However, although Rachel’s argument is influential, what makes it weak is that the evil intentions of Smith and Jones do not directly correlate to the two forms of euthanasia. In the Smith and Jones case, they both intended harm to their cousin to gain a large inheritance. For this reason, because they were both morally wrong, there is no moral difference between the cases. Also, just because one fails to prevent the death of someone else does not mean that they have the same moral intention an active killer. For example, failure to prevent someone’s death could be due to inaccessibility or ignorance.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Deontology: the Ethics of Duty When it comes to Moral theories we have to understand what Immanuel Kant has written on . The concept of the “good will” The concept of duty Three principles The Categorical Imperative The Hypothetical Imperative Autonomy and Heteronomy of will Kant on the concept of respect Contemporary Deontologists The concept of the “good will” and Duty An action has moral worth only when performed by an agent who possesses a good will An agent has a good will only if moral obligation based on a universally valid norm is the action’s sole motive When it comes to the concept of duty, Kant writes that all persons must act not only in accordance with, but for the sake of, obligation
To start out we have to understand some of the key concepts of Deontology. Firstly what is a Categorical Imperative? Well according to Robert Johnson who wrote in ‘The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy’ “it is an imperative because it is a command…It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally…” so in other words it is moral actions that Kant wants us to apply universally without thought. Second is that of Maxims; Garrath Williams who also wrote in The Stanford Encyclopaedia said “the principle that unity is to be sought after none the less forms (what Kant calls) a ‘maxim’ or regulative principle or reason.” It is also important to keep in mind that according to Kant as told by William Cunningham
However, the statement “Kant argues that we should never act based on hypothetical imperatives” is false. Kant believes that hypothetical imperatives can be applied rarely, in certain situations. The principle of universalizability states that if one act is correct then another act, in an identical situation, should be correct too. Treating others how you would like to be treated is the golden rule, so according to the principle of universalizability if person A treats person B one way, it only makes sense for person B to treat person A that way. Thus, the golden rule and principle of universalizability are equivilent in that case.
Consequentialism is based on two principles: ¥ Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act ¥ The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: ¥ A person should choose the action that maximizes good consequences And it gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live so as to maximize good consequences ¥ for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences. Results-based ethics produces this important conclusion for ethical thinking: ¥ No type of act is inherently wrong - not even murder - it depends on the result
The major difference between the Utilitarianism and Kantianism theories depends on the idea of what is considered morally right and morally wrong. The Utilitarianism theory focusses on the consequences that are determined by morally actions made by individuals. The utilitarian theory believes that business ethics is based on the well-being of many humans, in an effort to bring forth wealth and eliminate potential harm. Meanwhile the Kantian theory believes that moral respect for human beings is more important. The Kantian theory expects for individuals to make the right decisions for the right reasons, not because it will provoke wealth.
Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
Utilitarian is a regularizing moral hypothesis that place the locus of good and bad exclusively on the result, the end legitimize the mean. Solving and taking care of the issue is most important. All matters is just the final products if the final products is great then what you did was ethically right. Considering things are at stake for both stakeholder involved. Utilitarian principles sates that proper course action maximize happiness and treat other how you would wanted to be treated.
(n.d.) “Kant's criticisms of utilitarianism have become famous enough to warrant some separate discussion. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action.” “The utilitarian theories are driven by the merely contingent inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law dictated by reason.” “His ethical theory has been as influential as, if not more influential than, his work in epistemology and metaphysics. Most of Kant's work on ethics is presented in two works. The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) is Kant's "search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality." 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.
In order to grasp the philosophy of luck in our existence we must analyze the philosophy of Thomas Nagle’s article, “Moral Luck”. Nagle dispute the Kantianism ideology in which states that we must submit our actions to certain universal moral laws, such as "do not kill". At the same time is important to analyze the concept that they are other factors to take in consideration. This philosophy can be applied in a specific case such as the judicial system or as an opportunity to analyze our behaviors. At the end it can be concluded that the major issue with the analysis of Moral Luck is the ethical aspect.
One of the many “American Ideals” is to act with courage and integrity, but it’s not acting with integrity if one kills another just because they “might” be a threat. No one would be acting with integrity if they kill and don’t mind the civilians down below. Many people would say that because the terrorists act this way, so should the americans because then they can fight brutality with brutality. Is that what americans have reduced themselves to? Fighting the enemy by being like the enemy?