Kantian Ethical Analysis Essay

Kantian Ethical Analysis Essay
Decision Alternatives: Currently the Vice President is faced with a daunting decision. The CEO has clearly expressed her position not to disclose the
company's situation. The knowledge of the chemically contaminated tanks, buried beneath company headquarters, is entrusted to a few key
individuals. I would now like to discuss another author by the name of Peter A. French. In an excerpt of "The Corporation as a Moral Person" French
states, "corporations can be full–fledged moral persons and have whatever privileges, rights and duties as are in the normal course of affairs accorded
to moral persons" (French, 1979). Peter French argues that corporations have "responsibility relationships." By identifying who is responsible, one can
simultaneously determine who is liable. Corporations, as Peter French would argue, have a social responsibility.
When discussing alternative...show more content...
Immanuel Kant argued the idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that applies to all individuals. The categorical
imperative is the same for everyone. Kant also believed that individuals should be ends in themselves. This school of thought also focuses on an
individual's duty. One should not lie because it is their duty not to lie. The individual should not be concerned with the consequences of an action, and
the individual should only focus on their individual responsibility. With the facts presented in this case, the Vice President has a duty not to lie.
Concealing the facts of the chemical container situation would not align with Kantian ethics. She should not be concerned with the consequences of
disclosing information, she should not be concerned with what her coworkers or outside individuals would think of her after disclosing the
information, and she should whistle–blow solely because it is her duty to do so. I will now interpret the case from the perspective of Rawlsian
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Kantian Ethics
One of the beautiful things about Kantian ethics is that it is based on the individual. The individual can decide if their actions are worth doing to
another person by weighing if the person would want the action done to them. The Kantian point of view is completely different from the Utilitarian
point of view because the Kantian point of view deals with the individual, whereas the Utilitarian point of view deals with the group and the needs of
the group. When you hear the words "basic human rights" or the word "right," normally that responds to the individual, and rights in many cases are
from the Kantian viewpoint. For instance, when a police officer responds to someone in need, they are responding from a Kantian viewpoint – the
...show more content...
How does that define humanity as an end? The givers understand that takers have to view them as equals; the takers must accept that givers provide
the beauty and acceptance that they need. Humanity is made up of people on both sides of the argument and those in between. By using one person, a
taker, in all actuality, forms a dependent relationship on that person, or group of people, to provide for their needs. A giver sustains a taker by
continuously giving them what they need.
Kant said that nothing was good in itself except for a good will. By will he meant the ability to act from principle; only when we act from a sense of
duty does our act have moral worth. We determine our duty by thecategorical imperative. An example of good will would be to use the "Golden Rule,"
do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant uses this to say that a person's actions are reflected in their actions toward another person. As
a person intends to do good to another person, that makes his effort fit within the categorical imperative. Kant believed that there was one command
that was binding on all rational agents–the categorical imperative, that says that we must always act so that the maxim of our action can be consistently
willed to be universal law. By maxim, Kant meant the principle or rule that people formulate to determine their conduct. If a maxim could

Kant 's Philosophy : Kantian Ethics
Jonathan Hulbert
Professor Fassbender
Philosophy 201N
April 26, 2015
Kantian Ethics
Society, as we know it, is only possible through humans acting in accordance with a universal moral code. Because we as humans are rational
beings and have free choice, we can make our own decisions, can hold ourselves to a standard that we ourselves set, and can act in accordance with
our standards, as well as set standards for our own society. However, these standards must be held, otherwise they hold no meaning. Kant uses a black
and white tactic, in order to determine which actions are moral and immoral. However, Kant's downfall is his strength. The black and white tactic
makes everything very clear, but it lacks the complexity needed to handle more sophisticated problems and decisions. Black and white does not take
into account all the shades of gray between, and Kant needs to take into account all the shades of factors that impact human decision–making.
Immanuel Kant, a Prussian Philosopher, developed Kantian morality. He believed that reason was enough to motivate humans to act and make
decisions. Kantian morality is a theory that is based upon duty, which means that one would act on something based off of certain rules that are in
place. Kant 's construction of the moral law is founded by the imperatives.
All imperative commands are either hypothetically or categorically. Hypothetical imperatives declare what you need to do in order to achieve what you
want. Categorical imperatives

Essay on Utilitarianism And Kantian Ethics
Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
Ethics is one part of philosophy that will always be studied, and like most subjects in philosophy, will never be viewed the same by everyone. There
are so many cultures that have so many different beliefs about the way a person's life should be lived out. Things like religion, poverty, and mental
health all contribute to our beliefs in ethics. Some people believe that the mental state of a person or the motive for that person committing a crime
should be factors when sentencing time comes. Others think that no matter the situation, a crime is a crime, and no compassion should be felt for the
guilty. In the studies of philosophy these beliefs are put into two categories:...show more content...
You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.
.Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. 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. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason:
the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course
of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in
these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before
proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by
everyone everywhere. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be

The Ethics Of Kantian Ethics
The impact of Kantian ethics has been truly extensive in the philosophical community for centuries now. Numerous philosophers have accepted,
disputed and further developed the Kantian style of ethics in the modern era. German philosopher Immanuel Kant has established a theory based on a
simple few concepts. Some of the key features of this theory are intrinsic goodness, moral worth and a few others that I will establish further later in
the essay. In this thesis I will be highlighting if consequences play a sufficiently important role in Kantian ethics. I will argue the case that according to
Kant, consequences do not play a sufficient enough role in his ethics, however I will be giving praise to some ideas he does bring up but I feel...show
more content...
One question that must be addressed is what exactly are moral consequences? What do consequences contain? According to Kantian ethics, the problem
with consequences is that that they are constantly out of our hands and very unpredictable. A quote that highlights the conflict with consequences can
be found in Kant's text. 'Even if by a special disfavor of fortune or by the niggardly provision of a step motherly nature, this will should wholly lack
the capacity to carry out its purpose––if with its greatest efforts it should achieve nothing and only the good will were left....then, like a jewel, it
would still shine by itself, as something that has full worth in itself' Kant, I (2012). What the quote expresses is that it makes reference to the good
will. If an individual's 'will' is pure and in line with what is morally right, it will shine through regardless of the consequence or outcome. There are also
a few others things that must be taken into account like intent and reason. When we discuss moral law we are only talking about the maxim, due to the
uncertainty of predicting consequences.
Immanuel Kant's literature titled practical philosophy contains numerous writings on his approach to moral philosophy. A chapter titled 'on a supposed
right to lie from philanthropy' is a segment from the book in which Kant deals with the problem regarding duty and

Kantian Ethics Vs Utilitarianism Essay
In my opinion I think Kantian Ethics is better than utilitarianism. Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism are the two major theories in ethics. They are
extremely different from one another. They both have have their "strengths" and "weaknesses". Overall Kant makes more sense to me than
utilitarianism. There are three main reasons I find Utilitarianism a flawed theory. Before I state my reasons it is important to know what Utilitarianism is
first. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that states that we should do the act that conducts the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
According to Utilitarianism, happiness is an intrinsic value. In other words, happiness in itself has value.
The first reason that I think Utilitarianism is...show more content...
I say this because in extreme situations happened. Utilitarianism is morally correct to lose people for the greater good. They never take into a
single person's rights and freedom. According to Shaw, A good example of this is where an innocent man is framed for rape in order to calm down
a rioting crowd. It is also argued that there is no credible method of measuring one's pleasure against another. Utilitarianism would have agreed with
this decisions all the riots would have stop any more people would be happy. They think arresting one man for no reason is completely justified here. I
really do think that man's feeling, rights, and freedoms should considered if we're going to make an ethical decision.
The biggest reason why people would choose utilitarianism over kantian theory is because Kantian is too rigid. There is no flexibility in his
methods. That maybe somewhat true but moral theories should be. They should consist of rules. That way people are more likely to abide by
them. For example, Kant believes "Lying is always wrong". So if some killer comes into your house asking for the location of your children. You can
lie. No one is going to force you to tell the truth. If you feel like your reasoning is good enough go ahead lie. You just know at the end of the day lying
is morally

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Teleology, an explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes, has found its place in the construction of many
systems of morality such as John Stuart Mill's theory of Utilitarianism. In teleological approaches to morality, questions of right and wrong, or the
notion what an individual ought to do, are determined by the consequences of a given action. One thinker to reject this idea of consequentialism was
Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant endeavors to establish a system of ethics that has no trace of the empirical
nature of utilitarianism. To him, "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it and so too does not lie in any principle of
In this situation, the ultimate action of the agent, Y, is contingent upon the initial condition of X. No matter how moral an action may appear to be
when examining its consequences, Kant argues that any conditional action cannot be moral because it does not have value in itself, but is rather a
response to the given condition X. Moral rules must be apodictic, and thus cannot be dependent upon variable factors.
Kant begins discussion on what does constitute moral actions in his description of duties and their motives. A duty is an obligation to be fulfilled or
abidance to a recognized law. Moral action is therefore determined by an action that is done for the sake of a duty, for the duty as an end in itself. It is
not the intended purposes of our actions, or the conditional ends of the hypothetical imperative, that determine an action's moral worth. It is "nothing
other than the representation of the law in itself...insofar as it and not the hoped–for effect is the determining ground of the will, can constitute the
preeminent good we call moral" (56). However, Kant here makes a careful distinction between acting for the sake of duty and in accordance with duty.
When acting in accordance with duty, you act because of some benefit associated with abiding by the obligation you have set forth yourself. When
acting for the sake of a duty, you are

How Is Kantian Ethics Permissible
According to Lucas and O'Neil, we should determine the moral permissibility of an action by seeing whether the action is universally justified by those
around us. Furthering on this idea, one cannot act in a way that places you as the sole exception to principles that we otherwise believe rightly obligate
everyone else. Furthermore, one ought never to perform an action without the full knowledge and consent of those involved. Through this idea, Kantian
ethics aims to eliminate deceit by granting others the basic right to not be unknowingly caught up in one's own self–serving strategies. As O'Neill
relates, one cannot use another as a "mere means" in their scheme of action. This means that one must commit actions that do not intentionally
manipulate others as a mere tool for their actions. To determine whether an action is permissible, Kantian ethics considers whether the scheme of action
utilizes others as mere means. If it does not, then the action is permissible. If the action uses someone...show more content...
There are two main parts to the Categorical Imperative, the first part stating that we should never act on strategies that hold us individually as the only
exception to an otherwise normal moral right. The second part states that we should not act on strategies that involve others without their knowledge or
permission. The Categorical Imperative applies in all actions, and is unconditional according to Kant. It relies not on the consequences of our actions
but rather the intentions of them. One specific form of the Categorical Imperative that O'Neil analyzes is known as the "Formula of the End–in–Itself."
This form of the Categorical Imperative focuses on treating people as ends rather than as means. To avoid using people as means we must act based on
universal maxims or principles rather than the personal happiness or pleasure that can occur from an

Ethics And Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics is criticized by many who note that Kant gives little guidВ¬ance on what to do when ethical principles conflict, as they often do.
MoreВ¬over, they say, his emphasis on autonomous decision–making and individual will neglects the social and communal context in which people
live and make decisions. It leads to isolation and unreality. These criticisms notwithstandВ¬ing, Kantian ethics has stimulated much current thinking in
bioethics. In this volume, the idea that certain actions are in and of themselves right or wrong underlies, for example, Patrick Lee and Robert P.
George's argument against abortion because it involves killing a human being; Tom Regan's opposition to animal research; and President's Council on
Bioethics' opposition to fedВ¬eral funding of human stem cell research (Rogerson, 1991)....show more content...
Veatch. In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls places the highest value on equitable distribution of society's resources. He believes that society has a
fundamental obligation to correct the inequalities of historical circumstance and natural endowment of its least well off members. According to this
theВ¬ory, some action is good only if it benefits the least well off. It can also beneВ¬fit others, but that is secondary. His social justice theory has
influenced bioethical writings concerning the allocation of scarce resources. Veatch has applied Rawlsian principles to medical ethics. In his book, A
Theory of Medical Ethics (1981), he offers a model of social contract among professionals, patients, and society that emphasizes mutual respect and
responsibilities. This contract model will, he hopes, avoid the narrowness of professional codes of ethics and the generalities and ambiguities of more
broadly based ethical theories (Rosenbaun,

Critique And Critique Of Kantian Ethics
Colin Rinne
PHI 110 Ethics
Kant Analysis and Critique
3 November 2014
Examination of Kantian Ethics
"There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a
good will." (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even "Talents of the mind...Gifts of power...[Other]
qualities...Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are
otherwise rightly held." (Kant, pg.7 393–394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results
not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and
intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty
concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner
that perpetuates their positivity.
He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme
controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant's initial moral work is not
without its critique: ranging from

Reflection On Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics are hard. They are difficult to understand, internalize, and practice. They are counterintuitive (or at least they were to me, as someone
used to a more utilitarian mindset). Despite all this, I found Kantian ethics to be rewarding. The serious self–reflection that they require challenged me
intellectually. It was consistently difficult to grasp what moral law dictates, since Kant, of course, could not provide an exhaustive list of all human
action. It helped to treat Kant's three aspects of his moral philosophy (form, matter, and total determination) as sort of verification checks on any action
i.e. for an action to be moral, it had to pass all three standards. This idea made Kantian ethics much more applicable to my daily life. As part of my
daily life, I debate. This week, I debated with a new member of the team (this will be relevant later, I promise). During the final round, it occurred
to me that I could improve our chances of victory if I did things some would characterize as 'unsportsmanlike' e.g. ignoring our opponents'
arguments, stealthily bringing in new material where it wasn't permitted. A victory would have made my partner and me happier. My opponents
would have been none the wiser, and thus, a certain moral logic would say, none the more wronged. It wasn't at the level of 'a supposed right to lie
for philanthropic reasons', but it was along the same lines: was it permissible to do bad to achieve good? Kant's first issue with that reasoning would
be the distinct lack of reason behind it. Our happiness was not innately, morally good. While Kant's own relationship with happiness was troubled, he is
clear that happiness is a distant second–place goal, next to the rational, moral good. This is (hopefully) what Kant means when he says, "happiness
can even be reduced to less than nothing...for reason recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of a good will" (396). Our
happiness was a goal, but it was one that ought to be derived "not from inclination, but from duty" (399). Even if what I intended was in line with
moral law, it would be motivated by my own self–interest. My best–case scenario would have no moral worth. With that in mind, I moved on

Ethics Kantian Ethics
Ethics essay – Kantian ethics
a.) Explain Kant's concept of duty
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who was concerned with producing an ethical theory that was logical and absolute, and did not change
depending on the situation, countering the views of John Locke and other empiricists of the time. His ethics are based on duty, rather than looking at the
end product of an action. He thought that his theory was so important that it could be rivalled with the Copernican revolution, in that it would utterly
change everyone's concept of morality in the same profound manner. There are two main dictionary definitions of duty, obeying a superior, and obeying
the moral law in doing the right thing, and Kant was concerned with the latter.
In...show more content...
He himself uses the example of a good shopkeeper, in which a small child gives a shopkeeper a large amount of money for a cheap product, unaware
of its value. Firstly, the shopkeeper could give the child the wrong amount of money, which would of course be immoral, or they could give the correct
amount of change, but with the intention of improving their reputation, and business with it. They should give the correct change, with only the good
will in mind, not with the intention of good business. It is the shopkeeper's duty to act with integrity, as to not treat people as means to ends, and it is
our duty as well.
Kant believed that there must be some reason, some reward for our doing good actions. This he described as the `summum bonum`, or the greatest
good. We are not able to gain the summum bonum in this life– as Kant observed people who were not living morally, but living happily, and vice versa
– so we must be able to get there in the afterlife. He postulated the existence of heaven because of this, and it's in heaven that we achieve this in the
afterlife.
Finally, the three postulates of reason are three things that are needed for this theory to work. These include freedom, immortality, and the existence
of God. He realised that we must be able to make our own decisions freely, that we have the ability to make wrong decisions as well the correct ones.
There must an afterlife for us to able to reach the summum

Ethics Vs. Kantian Ethics
Throughout history different philosophical ideas and concepts developed in search for answers to universal questions. Beyond answers, philosophers
explored schools of thought that would best govern human decision making. Two prominent ethical theories that arose were utilitarianism and
deontological ethics. Both ethical theories developed to establish and justify a set of different moral rules and principles. Utilitarianism, otherwise
known as consequentialism, is an ethical theory that sees the best moral decision is one that maximizes utility, which implies that no moral decision is
intrinsically right or wrong. Deontological ethics or Kantian ethics is a normative ethical theory that judges the morality of a decision is based on a
Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed and expanded upon by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to John Stuart Mill,
utilitarianism is the "creed which accepts as the foundations of morals, 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." (Mill, Utilitarianism) As mentioned above, the
main tenet of utilitarianism is based upon the notion that no moral decision is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, whether a decision is right or wrong
is dependent on overall utility produced as a result of making a decision. Utility produced can be defined as health, pleasure, happiness, satisfaction, and
/or happiness. Some strengths of utilitarianism is as follows. One, the ethical theory is based on the straightforward principle of minimizing pain and
suffering and maximizing pleasure and happiness. Utilitarianism is attractive to the individual and society, because it seeks decisionmaking that
contributes to a happy life. Two, utilitarianism is egalitarian and it allows all individuals the power to make their own decisions. Third, in utilitarianism
value extends beyond humans and includes other species. Utilitarianism also contains a number of weaknesses. One, utilitarianism de–prioritizes the
right of the individual. In the pure pursuit of pleasure, utilitarianism will exploit individuals and

Kantian Ethics and Christian Ethics
Kantian Ethics and Christian Ethics Immanuel Kant the founder of the "Categorical Imperative" (CI) argues that morality is based on standards of
rationality. Therefore, to act in disaccord with the CI is to act irrationally or immorally. In comparison to Christianity, to act immorally is to act in
disagreement with God's laws. Kant's CI is formulated into three different ways, which include: The Universal Law Formulation, The Humanity or End
in Itself Formulation, and The Kingdom of Ends Formulation (Stanford) . The first to formulas combine to create the final formulation. Christianity
closely relates to each formula, except for the final formulation. Christianity provides context where following the CI will not result in moral...show
more content...
In the scenario Lying to the Murderer at the Door the murderer was to ask Kant where is his victim. Based on his CI he cannot lie in any
circumstance, thus making him tell the murderer where his victim is, furthermore making Kant partly responsible for the victim's death. Benjamin
Constant attacked Kant immediately by saying " The moral principle, it is a duty to tell the truth, would make any society impossible if it were taken
singly and unconditionally". Kant responded with his own document called "On a Supposed right to Lie From Altruistic Motives" where he stated "To
tell the truth is thus a duty: but is a duty only in respect to one who has a right to the truth". This argument completely destroys his CI. Kant's
philosophy is priori which means that through reason all laws can be used in any situation. One who has the right to truth cannot be determined before
understanding the persons intentions. You cannot automatically know not to lie in every situation, because you must interpret the situation. 2
Corinthians 5:10 tells us " For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done
in the body, whether good or evil". God is the one to decide if we are to lie or not, thus Kant is lacking faith and judgment in his first Formulation. The
next formulation is The Humanity or End Itself Formulation which states, "So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of
every

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism Essay
1. Explain Onora O'neil's argument for preferring Kantian ethics to Utilitarianism.
2. How would Richard Taylor respond to O'neil's defense of Kantianism?
In the following questions, Onora O'neil defends Kantian ethics while Richard
Taylor agrees more with the Utilitarian ethics view. To fully understand both views and
why each author defends their view, a brief introduction of each author and who they are
is necessary. Onora O'neil is a philosophy professor at Cambridge University, while
Richard Taylor also teaches philosophy, at the University of Rochester. He has written
many books on ethics and metaphysics. He strongly criticizes Kant's philosophy by
saying it is...show more content...
This means the
person cannot consent to the act such as making a false promise or deceiving someone.
These acts are always wrong and unjust according to Kant. O'neil prefers Kantian ethics
because it is more restricted. In other words, Kantian ethics deals with those acts that are
intentional and individual maxims, which are our decisions toward an act. She prefers

Kant because of the requirements of justice. In Utilitarianism, for example, the death
penalty is enforced. Kant on the other hand as O'neil suggests that this is acting on some
maxims which imply that we are using others as mere means. O'neil prefers Kantian
ethics also, because justice requires that we act on no maxims that use others as mere
means. Also, as she mentions in her essay, "Kant and Utilitarianism Contrasted" because
it considers only the proposals for action that occur to them and they check (but they, I
mean the people who believe in either one of these views), that these proposals use no
other as mere means. In contrast with Utilitarian ethics, acting on these proposals could
mean they will use others and still go ahead anyways with the proposal or action for
Utilitarian ethics. But for Kantians, if the proposal or action will

Kantian Philosophy : Kantian Duty Ethics Essay
2. Define and describe Kantian Duty Ethics, with reference to the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity. Do you find this theory
plausible? Why or why not?
Kantian Duty Ethics is named after its creator Immanuel Kant. The way the Kantian approaches morality is by Deontological ethical theory. The word
deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which translates to duty. (thefreedictionary) In deontological ethics it's believed that morality is primarily
a matter of rights and obligations. To Kant, morality isn't based on hypothetical imperatives, instead it's based on a categorical imperative, which in
essence you should act only on maxims that you're okay with everyone else also acting on. Kant was trying to identify the ultimate principle of
morality, in which he thought he found in the principle of universalizability. In the principle of universalizability, it says that an act is morally
acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable. (TFOE pg. 162) Kant believed that every action has a maxim. We don't always clearly have a
maxim, but whenever we act we do naturally have an intention of doing something, and we have a reasoning for doing whether it's subconsciously or
not. Also, Kant believed that to judge an action's rightness you have to look at its maxim, and our morality of our actions has nothing to do with the
outcome. To sort out the good maxims from the bad we have to apply universalizability. Another formulation of Kant's is the

Kantian Ethical Analysis
b) – Kantian Ethical Analysis: 1 – Introduction and brief explanation of Kantian ethics:
German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe,
Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism's rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should
be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant's perspective this is still
prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one
should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or
just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant's theory is an example of the deontological theory
that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that "the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend
on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty."( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called "Hypothetical
Imperatives", but rather principles called "Categorical Imperatives" he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.)
Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Moral Dilemmas: Kantian Ethics And Utilitarianism
A Moral Dilemma The university may consider it against the rules for you, as a professor, to accept gifts or favors from students as this might influence
student grades. In order to resolve this ethical dilemma, a comparison and contrast of Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism is done to explore how each
would reach their ethical conclusion based on their theorectical perspective. One primary belief of people who have adopted the Utilitarian position is
that the most ethical action is the one that results in the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number (MacKinnon, 2013, p. 32). Furthermore, the
best action is the one that causes the least harm to the fewest people. Equally important, are the consequences that result from your action....show more
content...
The second step is to consider all possible courses of action; for example, the professor can accept the student's gifts, she could do nothing and wait
for one of her colleagues to get caught receiving gifts, or identify to the university president everyone who is accepting gifts from students. The next
step is to identify who would benefit in each situation; then, the total utility for all of the courses of action must be calculated. If the professor simply
did nothing then the only people to benefit would be fellow faculty members and the students. If she started accepting gifts then the people to benefit
would be herself, other faculty members, and students. However, if she disclosed to the president her fellow professors who were accepting gifts, then
the university public at large would benefit. Since the university population outnumbers everyone by far, the net utility for the disclosing is the greatest
and as such is the best course of

Analysis of Kantian Ethics and critiques
In Elements of Pure Practical Reason Book, I, Immanuel Kant, a prominent late Enlightenment Era German philosopher discusses his most famous
ethical theory, the "Categorical Imperative." The "Categorical Imperative" is a proposed universal law in stating all humans are forbidden from certain
actions regardless of consequences. Although this is the general definition of this ethical theory, the Categorical Imperative" exists in two above
formulations, A strict interpretation of Categorical Imperative and a more liberal interpretation. This Kantian moral theory shapes almost all of
Immanuel Kant's work on morality and ethics, particularly his "a priori principle" on human rights. Although Kant ultimately developed
enlightenment era political theory, many of his views are often seen as bizarre or even controversial at times, particularly in regards his "a priori
principles" of the people and the Categorical Imperative itself. By further analysis of the categorical imperatives and critiques, objections, and the
theory's connections with the "a priori principles," Kantian philosophy implication as well as critic's views on the philosophy will be readily apparent.
According to Immanuel Kant, the Categorical Imperative exists in two forms. The first formulation," A rational being cannot regard his maxims as
practical universal laws unless he conceives them as principles which determine the will, not by their matter, but by their form, only"

Kantian Ethical Analysis Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Kantian Ethical Analysis Essay