Capital punishment has long been a heavily debated issue. In his article, “The Rescue Defence of Capital Punishment,” author Steve Aspenson make a moral argument in favor of capital punishment on the grounds that that is the only way to bring about justice and “rescue” murder victims. Aspenson argues as follows: 1. We have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm. 2.
Where our choices should include everyone, as universal to be considered moral or immoral. His choice would be based on the common sense rather than what one feels on the time on having to choose. Kant believes in continuacion of life, where maintaining life is a moral action. In Rescue I we have to see who really is in danger, where all 6 people are in danger, how can you morally save five and kill one. We will have to follow one of the two wills which are autonomous: morality of respect to us having free will and heteronomous: respecting others morality.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
In society, people should be ethically responsible with helping people. People act ethically responsible when one is in need of assistance because they let their sympathetic feelings of compassion take over their intentions. Ethical responsibility is a duty or obligation to ensure the individual’s well-being through specific commitments; such as saving someone from a certain tragedy. One piece of evidence from the text that demonstrates the sudden acts of ethical responsibility is “Can the Law Make Us Be Decent” by Jay Sterling Silver. Though many may argue that Silver’s argument is invalid, most will agree that his argument is in fact agreeable.
Secondly, the author claims that a common thread of values is identifiable in every culture. Like how the law of gravity tell us about behavior of physical objects, the author contrasts the moral law with the natural law which tells us how to behave (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 17). Lewis states that moral law exists and is independent. The moral law presses upon us to do the decent thing, even if it causes us discomfort. The natural law directs the objects that exists whereas the moral law controls on how we behave towards others, how we live our lives and so on (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 20).
Introduction Every day we as citizens of this country make decisions either consciously or unconsciously on how we go about our daily lives. We make all of our decisions based on our own personal moral behavior and what we believe in. Moral rules are defined in the book as things along the lines of people should not drink in excess or children should come before self (pg. 26). One’s moral behavior is primarily based on how they were brought up and what they were raised to believe. To test ones moral behavior ask yourself whether you perceive stealing, whether it be a candy bar from a gas station or stealing someone’s purse as wrong or right.
Kant believes it is everyone’s duty to do good in life, meaning one should do the right thing(8b). “I will connect Kant’s definition of duty to the guiding question “How do we form conclusions about what is right and wrong, good and
In the first half of my essay I shall present and discuss the advice that Kant would offer to a doctor, using his Formula of the Universal Law and Formula of Humanity. I will be explaining what each formula aims to show and how they relate to the possible choices the doctor has. From there, I will discuss whether the two formulas produce the same moral verdict and examine the potential connections between the formulas that make the similar moral verdicts possible. In these next few paragraphs, I will be explaining what the Formula of the Universal Law and Formula of Humanity are, then describe the type of advice Kant would offer based off these formulas.
Rossian ethics is a moral belief system falling under the deontology family that allows for certain actions to be deemed right if they abide by the seven prima facie moral principles. These principles are fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and self-improvement. Ross also finds justice, pleasure, knowledge, and virtue to be intrinsically good. In other words, these are good in and of themselves and are not reliant on the intentions of the person doing the action. While Ross claims that these are all important factors, it is evident that he finds virtue to be the best and pleasure to be the least.
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.
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals. Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism.
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains