Then, Cassandra’s decision about chemotherapy was made by the supreme court of Connecticut. Connecticut’s supreme court ruled in favor of the state, authorizing the state to force Cassandra to get the treatment. Cassandra was strapped to the bed and forcefully given treatment going against her wishes. Analyzing states' action from the Kant’s deontology state didn’t have ill will to do any harm to Cassandra neither did they have any selfish motive behind forcing her to getting chemotherapy. This shows that the states’ action can be justified by Kant’s deontology because the state was forcing Cassandra to get
The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of Man were both important documents to their countries history. Both documents as well had their thoughts coming from the Enlightenment,which was the beginning of people wanting equality and the time of reasoning with things that made sense. The declaration of Independence was created so the thirteen colonies could depart from its mischievous ruler Britain. The declaration of rights of man was created so there would be more equality between the three estates. Though the Declaration of rights of man was created looking at the declaration of independence they went two totally different ways.
In the case of Kantian ethics, imagine a murderer comes to the door asking for your friend, who is in the other room. Our moral intuition would likely tell us not to tell the murderer where our friend was. On the other hand, Kant believed we had a moral imperative to not lie to the murderer. In the case of Utilitarianism, Peter Singer has a famous example involving a drowning kid and malnourished kids in a third world country. Imagine that you are on a way to a job interview and you pass a lake where a kid is drowning.
Political scientists and historians have always been on the opposite sides on the subject of how a decision is made. Political Scientists claim that by knowing a few details into the major players prior preferences that all future actions can be predicted by using that Rational Actors Model. However, historians refute this theory arguing that without knowing the context or the environment of the player, one can never truly understand the decision making process. By using the events which led to the internment of Japanese Americans I hope to show that any event can fit the model in hindsight but at the time of the actual decision there could have been many options for Japanese Americans short of internment.
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.
Deontology which is derived from the Greek words Deon (meaning obligation/duty) and logia (science/study) combined to be also known as duty or rule-based ethics or the study of duties or obligations. It is a branch of ethical theories that deals with ethics of conduct, which theories are based on the sort of actions people must perform. It is based on non-consequentialism where the ends do not justify the means and thus deontology is an approach to ethics in which a sense of duty or principle prescribes the ethical decision (Preston, 2007). Deontology affirms duties must be obeyed regardless of the consequences. The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that said that the state should interfere as little as possible with people. Utilitarians, differ from Libertarianism, because are primarily concerned with the advocating for human provision of a minimal level of well being and social support for legal resident and citizens. They maintained that society ought to be systematically arranged in whatever way that would best reached this end potentially defend the vase and achieve greater social equality for the needy. Utilitarians think that the right thing to do is whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness.
As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty. The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty.
Introduction In this essay, I will be comparing Deontology to Utilitarianism. I will attempt to substantiate why I am justified in arguing that Deontology is a superior moral theory than Utilitarianism. A Discussion of the Main Elements of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1947 – 1832) and refined by fellow countryman John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873).
The Enlightenment was a time where people were beginning to find out that they could speak out against their oppressive leaders and bring to light many of the wrongdoings happening within the many institutions at the time. Two main philosophes who argued for the Enlightenment and its benefits to society in the 18th century were Immanuel Kant and Voltaire, also known as Francois Marie Arouet. These two prominent thinkers criticized the current social, political, and religious systems in place at the time. While both philosophers argue that the Enlightenment is essential to human growth, they both use different ideas and criticisms to prove their point. Both Kant and Voltaire argued that Enlightenment is important in mankind’s growth as a whole
In the film Extreme Measures someone can find ideas of Secular Ethics throughout the film involving Utilitarianism and its basic tenets along with Kantian analysis. The basic tenets of Utilitarianism include the principle of utility, Hedonism, and the viewpoint of a disinterested and benevolent spectator. While the tenets of Kantian Ethics, which include good will, the formula of universal law, the formula of the end itself, and the categorical imperative. These basic ideas setup arguments for and against the Utilitarian ideas set up by doctor Myrick. In the film doctor Myrick makes the claim that it is worth the deaths of unwilling subjects in order to help/save the lives of millions.
Utilitarianism is different from Kantianism because it says that you can perform any action even if it provides some harm to others, but at the end it should provide maximum utility. But on the other end, Kantianism says that you need to treat everyone equal, no one less than the other. They both hold different views but they both are right in certain situations. Utilitarianism and Kantianism conflict in many situations. For example, you have a friend who’s pregnant, but she’s scared to tell her parents.
If you asked a pregnant woman whether she could will that other women could have an abortion and she replied with “yes”, then it would be okay for her to have an abortion. If “no” then it would be immoral for her to have an abortion. As one can clearly see, the two deontological/Kantian theories have a big grey area. Using Kantian theory, someone who regards abortion as immoral, therefore cannot morally kill in self-defence, according to
Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action. Deontological approaches focus on the morality of an action on an individual basis. Utilitarian approaches attempt to achieve the greatest good for the greatest amount of
While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
