In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people
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. Deontology and Utilitarianism are similar in that the tenets of each aims at promoting the well-being of others by doing good.
In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.
Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is his first crucial attempt to provide moral philosophy, and his work has endures a standout among the most powerful philosophers. Kant’s analysis can be perceived as a foundation for imminent studies by clarifying the major ideas and rules of moral rationale and demonstrating that they are subordinated to rational factors. He seeks to prove that the discovery of the principle of morality is achievable. What is more, he grants a revolutionary assertion the rightness of a choice is controlled by the nature of the principle an individual decides to follow. Therefore, Kant’s moral sense theories often are depicted as strikingly unconventional.
Kant argues that memory gives reason to individuals, which allows them to make certain decisions. Kant feels that goodwill and good intention is equal. Kant believes that if a person applies an action with good intentions or goodwill then it doesn’t matter of the outcome. Kant feels that people cannot have total control of the outcome. The outcome could be either good or bad.
Hypothetical imperative is made of experiences, if you want x then you do y. Categorical imperative is what one ought to do, it is absolute duty. Our moral duties are categorical because they imply to us unconditionally, whether we want to or not, we know that we ought to do it. The imperative is what tells us right from wrong in what we do. As Kant is trying to show, skill has nothing to do with morality. These commands are so people can follow them, so that we know what we ought to do.
Answer 2: 1) Consequentialism, it says that an action can be judged as ethical or unethical based on the consequences it creates, practices which bring in a person cannot predict consequences beforehand, an art which could be gained with experience. Consequentialism has its types to evaluate morality, here it is by the human practices based on their act, the rules, the motives behind a specific practice and the character traits of a person who decides. Classic Utilitarianism is regarded as a generally accepted version of consequentialism. An action is considered moral based on the Utility, which is personal satisfaction, commonly stated as “happiness” minus the pain. Thus, an action is morally good or bad is based upon the rise and fall
Utilitarianism and Kantian extreme deontology are two very different aspects of ethics. Merriam Webster defines utilitarianism as, “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences.” Kant’s extreme view on deontology “believed that certain types of actions were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative” (Kantian Ethics). When evaluating the differences and coming up with examples such as, how the president of the United States would make decisions regarding the situation between how the tensions between the United States and the USSR occurred, after the United States accidentally bombed Moscow. The choice the president has to make is to either bomb New York City, killing roughly seven million, or letting Moscow resort to a full-scale nuclear war against the United States, killing over one hundred million. The evaluation of both utilitarianism and Kant’s extreme view on deontology will be looked through and explained using the concepts on deciding what the president would choose to do when put in either of these situations.