G5 oneil

•Download as PPT, PDF•

0 likes•308 views

This document discusses Kant's formulation of the Categorical Imperative and its application to issues of justice, beneficence, and treating others as ends in themselves. It examines how the maxim of reducing world hunger could be satisfied through individual contributions, government aid, or volunteering. It also discusses how using others as mere means violates the Categorical Imperative if what we do does not allow for their consent. Finally, it analyzes how justice requires protecting the autonomy of vulnerable populations and how beneficence may be needed to treat distant others facing extreme deprivation as ends in themselves.

A Simplified Version of Kant’s Ethics: Onora O’Neill ,[object Object],[object Object]

What is a maxim? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Using Others as Mere Means ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Treating Others as Ends in Themselves: ,[object Object],[object Object]

Justice and Beneficence ,[object Object],[object Object]

Justice to the Vulnerable in Kantian Thinking ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Justice to the Vulnerable (cont.) ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

A presentation held by Tabea Hirzel at the SMCU Residency with Prof. Hardy Boullion. Abstract. “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” [CITATION Noz74 \l 2055 ] is a work in the libertarian tradition of constitutional theory in which Robert Nozick sets up an explanation why societies are organized as states and how these states came to be. His major point is to justify the state and the state’s actions morally. Nozick bases his theory on the normative paradigm of rights held by individuals where the act of violating them is considered unfair and unjust [ CITATION Lef79 \l 2055 ]. Starting from a state-of-nature theory he defines rights as redistributive side constrains [CITATION Noz74 \p 32 \l 2055 ] leading to what he denominates his “entitlement theory” from which, by each and every one’s primordial intention to protect one’s own rights, emerges the state in an evolutionary process based on free exchange of obligations and rights. This theory defines the minimal state as the ideal form and any further extended state as illegitimate, following that its extension could only come in existence by violation of individual rights only. Even though his theory remains at the end unreliable its moral justification [ CITATION Bar77 \l 2055 ] or “incoherent” in his explanatory attempt [ CITATION Dav77 \l 2055 ], his approach based on rights where people as free agents use moral values as functions towards the goal of the individuals higher happiness is revolutionary in constitutional theories and future theories may find a rich foundation to build on its dynamics.

Chapter 8dborcoman

Theory of justice

Aman Thakur

What's hot

Rawls and Nozick on Economic justiceAndrew Marx

John rawls (1921 2002) – a briefaquinaspolitics

Justice Theory

Michael Willey

John rawls power point update

kayleigh1992

Chapter # 3

Syed Muhammad ALi Shah

12 of Karma's Laws that Can Change Your Life

OH TEIK BIN

John rawlsA B

Global distributive justice

National Law School of India University, Bangalore

Complexity & Humanity 2.0

Jane Young

Utiliteriansim chapter 5 lecture

Mut Somoeun

Jurisprudence - Devlin, Mill and Hart Regarding Moral and Law

surrenderyourthrone

Consequence Ethics Presentation- Fall 2016

Andrea Kwamya

Benthamite Approach to Aggregate Welfare

jaheermuktharkp

What's hot (13)

Rawls and Nozick on Economic justice

John rawls (1921 2002) – a brief

Justice Theory

John rawls power point update

Chapter # 3

12 of Karma's Laws that Can Change Your Life

John rawls

Global distributive justice

Complexity & Humanity 2.0

Utiliteriansim chapter 5 lecture

Jurisprudence - Devlin, Mill and Hart Regarding Moral and Law

Consequence Ethics Presentation- Fall 2016

Benthamite Approach to Aggregate Welfare

Viewers also liked

Kant power pointewolterb

Immanuel Kant - An 18th Century Western Philosopher

mukeshjhedu

Kant - Explain Categorical Imperativeguestff6a39

Emmanuel Kant Ethics

lion1895

Immanuel KantRhy

Kantt0nywilliams

Viewers also liked (6)

Kant power point

Immanuel Kant - An 18th Century Western Philosopher

Kant - Explain Categorical Imperative

Emmanuel Kant Ethics

Immanuel Kant

Kant

Similar to G5 oneil

A Critique Of Utilitarianism

Andrew Molina

G5 kantDr. Mark C. Vopat

Should education promote absolute moral principles in society(1)

University of Johannesburg

Bioethics Schools of ThoughtJofred Martinez

1Kantian Ethics1724-1804Spent virtually all of his life in

AnastaciaShadelb

1 Kantian Ethics 1724-1804 Spent virtually all of his life in Konigsberg, East Prussia. From a Lutheran family. Never married. Immanuel Kant 1 2 Distinguish Utilitarianism—Teleological Theory Goal directed Kantian Ethics—Deontological Theory Duty based 2 3 Kant’s Moral Theory Kant wanted to “seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality.” 3 4 Morality and Rationality For Kant, all of morality has its ultimate source in rationality. The categorical imperative, in any formulation, is an expression of rationality, and it is the principle that would be followed in practice by any purely rational being. 4 5 Morality and Rationality Moral rules are not mere arbitrary conventions or subjective standards. They are objective truths that have their source in the rational nature of human beings. 5 6 Autonomy For Kant, morality presupposes autonomy. Autonomous = not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed. 6 7 Consequences are Morally Irrelevant For Kant, the consequences of an action are morally irrelevant. Rather, an action is right when it is in accordance with a rule that satisfies a principle he calls the “categorical imperative.” 7 8 Categorical Imperative And to act out of respect for the law means to follow the “categorical imperative.” Cf. Hypothetical Imperative 8 9 Categorical Imperative Kant’s moral theory centers around the categorical imperative. “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.” 9 10 Universality You must be willing to see your maxim universalized (by similarly situated persons) even though it may turn out on some other occasion to work to your disadvantage. 10 11 Psychological Agreement Not Required For a maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative, it is not necessary that we be agreeable in some psychological sense to seeing it made into a universal law. Rather, the test is one that requires us to avoid inconsistency or conflict in what we will as a universal rule. 11 12 Similar Cases = Similar Treatment All things being equal, justice dictates that similarly situated people ought to be treated similarly. 12 13 Other Formulations “I am never to act unless I am acting on a maxim that I can will to become a universal law.” “Act as if the maxims you choose to follow always become universal laws of nature.” “Act so as to treat people as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.” ...

Ethics Chapter 2slm1085

Week 2 ethical theories pptSraMrsich

Lesson 2juditt

Overview of ethics and information technology

SJBennett228

Chapter 2 _Session 5 _ 6 _ 7_.pptx

FarrukhMasood4

C) immanuel kantlawrenceandre

Utilitarianism Ethics

NixonPalivino

Deontological Ethics by Christine Wandolo

Christine Wandolo

Deontological Ethics Christine Wandolo

Christine Wandolo

Sandel intro

nstearns

GuidanceUtilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart MillUti.docx

whittemorelucilla

Guidance Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism associates the notion of “good” in relation to “happiness” or “pleasure,” if we can understand these words in the widest possible sense. See below for Bentham's appeal to "pain and pleasure" as the "masters" of humankind. This view of what is “good” is referred to as “hedonism.” Hedonism is a word which some may be familiar with in a negative, pejorative sense. This is not surprising, since the idea of “hedonism” have long been used disparagingly as a charge against people who seem to seek their own pleasure, without concern for the welfare or interests of others. Concern for happiness or pleasure does not need to be taken in such a narrow way. Many religious traditions from Buddhism, Christianity (particularly the “Puritans” who immigrated to the Americas from England) and Islam, amongst others, have emphasized denial of bodily pleasure and enjoyment, preferring sacrifice of self and denial of the body as ideals, making the idea of “hedonism” as source for ethical judgment seem contradictory to many people. These religious traditions tend to portray the pursuit of pleasure as “sinful,” distracting from what they take to be more important pursuits like worshiping of a God, or preparation for death. But even many versions of these religious traditions also seek or promise some form of “happiness” or “pleasure” to those who follow their ways (though, such happiness is often supposedly found in another realm after death.) The joys or pleasures we seek are not always the immediate product of our actions. We may in fact choose to do less than pleasant things for the sake of achieving some sought goal, which will then bring about happiness. We might consider the example of going to the dentist and getting our teeth drilled as one such activity. *(Note, I would like to contend from my own experience that if one uses local anesthesia and has a competent dentist, there shouldn't really be pain involved.) The following excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy adds some important, general considerations regarding the philosophy of utilitarianism: "utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good. The classical utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’. Utili ...

NATURAL-LAW-THEORY.pdf

ssuser632e6b1

Ethics Lecture 2012David Phillips

Helping behaivior.pptx

PilloJeramy

Pojman ethics 8e_ppt_ch08

dborcoman

Similar to G5 oneil (20)

A Critique Of Utilitarianism

G5 kant

Should education promote absolute moral principles in society(1)

Bioethics Schools of Thought

1Kantian Ethics1724-1804Spent virtually all of his life in

Ethics Chapter 2

Week 2 ethical theories ppt

Lesson 2

Overview of ethics and information technology

Chapter 2 _Session 5 _ 6 _ 7_.pptx

C) immanuel kant

Utilitarianism Ethics

Deontological Ethics by Christine Wandolo

Deontological Ethics Christine Wandolo

Sandel intro

GuidanceUtilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart MillUti.docx

NATURAL-LAW-THEORY.pdf

Ethics Lecture 2012

Helping behaivior.pptx

Pojman ethics 8e_ppt_ch08

G5 oneil

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to G5 oneil

Similar to G5 oneil (20)

More from Dr. Mark C. Vopat

More from Dr. Mark C. Vopat (12)

G5 oneil

Editor's Notes