There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.
I stand to agree with the statement, it is not acceptable to anyone to commit a wrong against the other, it is wrong for one to fail to observe ethical principle for not believing in the existence of God. One can affirm to theological voluntarism while being morally skeptic cannot affirm without being morally skeptic. The statement is correct, one can do what is generally expected of morally, he/she can be skeptical or not, but fundamentally should observe moral principles. Normative theological voluntarism and moral skepticism is not a coherent combination of views. The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical.
In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil (from here on BGE), morality is described as a perspective which produces a narrowing of one’s own horizon. Morality, far from telling the truth about the world, is simply an expression of good faith toward the moral view of a particular group. Therefore, all that moralists do is in fact to argue in favour of a perspective which is grounded on their own prejudice and seeks secretly to confirm them
Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.
According to Kant, a person performs moral duty because he recognizes it is the right thing to do; however, if the reason as to why he acted in such a way is because he wanted to pursue a certain self-interest, then that action is considered evil. If there is a pattern to this occurrence, which is called impurity, it makes the person become slightly more corrupted, but not enough to be considered evil yet. Finally, if a person deliberately and always choose to prioritize self-interest over moral duty, that is, he will only perform moral duty if it conforms to his self-interest, then that person is categorized as wickedness, which is the highest degree of evil. Now, my question is simple: Is a person considered evil if he chose to perform moral duty because it would benefit him in a way or another? My answer is no if and only if it does not involve any sort of pain or suffering.
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.
Kant described universality as demanding the same delight from others when one thinks of an object as beautiful. Universal validity implies that others should share our judgement and if they don 't, they do not have a sense of taste. Kant goes on to explain why an individual feels the need to have this shared judgement is because we judge confidently, meaning we are correct. Kant believes that universality is a product of the human mind and that there is no objective property of a thing that makes it beautiful. Kant further distinguishes a feature called judgments of agreeableness which simply means if a person likes something, they do not claim that everyone else should too.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
In “The Power of Altruism,” David Brooks, a political and cultural journalist for the The New York Times and creator of the Sidney Awards, asserts that, “In real life, the push of selfishness is matched by the pull of empathy and…. by assuming that people are selfish… we’ve wound up with a society that is less cooperative, less trusting, less effective.” Brooks reinforces his claim via studies from Matthieu Ricard’s novel “Altruism” containing evidence that, “If you reward a baby… for being kind, the propensity to help will decrease… up to 40 percent,” he expands his claim with real-world examples of society’s reinforced selfishness like in 2001 where, when the, “Boston fire commissioner ended...unlimited sick days and imposed a limit of 15