Balancing the Environment Does the implementation of government policies in order to decrease negative environmental effects violate individual rights? This question can’t be answered with just a yes or a no, at least without taking a look at moral reasoning behind the answer or the topic of the environment itself. Published in the International Journal of Academic Research was a piece written by Adrianto Surjono (2011) which stated, “Responding to the global environmental degradation, the international world agreed on the importance of Sustainable Development.” According to Surjono’s research, in recent time the environment and its sustainability has become a worldwide concern. With that being said, even with the environment and its sustainability …show more content…
Immanuel Kant—one of the most recognized names in deontological theory— proposed a theory that is based on determining if you are using someone or something as a means or an end. In essence stating that in order for a decision to be made, one must take into account whether a person is being manipulated against their consent or they are being fostered towards an equally beneficial end (O’Neill, 1993). One could say it is everyone’s duty to push the government to introduce policies to decrease negative environmental impacts in order to sustain a healthy and inhabitable environment for the future. Deontology is a duty-based ethical thinking actually, “The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome” (Shakil, n.a). Immanuel Kant expanded on this theory and introduced what has come to be known as “Kantian Deontology.” Kantian Deontology proposes, “no one rational or autonomous creature should be treated as mere means for the enjoyment or even the happiness of another.”(O’ Neil, 1993). Therefore, no person should be coerced or convinced or forced to do anything for someone without satisfying their own personal maxims or interests in the process (O’Neil, 1993). When thinking morally, a person must always think of a person’s feelings or interests along with their own in making a decision. However, “Kant believed that no moral obligations are hypothetical. Individuals ought to follow moral rules regardless of whether they lead to desired consequences such as pleasure and personal excellence.”(Pelt, 2002). For an action to be morally permissible you must decide whether or not you will be carrying out an action to achieve a goal without the other parties’ informed consent. If the answer to this question is a yes, this action is not morally
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
Golden Rule and Environmentalism Intelligence, humor, simplicity, common sense, lack of philosophical jargon, perspective, wit, answer to questions. In the style of a popular scientist, not a philosopher, Stephen Jay Gould announces his view of an appropriate environmental ethic following the simple, but forever elegant, golden rule. "If we all treated others as we wish to be treated ourselves, then decency and stability would have to prevail"(216), he states. In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden
A Modest Proposal Concerning the Environment * Based on Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” (1729). It is a melancholy object to those who travel through this great country to see isolated corners of this fair realm still devoted to protecting the environment. The wretched advocators of these ideals are frequently seen doling out petitions and begging at their neighbours’ doors to feed their obsession, which keeps them in the contemptible poverty that they so richly deserve.
Immanuel Kant has a deontological view of ethics. He writes on duty-based ethics, meaning you must act from duty to make an act a moral action. Acting simply in accordance with duty does not make an act a moral action. His sense of duty comes from the three formulas for the Categorical
Nicholas Kristof’s article “For Environmental Balance, Pick up a Rifle,” which appeared in The New York Times, attempts to convince the American people that deer pose a danger to humans by taking more lives each year than any other American mammal. He states that deer populations, unchecked by predators, are increasing in a way that is unnatural and are destroying the ecosystem in many parts of the country. The suggestion he makes to his readers is that we must kill deer to bring the population down in order to prevent so many human deaths. Kristof appears to advocate hunting without much concern for other alternatives. While he does include statistical data to strengthen his point, other types of support he provides could be considered irrelevant or biased.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Kant theory is saying that everyone must do things for the right reasons. According to Deontological ethics theory, an action is considered favourable sometimes because of some good aspect of action in itself without considering its good result from the action. This theory is much based upon the one’s morals and values which expresses the “sake of duty” and virtue. Deontology tells us to be fair and not to take advantage of others while teleology tells about doing whatever we want and it gives us a result that is good to us. [17]
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Deontology in Immanuel Kant’s point of view is all about duty and not inclination of morality. For example, the First Proposition of Morality is an action that must be done from duty to have moral worth (298). In other words, if one were feeling generous and wanted to give money to the ones who really need it, this technically would not be moral worthy according to Kant. The reason why for this is because that person did not do it out of duty but instead out of free will. For one’s action to have moral worth, it could be an example of one going to work everyday. Everyone has their own specific job to do at work and that is their duty. All in all, Kant views that deontology must come from an action of duty in order for it to be moral worthy and it is not the consequences that determines what is right or wrong.
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The
Human rights cannot be secured in a degraded, polluted environment. The right to life is threatened by soil degradation, exposure to toxic waste chemicals and contaminated drinking water. Environmental conditions determine the extent to which people enjoy their basic rights. People who pollute or destroy the natural environment are committing a crime against nature and violating human rights (Beder, 2006). Human rights are interdependent and interrelated. Ensuring that the air and water is clean can prevent the loss of lives. Taking care of the environment can reduce child mortality and increase life