Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deontology principles
Merits and demerits of deontological theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deontology principles
Merits and demerits of deontological theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant’s Deontology, and Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics all provide unique perspectives in answering moral dilemmas. In a specific instance, deciding whether or not succumbing to Body Identity Integrity Disorder is ethical, each aforementioned philosopher would use certain justifications from their respective theories to come to a conclusion. Kantian Deontology provides the best, most wholesome explanation in this case. Body Identity Integrity Disorder (BIID), as a brief summary, is an unofficially-recognized mental illness which causes its victims to feel incompatibility with a certain part of their body, e.g. men and women who feel the need to go blind, cut of a limb, etc. and impulsively try to do so,
When it comes to justifying what an individual perceives as moral, there are several different ethical theories that provide perspectives as to how situations are evaluated. These theories look at the consequences of the actions, what the agent’s intentions are, and whether the individual is being used as a means to end (May, 2014). Two of the founding theories of ethics are the utilitarian and deontological approaches which are demonstrated through the trolley scenario. While the best option would be to divert to a track with no one tied to it, a utilitarian would pull the switch to lead the trolley down the track to where there was only one person.
Kant argues that pursuing his version of radical good requires the cultivation of goodwill and solid moral philosophy. Kant believes humanity's basic inclination is towards evil and amoral philosophies, which he deems "radical evil. " For Kant, radical evil is not
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.
In simple words, a moral theory is an effort at outlining what an individual ought to do in accord to an intrinsic good. It can take many aspects, each with it’s own strength and weaknesses, and each appealing in it’s own way. In this paper I will focus on two normative ethical theories, consequentialism and deontology. I will respectively describe each one, and will then proceed to list their corresponding benefits and shortcomings. I will conclude by siding with consequentialism for various reasons that I will try my best to explain.
Immanuel Kant's influence on Western philosophy cannot be overstated. His emphasis on reason, morality, and freedom resonated with many of his contemporaries and has continued to influence modern thought. In particular, his ethical theory, which centers on the concept of the Categorical Imperative, has been widely studied and debated. In the following sections, I will engage with this objection by exploring whether or not Kant's theory truly ignores individuality and if it is too inflexible in practice. Through a critical analysis of Kant's ethical theory and relevant scholarly literature, I will provide a cogent argument that either defends or supports the objection that Kant's theory is too rigid and inflexible.
The topic of ethics has been a subject of debate for centuries, with different philosophers proposing various theories and principles to guide ethical decision making. Aristotle and Immanuel Kant are among the most influential philosophers in the field of ethics, each with a unique perspective on the nature of morality and what constitutes a good life. In this paper I will discuss the chosen topic of comparing the ethical theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these positions? Why?
The obligation of morality is necessary for the pure purpose of a peaceful world and that men need the consent of all to do so, but couldn’t because its in our nature. Though all people and state actors with in a political system should believe that “the peer principles of right have an objective reality, i.e. that they can be applied in practice.” The context required understanding his confidence that is consistent with the prominent issues in the 1700s such as the French revolution and the rising American Revolution that laid the foundation for Kant’s works. With these events occurring in that time frame, they served as particular situations where Kant questioned and actively proved some of his theories explaining his confidence with the philosophy of
He says that the good person has a good will and that will is good not because of its effects, but because of its intention. What intention does the good will have? Kant tells us that our only motive for doing what is right should be simply because it is the right thing to do. We should act in accord with duty or the sake of it. This leads us back to the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative, which states that our actions should be universalized so that people can all benefit from each other.
Kant believes that in order to behave in accordance with reason, we have to act with good will. According to Kant, to act with good will requires two things: First, that you have to act in accordance with moral law, and second, that you make decision for the sake of the moral law itself. For example, let’s say a bartender is deciding whether or not he should shortchange a customer in order to make a few extra dollars during his shift. Now let’s say that this bartender ultimately decides he’s going to give the customer the correct change — if he makes this decision because he’s afraid he’s going to get busted, then he didn’t make the decision out of good will. But if he made the decision because it’s the right thing to do, and out of respect for the moral law, then the decision was made with good will.
903729366 Essay 1: Kant In Kant’s “From Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”, he elaborates on the significance of the goodwill: that doing something out of good will means doing it strictly for the purpose of duty, because it is your duty as a person to do the right thing. To support this statement, one must agree that the the good will is a morally valuable thing. For example, my interpretation of Kant says, “if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these (gifts of fortune) in the mind, then these fortunes can over-take good will and bad occurrences may happen.”
Kant’s starting point is to show that rational human beings are bounded by morality. At this point, it should be known that what the meaning of morality is. Morality is something that human beings care about. They care about both morality and moral judgement. There are different types of moral judgements that they have.
One example of a consequence for my decision would be complete and utter hatred towards me as an individual. Whether it’s through public persecution or social media, the level of severity could also render me jobless. In either case, an important note to make is that both of my options clearly value human life in a quantitative manner. Despite the major differences between virtue ethics and deontology, there are two similarities that connect them together.
Dian Davis Professor: Shomaker PHL 115 November 7, 2014 In the past few months I have been introduced to several different theories, but three of those theories stood out in my mind, Deontological theory which rejects consequences as the basis of right and wrong and focus instead on our duty to practice or avoid particular kind of action. On the other hand, Rule Utilitarianism a consequentialist moral theory that defines a morally right rule or practice as one that promote overall utility and Virtue ethics believe that one has to have specific character traits like loyalty, compassion, generosity that have moral value in one self without any underline principles or action guiding them. Some of the similarities of deontological theory and rule
Immanuel Kant was an significant leader in the development of modern philosophy, formulating unique inputs and contributions. Kant constantly pleaded that “the moral worth of an action is to be judged not by its consequences but by the nature of the maxim or principle that motivated the action” (Cahn and Markie, 314). When looking at Kant’s point of view and ideology, he was a leader in deontology believing the theory of the ‘right’. Kant believed that humans of this world should do the right thing for the right reason, instead of doing things for the following consequences or the rewards afterwards. When dissecting Kant’s studies, he believed in the supreme moral principle that is called the Categorical Imperative.