The first step is to examine the issues using the utilitarian ethics framework. Act Utilitarianism The utilitarian ethical issue in the case centers on what action by the transistor company will result in the greatest good for the greatest number. The issue can be analyzed using act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. Using act utilitarianism, the issue is measured solely by asking if the one particular act does the most good for the most people (Kay, 1997). If the company sells transistors to the pacemaker company, they risk litigation (Shanks, 1996).
Which are the key points in Kantian Ethics which raises the question that maybe Kantian ethics isn’t a good approach to this? A counter argument for the above argument in support the statement that ‘Kant’s ethical theory is a good approach to euthanasia is the fact the moral value of an action comes from the action itself. This is because it’s a deontological argument. This means it’s intrinsically correct it’s not swayed by emotion. This is good when considering euthanasia because there is bound to be a lot of emotion involved when trying to decide whether it’s wrong or right to go forward with euthanasia for the person itself or family member having to choose.
Argue that your chosen reply either does or doesn’t really succeed in defending Classical Utilitarianism. (This is the most important part of the essay, where you get to state and defend your own evaluation. You can argue that this reply to the objection does, or that it doesn’t succeed in defending the theory, it is up to you. Think about it for yourself, consult the “Help for Essay 1” below) 7. Say what can be concluded from what you have said (Be modest in your conclusion.
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.
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.
In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he talks of "the principle of utility" but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle. "[4][5] Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism. [6] It can be contrasted with deontological ethics,[7] which does not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth; virtue ethics,[8] which primarily focuses on acts and habits leading to happiness; pragmatic ethics; as well as with ethical egoism and other varieties
Contrasting Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill | Executive Summary As I make decisions each and every day, usually I take into consideration the consequences of my decisions and how it will or will not benefit me. Two early philosophers named Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill give us different approaches on how we should make our decisions and why we should make them. In this paper I will compare and contrast the philosophy of both Kant and Mill, specifically their ethics. I will discuss the differences between Kant’s practical imperative and Mill’s idea of the principle of utility and how each were to approach the same moral issue. When most people think of ethics or morals, they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill...").
Kantians believe in what Immanuel Kant, the founder of this theory, called “pure practical reason”, meaning that true Kantian theory begs us to ask the simple question of “what is the right thing to do?” To determine what the “right thing to do” is a Kantian would use one of the main focuses of Kantian ethics, the principle of universalizability. This principle teaches that an action, such as in this case – stealing, is morally acceptable if its maxim is universalizable. A maxim is what an individual states they are going to do and why they are going to do it. Through the principle of universalizability a maxim, which is normally viewed as an individual’s purpose, is only universalizable if an individual’s maxim can be achieved in a
The act of stealing and thievery has a negative effect on multiple parties. I have heard it to be said, if that the prices of electronics media were not as high as they are, then piracy would not be such a prevailing problem. Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue? No it’s not right to strike between both groups because the artists, musicians, writers and others have absolute control over their works and how they might be consumed, or distributed. The only right the public has is to buy it under the conditions that are offered or for them to move on to something else.
Aristotle and Immanuel Kant work can be called similar because there broaching of the topic of ethics is kind of similar and based primarily on rationality and the law of reason. Their theories are basically built on the secular approach. They also refer to both divine revelations as well as factual scripts in research of their work and therefore cannot be classified under the Natural Jurists. The major difference of both the philosophers was in the authority of ethics. This is what we shall elaborate on more and also provide other contrasting opinions.