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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
DeleteI like the way that you began your opinion piece, because I got the notion that you were setting up two very different ethical backgrounds to than contrast them. Then, you went on in the introduction to briefly explain why you found the Utilitarian ethics to be more plausible. I then thought you were going to explain with more detail in the next paragraph why you think this. But you went back to speaking about Kantian ethics. In both paragraphs you mixed the two and did not use much support. The support that you did use above is a good source of evidence, but it is not cited. It is important to cite information you find to back up your claim. Lastly, you stated above that Utilitarians increases pleasure and decreases pain for "the largest amount of people." This is not true. You also did not add a Barbara argument.
Sarah, I think you make a lot of good points. The tax write-off was a good example of what your trying to say. The only corrections I might make are that Kant still says that we know are motive so we know if it is right or wrong and most of the time we are the only one who matters in that.Also, no Barbara example. Still, very nice job.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI do have a Barbara example, it's the last part of the first paragraph. Does it have to be written seperately to be correct? I don't remember from phi 100
"Utilitarianism is a very natural process. Things that come naturally to people are more plausible to expect. Therefore, utilitarianism is a plausible theory."