Ethics refers to what people consider good or bad and right or wrong. It is a theory dealing with values that relate to human behaviour; with respect to their actions and purpose. The two most important philosophers that deal with ethics are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant’s ethical theory is Kantianism or deontological ethics. Mill’s ethical theory is utilitarianism. Both philosophers’ theories have many differences; Kant’s theory deals with conduct, seeking reason for good action in duty. Mill’s theory deals with consequences and maximizing human happiness. However both Kant and Mill’s ethics relate to the important biblical principal of the Golden Rule.
What makes actions right? For some philosophers it is their consequences, like the pleasure or happiness that they produce. However for a deontologist like Immanuel Kant, rightness is the action itself and the obligation to perform it. His ethics is a theory of how a person should act, the actual action and morality of the action. It entails that as long as a person acts in a moral way then the consequences of the actions do not matter. “For Kant, doing the right thing is not a matter of one’s character or disposition or circumstance – all of which are or might be beyond one’s control. Instead, it is the matter of duty, acting out of respect for the moral law.” (Stangroom, J. & Garvey, J. 2005, p.79) Moral Laws are a system of guidelines for controlling human behaviour; like society laws. The Ten Commandments set by Moses are moral laws with the commands of a divine being, moral laws can be a set of universal rules that everyone should abide by. Kant argues that: “The moral law cannot be hypothetical in nature, cannot be of the form, ‘if you want such and such, do so...
... middle of paper ...
...ould not want to be the one that is killed and you also can’t not kill because you would want to be one of the two people that are saved. As for Mill his ethics state that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It cannot be the same as the Golden Rule because Mill believes that pleasure is better than pain and that one should act in a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However comparing to the Golden Rule treat others as how you would want to be treated – let’s say you like the feeling of pain, you would treat others with pain but Mill says that pleasure is better than pain and pain does not produce happiness. Overall one believes that both Kant and Mill’s ethics do essential relate to the Golden Rule but they cannot be the same as the Golden Rule.
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
According to consequentialist theory, a right action is one that maximizes the good. Utility, or the greatest happiness principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The greatest happiness principle also holds that the right action increases total amount of utility in the world: “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent 's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 5). The principle of Utility states that “…happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain…” (Mill 2). An action is right if it maximizes the good, that being happiness, as it is the only thing that is
Ethics is defined by as the “branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Ethics are the principles that shape individual lives in modern society. It is a subjective idea that seems to have a standard in society. Ethics and morals are the major factors that guide individuals to make right and wrong choices. Something that is morally right to one person might be the very opposite of what another person would view as right. There are many factors that can trigger a change in an individual’s view of morality.
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
“The categorical imperative, which declares the action for itself as objectively necessary without reference to any aim, i.e., also without any other end, is valid as an apodictically practical principle, (Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd Section, Immanuel Kant, 1797). The killing of animals is necessary because it provides certain vitamins and minerals needed for survival; but sometimes killing can be taken to extremes. By using these animals as a means to an end, or as a tool for survival is could be disputed that Kant would not be in favor because there is only personal gain through these actions. “The theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain,” (Utilitarianism, Chapter 2, John Stuart Mill, 1863). The killing through sport is morally unethical because it doesn’t not serve a purpose for the greater good, which could lead us to believe that Mill would not have been an advocator of the sport but he would be for the sake of survival because humans use there time more usefully than
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
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 rights theory, according to Kant. He believes that moral principles are universal, and that all rational human beings are expected to conform to moral reasoning. Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals.... ... middle of paper ... ...
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
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
[1] Ethics is defined as “the code of moral principles and values that governs the behaviour of a person or a group with respect to what is right or wrong” (Samson and Daft, 2005, p.158)
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.
Ethics is a system of moral principles and a branch of philosophy which defines what is acceptable for both individuals and society. It is a philosophy that covers a whole range of things that have an importance in everyday situations. Ethics are vital in everyones lives, it includes human values, and how to have a good life, our rights and responsibilities, moral decisions what is right and wrong, good and bad. Moral principles affect how people make decisions and lead their lives (BBC, 2013). There are many different beliefs about were ethics come from. These consist of; God and Religion, human conscience, the example of good human beings and a huge desire for the best for people in each unique situation, and political power (BBC, 2013).