Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant's Deontology
Business ethics in a market capitalist economy
Business ethics in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant's Deontology
Question 1 Rule utilitarianism says that we can get more beneficial result by following the rules better than following individual actions. This rule is based on morality which is if everybody follows them it would lead to a greater happiness. This rule is called the x rules which promote greater happiness for greatest number. The x Rules is automatically the right rule to follow and any compliant with the X is the good and right thing to do universally. In this case the manufacture of medicine called Nurofen made a misleading conduct by making a fraud. They make a medicine which they told for the specific type of pain with double the price with the same ingredient and no more effectiveness for treating the pain which is described on the packaging …show more content…
In order to see whether this action is good or not, with Kant theory tends to look into the moral or the reason or intention behind an action rather than its consequences. It also can be said that the motive of an action is a key point to judge whether this action is good or bad. In order to act right Kant made a composite law of reason to do with 3 separate parts which is Universalisable, Respect, and Autonomy. Based on the case of Volkswagen and Mitsubishi. VW and Mitsubishi didn’t apply these 3 parts of reason to act right based on Kantian Deontology. They make frauds for allowing the cars to falsely pass the emissions test. Their action didn’t Respect their consumer, they give some of their consumer a car that actually failed the emission test which is can make a disadvantageous for the customer. They also did not do Universalisable, in this case they don’t tell the truth about their goods. They also do not respect the autonomy of their consumer, they banned the autonomy for its consumer to choose which kind of cars they …show more content…
The Liberty Principle shows that each person have an equal rights to have freedom, however the freedom of one limited by others. For example in Indonesia a company have a rights to throw their pollution into the lake or river, however villager near the river also have the rights to protect the environment. With these company cannot just behave like the way they want, they also need to pay attention to the environment near the company, and the solution for this example is to recycle their pollution so it will not harm the near environment.so right now Indonesia company are using CSR program in order to reduce the pollution they caused. The Social and Economics inequalities tells that even though there are unbalanced between the distribution of the social and economics parts, however it still be okay if an improvement for this part is still a beneficial thing to get for the least beneficial person, for example Service company like Hotel of Indonesia, the improvement of this hotel of course will bring more wealth to its owner and employee, even though the distribution of wealth is unbalanced between all the stakeholder, it’s still a good chance to have, because the wealthier the company the more service they can provide to their
production on equal terms and conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and privileges. . . ." In other words, it is right for government to intervene with the affairs of businesses to stop corruption and better the United States rather than allow wealthy industrialists to take away people's freedom.
The right motive is to do the right thing, or to do one’s duty. According to Kant, the only good thing in itself is a good will, because evil is seen as a mistake in reasoning or error in logic. As a result, even a good action could be evil if it is not done with a good will (right intention), because it would be the result of mistaken reasoning. Right reasoning always leads to doing things for the right reason, which is the same as Kant’s concept of good will. While other good actions may have a certain quality to them, they are not good in themselves due to the faulty reasoning.
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
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...
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
Kant believed that morality has to be something free and freely controlled by the person taking the moral action excluding consequences because consequences are not controllable. Morality is freely chosen and legislated universal law that any rational being could construct and all rational beings who want to be moral do
Kant held that nothing was good in itself except good will. In other words, no action, in and of itself, was either wrong or right. Only the motive of the actor lent the action its morality. If a person acted out of a vested interest (because of a possible consequence) then the act was non-moral—it had no moral implications whatsoever. But, if a person acted because she thought she was doing the right thing, then she was acting out of good will and the act was a moral act.
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
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...
Over the course of this essay, I will present the reader with information on Kant’s Deontology, including, but not limited to, explaining how Immanuel Kant discerns what is morally right and morally wrong. I will then apply these criterion to case number two, and attempt to accurately portray what Kant’s Deontology dictates is the morally correct response. Following this determination, I will show the reader that although Kant’s moral reasoning will lead us to a definitive answer, we should not be so quick to accept it. Interestingly enough, he seems to lead us to what would generally be the correct answer, but perhaps not in the given circumstance and not for the right reason.
Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.
Deontology is a rationale of thinking that attempts to determine the grounds for which morals are formed. It was formed by Immanuel Kant in disagreeance to Bentham’s Utilitarianism. Deontology creates easy to follow rules, such as, “Don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t steal.” If you do anything that violates these simple rules, you are acting morally wrong. Deontology also states that you are meant to perform your duty. Kant argues that if everyone were to follow these rules and perform your assigned duty, you will be acting morally correct. Deontology is also not outcome based, like utilitarianism is.
I am going to argue why it is okay to tell as small lie to a friend in order to spare their feelings. I am going to touch on two ethical models, these being, Utilitarianism and Deontology. The individual that is a Utilitarian is Jeremy Bentham and the Deontologist is Immanuel Kant. I will be sharing their ideas and explaining why Jeremy Bentham’s ideas are more defensible than Kant’s ideas. I believe that if you are a good friend, it is important for you to keep the most optimal happiness between your friends and yourself. With Bentham's theory, Utilitarianism, the overall goal is to make the most people happy (Bentham 1). If the storyline of a lie is what makes the most people happy, Benthem says it is okay to lie. For Kant, a person is never
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we
Philosophy may literally mean the ‘love of wisdom’ as it is deprived from two Greek words (Hales, 2012, p. vii), but as a whole is much more than the love of wisdom and critical reflection; it is more about “giving good reasons for one’s non-empirical beliefs…[and] to give arguments for believing claims about nature of the self, or the existence of God, or moral duty, or the value of knowledge” (Hales, 2012, p. vii). Therefore, I agree that philosophy also sheds light on many disciplines centrally explored. For the purpose of this essay I will discuss deontology, the philosophy of religion and touch bass on other disciplines slightly as a reference to how philosophy sheds light on many disciplines.