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.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. One of Mill 's replies to oppositions about utilitarianism is that the given analysis is not distinctive to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill 's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory? Might such a reply undermine all ethical
Unlike the alternative ethical theories mentioned above, virtue ethics is not associated with a moral imperative. It is the idea that acting virtuously will result in virtuous consequences. Most virtue ethics theories are embedded in Aristotle's teachings which declare that "a virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action". These traits are derived from a natural internal inclination which needs to be guided, yet, over time, may become stable. Aristotle also defined virtues as a ‘golden mean’ which ultimately is the middle ground between two extremes also known as vices.
In the matter of good and evil, can pessimistic judgments about life, such as the one expressed in the quotation by Schopenhauer, be an objective philosophical analysis of human existence? “For evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and good, on the other hand, i.e. all happiness and all gratification, is that which is negative”, (Schopenhauer, A, 1850, p:41). First and foremost, the philosopher’s thought on the values behind ‘good’ and ‘evil’ reflects what he believes is the most honest depiction life. Schopenhauer considers happiness to be 'lack of suffering ' and goodness to be 'lack of evil
This challenges the thought of all opinions being equally correct or all practices are equally correct. The ethical theory, utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce reverse
I agree with the basic philosophy of the Romantics and the Transcendentalists for the reason being, it is vital for an individual to discover their own righteous ethical principles and be ruled by them rather than invariably conform to contemporary standards, in order to deter tyrannical rule. As Ralph Waldo Emerson asserts in his essay Self-Reliance “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines ” (Source A), evident in the excerpt Emerson implies that “foolish” consistency deters positive progress, which is adored and beneficial predominantly by people in power, thus resulting in tyrannical rule. Hence, why I agree with the basic philosophy of the Romantics and transcendentalist, for the reason being it is vital for an individual to discover their own righteous
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
For instance, the authentic leader addresses to the universal unanimity; whereas the pseudo-transformational leader draws a line between “we-they” disparity in values, implying that “we” have innately good values and “they” do not. Therefore, what really does matter in this case is how the values of the leader are reflected in the actions. According to Burns (1978), the principal concept which defines the authentic transformational leadership is the existence of morally uplifting values which can trigger the transformation in the leader. As Hollander (1995) states, transformational leadership is moral when the truth is told, promises are kept, negotiations are fair and choices are free. And it is immoral
Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom. But also argues saying that, because we want happiness fact, this is the greatest good; and if it is for everyone, it will be for everyone. Sidgwick goes one step further by stating that the principle of utility is known by intuition; Moore also end up claiming the intuitive evidence for utilitarianism. However, and consequently, as was happened with the conception of the good in general, here empiricism has come to reject the intuitive evidence for it as dangerous sign of an arbitrary dogmatism, as they say, is one of private and subjective criteria. Thus, more recent utilitarian defend his doctrine from a position or non-cognitive justification, not rational.
He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).
In both modern society and the world set forth in the beginning Ayn Rand 's The Fountainhead, altruism and selflessness are praised as accepted ideals while independence and selfishness are abhorred. This twisted idea of morality is challenged by the protagonist of The Fountainhead, Howard Roark. Though selfishness can be broadly defined and can be harmful at times, Howard Roark exhibits a specific type of selfishness that does not seek to harm others, but to simply preserve the person 's ego and personal pursuit of success. The best way to define the nature and effectiveness of Howard Roark 's selfishness is through examining his interactions with other major characters and comparing their egos, integrity, and approaches to achievement. Peter Keating is an interesting character in that he tries to be selfish, but he has no actual sense of self.