More handpicked essays just for you.
The discussion between mill and kant about ethics
What Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s ideas were on ethics
John stuart mill kantian ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the following, I will present the hypothetical case of Superman vs. Lex Luthor; it is wrong for Superman to prevent Lex Luthor from obtaining his goal of world domination. Luthor is a villain, his actions are “evil,” which is the reason Superman and Luther are in conflict; but Luthor believes that “the ends justify the means” meaning although his actions are disagreeable, his end goal is to better humanity as a whole. I will then analyses the case according to three ethical theories, namely Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill.
On one end of the spectrum lays Superman, an alien who from birth is comparable to god, and on the opposite side lays Lex Luthor, a genius human who comes from nothing and created a financial empire. Superman
…show more content…
Lex Luthor is a genius in the fields of business management, political science, leadership, and all sorts of sciences. Luthor is able to apply his knowledge to make …show more content…
Superman’s character of always doing the right thing, follows along with Kant’s theories more than the others. Immanuel Kant’s accounts is most plausible in this case. The choices Superman makes are always done out of perfect duty. The concept of categorical imperative, follows along with the majority of the actions Superman takes. Superman’s decision making is done out of good will which is a “good in itself.” Some might say that Aristotle’s accounts is most plausible in this case. Everything about Aristotle’s ethical theories points to Superman performs virtuous acts which leads to a life of happiness. Lex’s actions not only harms others, but also harms his chances of cultivating a virtuous character. The drawback of Aristotle’s theory in Superman’s case is Superman’s longevity. Aristotle’s theory, makes it so that one can only obtain happiness at the end of their lives; there is no telling what the future holds, Superman might not always take the correct actions. In the case of Mill’s theory, one can see that neither of Superman’s identities seek out higher pleasures; one only sees him live his life day by day; either stopping the bad guys or writing articles about bad guys. So out of the three theories Kant’s is most plausible for this
Society favors the outlaw hero because we relate with that character more. We see ourselves more so in the outlaw hero than in the official hero. The outlaw hero has the child like talents that most of us wish we had as adults. To civilians it may seem that the outlaw hero lives more of a fantasy life that we all wish to have. Superman’s image has remained unchanged over the years. A blue suit accompanied by boots, a belt and cape have always been the Superman style, along with the Superman emblem on his chest. Superman’s real name is Kal-El, a descendant of the Kryptonian family of the house of El, with his father known as Jor-El and mother Lara. Krypton was discovered to be in the last seconds of life due to the coming supernova of its sun by Kal-El’s father. The other members of Krypton did not believe Jor-El could not tell others of his answers and examinations. Jor-El promised that neither he nor his wife would leave and with every last possible choice eliminated, Jor-El would send his newborn son to the planet Earth. Kal-El then crash landed into the care of Jonathan and Martha Kent, two farmers in Kansas. He then adopted the Kent family name,...
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
She is depicted as a woman who Lex Luthor only has due to her appearance. This is misogynistic as it provides the assumption that men are more superior and intelligent than women
The mythology of Superman is a paradigm that embodies the cultural reality of the era; constructed around an archetype of ideology, fantasies of human spiritual ambiguity, a religious messiah, and a semiotic representation of modernity. In further study, Superman can be identified to have specifically changed to adhere to American culture in three distinctive periods; midst the Great Depression and WWII, post WWII and finally the socially progressive change of the Vietnam period. In each chapter Superman was re-imagined to meet the definition of the period, a tool of propaganda over that of entertainment. Currently, America is entering a new phase of cultural shift, and thus Superman will be redefined to represent the ideologies of truth, justice, and the American way of that required era. Yet, the mere surface mythology of Superman has applications to cultural ideologies, questions of human freedom, dreams in a Freudian nature, and the complex relation of fantasy and reality which required introduction before in-depth research.
In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of
Grossman, Lev. "The Problem with Superman." TIME Magazine. Www.time.com, 10 May 2004. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. .
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
Kant opens up Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by saying, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will,” and it is with this sentence that he introduces his idea of non-consequentialism (p. 151). Non-consequentialism can be described as a philosophical theory that states that the morality of our behaviour does not depend on the consequences of our actions, but instead depends on the intent with which we perform these actions. With this piece of writing, Kant attempts to delve deeper into the principles of human morality, discover what makes an action right or wrong, and determine the correct motives for performing any action.
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Immanuel Kant." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 404-16. Print.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant 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.
The Utilitarian moral perspective and Kant’s moral perspective offer fundamentally contrasting ethical philosophies based on the theoretical reasoning behind choosing a particular action. One difference between these theories is that Kantianism focuses on the intentions and moral obligation behind our actions, while Utilitarians emphasize on the consequences of our actions. According to Kant, one should act according to a maxim or personal principle that guides decisions. These intentions propose rules to oneself when deciding what to do (p.127, Weston). To test if one’s motives are ethical, they must decide if this is a rule that they would want everyone else to follow. Utilitarians deem an act unethical based on the
Now with both of these normative ethical theories in mind, what will be presented in this paper is how does this portray to the movie, The Dark Knight. So before watching this movie, it has been decided that a thesis statement must be created. The thesis will be that the Dark Knight also known as Batman is a Utilitarian hero. Not seeing this movie before, it is unaware of what ethical theory category the Dark Knight will fall under. Therefore it will be a surprise either way with what kind of results that will be
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.
Moral duty and moral law can be expressed as categorical imperative. We must look at categorical imperatives in order to determine what we ought to do regardless of what we want to happen. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle that results. What is essentially good consists in the mental disposition of consequences that result without it being interfered. Kant’s great moral principle, categorical imperative, has to be a priori.