In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, in my opinion, is the most appropriate approach to ethics and morals. It is an example of a deontological ethic that is based on reason. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics is an example of teleological ethics that uses both reasons and feelings in order to
Semi-compatibilism allows us to confidently attribute moral responsibility even if we are unsure about determinism. This sets Fischer aside from most philosophers of his time because they were all very interested in how free will and determinism are related (compatible) while Fischer glosses over the aspect of free will and states that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible regardless. Guidance control is comprised of two elements, the first being that one has to be a morally responsible agent whose actions must be the agents own, and secondly the crucial capacities used by a morally responsible agent are capacities for recognizing and responding to reasons for
Each one has expressed the importance of Aristotle’s view of leadership and opposing the way man has been conditioned to accept knowledge through science and reasoning. Levine and Boaks state that “the broadly Aristotelian account… demonstrates that leadership can and should be conceived of as a master virtue that, correctly understood, serves human flourishing” (2013). Keeping in mind that Aristotle’s Responsibility and the Primary Virtues of Character (Sachs, 2002) and Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (1944), in order to be a leader one must be ethically just, or what you will come to find as moral development. This is the concern of goodness and goodwill for your companions and leading because it is a beautiful, chosen virtue (Ethics, III, 1117a, 10). This courageous leadership translates to Lewis’ preservation of Man, not because you are conditioning man, but because you will make sacrifices in order for man to survive.
All we need to know for our purposes is that these writers think that Kant places the formalistic moral law at the basis of his argument, that Kant thinks that the moral conduct of each person is committed to this formalistic moral law, the universal law formula (CI1) is a principle that says to universalize all our actions. In this thesis, I mainly address issues related to the emptiness charge, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the Kantian discussions on concepts of formal are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false. This is actually a very important point for my line of argument, for adopting this claim would make it plausible not to discuss Hegel’s own philosophy in more detail. It would then, indeed, suffice to cite Hegel’s critical remarks and discuss them solely against the background of Kant’s ethics (while ignoring the wider background of Hegel’s philosophy). It has to be discussed solely on the basis of Kant’s ethics, and not already presupposing Hegel’s philosophy (which then had to be discussed critically on its own accord as well).
This conception allows him to isolate two features of what he determines the ‘end goal’ or ‘final purpose’. The first, it being the most perfect or most complete good and the second, that it be self sufficient. This end is not a subjective object of desire. It also cannot be assumed that this human good is something which all humans pursue. Rather, it is what we should pursue and as such provides us with a standard that can normatively evaluate the good of human life.
He first illustrates that a moral action proceeds from duty, obligation or moral law. He then states that a right action does not proceed from duty, obligation or moral law, but rather from another motive such as self-interest, generosity, or happiness. Kant has an understanding that ethics deals with reason, motives, and intentions whereas Mill believes in reason, feeling and interest. In order to disprove the idea that self-interest, sympathy, generosity, and happiness is connected with ethics, Kant creates the concept of the Categorical Imperative. Kant portrays this concept by stating, “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 30).
Immanuel kant wrote his famous ethical treatise foundations of the metaphysics of morals before the rise of English utilitarianism, but he was well equinted with the idea of founding morality on the feelings of pleasure and pain, rather than on reason . Firstly, Kant was of the view in related to the ideas of Jeremy becham and Stuart mill and both of them focused on the pleasure is coming. Kant then worked on his theory and focused on reason. Moral obligations thus have nothing to do with consequences, in Kant’s view but arises solely from a moral law that is binding on all rational beings. The Main Features of Kant’s Theory : The main features of the ethical theory presented in the foundation can be illustrated by considering one of Kant’s own example.
Not all people fear consequences, they only push forward to want to do better to help the world they live in. There is only a select few, which fear how not affecting the world will harm them. Charity workers, army men, community service workers, etc. do not work to benefit themselves. Although, some people want to benefit only their being, more than that amount wants to change the
In The Critique of Practical Reason (1787) Kant attempts to unify his account of practical reason with his work in the Critique of Pure Reason. According to An Introduction to Utilitarianism. (n.d) “Mill criticizes categorical imperative; stating that it is essentially the same as utilitarianism, since it involves calculating the good or bad
These altruistic individuals would be considered selfless because they find out what’s beneficial for others before themselves. Many philosophers try to ask whether humans are altruistic or egoistic. Altruism has a subcategory called utilitarianism. Utilitarianism explains how one should use altruism. Something of beneficial value should be cared for, while something that’s non-beneficial should not.