Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant's view on virtue ethics
Compare and contrast virtue ethics vs kant
Immanuel kant theory of virtue
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant's view on virtue ethics
Question 1: According to Kant, what is required for an action to have moral worth? What kinds of actions are excluded from having moral worth? What would be an example of one that meets Kant’s requirements?
According to Kant, an action that is good has value, but is not necessarily moral. Kant says that an action that is performed out of a sense of duty is the only action that has moral value (The Foundation of Ethics, pg. 223). Kant states that an action that is morally right or morally wrong is right or wrong in all situations. All actions are excluded from having moral worth if a person has any inclination for doing the action. A person must do actions out of a sense of duty not because they want to or not. He uses the example of the inquiring murderer. He explains that if a friend is hiding in your house from a murderer and the murderer knocks on the door, then you
…show more content…
316). These dispositions determine how a person acts in different situations. A moral principle is the moralities of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual and the society they live in (A Critique of Virtue Based Ethics, pg. 318-319). The main difference between the two is that moral principles are somewhat universal and virtues are individualized. People around the world believe that murder, adultery, and torture is wrong. However, people do not believe that lying in certain situations is morally wrong, but some people do. Frankena states that moral principles and virtues are complementary to the same morality (A Critique of Virtue Based Ethics, pg. 318). Frankena states, a man’s actions are more even if his inclinations to do those actions are not. A man who strives to do his duty because he wants to, is still moral even if he is getting gratification from doing his duty (A Critique of Virtue Based Ethics, pg.
An employee of ABC Company, Luke is in charge with a project of developing new purchased land. The company is planning to build an adult entertainment retail store which confidently lay near where his brother, Owen, lives. If the plans are announced to the public, the property of the surrounding neighborhood will drop significantly. What concerned Luke is that Owen just told him about the offer to sell his house at a decent price compared to the current real estate market. However, Owen is considering if he should wait for a couple year and sell his house later at a higher price as the estate value may increase.
There are two basic types of ethical judgments: deontological judgements that focus on duty and obligation and eudaimonist judgements that focus on human excellence and the nature of the good life. I contend that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgement and not try to understand one as a special case of the other. Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main kinds, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one of the other of these types of judgement as primary. A second important contention, which this paper supports but does not attempt to justify fully, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we subsume them under some more encompassing ethical synthesis.
Kant says that good will is the only thing that is good. Human’s will, functioning well, is the only thing worth moral approval. It doesn’t matter if the person is smart or courageous if the person has a bad will. If someone is doing something for the wrong reason, but they still have courage doing it, it’s still not moral. The point of reason isn’t happiness, which is opposite from what Aristotle says. Some actions might seem like duties, but are just conformities with duty and because of that have no moral worth. An example we used in class would be the case of the misanthropic philanthropist who hates airports, but goes and helps the refugees because it’s the right thing to do. This shows that happiness doesn’t always come with moral
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
After all, Kant’s theories rely on his depiction of humans as being rational beings that possess a will and are both influenced by emotions and inclinations. With reason, one is able to discover the principles provided by necessary, obligatory, and universal moral laws “a priori,” with which it is one’s duty to act out of reverence for. Yet, while reason determines the will, or the “power of determining oneself to action,” the inclinations may lead one to falter. Thus, it is when a person acts from their duty as a result of a good will, as my mother does when she donates to charity, that they perform moral acts. When one fails to have the proper action or motivation, like when my roommates stole silverware, one’s will has been influenced by another inclination besides duty. Consequently, all humans possess the same rational capacity and principles of law and duty, but it is simply the effect of inclinations and emotions on the will that creates
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
What makes actions right? For some philosophers it is their consequences, like the pleasure or happiness that they produce. However for a deontologist like Immanuel Kant, rightness is the action itself and the obligation to perform it. His ethics is a theory of how a person should act, the actual action and morality of the action. It entails that as long as a person acts in a moral way then the consequences of the actions do not matter. “For Kant, doing the right thing is not a matter of one’s character or disposition or circumstance – all of which are or might be beyond one’s control. Instead, it is the matter of duty, acting out of respect for the moral law.” (Stangroom, J. & Garvey, J. 2005, p.79) Moral Laws are a system of guidelines for controlling human behaviour; like society laws. The Ten Commandments set by Moses are moral laws with the commands of a divine being, moral laws can be a set of universal rules that everyone should abide by. Kant argues that: “The moral law cannot be hypothetical in nature, cannot be of the form, ‘if you want such and such, do so...
Virtue theory is the best ethical theory because it emphasizes the morality of an individual in which their act is upon pure goodness and presents as a model to motivate others. Aristotle was a classical proponent of virtue theory who illustrates the development habitual acts out of moral goodness. Plato renders a brief list of cardinal virtues consisting of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. This ethical theory prominently contradicts and links to other theories that personifies the ideal being. However, virtue theorists differ from their own expression of these qualities yet it sets a tone that reflects on the desire to express kindness toward others.
Furthermore, Kant uses the phrase moral worth which he defined as a special value an action has that only deserves credit when it is done from the motive of duty, that is, when someone does an action because it is done from the motive of d...
When Kant says, "For when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principles, which are not seen," in page 19, he is suggesting that a person's true motives behind the action are more important in determining if the action holds true moral value. As Jonathan Bennett, a British philosopher of language and metaphysics who translated Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, says, when moral worth is in question it is not a matter of visible actions but of their invisible inner principles (Bennett, 19). Kant explains that a human being might have inclinations, reasons for doing something, beyond moral reasons. Inclinations are motives (desires, interests, incentives, fears, or impulses) that one may possess, but will sometimes seem hidden when performing an action. If there lies a motive behind carrying out an action, aside for the sake of duty alone, then it can be considered to be i...
...osed to someone who helps feed the homeless. This example may seem extreme considering in today’s world both such acts would be considered good from the generalized moral compass in the world today. One would be right to a point to say that as Kant’s moral philosophy should not be considered as an excuse for people to not act morally. His way of looking at morality is a way to look at actions and motivations to be moral even in the worst possible scenarios. His view of highest moral order may be something that looks to be inaccessible but it is definitely something that people should operate by even when they become hopeless or as Kant puts it, “overclouded by the sorrows of his own”. The standard that Kant sets in his Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals should be one that society follows when
It has more to do with character and the nature of what it is to be. human, than with the rights and wrongs of our actions. Instead of concentrating on what is the right thing to do, virtue ethics asks how. you can be a better person. Aristotle says that those who do lead a virtuous life, are very happy and have a sense of well-being.
As mentioned by Thiroux & Krasemann, expresses how the establishment of virtues is based on the measurement of righteous perceptions (72). For instance, as a society we know mainly through trial and error what type of moral codes to develop. Many people undergo errors of society and we established what is common sense because of it. Therefore, virtue ethics isn’t solely on notions to project a list of rules in order to be a decent human being, but to apply these basic principles to how we feel as well (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg.78).
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is character based and centers around the three key principles: arête (virtue),