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.
Kantians believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the consequences, but on whether they fulfill a duty. They must act in a way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. In this view there is no obligation to give money to a homeless person, but it is the right thing to do. Kant’s supreme moral principle is the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that is unconditional for all agents because of intrinsic value.
A modern law enforcement officer is taught to think critically and reflect on expected circumstances to possess some effective skills on leadership. Furthermore, law enforcement officers who has a strong problem solving skills and effective communication skills also develop community policing potentials. Improving a better understanding of leadership allows the public to respect the professionalism that a police officer upholds. Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories believe that an individual has the ability to make rational decision based on the action given to them (Kant 's Ethics, 2002). Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories are to illustrate the importance of duty and moral standards.
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
In his 1763 essay, Kant alternatively deals with these problems in a psychological way. He adapts the theory of Hutcheson and later with Smith. Insofar his treatment could be at least served by supplying a demonstrable principle of obligation. Having drawn the conclusions of the doctrine as below, Kant avoids him falling into Leibinizian optimism. We have recognized that the faculty of predicable truth is about the intellectual ability, moreover, the sensation of the food is obtained via our feeling, and most importantly this feeling seems not to be interchanged at this aspect.
According to Kant, all conscious people are subject to the moral law. Kant believes there are no exceptions to this rule and that all people must comply. I believe that Kant understands that all conscious people must respect these laws and follow them, and this applies to all conscious beings. If an AI somehow achieved consciousness, who are we to deny them of moral law? A rational being, biological or not, deserves to be treated as any other living thing.
In real terms alongside mythological, religious and scientific pursuits Africans just like the rest of humanity also use philosophical analysis in order to make sense of their existence. Kant (1724-1804) which is known for his ethics of “categorical imperative” that we must act in such a way that we could will the maxim according to which we act to be a universal law. Kant has been long recognized as one of the greatest European philosopher, which his work has been influential. His “Critique of pure reason” and “Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals”, which makes him known. But what is ignored by many according to Eze (1997:103-140) his racial classification of human nature into four categories ‘White European’, ‘Yellow Asians’, ‘Black
Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
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.
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”
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.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law. Utilitarianism:- this is the concept used by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and the John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The core idea of this theory is the results comes from the action taken by the group of people or the individual. According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong.
Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.
Virtue ethics started drawing attention since the modern ethics exposed its limitation and reconsideration about the priority was needed. Contemporary ethics focus on “What we should do”, instead of “What kind of person we should do”. In consequence, the moral codes in modern era solely emphasizes moral duty and rules, while neglecting personality and character of individuals. Virtue ethics support the traditional criterion that consider moral virtue and personality of individuals as important. The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication.
