ipl-logo

Utilitarian And Kantian Argumentative Analysis

772 Words4 Pages

Human beings are the only things that have true value. Their moral worth allows them to work out whether an action is the right thing to do or if it is the wrong thing to do. This essay will aim to show how the Utilitarian’s and Kantian’s view punishment for a crime and explains how the Kantian view provides a better moral theory.
The Utilitarian’s view of morality is that it (morality) is dependent on the consequences of actions and the level of happiness that is brought about by a specific action. Happiness can be determined by the amount of pleasure or pain. If an action brings about more pleasure than pain, then that action is morally right. Likewise, if an action brings about more pain than pleasure then that action is morally wrong. …show more content…

Retributivism is the most important defence for punishment. This meant that there would be an increase in misery, which is against what the Utilitarian’s want. Utilitarian activists believe in maximizing pleasure, while minimizing pain. Retributivism is then a problem. But, punishment would be allowed if by punishing the wrongdoer, the society/community gains pleasure. Even though the wrongdoer would be receiving pain, the overall pleasure of the society outweighs this. Alongside this, by punishing the wrongdoer, the victim is able to attain comfort and solace as there was justice meted …show more content…

Each individual has the capacity to reason, making them rational human beings. Rational beings are able have the ability of free will which enables them to be responsibility for their actions. By deciding to commit a crime, the wrongdoer has taken freely decided to behave in such a manner, taking the responsibility upon himself, and should be punished for his decision. When a crime is committed, humans ought to be punished as they are rational beings. By not punishing them, one would not be treating them as free rational being who are responsible for their own actions.
According to the Kantian view of punishment for a crime, The Golden Rule states that the wrongdoer should be punished accordingly. This means that the punishment that he receives should be equal to the crime that he committed (the punishment should be in proportion to the crime). This is known as the Principle of Equality which calls for

Show More
Related
824 Words | 4 Pages

This is what makes us different from “the brute creation.” I disagree with this, because punishments are needed for people who do wrong things. Punishment, while a form of pain, shows other people the consequence of doing something wrong. In the next point that Bentham makes, he also says this is not a reason to be lenient to wrong doers.

Read More
901 Words | 4 Pages

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.

Read More
871 Words | 4 Pages

There is an interesting question to be raised when discussing the philosophy of Kant and his approach toward evil. The question lies in whether Kant’s philosophy is efficient to explain human predicament, that is, a person’s suffering in relation to a cause—usually evil—that he is subject to. In my opinion, although Kant’s arguments concerning evil are clear and logical in a sense, his theory is still too flawed to properly explain human predicament. In this paper, I will provide two reasons, which I would like to call common sense, to argue my position. First, Kant places too much emphasis on the intent behind an action rather than the consequence of the action itself.

Read More
157 Words | 1 Pages

The information provided here, the ethical argument I might use to justify retaining this form of punishment over the long is using retribution. Retribution is a rationale for punishment that states that punishment is an end in itself and should be balanced to the harmed caused. In the textbook, it says that the retributive rationale for punishment is consistent with the social contract theory. The ethical argument I might use is positive retribution which is the demands that one is guilty ought to be punished. Retribution says that people who commit a crime deserve to be punished.

Read More
495 Words | 2 Pages

Introduction (Approximately 75 words): Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" presents the idea that the only thing good without qualification is "the good will. " Kant emphasizes moral intentions and duty as the core factors for determining moral goodness. However, I disagree with Kant's ideology as it overlooks the importance of outcomes and consequences in moral evaluation. This essay will explore Kant's ideology of the good will, critique its limitations, and argue for the significance of integrating both intention and outcomes in moral reasoning. Kant's Ideology of the Good Will (Approximately 125 words): Kant believes that a good will acts out of moral obligation and is independent of personal desires or external factors.

Read More
992 Words | 4 Pages

The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter

Read More
117 Words | 1 Pages

The theories of Restorative Justice and Utilitarianism seem to have much in common. Both aim to reach a virtuous response to crime, and therefore they are positive and forward looking. Utilitarians argue that punishing offenders crimes are likely to be reduced. Jeremy Bentham identified two objectives for punishment that share the same idea. Specific deterrence and general deterrence purpose are to increase the "price" for a criminal act in order to discourage potential offenders from choosing to commit crimes.

Read More
1312 Words | 6 Pages

INTRODUCTION In this assignment, I will discuss the ethical issues in marketing to children from a utilitarianism perspective. Marketing to children can be defined as the “act of marketing or advertising products or services to children”. There have been controversies surrounding the issue of marketing to children with regard to whether it is ethical or unethical. Utilitarianism on the other hand is defined as the ethical theory which finds the basis of moral distinctions in the utility of actions (their fitness to produce happiness).

Read More
2744 Words | 11 Pages

Introduction Animals testing have significantly contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge in general and to biomedical progress specifically. Many example showing that laboratory animals in medical development and other aspects have significantly influenced human health and reduced suffering, for example improved diagnosis of infectious disease (Hau, Jann, Schapiro & Steven, 2002). But since 1960s and 1970s, animals testing protests has gained prominence and strength, people start to argue is it moral to continue “cruel” animal testing. Animal Testing is a Moral Act In the rest of this article, I shall apply different concept under utilitarianism try to discuss whether animal testing are moral acts. It is important to notice that (1) in this article, applying the general idea of utilitarianism which is “the greatest happiness of greatest number” and (2) the animals testing under the rules and regulations.

Read More
706 Words | 3 Pages

Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.

Read More
1222 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1479 Words | 6 Pages

Punishment serves as a method to deter people from wrongdoings, and to let people know what actions are wrong. If there were no negative repercussions to wrongful acts, people would simply attribute their wrongdoings to determinism and claim they are not morally responsible for their actions, since their actions stem from prior causes that they have no control

Read More
2091 Words | 9 Pages

The shortcoming of this approach is that it is not appropriate for more serious crimes such as rape and murder, because in cases like those, most of the time there is nothing that offenders can do to restore the loss or make things right The benefit of this approach is that all parties who are involved get the chance to face each other. The victims get an opportunity to be directly involved in the process and get a chance to respond to the crime committed against them. The offender becomes aware of how their offense has impacted the victim, and this in turn allows the offender to take responsibility and to apologize or show remorse to their wrong doings. Through the process healing is promoted to all the parties involved, the offender might be required to pay for the harm caused.

Read More
1515 Words | 7 Pages

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

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.

Read More

More about Utilitarian And Kantian Argumentative Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document