Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant believed that people’s actions ought to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal. He held that in order to apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of morality must itself be based on reason. There are two categorical of Kantianism, first is “Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will be universal moral laws” and second is “Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end”[9]. In the debate about the right to remain silent in Vietnam, if the right are accepted, we will avoid many wrongful convictions from interrogation and torture but at the same time causing difficulties in the investigation. The side that against the measure, which led to the police may use torture to force suspects to confess, it means that any person being arrested will be claim that they are criminals until they are proven innocent or become true criminals. In another sense, we sacrifice civil rights of some people to protect others, we used some people to protect others which contrary to the second formation of Kantianism. …show more content…
Hence, a rule utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to individual moral actions[11]. The good point of Rule Utilitarianism is it follows “moral rules” in which there are exceptions. In case of debate on the right to remain silent in Vietnam, like Act Utilitarianism, it will support the measure because we cannot sacrifice the right of some people to protect the interests of another group, but in case of that sacrifice is necessary for the whole society, we can do it as
This case began in 1963 and ended in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that all detained criminal suspects should be informed of their constitutional rights to an attorney and against self incrimination. In this case, the Supreme Court implemented a few of the foundations of democracy to come to a verdict such as the one in this case which was to ensure that the rights of every
Angela Davis’ book Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture provides her critique on how today’s democracy is continually weakened by structures of oppression, such as slavery, reconstruction, and lynching. By utilizing her own experience and employing views from historical figures like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Dubois, Davis examines the chain of racism, sexism, and political oppression. She speaks of the hidden moral and ethical issues that bring difference within people’s social situations. In the “Abolition Democracy” chapter, she describes the relationship between the production of law and violation of law demonstrated in the United States.
In this article the author asks the question as to whether torture is a viable source in getting information. Since there is other moral ways of getting information. Some of these methods have shown to be more efficient. They also leave the victim’s mind intact. Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human.
The kidnapper was prosecuted and sentenced to life imprisonment; however the officer ‘was also prosecuted and convicted of violating the kidnappers rights’ (Sandel, 2011). This presents an interesting moral dilemma, can torture ever be justified? And was the officer acting in a morally respectable way? In this essay I will answer these questions by analysing the arguments which justify or condemn his actions, from both the utilitarian and deontological perspectives.
The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.
The variation between the two is that act utilitarianism states that an action is correct only when it brings good to the situation verses any other choice you could have made. Rule utilitarianism states that an action is correct if we followed the given rules that were made in order to have the greatest chance of achieving the most amount of
Rule utilitarianism attempts to fix the flaws of act utilitarianism by being stricter on how we should make our decisions. However, rule utilitarianism has the dilemma that sometimes rules can come into conflict with one another. Suppose someone told you a secret and you promised not to tell anyone, but you later find out that secret will harm someone else. Rule utilitarianism holds that people should keep their promises, but also that they should work to not harm anyone. This exposes the main dilemma to rule utilitarianism, and if the rule utilitarian were to say that depending on the situation some rules can be broken, then that just leads right back to act utilitarianism and how it depends on each situation.
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
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.
Otto Adolf Eichmann was one of the most important members of the Nazi Party who was accused of crimes against the Jewish people and humanity during World War 2. After the war, he went to Argentina to escape prosecution but was captured there by Israeli agents and was transferred to Israel to be judged. During the trial, Eichmann’s defense was based on Kant’s duty-based ethical theory and categorical Imperative since he overstated many times that he was only following orders. By enouncing Kantian ethical theory, Eichmann acquitted himself from moral guilt. Kant’s categorical imperative as known as The Formula Of The End
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory based on the idea that an action is moral if it causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The theory is concerned with predicted consequences or outcomes of a situation rather than focusing on what is done to get to the outcome. There are many forms of utilitarianism, having been introduced by Jeremy Bentham (act utilitarianism), and later being updated by scholars such as J.S. Mill (rule utilitarianism) and Peter Singer (preference utilitarianism). When referring to issues of business ethics, utilitarianism can allow companies to decide what to do in a given situation based on a simple calculation. Many people would agree that this idea of promoting goodness
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.
So, what is act utilitarianism? Act utilitarianism is best defined as a value of consequences of the act when it is determining whether it is the right act and if it brings about the greatest good consequences for all. In addition, for most act utilitarian’s, they do think that even though telling the truth is a moral action , but if it brings about the greatest good for everyone from immoral acts, it can be considered as ethically moral or immoral in the eyes of the law based on situations. From the observations of the movie, the Island, an act utilitarian would view this movie based on the different situations that takes place. As an example from the movie, the Island, Jordan two delta, known as Scarlett Johansson which is the clone, in the outer world has made the right act based on the consequences in which she diversified the mind of the working policemen by saying “open the door “while holding up a gun and the military officer, Albert Laurent shoots two of the working policemen in the isolation of the outer world in order to save the lives of the lottery winner people who is caught inside the door while suffocating to death.