Kantian ethics was proposed by a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. He believed human beings are defined by rationality and autonomy. He suggested we should never undermine someone’s rationality and autonomy, instead promote your own and other peoples. According to Kant’s view, acting morally meant doing the right things but also doing them for the right reasons. The intention of an action determines if it is ethical, not the consequence. Jeremy Bentham a British philosopher was the founder of Utilitarianism. This theory centers on the idea that actions are moral if they increase happiness and decrease pain. Utilitarian’s believe we should always act in the way that generates the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected.
I believe in today’s society Utilitarianism is more plausible. In my opinion, the greater good for the masses outweighs always having the correct moral intentions. I chose Utilitarianism because it is a natural human instinct to want to increase pleasure and decrease pain in life. Kantian ethics seems more focused on living the perfect life which is not realistic. People make mistakes and it us unreasonable to always expect them to make the correct decisions in life.
One example I thought about is a celebrity donating money to charity. Say for instance, the person was donating millions of dollars as a way of gaining good publicity and didn’t really care that much about the charity. Kant would say this action is immoral because that person had poor intentions and was using other people as a means to benefit themselves. I tend to disagree. Even though that person had poor intentions, they are still helping and increasing other people’s happiness. I believe that the end result is more important then the intent.
Barbara
1. All acts that increase satisfaction are morally good
2. All acts of kindness are acts that increase satisfaction
3. Therefore, all acts of kindness are morally good.
I believe that the stance you took is correct. In the world we live in today, there is no way that we could carry out Kantian ethics based on the sole reason that human beings can never be defined as perfect. I also agree Kant believed that a person should live up to this unreasonably high standard of living that completely rules out making mistakes. Your example of a celebrity donating money to a charity was great because no matter what the intentions, in the end the money donated is still helping those in need.
ReplyDeleteYou make good points, but I feel trying to always please the greater good of the masses can sometimes be evil. If the majority of society benefits from expelling gypsies that dosn't make it morally sound. We have to overcome our instincts, use a higher rational then our base urges to determine what is right and wrong. Thats why I think Kant would be more practical, as human beings we should hold ourselves to higher standards then then the sense of pleasure and pain, a commonality among animals. Even if you believe as you do, that Kantian ethics is perfection and unatainable, I believe striving for that perfection will produce more morally sound people then surrendering to a abject pleasure model as a moral measurement system.
ReplyDelete