This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.
Comparison between deontological and utilitarian ethics Deontological ethics Deontology is a normative theory attributed to Immanuel Kant, which focuses on the concept of the duty. It is concerned on fulfilling what is believed to be a moral duty without considering its impact to other people. It takes the stand that the duty defines the right actions regardless of the consequences. The hold of deontological ethics is that doing right is what conform the moral laws. According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty.
I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will. ” What you do out of duty does not include inclinations. Your good will cannot be judged by what you do, but why you did what you did. Inclinations are not respected, only acting out of duty can be respected. c) “Categorical Imperative: Those actions are right that conform to principles one can consistently will to be principles for everyone, and those actions wrong that are based on maxims that a rational creature could not will that all persons should follow” Kant says that an act is only right or moral if it is right for everyone.
Immorality therefore is the violation of such law. Kant goes on to argue that the morality of any action can be seen, not by the desired consequences, but by the motive behind the action. Basically, Kant believes that we should act because of the motive not because we see the end results of the action. Consequences of an act are, for the most part, irrelevant to morality; we can control the motives but not control the results. Motives then can be measured by whether or not they can be turned into a universal maxim.
In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent. On the other hand, a person who enjoys helping others because it brings them joy would be considered selfish and without any moral content. How can this make sense? Hume would argue that it is the passion to help those that are less fortunate that motivates the individual rather than the actual act. In general, the action is produced by a passion to do something, spurred on by feelings of guilt or perhaps philanthropy.
This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action. Kantian ethics explains that for something to be good, the only true motivation behind it would be Good Will, with desire or instinct considered and the only purpose being to fulfil your duty and act morally. These moral principles are thought to be categorical imperatives which everyone should abide by even if they are of no benefit to them, There are three principles of the categorical imperative, the first being the universal law. It was believed that you should only act on a maxim, which is a personal law or rule. If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
Self Interest or Privilege Superson approaches the moral skeptic in a way in which helps us to better understand the skeptic’s view but at the same time, by developing a better understanding of the moral skeptic, she is better fit to defeat it. The moral skeptic is aware of morality, yet lacks any interest in abiding by it, rather acting in self-interest. The traditional model of the skeptic dichotomizes morality with self-interest, because it is assumed that the skeptic endorses expected utility and the motives he believes is rational to have (ones that are most in conflict with morality). Rational actions go hand in hand with self-interested actions, and this is identified with promoting the satisfaction of any of one’s desires or preferences but moral ones, or with maximizing one’s expected utility. According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and the self to a status not granted to others, but that one also should not as altruism does sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e.
In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. (4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more … DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.