Kantian Ethics focuses on duties, rights, obligations, or principles. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act as if what action we decide would become universal law. The difficult part is determining whose duties and rights to abide by. Examining duty to the employer, duty to friendship, and duty to self is vital. Countless duties to an employer seem evident. I have a duty to work with reasonable knowledge and skill, I have a duty to be act in the interest of the company, and I have a duty to not take bribes. Simply stating my duties does not easily translate into practice. My duty to be honest and to not disclose confidential information complicates my decisions. My boss has specifically told me not to speak with anyone …show more content…
else about the problem. Therefore, as the duty to my employer suggests, I should simply quit, and keep quiet about the situation. The Chief Executive Officer of the chemical refinery happens to be a friend of mine.
Together, we have worked together on previous endeavors. After getting hired on as CEO, she specifically recruited me. The duty of loyalty and respect to her prevents me from crossing her. Under the duty to friendship, I feel I should resign and keep quiet about the leeching sludge situation. Melissa Fahmy, who wrote, “Self-Improvement: An Essay in Kantian Ethics,” mentions that a distinctive characteristic of Kantian ethics is the duty that one owes to him or herself (Fahmy, 2013). I have not been sleeping at night, and I cannot possibly keep the leakage secret for two more years. The significant values I embrace comprise of honesty, compassion, and family. I know that I cannot let the Navajo community stay in the dark about their futures, but I cannot let my family down either. My duty to myself tells me to keep my job, but whistle-blow. Finally, I ask myself: “If I was to whistle-blow, would I want this to become universal law?” The direct part of this question is easy, as a compassionate person with character, I would always want to protect communities from harmful ground water. The underlying question is what needs to be examined. Would I want everyone to whistle-blow for a similar situation? How certain am I? The company agrees that there is a strong possibility that the tanks are leaking harmful chemicals into the ground. I feel because the possibility is strong, whistle-blowing is …show more content…
acceptable. VIII. Rawlsian Justice Analysis Rawlsian justice requires you to look at situations through a “veil of ignorance.” John Rawl believed that after putting people from all walks of life under such a veil, and they came out not knowing anything about themselves, they would be completely neutral. Rawl’s believed, under the veil of ignorance, that social order—based on moral standards—is established when everyone is on the same playing field (Freeman, 2014). John Rawl’s focused on “justice as fairness.” So what would that mean for each of the stakeholders? Morally, leaving the Navajo reservation without safe water would be wrong. What if I was Navajo? If I was placed under the veil of ignorance, I would want to live in a world where all significant information relating to my health was required to be disclosed. Clearly, no one would want to live in a world where their health was left to chance. The case of the shareholders is similar to the Navajo nation. If I did not know anything about the world or who I was, I would require companies to release all potentially beneficial or harmful information prior to me buying their stock. This would elevate poor decision making, if I was looking for a stable investment with guaranteed returns. In the case of the company, if I was looking through a Rawlsian perspective I would not know what is good or bad for business. Instead, I would to lead the company to be trustworthy, honest, and fair. Therefore, I would want to be honest with the people in hopes that no matter what my business would be saved. VX. Summary and Conclusion After weighing all decision alternatives using Utilitarian ethics, Kantian analysis, and Rawlsian Justice Techniques, I feel comfortable in my decision to stay with the company, and whistle-blow.
The harmful effects of leeching sludge are relatively certain, and the damage could directly affect an entire community of people. While wearing my Utilitarian hat, I know that keeping quiet jeopardizes the Navajo reservation, potential stockholders, and society’s trust in the company. While using Kantian ethics analysis, I know that the duty to myself requires me to be honest and compassionate. Finally, after analyzing the problem using Rawlsian Justice, I realize that if I took friendship, family, and loyalty out of the equation, a group of reasonable people would come to the same conclusion that whistle-blowing is the only
option. The ethics of whistle-blowing state that I should be reasonably certain and have good intentions. I believe that my sole intention for whistle-blowing lies with my compassion for the reservation. Therefore, I have decided that I should first approach the CEO one more time in order to try to persuade her to rethink the issue. If she blows me off, I will discuss with my family in order to reaffirm what I am doing is right. Next, I will contact the ethics board and legal to see if they can force the CEO to change her mind. If I still fail, I will contact the Environmental Protection Agency for their guidance. In order to give adequate respect to the company, I will not contact the press. Finally, if nothing is done after all of my attempts, I will have no choice but to leave the company and keep my reputation and character. Making a decision for the stakeholders would be irresponsible without combining multiple analyses to the situation. Whatever career field you are included in will test your ethics, and the more you prepare for situations specific to your industry the better chance you have at making the “right” decision. Trust is the ultimate goal at all levels, including trust in yourself, trust in your company, trust in your community, and trust in society. Once trust is broken, the ability for an individual, group, or society to take risks diminishes. As a direct result, the ability to make money at all levels is hindered, leaving no choice but for overregulation, extreme government systems, outrageous rules, and an overall broken society.
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.
Duty and reason often conflict for an individual. An example that Kant uses is lying. When you lie, you expect that other people will believe your lie, you believe this because the universal law is that you should be truthful. In this situation you have expected that the universal law you should live by is to be truthful, but you have also decided that you are going to allow yourself to make an exception to this universal law and lie.
According to Kant “… nothing can protect us from a complete falling away from our idea of duty and preserve in the soul a well-grounded respect for duty’s law except the clear conviction that, even if there never have been actions springing from such pure source, the question at issue here is not whether this or that happened but that reason of itself and independently of all experience commands what ought to happen.” (Kant, Page 20(lines 407-412)). Kant points out that the duty is done not because of the ends but because of what is fundamentally good or
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
According to Kant, by acting out of moral duty we as humans fulfill the moral law to which we act out of respect for it. The moral law, which is also known as the categorical imperative, is Kant’s notion that man acts based on a, “universal maxim” without conditions (Groundwork pg.392). Kant’s notion of a categorical imperative is associated with objective ends. In other words, it declares what is right, not for individuals, but for mankind as a whole. Humanity, which comes from Kant’s notion of the categorical imperative, is understood, “as an end, never as a means” (Holtman pg.105). That is vital in comprehending Kant’s proposal that we as humans are the only beings capable of acting on the basis of policies or plans (Johnson pg.21), or in accordance with moral law. Unlike animals, humanity to humans is not something that serves to satisfy one’s instinctual pleasures, it is instead something which guards our existence through which man attains life. It is from this
Kant’s categorical imperative can provide a set of rules to formulate what a good person is and should do. Kantian philosophy is deontological and it requires people to always do their duty. Kant does not forbid feeling good or happiness, but it must be the case that each person can fulfill their duty even if they did not enjoy doing it. In summary, in order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative and I have provide justifications to use it in our daily day lives.
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
...to lie on occasion as result of better results or to not harm the other person. For example, if a teenager does not tell his parents he snuck out and drove their car then he avoids punishment if he simply says he never went out. Also, if a girl does not like the dress her friend is wearing but still says she does, then she lies for the benefit of her friend rather than causing harm. Although people still lie, they are still able to act morally in accordance with universal law. Overall, I believe it depends on the circumstances and individual on whether or not humans are obligated to act morally because morality is for the sake of the individual while obligation would be for the sake of others or the community. As a result, rather than a moral “obligation” to act, it should be replaced by desire so that people would want to act a certain way instead of feeling forced.
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
Kant made a distinction between two types of duties which are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are rules or duties people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Hypothetical imperatives are sometimes called “if-then” imperatives, which are condit...
Kant’s first example in which he applies his principle is suicide. He argues that if a man takes his own life, he may be fulfilling his personal duty by taking away his pain, but he would then be inflicting pain on others, and would not be fulfilling his personal duty to those who would have lost him.
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...
There are many different ethical theories that we have learned about throughout the semesters. The three theories I have decided to use in arguing about same sex marriage are Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and Kant’s Theory. With each ethical theory, I will state why I chose the theory that addresses the situation and discuss the pros and cons of each of the theories.
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
In this chapter I will explain Immanuel Kant concept of what is right and how the categorical imperative plays an important role in his moral philosophy.