Growing up us as humans are put in situations where we learn what is the moral thing to do and non- moral just by our upbringing like religion, culture, and our race. This is called Ethics, which are one of the major branches of philosophy that systematize, defend, and recommend concepts of right and wrong conduct. With that being said, there are different kind of ethical approaches different philosophers discovered/ believed in, which lay in the structure of consequentialist (the consequence of an action), Deontological ( duty, obligation, inclination, intention), and teleological ( striving to be a certain kind of person or fulfilling a kind of purpose ). In this paper I’m going to be defending Kant’s deontological theory which is a non-consequentialist …show more content…
Kant’s deontological moral theory is a non-consequentialist theory that is well-known for his view of human beings as having the unique capacity for rationality. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that studied and wrote on philosophy, science, geography, beauty, war, and peace. He believed that every theory of ethics must recognize our autonomy, which is freedom to lead a self-directed life. Kant claimed that humans were inherently valuable for who they are and not for what value they can be for others. Deontological which means theory of duty was influenced by the Ancient Stoics, who stated that rather than stress over things we can’t control the key to morality and happiness is internal and a matter of our will and true intentions and we shouldn’t be accountable for things beyond our control. It is not a theory that focuses on the consequences of an action, but only did you do your moral duty as a person. For example, if you noticed a kid drowning and you decided to help this kid even though you know you can’t swim and the kid ended up drowning anyways and passing away, though the consequences of this situation is unpleasant because of the passing away of the kid, trying to save this …show more content…
It holds two versions which is individual ethical egoism, all persons should serve my self-interest and universal ethical egoism, all people should pursue their own interest exclusively. Where utilitarianism focuses on the well-being of all ethical egoism is all about “ME”. A big concern with ethical egoism is that they are looked upon as being selfish because they are always seeking their own self-interest no matter what. In order for an ethical egoist to promote their own interest as much as possible they would have to keep their ethical egoist a secret in order to benefit from someone else’s action. If not, than they may not be the beneficiary since others may not want to benefit someone who only purses their own interest. Dealing with an ethical egoist seems as though you are always using someone, whereas deontological requires you to treat people with respect and never use them as a mean. I truly believe that the reason things function in this world has to do a lot with all of us helping each other out and not wanting anything in return or trying to benefit from it. And with us doing that we do it because we feel like it’s our duty whether it’s helping a friend, family member, our children, or even a
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
Deontology is when an action is considered morally good because of the action itself not the product of the action ("Deontological Ethics"). When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
On September 11, 2001, this country was under attack and thousands of Americans died at the hands of terrorists. This action caused the U.S. Military to invade Iraq because of the idea that this country was involved in harboring terrorist and were believed to have weapons of mass destruction. This was an executive order that came down from our government, for us to go in and attack Iraq while searching for those who were responsible for the death of American lives. This war brought in many prisoners whom were part of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, whom the military took into custody many of its lower level members to get tips in capturing higher level members. During the detainees stay at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, many of these prisoners
Deontological theory is a “theory of duty” (book). This theory focuses on what is right. It focuses on the duties that we have for ourselves and for one another. Jermey Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, was the inventor of deontological. He believed that this theory was guided in the same direction as the principle of utility. However, today deontological theories shows contrast with utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, who is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher, saw deontology as something that contradicts utilitarianism. The utilitarian theories focus on consequences over what is right. They focus on the quality and quantity of happiness that an action brings. Kant emphasizes that we “are worthy of happiness only when we
Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. In order to make the correct moral choices, we need to understand what duties and morals exist for us as individuals and as a society and how we need to follow them. We will be behaving morally when we follow our duty, and behaving immorally when we fail to follow our duty, no matter what the condition of that duty may be. Ty...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics is rooted in deontology. Describing Kant’s ethics as deontological means that they are derivative of mankind’s moral duty. For Kant, this critical component of ethics is an extension of Hume’s fork as it creates a third category, which is synthetic Apriori. This category is comprised of math, ethics and causality. His rules-based ethics revolves around the good will, as deontology in its nature revolves around adhering to the rules. Kant says that intelligence is great by nature, but means very little unless you apply them in virtuous and good will. In order for something to be truly good, it must be intrinsically good and without qualification.
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.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
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]
Deontology in Immanuel Kant’s point of view is all about duty and not inclination of morality. For example, the First Proposition of Morality is an action that must be done from duty to have moral worth (298). In other words, if one were feeling generous and wanted to give money to the ones who really need it, this technically would not be moral worthy according to Kant. The reason why for this is because that person did not do it out of duty but instead out of free will. For one’s action to have moral worth, it could be an example of one going to work everyday. Everyone has their own specific job to do at work and that is their duty. All in all, Kant views that deontology must come from an action of duty in order for it to be moral worthy and it is not the consequences that determines what is right or wrong.
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
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.
What I have found to be most interesting about both Deontology and Utilitarianism isn’t their approach to ethics, but rather their end goal. Deontology promotes “good will” as the ultimate good; it claims that each and every person has duties to respect others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general happiness. While these may sound rather similar at first glance (both ethical theories essentially center around treating people better), a deeper look reveals different motivations entirely. Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity. Utilitarianism does not specify any means by which to obtain happiness—happiness is its only mandate. While happiness sounds like a great end goal, it is a rather impractical one and the lack of consideration of motivations and means of utility-increasing actions has some serious negative consequences. I prefer Deontology over Utilitarianism for its focus on individual’s rights, opportunity, and personal autonomy.