It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws. They may be religious or like Kantian ethics based on God and the existence of natural law. In general there tends to be a consensus that Absolutism comes in three distinct types. Platonic Idealism is the first significant example of absolutist theory. This theory is referred to as the theory of forms, the forms are eternal constants which give meaning to the world.
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.
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 way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it. So it is a moral duty of every person to pursue his or her own interest. According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principle of self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations. The only way, through which you can help others, according to Ethical Egoism, if it is in someone’s best interest to help others. Ethical Egoism talks only about the self-interest which is better for the person over long run.
2. Examples: a) ”the notion of duty” A good will is a will that is for duty and what you do is only moral if it is done for duty. Doing something with duty being your only reason to act is morally right, and it does not have to be enjoyable only morally right. b) ”I would express thus, Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. 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.
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.
Romales Harty Ethics/Morals Immanuel Kant Intentions vs. Consequence In Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals Kant parleys about goodwill, duty, and the categorical imperative. When Kant states “the true vocations of reason must be to produce a will that is good, not perhaps as a means to other purposes, but good in itself, for which reason was absolutely necessary. This will need not, because of this, be the sole and complete good, but it must still be the highest good and the condition of every other, even of all demands for happiness”, implies that goodwill is what makes you good as a person. You have to want to mean good and use reason to figure out what to do with goodwill (desire).
The ways that the ethical lenses differ are: the Rights and Responsibilities Lens emphasizes autonomy and rationality; in other words using your head. The Results Lens emphasizes autonomy and sensibility; in other words using your heart and intuition. There is also the Reputation Lens and this emphasizes equality and sensibility. And lastly, there is the Relationship Lens which emphasizes equality and rationality. My Preferred Ethical Lens: My preferred ethical lens is the Relationship Lens because it highlights equality and rationality.
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. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
The Distinction of Virtue Ethics from other normative ethical theories In this essay, I will focus on a particular trait of Virtue ethics, which is “it has No Rules, or Too General Rules”. I will argue that this trait is the one of the main distinctions among other theories, and that this feature is an advantage to the theory. Virtue ethics is a normative theory where in the west, has its roots from the ancient work of Aristotle. The theory puts a strong emphasis on virtues and/or moral character, explaining that ethical behavior of a person is strongly related to the role and virtues of his/her character, in contrast the ways of deontology and consequentialism. Where in deontology the emphasis is on duties or rules, and in consequentialism it focuses on the concequences of one’s actions.