Explain the theory of duty in Kantian Ethics (25 marks) Kantian ethics is an absolutist theory as Kant claimed what is morally ‘good’ is constant and unchanging. Because of this, it can be a universal concept applied in different societies and cultures with the idea that an action should only be performed for duty’s sake. His approach was deontological because the idea of right or wrong was based on the action rather than the consequence, he believed that this was the only rational basis for morality and could be proven objectively, independent from emotion and opinion. As humans we have the innate ability to reason, something which we gained prior to any sensory experience in this world. This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action.
Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
One key influence of natural and moral law is Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) Aristotle argued that we can discover how people should behave by studying how people do behave; observation and rational analysis of human nature is the surest foundation for judgments about it. Aristotle sees goodness in something fulfilling its nature, goodness lies in being fulfilled, flourishing, and moral wrongdoing lies in falling short, failing to fulfill human potential. One of Aristotle’s arguments is known as the ‘function argument’, in which he suggests that all human beings have a greater variety of functions than animals and plants do. Aristotle’s theory is concerned with the essence of something, when considering why an object exists, he asks the efficient cause question of ‘how did it happen?’, yet he also then asks ‘what is it for?’, which is known as the final cause, this is seen as the most important question as it relates to its purpose. His theory also concludes with the idea that perfection is reached when the object does exactly what it was invented to do.
The final cause is the most important as the material, efficient and formal causes would be pointless under logical without a final cause. When we do something it is for a reason. If one was to interpret the final cause as being successful, you could agree with Aristotle’s beliefs – for Aristotle the final cause is the most important as without it a thing has no purpose, direction or reason for existing. Some people believe that Aristotle’s explanation of the Final Cause is one of the closest views to reality, and that no other views fully explain what the ‘nature of reality’ is. Another reason for seeing the Final Cause to be successful is that the concept can be readily applied to things in the world.
The causes gave Aristotle the chance to devise an answer concerning the nature of a thing enabling an understanding of it. Each of the four causes is used to explain a different aspect of an object, that when combined enable a precise definition of what an object is, to be made. Furthermore, the causes are explanatory factors used to explain not only the substance or how it is classified, but also what the thing’s purpose is. The most important part of the causes is the final cause as it harnesses a link between itself and the prime mover. However, without the other three an object would not be completely understood so they are also necessary.
John Mehlhaff Phil 1720-01 Writing assignment #1 9/9/11 Utilitarianism and Kant While analyzing the books definition of utilitarianism and Kant’s duty ethics it became clear that there are similarities and differences between the two views. According to the book utilitarianism maintains that everyone should perform the act or follow the moral that which will bring about the greatest good (or happiness) for each person involved. The book states that Kant believed that it is possible by reasoning alone to set up valid absolute moral rules that have the same force as indisputable mathematical truths. These views both share the idea that we, as humans, should try to bring good into the world and be as moral as possible. The difference is that utilitarianism states that no matter what a person should never stray from the moral that will bring the greatest good.
The pragmatist insight which it obscures is found in James’s insistence that a variety of practical and aesthetic interests can have a role in determining whether a system of beliefs agrees with reality, indeed that there are different versions of reality which answer to different practical concerns and are not in competition. Peirce’s view, by contrast, emphasises that there is a single fundamental aim, common to all rational inquirers, of contributing to the growth of finished knowledge. If truth were not characterised by reference to such a general interest, why
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
As free beings we were obligated to do what was 'reasonable', a free person has to act rationally - has to act without inconsistency. His assistance to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, as well as aesthetics has had a thoughtful impact on nearly every philosophical faction that followed him. It is unfeasible, Kant argues, to expand knowledge to the supersensible monarchy of tentative metaphysics. The cause that knowledge has these restraints, Kant argues, is that the mentality plays a vigorous role in comprising the features of knowledge and restraining the mind's admittance to the empirical monarchy of space and time. 4 John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred. Aristotle was an Ancient Greek philosopher and believed that everyone wants to live a full and happy life, this is known as eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the idea of ideal happiness and it is the highest good, because we desire it for its own sake and not as a means to an end. In his book, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle stated that we want to be good, and there is a difference to things that are good as means, and things that are good as ends. A good life is something inherently worth having, unlike justice which is worth having because it leads to a good life.