In closing, Kant makes for a wide range on what can be termed as an absolute moral duty, with his argument of the principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. Kant argument shows that I should do things whether I want to do so or not. “With the results [being] that if [I] ignore or disobey them, [I] [am] acting contrary to reason (i.e. irrationally),” (FE, 168). Being a rational being is something that human beings are able to achieve.
He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human. 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.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
That data point shows a need to improve access to mental health services, community supports, and other resources that can help people in crisis. It won’t change the value of a human life. Gun violence occurs because there is a lack of respect for the value of human life. Arguments devolve into violence because of an emotional reaction. Gangs use gun violence as a way to establish territorial control because they feel like their lives aren’t being valued.
Deontology is the belief that "the moral worth of an action does NOT lie in the consequences of an action," while Utilitarianism is the belief that "moral worth of an action lies in the consequences of that action" (Garcia, Kant Slide 37). Deontology also believes that good will is the only intrinsic good, in contrast Utilitarianism believes happiness and well-being are the only intrinsic good. Both systems have completely different beliefs, which will be exposed in the following comparisons of the situation. First, I will explain the Deontology view point of the scenario. In accordance with Kant's method of thinking you have to start by creating a maxim.
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.
If the man does not take any action, then it is an accident, it was meant to happen because instinct for fight or flight response would be to run. Furthermore, choosing to kill a man intentionally as to save others may be seen as unethical, for fear of being judged, the man might feel terrified to even act and perhaps resort to running away from the track, but then he would have never known whether he could have saved the people or not. Fear is an emotion which makes us avoid the actions we dread from happening to us. This implies that reason is a more logical and a better way of knowing than emotion. Emotion as a way of knowing hinders our ability to make good judgments because it is sometimes impulsive; it qualifies as an impediment in obtaining knowledge so it does not exactly serve as a check on our instinctive judgments.
In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).
What makes right actions right? There are many theories out there, exploring what moral principle we should live by. For a while, the idea was that our one principle of moral rightness must be two things: absolute, in that the moral status it attributes to an action is conclusive, un-revisable; and fundamental, in that its justification does not depend on any more general or more basic moral principle. But in David Ross’s revolutionary new view, Ethical Pluralism, he contends that there are at least two, and likely more, principles of rightness by which we should live our lives. One might think that this is absurd, that having multiple moral principles could surely never work, as they would often conflict with each other and create frequent
1. 171-172.) He may call out for the murder of Caesar but he asks them to not kill him with anger or resentment. He claims his reasoning behind this is so that the plebeians will not see their actions as evil or misconstrue their intentions. The real reason, however, is that Brutus does not believe killing his friend is the right thing to do, but if it benefits the country and saves them from an evil tyrant then it is the correct course of action no matter his feelings.