The implication of this being that in order for an action to be moral why it is done must be able to be why it is done by anyone, anywhere, at any time. A clear example of this imperative comes when one considers lying. If one lies and presumes that lie to be moral, that lie must then be able to be made the universal law. If lying were the universal law one could not lie as lying relies on truth-telling as universal law to serve its function. In his second formulation, Kant states "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."
Autonomy is a person ability to lead a self-directing life. Unlike egoism and utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology looks into how the information was gather to determine if its ethical to use. Because of the focus on how the information was gather Kant ’s deontology would consider the using of the information as unethical.
In simple words, a moral theory is an effort at outlining what an individual ought to do in accord to an intrinsic good. It can take many aspects, each with it’s own strength and weaknesses, and each appealing in it’s own way. In this paper I will focus on two normative ethical theories, consequentialism and deontology. I will respectively describe each one, and will then proceed to list their corresponding benefits and shortcomings. I will conclude by siding with consequentialism for various reasons that I will try my best to explain.
Deontology which is derived from the Greek words Deon (meaning obligation/duty) and logia (science/study) combined to be also known as duty or rule-based ethics or the study of duties or obligations. It is a branch of ethical theories that deals with ethics of conduct, which theories are based on the sort of actions people must perform. It is based on non-consequentialism where the ends do not justify the means and thus deontology is an approach to ethics in which a sense of duty or principle prescribes the ethical decision (Preston, 2007). Deontology affirms duties must be obeyed regardless of the consequences. The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas.
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Established by Kantian ethics is the duty of our actions. Kant states that through reflection and reason we can acquire our duties from the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral obligation that is not contingent on a specific individual. I find this claim credible especially in conflicts between patients and their physicians. This assertion is convincing based on the following reasons of equality, universality and responsibility.
Hypothetical imperatives are duties that people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Categorical imperatives are the absolute and universal laws that guide moral actions. Kant believed that moral actions must be based on unconditional reasoning. Kant’s deontological principles of hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives have significantly influenced the medical field.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
Margarita Rodriguez Philosophy of Nursing Millers College of Nursing October 16, 2015 How does deontology relate to an individual nurse?s professional practice of nursing? According to the American Nurses Association, Deontology, an ethical theory founded by Immanuel Kant, applies judgments based on the underlying morality, or the rightness or wrongness of an action. It is based upon adherence to rules.
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
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
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences.
Deontologism is an approach which seeks to create universal rules for the morality of human action; its ideas of common humanity and fundamental human rights were very influential in the banning of torture. This point of view lies on the belief that there are some inherent rights that every person is supposed to enjoy simply based on his existence. It is based on ethics and morality. The very crux of this perspective is that every human being has some rights, and these rights cannot be compromised with in any situation – not even when the person has committed the most heinous acts possible. These rights include the right to not be inflicted any harm or suffering, either physical or mental.
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?
With the pure practical faculty of reason, the reality of transcendental freedom is also confirmed. For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it… Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV 3-4).
