Utilitarian Ethics Vs Kantian Ethics
According to Kant because our actions often have unforeseen consequences, the morality of them comes from the intentions behind them. Kant’s theory states that nothing is good without qualification, except for the good will. The reason for this is that even though many things may have the potential for good, they have the same potential for evil; take for example the human brain. A will is good according to Kant when it “is good in itself, and considered by itself to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favour of any inclination” (Kant 55).
B. Kant’s categorical imperative states that our actions should stem from a sense of duty and universalization. Before committing to an action you need to ask yourself, is …show more content…
A virtuous person’s actions are often for the betterment of themselves or others, and in that way it completes the goal of the Utilitarian. However, as soon as one of your virtues got in the way of you or someone else receiving the most possible pleasure from an action, it would interfere with the Utilitarian way of thinking.
3. A. Unlike Kantian ethics, the ethics of care focus on personal dependence and relationships. This theory recognizes that people are interdependent, and as such should take care of one another. Kantian ethics however, is based on the motives behind the action and has a very rigid idea of morality. The two could not be reconciled into one, but they do ultimately serve the same purpose of ensuring the well-being of all.
B. Held calls into question whether or not such an effort should be put into remaining impartial with other moral theories. In order to get her point across, Held uses the example of parents and their children. If you wanted to abide by Kant’s theory of universal law, then if one set of parents love their children, all of them must. However, as Held puts it “they do not permit actual relations ever to take priority over the requirements of impartiality” …show more content…
A. Kant’s moral theory held that the action that was done because of a sense of duty is the moral one, while Mill’s said whichever action brings more pleasure is the moral one. Also, while Kant sees the reason to conform to morality as a respect to one’s own autonomy, Mill believes it is to become more harmonious with his fellow human beings. Finally, while Kant believes people have certain duties to themselves, such as not committing suicide or to develop your own talents, Mill sees people as having no duties to themselves whatsoever.
B. Theories of right action hold that the morality of a persons’ actions are determined by how much pleasure that action brings themselves or someone else. Virtue ethics on the other hand, states that the morality of an action is determined by the person performing the action. Virtue ethics looks solely at the person’s virtues and character to decide if that person is morally sound or not.
C. Consequentialist moral theories, like Utilitarianism, are concerned with the outcome of your actions. Stating that a morally right action is one that will lead to a good outcome. Deontological moral theories however, judge the morality of an action by their intentions, and whether or not they adhere to certain
B. Kant’s categorical imperative states that our actions should stem from a sense of duty and universalization. Before committing to an action you need to ask yourself, is …show more content…
A virtuous person’s actions are often for the betterment of themselves or others, and in that way it completes the goal of the Utilitarian. However, as soon as one of your virtues got in the way of you or someone else receiving the most possible pleasure from an action, it would interfere with the Utilitarian way of thinking.
3. A. Unlike Kantian ethics, the ethics of care focus on personal dependence and relationships. This theory recognizes that people are interdependent, and as such should take care of one another. Kantian ethics however, is based on the motives behind the action and has a very rigid idea of morality. The two could not be reconciled into one, but they do ultimately serve the same purpose of ensuring the well-being of all.
B. Held calls into question whether or not such an effort should be put into remaining impartial with other moral theories. In order to get her point across, Held uses the example of parents and their children. If you wanted to abide by Kant’s theory of universal law, then if one set of parents love their children, all of them must. However, as Held puts it “they do not permit actual relations ever to take priority over the requirements of impartiality” …show more content…
A. Kant’s moral theory held that the action that was done because of a sense of duty is the moral one, while Mill’s said whichever action brings more pleasure is the moral one. Also, while Kant sees the reason to conform to morality as a respect to one’s own autonomy, Mill believes it is to become more harmonious with his fellow human beings. Finally, while Kant believes people have certain duties to themselves, such as not committing suicide or to develop your own talents, Mill sees people as having no duties to themselves whatsoever.
B. Theories of right action hold that the morality of a persons’ actions are determined by how much pleasure that action brings themselves or someone else. Virtue ethics on the other hand, states that the morality of an action is determined by the person performing the action. Virtue ethics looks solely at the person’s virtues and character to decide if that person is morally sound or not.
C. Consequentialist moral theories, like Utilitarianism, are concerned with the outcome of your actions. Stating that a morally right action is one that will lead to a good outcome. Deontological moral theories however, judge the morality of an action by their intentions, and whether or not they adhere to certain