Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
First categorical imperative
Limitations of deontology ethics
First categorical imperative
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: First categorical imperative
The two ethical theories I have chosen to assess the situation at hand are Deontological Ethics 's Categorical Imperative and Act Utalitarianism. The situation up for discussion is whether or not the parents (Sydney and Jack) were right in convincing Olive to donate her kidney, to her younger sister Nancy who is in need because she suffers from end-stage renal failure.
Deontological ethics would have us look at the situation based on the best efforts for the future. Based on the procedure of three formulations (tests) that help us make moral decisions. The first formulation is comprised of four steps; being self-aware of your actions, putting information from step one into a maxim, testing the universality of the maxim you have created, and
…show more content…
In this case the parents coercion of the older sister Olive is the act in question. If we use act utilitarianism to decide if they were correct in doing this, I believe that they were. Considering the only people involved in this specific case study are Sydney, Jack, Nancy and, Olive, three of the four seem as though they would be happier if Olive were to donate her kidney. This is because Act Utilitarianism is an aggregative, hedonistic, consequenlist and egalitarian theory. It insists we consider how our actions affect everyone 's happiness now and in the future, in an just and fair …show more content…
I believe it is immoral but necessary. Although, most 12 year olds are old enough to know what they want I believe that the push was necessary. However, based strictly off of the case study I believe the parents act to be again immoral. They know the power they have over their daughter. Rather than explaining to her that she will be healthy with only one, they decide to coerce her into thinking she is a bad person. They are saying things like "only bad people would be as selfish as you want to be." On average children tend to seek to please their parent, and if going against her parents wishes means Olive is seen as a "bad person" she 'd rather undergo the
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.
Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.
They have very different perspectives and can determine various types of challenges in cases such like the Quinlan case. The ethical position that is most agreeable is utilitarianism. Deontological is the moral decision. Utilitarianism is the moral outcomes from a decision. The Quinlan case a tragic event of a 21year old woman in a coma and the debate of her end of life management. The deontological point of view sided with the hospital and utilitarian point of view sided with the family. From personal experience, I believe utilitarianism is the best the ethical principal for this case because it is focused on the relief of the family and Karen Quinlan. Ethics is basis of making moral decisions and outcome
At this point we consider the different ethical theories and how to understand the situation. I believe Erickson’s theory that explains the eight different stages of life that contribute to development would help explain why Lori is not at the right age to make such a complex decision. Since Lori is only 14, she would fall in adolescent stage where identity is at confusion and she has not fully matured yet. At this stage of Lori’s life this theory helps her explain that although Lori may think she is mature her cognitive thinking is probably not at its full capacity and needs help with such a difficult
In this assignment we are to determine the moral difference between Deontological moral theory and Utilitarianism with regard to the changing of lives on a chance twist of fate with the brakes blowing out of the Trolley excursion. To turn or not to turn that is the question. Weather it is nobler of the heart and mind to follow the path of one and not the other remains a personal choice.
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...
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).
Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), an American patriot and politician, once stated, "Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason"[1]. This statement is significant, as it undermines two of the primary ethical doctrines in philosophy - the deontological perspective defended by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (634), and utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) in his essay, Utilitarianism (667). Deontology and utilitarianism are contrasting theories. The former focuses on the intrinsic moral worth of our actions, whereas the latter argues that the consequences of our actions determine their moral value. Nevertheless, both perspectives substantiate Mill's claim that "our moral faculty.is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty" (678). Reason is an indispensable aspect of Kant's deontological view, as he believes the will is a capacity unique to rational beings. In Kant's opinion, the will is essential, as it facilitates our ability to act according to the universalizable maxims we establish for ourselves (653). Reason is also a crucial element of utilitarianism, as it is the intellectual faculty that enables us to distinguish the course of action with the best possible outcome (i.e., the choice that will ensure the greatest happiness or least amount of pain for as many people as possible) (688). However, since both deontology and utilitarianism are governed by the notion that moral judgements are established through reason, can either theory apply in circumstances in which rational thought is not feasible? For example, during World War II, a Nazi soldier offers a ...
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
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
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.
In the case of Joelle, this study will significantly identify the different ethical principles that can be applied in the case. In addition to it, the study will also arrive in one ethical theory that Joelle can be applied in her situation in order for her to effectively determine what she will do and if her decision and action can be considered ethical or the right thing.
Many ethical dilemmas are philosophical in nature, an ethical issue can be described as a problem with no clear resolution. In order to solve the issue or dilemma a consensus between the parties involved must be reached. There are several reasons to come to an agreement over an ethical dilemma, it is the basis for all aspects of personal and professional dealings. Each one of us is part of a civilized society and as such it is our responsibility to be rational, honest and loyal in our dealings with others. (Alakavuklar, 2012) states that individuals make decisions for different situations in business life involving various ethical dilemmas. Each time either consciously or unconsciously individuals may follow some ethical approaches
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
A deontologist asserts that you should do your duty even if you or others suffer as a consequence. Deontology is seen as an obligation to protect regardless of the impact it has on others, whether it be people, animals, and/or the environment and so on. “Deontology focuses on the duties and obligations one has in carrying out actions rather than on the consequences of those actions” (Mosser, 2013). According to deontologist Immanuel Kant, when doing your duty as a deontologist there are “categorical imperatives” that should be followed. In other words there are exceptions for why one is not taking action. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” (Kant,