ipl-logo

Kant's Ethics: Jim Doesn T Kill The Indian Man

1207 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Kant ethical theory

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. For Kant, his ethics are grounded on reason and pure reason alone. It is a matter of a priori vs a posteriori. A priori is knowing the truth of the judgement, regardless of empirical view. An example of a priori would be that a single …show more content…

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means…” (Kant 234). Jim would be using the one Indian man as a mere means to an end. To use them as a mere means is to involve them in a situation in “which they could not principle consent” (O’Neil 2). Even though it is stated that the villagers and the men against the wall are begging Jim to accept, it isn’t considered a principle consent if one has to be coerced to consent. Although we use people as means all the time, it is immoral to use them as mere means, which is take a subject and treat them as if they are an object that is only there to serve your interests. “Therefore, no one rational or autonomous creature should be treated as mere means for the enjoyment or even the happiness of another” (O’Neil 6). We have a perfect duty to others, and that includes not using them as mere means. In Kant’s eyes, Jim would be using the Indian as a mere means. The man would not be able to truly consent to an “offer he can’t refuse” (O’Neil 3). Kant values human life because they are rational beings. By coercion, it takes away the rationality in oneself. If a utilitarian were in this situation, it would mean achieving the greatest number of happiness, but Kant is focused on intentions rather than consequences. “It is conceivable

Show More
Related

Huck Finn Character Development

727 Words | 3 Pages

And another of his most important events is to help Jim from dangers. Jim is a negro slave who escapes like him and seeing him as a friend, not a Negro slave, he learns from the past events that he loves and cares for others and tries to help

Read More

Dubious Battle Jim Nolan Character Analysis

739 Words | 3 Pages

Mac badly beat the boy who was encouraged to burn the barn, but then felt remorse for doing so. Jim, on the other hand, thought that it was absolutely necessary for Mac to have beaten the boy and told him not to feel sorry for what he had done, because he did what he needed to. At this point, it is clear that Jim has changed. Mac even said “I’ve seen men like you before. I’m scared of ’em.

Read More

Huck Finn Freedom Quotes

602 Words | 3 Pages

Jim deserved freedom just as much as any man, and thanks to the will he got

Read More

Huckleberry Finn Quote Analysis

498 Words | 2 Pages

Tom is more concerned with making getting Jim out into a challenge than actually getting him out quickly and safely, because Tom feels that, “‘there’s more honor in getting him out through a lot of difficulties and dangers.’” He is willing to make his life more dangerous just to attain honor. He also puts attaining honor before Jim’s well-being, demonstrating how he values an honorable reputation above the lives of others.

Read More

Symbolism In Fly Away Peter

1066 Words | 5 Pages

Jim’s emptiness and maturity prevails over his dangerous

Read More

John Stuart Mill: The Train To The Right Killing One Person

417 Words | 2 Pages

I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.

Read More

Kantian Ethics Of The Murderer At The Door

241 Words | 1 Pages

Kantian ethics is based on the belief that actions should be to fulfill our duty, and not be determined by the consequences of our actions (Kantian Ethics, n.d.). Kantians believe an action should be one that one could will that everyone would act on and that it respects the goals of others and not use them as a means to an end. One example of Kant that I find difficult to understand is that lying is always morally wrong. The example of the murderer at the door is often used to dismiss this theory of ethics. If a murderer knocks on your door asking about the whereabouts of his victim, it is wrong to lie.

Read More

Kant's Principle of Humanity: The Second Categorical Imperative

817 Words | 4 Pages

"Act that you use humanity, whether in your person or in another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. " This is the translation of Immanuel Kant 's second categorical imperative which was also known as 'Mere Means Principle ' or 'The Principle of Humanity '. This principle put forth by the great philosopher attempts to give us parameters on, when using people is justified and when it is not. Using other people for our personal benefit cannot be justified morally. Their desires, wishes and intentions also need to be taken into consideration and need to be given equal weight like ours.

Read More

According To Kant's Metaphysic Of Morals

508 Words | 3 Pages

Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals is Kant’s first major work in ethics which was published in 1785. Morality applies to all rational beings. Morals actions is defined as one which is determined by reason and not by our emotions. The moral worth of an action is determined by the reason or motive behind it and not by its consequences. The motive behind any action should be worthy of turning into a universally applicable maxim.

Read More

Kant's Necessary Evil

516 Words | 3 Pages

Kant felt very strongly about how people were supposed to act. According to the Categorical Imperative, he said, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Rachels, 139). Since humans are so valuable, we need to treat them “as an end”. This means you need to treat them well; respect their rights, avoid harming them, and promote their welfare. To treat people “as an end” according to Kant is, “as beings who (can) contain in themselves the end of the very same action” (Rachels, 139).

Read More

Difference Between Utilitarianism And Kantianism

866 Words | 4 Pages

For example, your parents gave you present for your birthday but you don’t like it, in this situation not telling that you don’t like the present will give out maximum utility as it makes them happy. According to Kantianism, we should never treat anyone merely as a mean, which means that you should tell the truth even if it hurts other

Read More

Moral Action In Groundhog Day

1069 Words | 5 Pages

He wanted to help people regardless of the result. For me, I would always consider doing whatever that gives good consequences, such as cheering up my friend. However, if it is for bad intentions, like I cheer up my friend to let them do things in my favor, it is immoral. On the other hand, if I do something for the right reasons, such as I tried to helped my friend to fix the car because I wanted to help, but the problem was not resolved at the end, my action would still be moral because although the result is bad, it started with a good reason. It is important for one to act with good intentions since one may “lives according to duty, but not from duty” because one might be acting for “a selfish purpose” (Kant 8).

Read More

Bribery In Kant's Categorical Imperative

742 Words | 3 Pages

To simplify this, a way to say this is to treat humanity as rational beings, and not as a thing. Basically says that if we treat someone as a thing/mean you are disrespecting him, and that’s morally wrong. For example, if a person bribes you, and you don’t have any options but to accept the bribe, then you are a human being capable of making your own decisions because someone is threatening causes you aren’t able to make your own independent decision. However, based on Kant’s theory, bribery is morally wrong

Read More

Kant's Ethics Vs. Utilitarian Ethics

1023 Words | 5 Pages

Hyejin Jang Professor Writing DED 8 April 2016. 4. 7. Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality.

Read More

Immanuel Kant's Theory Of Utilitarianism

1228 Words | 5 Pages

This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).

Read More

More about Kant's Ethics: Jim Doesn T Kill The Indian Man

Related Topics

Open Document