Immanuel Kant And George's Theory Of Ethics And The Utilitarian Theory

915 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Comparison of deontology and utilitarianism

According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the His theory is based on one’s judgment rather than what the society considers right or wrong. Kant bases his theory on the rightness or wrongness of a deed rather than the consequences that follow the act. He explains that people need not follow the rules blindly just for the results, but carefully consider the morality of the actions themselves. As a strict deontologist, George would allow his wife to take up a job to support the family given that he is not in good health. He should not strain himself as this may pose a greater danger to his life. He needs to listen to his wife, who is willing to take up the job and become a breadwinner for the family. Such an action would display humanity, as George is considerate of the feelings of his family members (Williams, p.249). George needs to take up the job of working in the laboratory as a strict deontologist, as this would enable him to fend for his family. In such an instance, George needs to set aside his stand on the chemical and biological warfare and consider the status of his family. There is no guarantee that he will land another job anytime soon. He, therefore, needs to take up this job to support his family. As a strict deontologist, Kant claims that one needs to consider the current situation and opt for the choice that will suit the current

Show More
Related

  • Kai Nielsen’s Support of Consequentialism and Rejection of Deontology

    1487 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nielsen’s next major premise is that if a consequentialist is faced with a decision from which the overall value of the consequences is unclear, then consequentialism should yield to the relevant deontological rule. That is to say, if it is possible that violating a deontological rule to bring about greater good may l...

    Read More

  • Rule Consequentialism And Kantian Ethics

    990 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Deontology in Jim and the Indians

    891 Words  | 2 Pages

    Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).

    Read More

  • Bernard Williams's Critique Of Kantian Moral Theory

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.

    Read More

  • Is rule-utilitarianism preferable to act-utilitarianism

    1769 Words  | 4 Pages

    Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Legislating Morality: A Kant and Mill Perspective

    1799 Words  | 4 Pages

    Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Of Mice And Men Ethical Dilemma Essay

    1975 Words  | 4 Pages

    Utilitarianism considers the wellness of the general population as compared to deontology which seems to only focus on the actions of individuals; therefore, it does a better job at conserving society. Another strength of utilitarianism is that it provides a “no-nonsense advice on practical matters of what one should do” while deontology simply tells people what they cannot do in any situation (Goodin, 25). Because utilitarianism provides an end goal to judge actions upon, it a better tool to determine the best action in George’s dilemma. Also, the end of increasing happiness/minimizing pain is an important value, because no rational being can argue that happiness is morally wrong. So, while shooting Lennie may make George commit the moral crime of murder, it is the best decision in this scenario, as it increases the safety of other civilians, prevents Lennie from the unjust death of lynching, and allows George to fulfill his role as a

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism

    1254 Words  | 3 Pages

    Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...

    Read More

  • Deontological Moral Theory

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    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. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. 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.

    Read More

  • Cyber Security, Ethics, And Ethics

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    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]

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Utilitarianism And Kantian Ethics

    843 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.

    Read More

  • Justification of Punishment!

    2840 Words  | 6 Pages

    ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.

    Read More

  • Kantian Duty Ethics: The Categorical Imperative

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    He believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, which he referred to it as the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative determines what our moral duties are and is a guide for testing rules. It states, “Always act so that you can consistently will that the maxim of your action become a universal law for all humankind. As in, before you act, consider the maxim or principle on which you are acting; what are you doing and why are you doing it. Unfortunately, this rule fails for other cases and is not a reliable way to learn the morality of actions. So another alternative would be to use the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a direct application that tells you to treat others as you would like to be treated. Kant identifies how the Golden Rule makes morality depend on a person’s desires. But, the Golden Rule also fails to give us guidance on self-regarding actions. So Kant made a goal to identify the ultimate principle of

    Read More

More about Immanuel Kant And George's Theory Of Ethics And The Utilitarian Theory

Open Document