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.
In the philosophical view of determinism with respect to free will, it focuses more on the circumstances surrounding the agent instead of just the individual agent. A strength to determinism is that there is a cause for everything, therefore nothing is left to chance and that there is always a reason to be traced back to. On the other hand, the same theory states that agents are not responsible for their own actions because previous events dictated their behavior, and that is considered by many to be a weakness of determinism. Critics of determinism claim that having a universal view of determinism will lead to moral irresponsibility and moral decay (Nichols and Knobe 664). Compatibilism, also referred to as soft determinism, is “the view that all events, including human actions, are caused.
Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level. Individual against individual and society against society and therefore failure to do this is bias towards society. He also believed in consensus view of society believing that interests should be balanced in line with society’s values. There are many theories to whether conflicting interests are balanced but we must look at parliament to see what they do to tackle this problem. Parliament does manage to balance conflicting interests in the process of making an act.
“The more powerful it grows / the greater the need for humanity” (Lao Tzu, 31). When you’re in control you have to have trust in everyone and you shouldn’t have to prepare to defend yourself. To stay in leadership patience, compassion, and simplicity are qualities that are need. Machiavelli thought that good laws come naturally essentially because of a good military, or the preparation for war. However, Lao Tzu believes that good rules fall into place because you let everything run its course.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
Egoism is the ethical theory that people are largely consumed with their own self-interests, and all acts are pursued primarily out of self-interest and personal desires. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory where one pursues acts that are deemed to be reasonable and catering to the needs of most people, doing the action that results in the most good for the most people, discarding anything that isn’t useful to the collective. Virtue ethics (Aristotelianism) is the idea that people should ask what the best character traits are to possess, and what is the best sort of person to be? It is clear that Anton Churguh’s character embodies the principles of all of
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
Throughout human history, all humanity faces things in life like war, crime, and power which can cause hatred and problems for mankind to face. In the text, Mencius states that he believed that humans are inherently good. He believed that righteousness was determined by age; whereas, benevolence is internal because it’s a feeling determined by oneself. Hsun Tzu had a very different idea of the nature of humans. Unlike Mencius, Hsun Tzu believed that all humans were born evil.
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. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.