Heilbroner Vs Kant
According to the philosophers Heilbroner, Kant, and Mill ethics can be beneficiary to the human race; for in the instance that ethics can make you a better person in society. Mill believed that the things (events, material items, choices, etc.) that made the most people happy were the most morally good thing to do (par 1). Kant believed that if your intentions are good, your morals are good. Kant also had his Categorical Imperatives which is his view on how one’s maxims (subjective principles of actions) become a universal law (i.e. MURDER) (par 3). Heilbroner goes on to discuss about the future, the environment, and what we do now could benefit the future people (pg 1 par. 1). In this essay I will discuss Heilbroner’s point about the limits
…show more content…
Why? Because short people like myself are tired of getting hit accidentally by drivers who can’t see us, and enough people have died from this to raise question that we should do something about this ongoing issue. The rear view camera situation is just as important as what was happening in the 1950s, it was optional to have lifesaving seat belts in cars, much like the rear view camera today. Now that seatbelts are mandatory; more lives have been saved. Now, when it comes to the use of aerosols, is it damaging the ozone layer? If we stop now will it benefit the environment or is it too late? The whole idea with seat belts and rear view cameras is completely rational if it means it’s going to save more lives, but with the use of aerosols many people don’t take it too seriously, so in most people’s eyes it’s irrational to stope to use and production of aerosol products. People that are stuck in the 80s will still hairspray their hair and Martha Stewart will still use PAM nonstick spray for her …show more content…
Seems pretty simple, right? Kant says that happiness is irrelevant to being morally good. So basically, you can be the most depressed person and still be morally good; as long as your intentions are good. Morality is necessary to Kant, and being morally good can make you unhappy. For example, telling the truth can make you morally good, but it can also make you unhappy. Say your friend asks you “does this dress make me look fat?” and you tell them yes, technically it makes you morally good because you told the truth, but you’re unhappy because your friend doesn’t want to be your friend anymore. It seems as if Kant’s view on morality is somewhat a win lose situation. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is how one’s maxims become universal law. An example of a universal law would be murder, I’m 98% positive that it is illegal to kill someone because “you felt like doing it”, on the other hand if say you were in war and you had to sacrifice your life in order to save your comrades, then in Kant’s eyes what you did was morally
Why? Because short people like myself are tired of getting hit accidentally by drivers who can’t see us, and enough people have died from this to raise question that we should do something about this ongoing issue. The rear view camera situation is just as important as what was happening in the 1950s, it was optional to have lifesaving seat belts in cars, much like the rear view camera today. Now that seatbelts are mandatory; more lives have been saved. Now, when it comes to the use of aerosols, is it damaging the ozone layer? If we stop now will it benefit the environment or is it too late? The whole idea with seat belts and rear view cameras is completely rational if it means it’s going to save more lives, but with the use of aerosols many people don’t take it too seriously, so in most people’s eyes it’s irrational to stope to use and production of aerosol products. People that are stuck in the 80s will still hairspray their hair and Martha Stewart will still use PAM nonstick spray for her …show more content…
Seems pretty simple, right? Kant says that happiness is irrelevant to being morally good. So basically, you can be the most depressed person and still be morally good; as long as your intentions are good. Morality is necessary to Kant, and being morally good can make you unhappy. For example, telling the truth can make you morally good, but it can also make you unhappy. Say your friend asks you “does this dress make me look fat?” and you tell them yes, technically it makes you morally good because you told the truth, but you’re unhappy because your friend doesn’t want to be your friend anymore. It seems as if Kant’s view on morality is somewhat a win lose situation. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is how one’s maxims become universal law. An example of a universal law would be murder, I’m 98% positive that it is illegal to kill someone because “you felt like doing it”, on the other hand if say you were in war and you had to sacrifice your life in order to save your comrades, then in Kant’s eyes what you did was morally