Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.
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
Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action.
There are various forms of moral realism that maintain different things, all agreeing and disagreeing upon different things. However, one generally agreed feature is that moral claims assert facts, if these facts are true, then the moral claim is also true, in other words there are mind-independent facts about right and wrong. In light of brevity, this is the feature I will be referring to when speaking of moral realism. Throughout my essay I shall explain the negative implications of Streets argument on Moral realist theory and shall outline why it may be the case that realists are not necessarily committed to accepting the critiques. I aim to reach the conclusion that Streets criticism of moral realism does not stand and so despite the proposed Darwinian Dilemma Moral realism is still plausible, but one would be required to explore various other criticisms to reach a definite conclusion regarding the plausibility of Moral Realism.
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
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.
Morality are principles concerning the distinction of good and bad or right and wrong behavior, that influences behavior and worldly views. From different perspectives, morality can be can viewed as being of one 's own conviction, or a natural principle that we should succumb to by the “laws” of nature. Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche are two well known philosopher that twist morality into those groups of morals of being “taste” or “truth”. Aqunas sees morality as a truth that consist of things that contribute or disrupts the nature of things. While Nietzsche viewpoint is directed upon that morality is merely opinion and that “might makes right.” These two conflicting ideas has become an issue in the world today.
An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral. But in further analysis, the amoralist has a more fundamental understanding of the human condition.
Kant Essay In this paper I will present and evaluate the views of Kant’s argument on “the World has a Beginning in Time”. I will give my object and explain Kant’s basic critique of this argument. From Kant’s antinomy of Pure Reason. Kant uses Speculative Cosmology or antinomies which is centered around the idea of the world as the totality of causes. An antinomy is when two contradictory propositions can be proved.
The two main aims of a moral theory are a theoretical aim and a practical aim. A theoretical aim refers back to contrasting between an action being right or wrong. Also, can be between a person or something being good or bad. Under the surface of the action or person lies an answer to whether it is right or wrong, or, good or bad. Explanations justify the individual 's opinion on what makes an action right or wrong.
First off, allow me to talk about moral skepticism. (scepticism as the author put it) A moral sceptic might be the sort of person who says "All this talk of morality is tripe," who rejects morality and will take no notice of it. (Rachels, 2010, p. 50) There are some people in this world who will take morality and toss it out the window, because to them morality is binding and judgemental to the point to where they think that it will control you. Hypothetical and Categorical imperatives are very interesting in their own unique way. Hypothetical in Kant 's distinction is "If you want X, do Y" (or "You ought to do Y") will be a hypothetical imperative if it is based on the supposed fact that Y is, in the circumstances, the only (or the best) available means to X, that is, on a causal relation between Y and X.