Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian Ethics. Kant was a philosopher in the 18th century; he devised a normative ethical system that he had based on the idea of duty. Our duty is what we are made to do; what our responsibility in life is which is inherently good. This links in to the idea of good will that Kant had, he believed that good will was one of the most important parts of his ethics, acting selflessly and following duty. Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
James Rachels’ on Normative Cultural Relativism Every culture has its own customs, traditions and beliefs that dictate the actions of its citizens. Cultural relativism states that although practices and ethical beliefs differ from society to society, it must be accepted as good, relative to each respective culture’s beliefs and moral code. Rachels believes that an act that may be frowned upon in one culture may in fact be totally acceptable in another. The theory of Cultural Relativism puts in action the idea of what people believe is morally right and how it relates to the culture that it is practiced in. Morals concern what is right and wrong.
So between Psychological Egoism and Utilitarianism there is a huge conflict of who impress. Where the utilitarian serves the best interest of the morals that is the actions that serves the whole society. This also differs with Kantians. The theory of Kantian is where it
Deontology is the study of duty. “The theory of deontology states that we are morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles/rules regardless of the outcome.” On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. (Plato). Kant’s ethical theories revolve around personal duty to make one’s actions produce a moral value and respect for other people. In the business and stakeholders context, Kant’s principle of respect for persons asserts that every human being is entitled to be treated not merely as a means to the achievement of the efforts of others, but as a being valuable in his or her own right; that each person is entitled to be respected as an end in himself or herself.
It is commonly believed that human emotions, and gut-feelings/intuition, interfere with rational thinking, and so when making knowledge claims, these passions should be subdued. This idea, although it may sound difficult to achieve, is one which I believe should be implemented and is absolutely justified. In essence, logic and reasoning is much more effective in making/validating knowledge claims than emotion. Foremost, logical thinking is a “system” in the human mind, which, by definition, attempts to find the smartest and most reasonable solution to a problem. Emotions, on the other hand, are instinctive thoughts built into human nature, and rely solely on an individual’s gut-feeling or intuition.
Conclusion When articulating an ethical obligation one must be effective with their words in order to express their position. Obligation based perspectives are based on a sense of duty to what is right, whether that be personal or professional situation the outcome will be the same. The criminal justice community is very much driven by ethics and laws. One must be willing to put forth the effort to fulfill these
One of the principal aims of Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals, especially of the Doctrine of Virtue, is to present a taxonomy of our duties as human beings. The basic division of duties is between juridical duties and ethical duties, which determines the division of the Metaphysics of Morals into the Doctrine of Right and the Doctrine of Virtue. Juridical duties are duties that may be coercively enforced from outside the agent, as by the civil or criminal laws, or other social pressures. Ethical duties must not be externally enforced (to do so violates the right of the person coerced). Instead, the subject herself, through her own reason and the feelings and motives arising a priori from her rational capacities -- the feelings of respect, conscience, moral feeling and love of other human beings, must constrain herself to follow them (MS 6:399-404).