Kant's Poem
Alyssa Foccillo
Ethics 2200C
Midterm Paper
October 25th, 2015 Kant believed strictly in moral rules. He prohibited anything that did not follow moral law, even in the cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. Kant believes that there are two moral questions that we must ask ourselves every time we perform an act. The first being, “Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act?” If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. The second being, “Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?” Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Kant’s theory is only based off of our duty to do the right thing. He …show more content…
Killing cannot be ruled as a universal law because it is wrong. But say for instance if you are fighting a war against a country that plans to have world domination and mass destruction. Can killing be a good thing because it will bring out the betterment of society? Kant says no. In all instances killing will be wrong. If you plug lying into this law it is also wrong. Kant believes lying in all instances would be considered wrong. This can also be questioned. Say if your friend asks you, “Do I look fat in this dress?” and you don't want to hurt her feelings, Kant believes if you say no, that it is …show more content…
If we were to take a case such as the man stuck in the cave, we can see why. With Kantianism it says to leave the man stuck in the cave because it is wrong to kill him. Utilitarianism would say to kill the man because it would be for the betterment of everybody else. If we take the murderer at the door case, Kant says it is always wrong to lie even if a murder was asking where his victim is. If we do lie and the murder still finds the victim, then we would be partially responsible for another’s wrong doing. If this is true, Kant is saying to respect the murder more then the victim. If you look at this case in a Utilitarianism view the right thing would be to lie because it is for the good intentions of the other person. The lying to the murderer outweighs the protection of the other person. This would be even if it were the case of not liking the victim. Your loyalty is to the victim not the murderer. So telling the truth in this case would automatically make it wrong or
Ethics 2200C
Midterm Paper
October 25th, 2015 Kant believed strictly in moral rules. He prohibited anything that did not follow moral law, even in the cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. Kant believes that there are two moral questions that we must ask ourselves every time we perform an act. The first being, “Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act?” If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. The second being, “Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?” Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Kant’s theory is only based off of our duty to do the right thing. He …show more content…
Killing cannot be ruled as a universal law because it is wrong. But say for instance if you are fighting a war against a country that plans to have world domination and mass destruction. Can killing be a good thing because it will bring out the betterment of society? Kant says no. In all instances killing will be wrong. If you plug lying into this law it is also wrong. Kant believes lying in all instances would be considered wrong. This can also be questioned. Say if your friend asks you, “Do I look fat in this dress?” and you don't want to hurt her feelings, Kant believes if you say no, that it is …show more content…
If we were to take a case such as the man stuck in the cave, we can see why. With Kantianism it says to leave the man stuck in the cave because it is wrong to kill him. Utilitarianism would say to kill the man because it would be for the betterment of everybody else. If we take the murderer at the door case, Kant says it is always wrong to lie even if a murder was asking where his victim is. If we do lie and the murder still finds the victim, then we would be partially responsible for another’s wrong doing. If this is true, Kant is saying to respect the murder more then the victim. If you look at this case in a Utilitarianism view the right thing would be to lie because it is for the good intentions of the other person. The lying to the murderer outweighs the protection of the other person. This would be even if it were the case of not liking the victim. Your loyalty is to the victim not the murderer. So telling the truth in this case would automatically make it wrong or