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
I think you did a very good job defining and describing Both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism in the first paragraph. In the second and third paragraph you do not seem to pick which is more plausible however you provide more good information about both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. In the end you indicate you support utilitarianism as did I you might have wanted to put a little more defending your position. Finally the Barbara you posted was the Barbara formula not an actual argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought you broke down everything in an easy to understand manor, and explained everything thouroughly. Only problem was with the third section of your paper. That wasn't an example of Barbara that was the actual formula.
ReplyDeleteI think you pretty much considered each theory in an in depth way. You explained clearly what each theory means and if anyone who didn't know what each was they would get it. Lastly, the only issue would be the fact you used the Barbara formula instead of your own actual one.
ReplyDelete