What are the strengths, and what are the weaknesses, of Kant’s deontology? This essay will first look into the definition of deontology and compare it to consequentialism, the common theory is it compared to, to have a better understanding of the contrast between the two theories. Once the base of deontology is defined the essay will start looking into Kant’s theory of deontology and furthermore analyze the strengths and weakness of his theory in comparison to other philosophers. Finally a summary will be held in the conclusion and a personal opinion will be integrated.
Which relates to what he is saying about civil disobedience. Its wrong to punish people who aren't guilty of doing anything wrong. Hitler was doing things wrong, so King helping them shouldn't be illegal. So King wouldn't try to kill Hitler, but
In the journal Kant's Commitment to Metaphysics of Morals Theunissen analyzes the work of Kant explaining how Metaphysics of Morals is an important part of human’s own minds pertaining to their own morals and gives insights of other Kantians views of Kant’s moral theory. He also gives his own critique and the input of other Kantian writers claims and views compared to Kant’s own. Theunissen interpreted Kant’s view of Metaphysics of Morals as a term regarding one of the many parts of philosophy. This part is made up of two sides, one being purity of an individual’s beliefs and morals while the other being purity of reason through their own artificial truth. He (Kant) believes that reason is made from prior knowledge and experiences from different categories that give a kind of structure to kinds of actions or anything an individual may encounter in their own lives.
He challenges the Kantian ideology of deontology and its connection with it actually being moral. He wanted to understand the origins of these morals and wanted to weaken the current human values and restyle the way morality is viewed. This led Nietzsche to his Genealogy of Morals which is divided into the noble morality that differentiates between good and bad and slave morality that differentiate between good and evil. He sides with noble morality since; it is an unconstrained affirmation of oneself as “good” and once this happens the rest is considered as bad. On the other hand, the slave morality was a reaction to the dominant noble morality, where it denounces its oppressors as “evil” and then declares oneself as well based on the choice of punishment taken (Nietzsche, 1994, p. 12-15).
In closing, Kant makes for a wide range on what can be termed as an absolute moral duty, with his argument of the principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. Kant argument shows that I should do things whether I want to do so or not. “With the results [being] that if [I] ignore or disobey them, [I] [am] acting contrary to reason (i.e. irrationally),” (FE, 168). Being a rational being is something that human beings are able to achieve. With Kant argument, we can only determine if an action is right or wrong once we know its maxim.
“Should I go out? To see if they need help where the bombs dropped?”(Zusak 383). This shows us who Hans is because we see that Hans would have gone to go help but let fear stop him and stay instead of going and helping others. Later in the novel we see Hans change because when he is fighting in the war he takes the risk of helping an injured jew though he could have gotten killed for helping a jew. “ A blood stain was signed across his face.
Ethics allows us to take a step back from our beliefs and culture to critically examine and reach normative conclusions of the whole picture. It focuses on what should be the case, whether or not a situation should be taking place rather than analyzing the situation once it occurred. Ethics are prescriptive, attempts to evaluate moral beliefs, principles, and practices and make normative statements about what should be or should not be done. Overall, Ethics encourage us to question, to develop our own thesis and then question once more. In the conspiracy movie, the ethical question is: why are the Jews being segregated in the first place?
In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, philosopher Immanuel Kant discussed this question by explaining the aspects that contributes to a moral action. Based on the implications of what contributes to a moral action through the movie and Kant’s work, I formed my view that
In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, in my opinion, is the most appropriate approach to ethics and morals. It is an example of a deontological ethic that is based on reason. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics is an example of teleological ethics that uses both reasons and feelings in order to
What ethics were at play here? I believe killing the Jews was clearly wrong because all life has value. There are other resources that clearly could have been used to make padding and soap. I believe the theory of egoism was at play. Their self-interest was the foundation of their
To do this I must first explain several concepts of Aristotle which are: (1) how he concludes that the human function is reason, (2) what he means by happiness and how it is the human good, and (3) why he believes that the activity of the soul must be virtuous to become
On page nine and ten of the first chapter of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he discusses the propositions that he believes make up a moral decision. Kant believes that a moral decision is based on an individual’s principle. He defines a principle as one’s reason for acting. According to Kant, a moral decision is when an individual ignores their personal feelings, or what they want to do, and do something only because it is what they “should” or “ought to” do.