People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do. Overall, Kantian ethics are based on duty, and the duty is to perform universally good actions. For this form of ethics, good will is defined as the good. Kant highlights that “a good will is good…[because] …show more content…
The professor first must identify a possible maxim of the situation, or the rule of thumb, for the first formulation. The professor’s maxim for this dilemma is to not report his plagiarism to school. If everyone followed that maxim, the professor could still do this. Regardless, it’s not desirable to live in a world where everyone followed said maxim. Then, analyze the maxim with the second formulation, which asks if a moral agent is used as a means in this decision. The professor is being used as a means by the student to avoid the consequences of plagiarism. As a result, this maxim is morally wrong according to Kant. However, there is another possible maxim the professor can follow, which is to tell the truth to the administration and report Charlie for plagiarism. One can conclude with the first formulation that this maxim can still be used if everyone did it and that a world where everyone followed this maxim is desirable. The second formulation also states that this maxim does not use anyone as a means to reach and end. Therefore, the latter maxim is a morally right action according to Kant. With the categorical imperative, the professor can conclude that the Kantian decision is to tell the truth and report the
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
For this essay, I chose to look at Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s views on the human treatment of non-human animals, specifically in the case of animal testing. I will look at Kant’s and Mill’s views separately, then the issue of the testing of animals, and finally, the philosophers’ views on the issue. I believe that both philosophers would come to the same conclusion, that animal testing is unethical in most cases.
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
Normative ethics have received much praise and criticism from well-respected philosophers for many years. Structured by Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the greatest minds in history, Kantian ethics have changed the way people look at what truly makes an action “right.” Kant believed that developing a moral system that was consistent and based entirely on reason was achievable. He urged ethics that are knowable without reference to sense experience, or as he calls “a priori” claims, because they are universal and binding. Kant argued that it is impossible to ground ethics on religion. Instead, he turned to a vague sense of natural law and states that rules exist to rational beings, whether on this universe or any other, simply because they are rational beings.
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is only good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself.
In Written Assignment #1, I will be talking discussing Situation #1 about Frank Van Den Bleeken. I will be comparing it to Kantian Ethics and Ethical Egoism.
At some point, he talks about an a priori style of reasoning, which is what Kant says is needed in order to understand morals in order for the set of morals to be universal, rather than applicable only to a particular set of rational beings in specific circumstances. He then explains that it is necessary to understand the importance of morals because it the basis of doing everyday tasks with proper intentions. He starts in the first chapter about good qualities versus good will, that the latter is good as it is, while the former can be used for good or bad. He then starts talking about duties, which he describes as the obligations of good will, and three assumptions about it. First, actions are considered good if it is done out of duty and nothing else.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...
To be good is good but it has to be done for the right reason. Aristotle and Kant are two famous philosophers who have different ethical theories. The theory’s of virtue and duties rest not only on laws and obligations but from what comes from the inside. Morality comes from inner strength, character and how we live our life to the best end.
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 the 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.
Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who made great contributions with his work on the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s interest with metaphysics left him in the company of Aristotle, who had the original work on metaphysics. Kant’s goal in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals was to find and make the supreme principal of morality. Kant covers several concepts in his work on metaphysics, some of the key concepts in his work are good will, moral worth, and imperatives. When it comes to good will Kant believes that “Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will” 1. In the next key concept, moral worth, Kant believes that actions are only morally right depending on their motives, “an action done not from inclination but from duty” 2 is morally right according to Kant. Kant’s imperatives are broken down into two types, those being hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative is an “action that is good to some purpose, possible or actual” 3. A categorical imperative “directly commands a certain conduct without making its condition some purpose to be reached by it” 4. From these concepts you can tell that Kant is a perfect world philosopher who thinks that all humans are rational beings, who have preeminent good in them, and should always strive to be their best selves.