Essay On Kantian Deontology

Define Kantian deontology, and give an example. Why is deontology a moral principle?

Kantian deontology is defined as a system of beliefs based off morals. Kant concluded that rationality can only decide what the guidelines of morality are. Kantian’s ideology came from human reason. He believes that people’s consequences and emotions shouldn’t play a part in moral actions. Instead, he believes when taking action it should depend on obligations and well thought out. He defines good will by abiding by moral codes and guidelines. For example, let's say I am cooking and last minute the recipe calls for milk. I go next door and ask my neighbor for a gallon of milk and promise to buy one back to give to her. I have no intention of buying her milk, but I was desperate to borrow it to finish cooking. According to Kantian deontology I wouldn’t be abiding by his moral codes

because I had no intention of giving milk back, I basically just lied for my benefit. Deontology is considered a moral principle because it is based on an ethical study of actions that are either right or wrong there is no in-between. It doesn’t matter if the action is good or bad. Deontology only believes in doing what is morally correct.

Define utilitarianism, and give an example. Why is utilitarianism a moral principle?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on a large number of people’s happiness in society. Which is considered the highest good. Unlike deontology a utilitarian believes that the consequences of actions are the only standard of right or wrong. A utilitarian defines right as selecting the choice that brings out the most benefits or the minimum amount of bad outcomes. For example, a stray dog is found and brought into an animal hospital. The vet comes to find out that this is a homeless dog with no owners or family. After a physical exam the dog is found to be very healthy. There are three dogs’ lives that can be saved by donating the healthy dog’s organs. A utilitarian would agree this is the right thing to do as long as the vet maximizes utility. Utilitarianism is considered a moral principle because it creates the most benefits over harm for a large number of people in society.

Outline what Pullman calls the principle of respect for human dignity. What support does he give for this principle?

The outline of Principle of respect and human dignity by Darryl Pullman he defends one universal moral principle that has been used in history over time.

He uses human dignity to give support for outlining general moral principle. The General moral principle is defined as a group of principles that are either right or wrong, and favorable by a person or group. Pullman comes to explain that human dignity is still being used in national and international moral codes. I believe in order to have human dignity we need to have respect for ourselves individually, and as a whole in the human race. Pullman also brings up a point that health care and health research still abides by these principles. He uses an example from Downie + Telfer referring to the principles that exercises actions as truth telling and promise keeping. Which are necessities for morality. He also uses the term particularism which believes that there are no general universal moral codes that apply to every culture. Particularists look at things the opposite way saying what is right or wrong is related culturally or

situationally.

Outline Decker’s argument that there are no universal ethical principles. Does that mean that anything is permissible?

Decker explains that ethical principles do exist, but questions if they’re considered universal principles. He brings up points by explaining that we should be concerned about three types of distinct senses of universal that we should be concerned about. The first one refers to science, the second one is characteristics of human beings within a culture. The third definition of universal is the lynchpin, which is defined as something that holds several elements together from a structure. Decker believes that if principles don’t influence particular judgements, then what point do they have morally?

In medical practice one shouldn’t judge others due to different values they have, or try and change an individual’s beliefs their own. Values may only be meaningful to that individual. This is called moral relativism which is explained as “moral truth justifiability, if there are any such things are in some way relative to factors that are culturally and historically contingent” (Wong, 1993, p. 492). This type of relativism refers to all categories of anthropology, cognitive science, and other disciplines. Principles alone aren’t enough to express everything in moral life. Different principles are unique because of their history and where they originated from. This brings up the point that universal principles can be outdated since they came about the mid twentieth century. There is an advancement in ethical principles due to today’s growing technology. Meaning, universal principles can be outdated or obsolete. If universal principles were self-evident they would be a guarantee in any situation that applies validly.

After reading Decker’s outline on no universal ethical principles he opens up and questions the universal principle authenticity. It also has to do with a person’s ideology and point of view. That’s why we have Decker and Kantians which have two different views on ethics and use history to make its claims. I don’t believe there is a right or wrong answer to their philosophies’ and that’s what makes it permissible.

References:
Caplan, Arthur L., and Robert Arp. "1." Contemporary Debates in Bioethics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. N. pag. Print.
Caplan, Arthur L., and Robert Arp. "2." Contemporary Debates in Bioethics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. N. pag. Print.