Agree to Disagree: Kantianism vs. Consequentialism
Agree to Disagree: Kantianism vs. Consequentialism
Determining how to classify the difference between right and wrong has been argued over and studied with no avail. Although all Normative ethical theories have positives and negatives, a few set themselves apart from the rest. Consequentialism versus Kantianism, although similar in some respects have enough of a conceptual difference to be studied further. Tendencies to side with Kant’s ethical theory over that of the consequentialist theory seem to be evident in findings, however both contain positive arguments in their support. When applying these views with an environmental aspect in mind, both theories have contributions although Kant’s is most pronounced. An overview of the subject matter will further understanding in determining this decision.
First, we divulge in the exploration of Kant’s normative ethical theory. The basis of the Kantian ethical theory is that acts, and the intentions behind those acts, are what makes an outcome good over bad. Kantianism divides this theory into three ways to determine intentions behind acts; “universal law”, and the “formula of humanity”. These two imperatives being the most widely discussed here on out.
Within this theory is the “Universal law”, stating “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Interpretation can be understood as an act is only permissible if the general truth behind the act can be practiced on a larger scale, universally if you will. The major weakness to universal law can be shown through an example of telling a white lie. Your wife asks you if she looks attractive in an outfit. Knowing that she spent a lot of time buying the outfit, then doing here hair and make-up, you say she does. While in your mind although she looks good, you believe she could do better picking a different outfit, wearing a different hairstyle, ect. If telling a lie in this instance is
Determining how to classify the difference between right and wrong has been argued over and studied with no avail. Although all Normative ethical theories have positives and negatives, a few set themselves apart from the rest. Consequentialism versus Kantianism, although similar in some respects have enough of a conceptual difference to be studied further. Tendencies to side with Kant’s ethical theory over that of the consequentialist theory seem to be evident in findings, however both contain positive arguments in their support. When applying these views with an environmental aspect in mind, both theories have contributions although Kant’s is most pronounced. An overview of the subject matter will further understanding in determining this decision.
First, we divulge in the exploration of Kant’s normative ethical theory. The basis of the Kantian ethical theory is that acts, and the intentions behind those acts, are what makes an outcome good over bad. Kantianism divides this theory into three ways to determine intentions behind acts; “universal law”, and the “formula of humanity”. These two imperatives being the most widely discussed here on out.
Within this theory is the “Universal law”, stating “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Interpretation can be understood as an act is only permissible if the general truth behind the act can be practiced on a larger scale, universally if you will. The major weakness to universal law can be shown through an example of telling a white lie. Your wife asks you if she looks attractive in an outfit. Knowing that she spent a lot of time buying the outfit, then doing here hair and make-up, you say she does. While in your mind although she looks good, you believe she could do better picking a different outfit, wearing a different hairstyle, ect. If telling a lie in this instance is