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.
Another supporting argument of Ethical Egoism is that we always do what we most want to do. Also we do what makes us feel good. In addition, we do things for others to ultimately benefit ourselves. Lastly, it is better to look out for oneself and not interfere with others lives, which sometimes can cause robbery of other’s dignity and self respect. There also are arguments against Ethical Egoism.
To not air such pranks; this can be easily accepted universally, which is in compliance with Kantian ethics. Perceived negatives that could come from Kantian ethics could be that even if the outcome is not ethical under this theory, an individual is compelled to follow their instruction. However, in this case the decision to
Devlin’s theory is that a recognised morality is essential to society’s existence. Individual liberty and freedom should be limited in order to protect the fabric of society. Devlin stated that society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way that it uses law to safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence. The theory is based on an objective morality, a common morality shared by all in society.Example of an existing law, which illustrates this theory, is the defence of consent in non-fatal offences, R v Brown & Others.However law is concerned with minimum not maximum standards. Consent is an example of this.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
“Economists are ethical consequentialists: we judge actions and policies solely on the basis of their consequences/outcomes.” (Morey 4). To determine whether something is good or right in Economical Ethics you have to look at a few things such as: utility, cost benefit analysis, efficiency and externalities. Dexter has a preference for killing people. He works with his constraints such as the law to maximize his utility and not get caught. Because Dexter is
Explain what is meant by moral absolutism (25 marks) Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are either right or wrong regardless of the situation. This means that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of the beliefs of an individual. For example, in all circumstances for a moral absolutist war, slavery and the death penalty is wrong regardless of the beliefs of a culture that these things are practised. Even in circumstances where lying is involved, moral absolutism would still say it’s wrong even if it is for something good; it is considered intrinsically wrong. With moral absolutism, there are set absolute laws that are universal and always true.
It is necessary for the two terms ‘Absolutist’ and ‘Relativist’ to be defined with morality before I start. Absolutism means any theory, in which there are rules that are unchanging and universal, in other words fixed moral rules. Relativism means any theory in which each person can decide what is right and wrong for them, there are no universal moral rules. From this we can already see that both absolute and Relative hold complete different views of how a person should act to situations. Absolutism are laws that come with fixed moral rules.
Assignment Two Incorporating Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development into the Justice System P Strayer University Assignment Two Incorporating Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development into the Justice System I think that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. For instance, a theory that’s economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; same as laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well arranged they are, they must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. All people possess and inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. This is the reason that justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good that’s shared by others. Just does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a small amount are out weighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.
Thus, we ought to treat each other with respect, when * (i) we ensure that our interactions with them are purely voluntary * (ii) we ensure that our interactions with them are mutually beneficial or are just and fair * (iii) we ensure that we take account of their needs, desires, and interests Morality is more than the promotion of the good, is about the quality of human interaction which is the attitudes we should have toward ourselves and one another. Kant provide us an ideal of human relationship. Kants’ FH requires us to treat all rational humans as ends, never merely as m means to an end. First, if everyone follow this rule, the society will become very harmony. Because whatever people do, they need to consider the action are respect other people’s purpose or not.