain, or any motivation to do good in determining the moral worth of an act is controversial.
Before presenting the categorical imperative, Kant says some things about the value of human beings and morality. Rachels (2003) says that “Kant thought that human beings occupy a special place in creation. It is an old idea from ancient times, humans have considered themselves to be essentially different from all other creatures-and not just different but better. In fact, humans have traditionally thought themselves to be quite fabulous. Kant certainly did.
All though Kant’s moral thoery does not itself address the morality of abortion, I believe that it can be effectively applied to the contemporary discourse on the moral status of abortion. Some modern thinkers, like Harry Gensler for example, use Kantian moral theory to argue that abortion is to be seen as morally impermissible while others, like Susan Feldman, Judith Jarvis Thompson and Lara Denis for example, agrue pro-choice and hence make abortion seem problematic, yet nevertheless morally permissible. In this essay I shall atempt to do just that – to argue that according to Kantian ethics, abortion is morally permissible and hence, that the woman’s right to self-defence is in fact her duty towards herself and as such outweighs the fetus’
This paper will firstly demonstrate the ability of people to be good or bad, as opposed to one or the other. To begin with, this paper will discuss two examples of good people, Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, followed by two examples of bad people, King Leopold II of Belgium and Pol Pot. Secondly, this paper will demonstrate why it is necessary to adopt a flexible moral code using the examples of the Aztecs, who were forced to swap one rigid moral code for another, and Harry Truman, who was forced to choose between two unethical decisions. In conclusion, this paper finds that as one rigid moral code can be replaced with another, as in the case of the Aztecs, ethics cannot be a permanent construct, and that a rigid moral code does not
The counterexample used to contradict Kant’s “universality principle” should nullify the rational appeal of the Categorical Imperative for any individual who holds the belief that the preservation of human life is superior to ensuring that actions are applicable in any given circumstance. The example used in association with Kant’s second definition for the Categorical Imperative demonstrates issues caused by ambiguity. Kant does not aptly defines what it means for a person to be a
In the past, human beings have appeared to participate in wars and immorality more so than they have in using reason to act morally. Kant examines the