Saturday, February 9, 2013
Kant vs. Utilitarianism
Victoria Murphy
Philosophy
Professor Gilliland
2/3/13
Kant vs. Utilitarianism
Between Kant and the Utilitarian’s I would choose Kant’s system over the Utilitarian’s or the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that “actions are right in the extent that they promote happiness.” Only when we sacrifice are own happiness. This confuses me considering peoples “own” happiness would obviously not be the same as every other persons. Kant’s believes are more defined as a persons rationality and autonomy. He believes that pain and pleasure define us. Kant also believes that the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequences of the action. Promoting rationality and autonomy is more important in a human setting than pleasures. Happiness is based off pleasure and pleasure could be wrong doing to some people. Autonomy is ones moral responsibility. Rationality is being reasonably about life and perceptions. Kant’s systems are self-perfection, and the duty to promote happiness to others. He states “we have a general duty to promote the morally legitimate goals of others”. Kant believes we do not have a moral duty to promote our own happiness since by nature we have happiness as an end and that we are strongly inclined to promote our happiness.
I think if we are born with our own means of self-perfection than we work towards this and receiving happiness from reaching our duties we as people will promote our own happiness since by nature we have happiness as an end and we are strongly inclined to promote our happiness. I think if we are born with our own means of self-perfection than we work towards this and receiving happiness from reaching our duties we as people will promote self-perfection to others. Like a domino affect. The Utilitarian’s say life is all above happiness and the means of it. I do not believe that human life can not be depicted from happiness. Also Utilitarian’s seem more into the “neighbor” aspect of life. I don’t think people should be self centered but asking people to trust others with their all and take pain for their happiness is a lot to ask out of people who habilitate so many emotions.
All bad choices are immoral
All acts under minding persons are injustice
Therefore all degrading of persons are immoral
Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism
Kantian ethics is Kant’s view that
human beings are defined by rationality and autonomy. He says you never use
yourself or someone else simply as a means. Kant feels that forcing someone to
do something is an example of this. Another example would be suicide and drug
addiction because it undermines your rationality and autonomy. Utilitarianism
promotes the idea of doing whatever gives the most amount of pleasure and the
least amount of pain. They want to maximize happiness as much as possible even
if it makes them like an animal.
In my view,
Kant’s view is a more plausible way for human beings to live than the
Utilitarian view. Kant believes in doing what is right and not what simply
makes us feel good. Those can be two completely different things. There are a
lot of things that make us feel good that are no good for us such as too much
alcohol, being unfaithful to a spouse, or drugs just to name a few. No matter
what your view is, Kantian ethics leads a person down a road of self-perfection
and promoting the happiness of other people. That is a good road to be on even
if you can never achieve perfection. There are more examples throughout history
of peopke using Kant’s view and they are considered great human beings.
To use the
Barbara example, all acts that are unethical are wrong. All cheating is
unethical. All cheating is wrong.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Kant vs Utilitarianism
1-Utilitarianism believes in egalitarianism, which is that everyone's happiness is equally valuable. Utilitarianism also believes that the persons actions are right if they bring that person happiness. Kantian ethics teaches that nothing is more important to a person than rationality and autonomy.
2- In my opinion, I think that utilitarianism is more plausible because I believe that society's happiness is more important than just one persons happiness. For this essay we were told to choose which type of ethical position we preferred. Both these ideas have valid points but for this essay I believe that utilitarianism is a better ethical theory. Utilitarianism tells us that we as humans strive to increase pleasure and decrease pain. This idea is to help those around you by increasing their pleasure and decreasing their pain. For example, if I was walking down the street and saw that an elderly woman was having trouble walking, I should help her even if it delays me from my destination. Humans by nature have hedonistic ideals built into them. Our fight or flight reaction tells us to either run from a something that puts us in danger or to face it. Finding pleasure and decreasing pain is a basic human instinct.
3-All students in the class are fine people.
Jessie is in the class.
Therefore, Jessie is a fine person
2- In my opinion, I think that utilitarianism is more plausible because I believe that society's happiness is more important than just one persons happiness. For this essay we were told to choose which type of ethical position we preferred. Both these ideas have valid points but for this essay I believe that utilitarianism is a better ethical theory. Utilitarianism tells us that we as humans strive to increase pleasure and decrease pain. This idea is to help those around you by increasing their pleasure and decreasing their pain. For example, if I was walking down the street and saw that an elderly woman was having trouble walking, I should help her even if it delays me from my destination. Humans by nature have hedonistic ideals built into them. Our fight or flight reaction tells us to either run from a something that puts us in danger or to face it. Finding pleasure and decreasing pain is a basic human instinct.
3-All students in the class are fine people.
Jessie is in the class.
Therefore, Jessie is a fine person
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarinism
Cooper
Dubuque
Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism
represent two different moral philosophies. Proposed by German philosopher
Immanuel Kant, Kantian ethics believes that humans are defined by their
rationality and autonomy. Kant continues that the good intentions of actions are
more important than their outcomes, coming from a sense of duty rather than
meeting desire. Utilitarnism proposed by Bentham and elaborated on by John
Stuart Mill defines humans by their ability to feel pleasure and pain. It is
hedonistic, and states that the outcome of actions is more important than their
motivations, as long as greater good or pleasure is achieved.
Kantian ethics seems very rigid or
black and white in that it leaves no room for negotiating moral actions while
the ability for Utilitarianism to deal with matters that are gray might seem
more appealing to some people. Kantian
ethics seem more practical to me for when it comes to morality there should not
be any compromise. Utilitarianism is hedonistic, whose self-gratification seems
backwards to the goal of greater good. Pleasure
and pain shouldn’t be the measurement system in which actions are morally
weighed instead of human rationality. Pain and pleasure can be irrational and
how can the moral truth of our behaviors be derived when there are not
reasonable or logical means to ascertain them. Kantian ethics has been criticized
as unattainable or undesirable to the greater good; the scenario given in class
was a neighbor hiding in your house from a serial killer and being unable to
lie you would have to give the neighbor up. It’s unfair to think that Kantian ethics
would restrain you in certain instances of creating greater evil with little
good by giving up your neighbor as there are many moral means to preventing
this situation or other hypotheticals. Not answering the door and calling the
cops for example or self-defense against a lunatic is appropriate. Utilitarnism
doesn’t even place Humans and animals on different moral tiers, and I don’t
feel my moral obligations and understanding are on the same level as beasts.
Kantian Ethics v.s Utilitarianism
As we saw in class last week, Kant and the Utilitarian’s
disagree about the nature of moral responsibility. Kantian's ethics defines us
as persons and believe that we should never undermine our own rationality or
autonomy let alone anyone else’s. Kant believed if you acted morally that you
are doing the right thing with good intentions. The intention behind that
action is what determines what it is ethical or unethical not the consequence
itself. He states that we should promote our own and other people’s rationality
and autonomy. This means that we need to start thinking of others before we
think of ourselves first. You know how we make other people happy without
little white lies or doing anything just for the pure good. Acts out of good
willed intentions for no reason are what we need to succeed in to promote happiness
to others so we are happy ourselves. Like walking down the street you see an
elderly woman who needs help crossing street you help her because it’s the
right thing not because you have something to gain. Kant's ethic teaches you how to become selfless.
Utilitarianism tells us that we as humans are morally
based on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain. The idea of Utilitarianism is
to act in a way that produces the greatest amount of happiness for all people
who are affected by it which would mean to always act in the greatest interest
of others. It’s a theory that your actions should be motivated by happiness and
be free of pain. These are the moral benefits of an action that are determined
by the outcome of the action and don’t matter if it was done for personal
reasons or just as a gesture. Like giving one of your friends a ride if you see
them walking. The gesture would be asking them do they need a ride the personal
reason would be you would want them to do the same thing if they saw you
walking one day. Utilitarianism doesn't teach you anything but to only do things so that they can help you as well, whether right after the good dead or in the long run there is nothing selfless about that.
Between Kant’s ethics and Utilitarianism I believe
that Kant’s moral ethic theory is the more plausible. Because in reality that’s
how all people should act in and around the world. The problem with
utilitarianism is that by waiting for the outcome of someone’s action, that
person doesn't have a reliable standard to determine what is good or bad and
can only wait and see what the outcome is afterward. It’s basically like
gambling with ethics and philosophy, a moral dice that you roll and take a
chance on, better luck next time. Kant’s ethics are about just doing the right
thing for the right reason and not wanting anything back in return. To me doing
something good for the right the right reason is selfless. By flowing Kant’s
ethics it teaches you to want to do well and bring happiness to others and
feeling good yourself as well. This makes you a rational person instead of an irrational
and it will make you a better person. By you doing the right thing you will feel
happier within yourself.
The Barbara Theory
1. All selfless acts are morally good.
2. All acts of kindness are acts of selflessness.
3. Therefore all acts of kindness are morally good.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Kantian Ethics vs.Utilitarianism
Both Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism are two of the most well know conceptions on human nature and how we as human beings should go about living our lives. Kantian ethics is what defines us as a person is our rationality and autonomy. While Utilitarianism is what defines us as persons is our ability to express pain and pleasure.
Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism have strong cores and there purpose is very clear. However, Utilitarianism is the more plausible theory out of the two. Utilitarianism central idea is “Always act in the way that generates the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected”. This idea is extremely similar to the golden rule, which is “Treat others the way you want to be treated”, which is a moral that many people live by including myself. In Utilitarianism actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness and wrong to the extent that they promote unhappiness. This means that the core of this theory is to always have happiness and to only express and hold pleasure rather then pain. The morality for utilitarian’s is to only intake pleasure and to not express any sort of pain. That you should not privilege your own happiness over the happiness of others. Which therefore represents that in Utilitarianism equality and respect play a huge factor in the theory, which seems more plausible. This leads to the theory that if, all acts that minimize pain and maximize pleasure are morally accepted. All acts of good are acts that minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Therefore, all acts of good are morally accepted.
Kant vs. Utilitarianism
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) created Kantian ethics and eventually became the father of ethics. Kantian ethics at its most basic form is the idea that "good will" is the mandatory for an action to be considered morally good. An example of this idea is if I let someone have a cookie but once I give them that cookie I expect something in return eventually. Instead of just giving them a cookie to eat. Kantian ethics also points out the idea that we as humans are defined by rationality and autonomy. We should never use people to get what we need without thinking about what would happen to them.
Utilitarianism is the counterpart to Kantian ethics and it is advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism in its most basic form is the idea that a good action is something that should create more pleasure/happiness then pain. An example of this is if you can foresee the future and in that future their is a tyrannical leader who tortures and kills thousands of people and because you see this future you decide to kill that person before he hurts anybody. The only two pleasures we as humans can feel are intellectual and bodily but it is forbidden to put your happiness above someone else's.
In my own opinion I believe Utilitarianism makes more sense and is the better idea of the two. We as people are always after what is best for us bodily and intellectually and we shouldn't put our happiness over someone else's.
acts with good will leads to happiness
happiness leads to a good life
acts with good will lead to a good life
Monday, February 4, 2013
Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Kantian ethics are described as ethical standards that promote the respect of a fellow person's rationality and autonomy. It stresses that, despite the outcome of one's actions, one must have good intentions to remain ethically sound. Utilitarianism is the belief that moral soundness comes from maximizing the amount of pleasure felt by the most people possible. Despite the intentions of the agent, the outcomes caused by the agent's actions are what are judged to be morally good or not.
If one were to look at Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, one would be able to easily see that one of the biggest areas of difference between the two beliefs is the intention versus the outcome. Kantians believe that intentions are what decide the morality of an action. Utilitarians believe that this is judged by the outcome. If I had to take a side in this issue, I would and I am siding with Kantian ethics. In my opinion, as long as the intentions are good, the action is morally sound, at least from a conceptual standpoint. While the belief that the outcome is more important does make sense to me, I can think of multiple situations where Utilitarianism would hold flaws. If Hitler had spared the 11 million people he had killed in the Holocaust because he thought it would have been detrimental to his power in some way, that would not have made him any less evil. Roman emperors demanded the slaughter and brutal battle of gladiators in the colosseum in order to satisfy and bring pleasure to the countless Roman citizens who viewed them. The vast amounts of pleasure this brought to the people did not make those games any more morally sound.
Both of the examples I mentioned talk about corruption in political leaders. This is where I find many unethical actions to take place, in corruption. To put this in Barbara terms: All acts that are backed by negative intentions are unethical. All corruption is backed by negative intentions. Therefore, all corruption is unethical.
If one were to look at Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, one would be able to easily see that one of the biggest areas of difference between the two beliefs is the intention versus the outcome. Kantians believe that intentions are what decide the morality of an action. Utilitarians believe that this is judged by the outcome. If I had to take a side in this issue, I would and I am siding with Kantian ethics. In my opinion, as long as the intentions are good, the action is morally sound, at least from a conceptual standpoint. While the belief that the outcome is more important does make sense to me, I can think of multiple situations where Utilitarianism would hold flaws. If Hitler had spared the 11 million people he had killed in the Holocaust because he thought it would have been detrimental to his power in some way, that would not have made him any less evil. Roman emperors demanded the slaughter and brutal battle of gladiators in the colosseum in order to satisfy and bring pleasure to the countless Roman citizens who viewed them. The vast amounts of pleasure this brought to the people did not make those games any more morally sound.
Both of the examples I mentioned talk about corruption in political leaders. This is where I find many unethical actions to take place, in corruption. To put this in Barbara terms: All acts that are backed by negative intentions are unethical. All corruption is backed by negative intentions. Therefore, all corruption is unethical.
Kantian ethics was developed by a
German philosopher named Immanuel Kant, who believed what defined us as human
beings are our rationality and autonomy. Kant created a system of moral law
which is based on always respecting yours and everyone’s rationality and
autonomy: (1) never undermining these traits in yourself or anyone else, and (2)
always promoting rationality and autonomy is yourself and all other people. Kant
created a universal law version of moral law which indicates that any moral law
should be possible for all people to do, in all situations. An important
distinction to make about Kant is that he believes what determines the goodness
of an action is the intentions, not the consequences.
Utilitarianism is another major
theory of ethics and was founded by philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism
tells us that for humans, morality is based on increasing pleasure and
decreasing pain. The central idea of Utilitarianism is to always act in a way
which produces the greatest amount of happiness for all people who are
affected. This means to always act in the greater interest; so if you have a
choice to make only yourself happy or a large group of people happy, you should
choose the latter because it generates the most happiness. In order to
calculate amount of overall happiness the Utilitarians use a cost-benefit
analyses. It is important to remember that Utilitarians believe that an action
can be morally good even if the motives are bad.
I believe that Kant’s moral
theory is the most plausible out of the two. I believe this because although
always maximizing happiness is good in theory, to ask people to always act in
the greater good is expecting too much. Furthermore I believe that in always
striving towards promoting rationality and autonomy in you and others, a person
will already be striving towards happiness. Another point of Kant I admire is
his passage on good will and its importance in being truly morally good. A
person may perform actions which end in good or even great consequences, but if
they have malicious intentions, I do not believe they should be considered
morally virtuous.
Barbara Reasoning:
1. All lies are unethical
2. All deceptions are lies
3. Therefore, all deceptions are
unethical
Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Kantian
ethics state that an act is only morally good if it is done out of duty. If the
action is done for some other reason or because the person doing the action has
something to gain from it, it is unethical. The two imperatives of Kantian
ethics are self-perfection and promoting the happiness of others. This idea
exists on a higher intellectual level. Utilitarianism, however, is much more
natural. The whole idea is to increase pleasure and decrease pain. One does
this for themselves and also for the largest amount of people. This theory is
much more plausible because human beings already do this for themselves
naturally. It’s instinct that drives us to create the most happiness for
ourselves. Utilitarianism is a very natural process. Things that come naturally
to people are more plausible to expect. Therefore, utilitarianism is a
plausible theory.
Kant’s
theory makes sense, that motive should play some role in ethics, but it’s not
plausible to expect that from everyone. When you base ethics on how an actions
consequence makes you feel, it makes it much simpler. Using Kant’s’ theory, if
you donated towards charity to receive a tax write-off, it would be unethical.
However, a utilitarian would view such an action as a win/win situation. The
one giving the donation gains happiness as do the people receiving the
donation. Pleasure was gained and pain was reduced. It’s also hard to know
someone’s motive, only the person who does the action truly knows their motive.
Therefore, the only person who knew it was unethical was the person who did it.
The consequence still made others happy, and the person who did it obviously
doesn’t care much for being ethical anyways so it’s a moot point.
Utilitarianism makes more sense than Kant’s ethics.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Kantian
ethics are an ethical theory developed by Emmanuel Kant, which is based on the
principle that people should always act so that you respect every human being
and yourself as a rational being. Kant
believed that the intention of a person’s action outweighs the outcome of the
action, and in the intention is where the morality matters. Kantian ethics state that people have an
unconditional moral duty to do what is right, not because it will profit us,
not because if we don’t do it and get caught we will be punished but because it
is the right thing to do. Kant went on
to say that the only true moral act is done from a pure sense of duty.
Utilitarianism
is an ethical theory that recognizes two absolutes in the world, pain and
pleasure. This ethical theory was
created by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that
people’s ethical decisions should be based on whatever provides the greatest
useful goodness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism ethical theory believes that
the moral benefit of an action is determined by the outcome of the action no
matter what the motive behind the action was.
I feel that
the Utilitarianism ethical theory is the more plausible of these two ethical
theories. I say this because the Utilitarianism
ethical theory is not only plausible it is the ethical standard of society
today. The basic Utilitarianism idea of
the greatest good for the greatest amount is one of the basic building blocks
of any democratic system of government.
To me Utilitarianism ethical theory makes the most common sense, pain is
bad and pleasure is good. It does not
matter who you are, where you are from, or what you’re different and
conflicting moral beliefs may be, people agree pain is bad and pleasure is
good. Utilitarianism is impartial, fair
and promotes social harmony.
Utilitarianism ethical theory requires us to balance our interests with
those of others around us. Utilitarianism
is flexible and sensitive to circumstances.
Utilitarianism does not label most actions as right or wrong and it
allows flexibility and sensitivity to the circumstances surrounding an action. This also makes it practical. In general Utilitarianism links happiness
with morality where Kant’s view sometimes seems to be opposing happiness
against morality. If a person lives on
the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an
action. Utilitarian philosophy tries to
separate the action from the actor and look at the bigger picture over the
individual. Utilitarian’s, living a life
that caused the greatest widespread good would be considered by most people to
be living a life of virtue.
Barbara
Logic:
1. All acts that maximize pleasure are morally good.
2. All acts of common sense are acts that maximize pleasure.
3. Therefore, all acts of common sense are morally good.
Kant vs utilitarianism
1. The Kantian
ethics state that
an action can only be correct if we do it out of duty; to look at the action
and not the consequences to the result of things. A good will is only good without qualification. Utilitarianism states that one should
maximize their happiness and reduce suffering; this is the belief that the
value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2.
What Kant was trying to say was that everyone in life has a duty and their duty
is to the categorical imperative; the idea that we should all confirm to a law
as the rest of the world conforms to one likewise. With that it brings up the
concept of the “Golden Rule” as the bible would call it, where the ideology of
reciprocity and “do onto others as you would want others to do onto you”. This also brings up the reversal to this
concept, which you also can understand due to the concept of right and wrong or
stealing and lying in this case. No one wants someone to lie to or steal from
them. Also “Treat humans as an end within themselves” Kant says because everyone
human on earth has a purpose. Also with imperfect duties that there are two of
them one is to seeking perfect in are talent and the other is seeking the
happiness in other people. This is true
because many will not succeed in doing this but you can try your best and with
that you will be fine.
Utilitarianism
professes that, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” –John
Stuart Mill. Happiness is pleasure, with
the absence of pain and unhappiness is pain, with the absence of happiness.
With Mill’s idea that pleasure doesn’t only have to involve physical pleasure
but also intellectual pleasure, shows that his concept could also work. One
should not only care about their own pleasure, but also those of their peers as
well. But on the contrary to this system, it shows that not all good deeds are
done for the better good of the world, but for the individual’s personal
motives and underlying drives, which I personally believe is the motive for a
lot of the good deeds done. Finally, why I support Mill’s on his utilitarianism
system is because of this saying, "It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better
to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side
of the question". I believe
this statement is proclaiming the idea that even though we can all be in a
dissatisfied state of mind, it is better to be in this disabled state, as opposed
to being an animal or a fool, where one physically cannot keep up to par with a
human and the other suffers from egocentrism.
3. Barbara
1. Everything
S will be M.
2. Everything
S will be P.
3. Never the
less, everything M will be P
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Barbara Argument in Ethics
Jose Collado,
The best way to define Kantian ethics versus
Utilitarianism would be conversely in this situation. Whereas Kantian ethics
focuses more so on our rationality and autonomy as the definition of us as moral
beings, Utilitarianism is more concerned with the overall happiness and its
promotion in the world. Kantian ethics considers more the action rather than
its end while Utilitarian’s would be defined more as hedonistic yet egalitarian
in nature.
In determining which of these two views on ethics
would be considered more plausible, my main focus was guided by one of
Kantian's principles: The Universal Law Version of The Moral Law. When the
morality of an action or consequence is taken into consideration, applying the
behaviors, intentions, and ends of the situation universally seemed to be the
most effective manner in making this determination. I first considered
Utilitarianism, but ultimate happiness cannot always be the indicative factor.
For this reason I was sold on Kantian ethics. I feel like for this reason
Kantian ethics is less popular than Utilitarianism. The idea that one should
act always in good faith is one that for this world of humans is nearly
impossible to follow. Yet, I feel that that's what makes it the best judge of
morality. If the reasons an action that some would consider to be good are not
in good faith than the action itself is unethical. This is Kant's belief.
Although I do not totally agree with that I can say that applying the intent of
an action to other situations if considered unethical can yield bad results
more often than would a good intention.
All good intentions are ethical.
All self-sacrifices are good intentions.
All self-sacrifices are ethical.
kant vs utilitarianism
Damon Land
Ethics: Kantian vs
Utilitarianism
Kant was a firm believer in both autonomy, and rationality.
He believed that good will is the only unqualified good thing; that motivation
behind the action is all that matters, regardless of the results. Basic
example:
You see a beggar on the road claiming
to be homeless, you give him money with the intention of helping not only him,
but the world. The man, however, uses the money to buy a knife to kill dozens
of people.
In this instance, Kantian ethics would say you did the right
thing, because though the results were bad, your intentions were good. Basis of
Kantian ethics is to do what is best for humankind, even if it means to
sacrifice your own wellbeing.
On the other hand, utilitarianism is a hedonistic view on
ethics that states that we as human, are in pursuit of maximum pleasure.
Maximum pleasure, however, can be achieved by not only pursuing just pleasure,
but also by minimizing pain.
I certainly find utilitarianism to be much more plausible
being that I find more flaws in Kantian ethics. The main issue with Kantian
ethics is that it requires a person to do what is best morally, regardless of
one’s self. My issues with this are that for one, morals are up for
interpretation, and what may be morally correct to one, may not be to another. To
set a specific code of morals, is an infringement on one’s autonomy, something
Kant is actually against. I strongly believe that someone (humanity) can do
ANYTHING out of their own self-interest. I feel, everything someone does, is
for themselves. If this same beggar from the previous example was to ask me for
money, me giving him the money would not be for him, it would be firstly for
me. I say this because if giving this man the money didn’t affect me (in which
giving him the money didn’t make me feel like a better person), I wouldn’t have
done it. The act of giving, is a self-pleasing act, that happens to coincides
(most times) with another person being pleased. Kant believes that
self-interest comes secondary to doing what is morally correct.
Without going into the different levels of pleasure and
pain, I do feel that utilitarianism is in many ways plausible. I do believe
that people strive for pleasure and seek to eliminate pain. I feel that, though Mills sees it as degrading to humans,
it IS almost like an instinct that we have as humans. While pain isn’t strictly
limited to physical, a good example is:
A stove has been on for a few
minutes cooking food. You accidently touch this stove with your hand, and
immediately, without any thought, you pull your hand away from the stove.
Why is this? If not instinct, what makes us move our hand
away from the stove? If not instinct what is it? Surely you did not think,
“hey, this hurts, let me move my hand.” It was a natural response. Why do
humans seek sexual interaction? Surely, sex is a form of pleasure for most. How
about financial success? Yet another form of pleasure. But what exactly is
defined as pleasure? Dictionary defines it as, “a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.” Basically, whatever
you strive or live for, is pleasure, and as long as you’re living, you’re in
pursuit of pleasure. While the counter to this maybe suicide, I also believe
that people who commit suicide may not all be psychopaths. Victims of suicide
maybe in pursuit of happiness still, if either 1) they believe in life as an
avenue to another life or eternal life, or 2) they feel like their greatest
pain, is in fact life itself, and to eliminate this, would actually be a
pursuit at again, maximizing pleasure.
Kant vs Utilitarianism
The two ideas in ethics that we currently have discussed are Kant ethics and Utilitarianism. These two ideas our different by the way they define us as people. Kant defines us as persons through our rationality and autonomy. Utilitarianism defines us as persons with desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure. It even goes as far as saying that we should do our best to increase the pleasure of everybody else around. I feel that the idea of Utilitarianism is a better moral code to live by because it is something that we as humans do so well. Utilitarianism also uses reasoning to decide what is morally acceptable and what is not. Kant has the view of perfection and that we should all strive for it but I feel that is an impossible goal because to be perfect in a sense would make you not human. As human we look for any way we can to achieve pleasure for ourself in whatever form we can. Sometimes however we get so caught up I the act of pleasure we do not bother to think about if it is moral or not. But in some instances there are times that give us pleasure and are morally okay. The same thing goes for our outlook on pain. We will do whatever we to avoid any pain.
Barbra Argument
All things that increase pleasure of people around you are morally good.
All acts of kindness increase the pleasure of people around you.
All acts of kindness are morally good.
Barbra Argument
All things that increase pleasure of people around you are morally good.
All acts of kindness increase the pleasure of people around you.
All acts of kindness are morally good.
As we learned thus far in the
course there are many conceptions of human nature. Kantian Ethics was based off
of Kant’s beliefs and what he calls his Supreme Principle of Morality. Kant
believed that what defines us, as people are our rationality and autonomy. According
to Kant each of our actions reflect one or more maxims. Kant states that,
“duties of justice are the most important of our duties.” What matters most with Kant is the intention
of an action, your motive behind what you are doing. It isn’t just about doing
what is right but for the right reason.
On the other hand Utilitarianism is the belief in which a person is
defined by their ability to express pain and pleasure. With this conception one
generally wants to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain. It is often
thought of as the Greatest Happiness Principle meaning whichever situation
leads to the greatest happiness wins. Here the consequences determine if a
situation is ethical.
The more
plausible of the two theories to me is Kantian Ethics. I feel that this is so
because if everyone has good intentions and wants what is right then life would
be easier. If people treated others in a
way in which they wanted to be treated then it would eliminate bad in a sense.
Kantian Ethics forms a respect for people by allowing the human life to have value;
this is why no one rational or autonomous should be treated badly for the means
of another human’s happiness. Kantian Ethics believes in the duty of promoting
the happiness of others. If everyone helped each other then life would run
smoothly.
Barbara
1.
All thoughts promoting others are ethical
2.
All Good intentions are thoughts promoting
others
Therefore all good intentions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)