The case of “The Schiavos” is focused primarily on one member of the family, which is Terri Schiavo. Terri had been in a coma for 13 years. Although, “no one is completely sure what happened but the best guess is she suffered a heart attack” (Pierce, 64) presumably caused by her bulimia. Due to the severity of her heart attack, it left Terri with severe brain damaged which in turn left her in a persistent vegetative state which leaves a person showing no awareness of one’s environment. Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, contended that there was no hope for Terri to recover and that he felt it was his wife's wish that she not be kept alive through life support. Michael Schiavo wanted her feeding tube removed, after which Terri would slowly die. The parents of Terri however, felt that Terri “should be fed indefinitely” (Pierce, 64). Thus, creating a moral battle between her parents, and her husband as to whether or not Terri Schiavo should continue to live in her vegetative state.…
There is an old saying that it is better to be lucky than good. This may be true if a person is always lucky, but luck sometimes has a tendency to run out. Making decisions that affect other people’s lives based on luck can be sometimes dangerous, and usually ethically questionable. Leaders who routinely depend on luck for success may find themselves relying on other questionable actions, such as lying, cheating, or stealing, to ensure luck stays on their side. Additionally, this type of behavior may force subordinates to make ethically questionable decisions when luck begins to run out.…
In this analytical paper I’ll be analyzing a scenario about a five year old girl who is in renal failure and is in need of a kidney transplant. In this the father is the only one compatible with her, but he does not want to donate his kidney to save her life. The scenario will be analyzed through the deontological/Kantian and the consequentialist/utilitarian viewpoints in ethical decision making. It’ll also be analyzed by deciding which perspective would be relevant and a discussion of what I as a doctor would do following the ethical view point of my choice.…
Emmanuel Kant (hereinafter “Kant”) believes that Ethics is categorical and states that our moral duties are not dependent on feelings but on reason. He further states that our moral duties are unconditional, universally valid, and necessary, regardless of the possible consequences or opposition to our inclinations (Pojman and Vaughn 239).…
Fraud is generally defined as an omission of a material fact or a misrepresentation of the truth, intended for personal gain or to cause loss to another party. The act of fraud is most commonly committed in order to deprive another of money, property, or a legal right. Fraud is considered criminal activity, and anyone who is affected by a fraudulent act has the ability to file a lawsuit to collect damages. J.C. Penny was accused of marking up the prices on their products and then discounting them to the original price in order to trick customers into thinking they were receiving heavy discounts and better deals. J.C. Penny committed this act for their own personal gain, and in doing so, they deprived their customers of money that they would…
Kant objects to the utilitarian approach as he claims it is practical and political. Kant believes the punishment must fit the crime and punishment itself when carried out accordingly and just, punishment is not evil. Kant’s moral theory is not especially preoccupied with punishment, and should not be thought of as primarily a theory of punishment. The reason for considering punishment at such length here is that in doing so, we can come to a better understanding of what Kant thought, and how he dissented from the utilitarian view, on the subjects of the moral importance of individuals’ well-being and what it means to treat someone with respect…
Immanuel Kant, disagreed with the Utilitarian principle that maximized happiness for the greatest number of people. In chapter 2 of his book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant theorizes an external critique that we don’t always act for desires but duty instead. Kant really has this worry and he wants to find a firm foundation for our moral laws. According to Kant, Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Universal moral law is not empirical, not based on experience because then it is not justified and can take on different meanings. Once you strip away everything empirical, contingent, subjective about you will be left with a rational (form of the action itself). When…
Utilitarianism and Kant’s respective have different ways for demonstrating whether an act we do is right or wrong. Corresponding to Kant, we should look at our maxims, intentions, of a particular action. Kantians believe “If we are rational, we will each agree to curb our self-interest and cooperate with one another” (Shafer-Landau, Russ 194). In other words, humans are rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for self-interest. On the other hand, Utilitarian’s believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. However, this could associate using people as mere means and lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good.…
Utilitarianism (Mill) believes that the purpose of morality is to make life better pursuit of pleasure and happiness in society over bad things, such as pain and unhappiness. Whereas universalism (Kant) is a concept in which the ethical implication of an action applies universally to anyone regardless of the circumstances. Kant calls it a “categorical imperative” that we must act in such a way that we could will the maxim according to which we act to be a universal law.…
Kant knowing quite well of the difficulties, where he acknowledged that all moral philosophies are based on pure parts, and that even though the idea of pure practical reason may be good, as human beings affected by many worldly attachments, the incorporation of that idea into daily practice is not so easily accepted. And because of this reason, Kantianism has very rigid and cumbersome rules that sometimes seem out of contact with reality of society. It is because Kant realizes that doctrine of morals were first founded on a metaphysics of morals, but was later changed in order to increase its popularity in society. And this change ruined morals with merit into principles that are only retaining half the reason and moral. This seems to be describing Utilitarianism. The founding idea of its moral, common nobility was an idea of value. However, the philosophers tried to adapt the moral standard towards the actions of society rather than making society changing its actions to adapt to the moral law. This mixture of moral philosophy and worldly inclinations not only does not cut a clear boundary of good and bad, it also gives room for an individual to act according to his/her motives, which may or may not be accord to the moral law. Since Kant realized this dangerous downward spiral of morality, he set boundaries that seemingly…
How we as a human beings determine what is good or bad action and what moral principles must we follow in life? Many famous philosophers were trying to answer this question and come up with a great moral theory that will benefit everyone. Both Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory provide human beings with moral structures from which to make decisions in life. It is significantly important to first understand the basic principles involved in each theory and then compare the advantages and disadvantages of that theory. Only then it is wisely to choose which theory is more appropriate and practical in everyday life decision making. The best way to understand and compare Utilitarianism vs Kantianism is to see their difference in a real life situation.…
In this paper, I will explain the different points of view of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Contractarianism and their corresponding philosophers, as well as my own opinion about the presented case of the adulterous affair. First, I will begin by explaining how Kant would view this situation and what decisions he would make. In Kantianism, it is imperative to always say the truth and do that which is right. Regardless of the situation that one may find him or herself in, he or she must always say the truth in order to be moral. Kant assumes that by saying the truth, the person wants the good. Kant would find the affair to be completely immoral. Tom has lied to Carol with a lie of omission by cheating on her with Francine for more than a year because he has done something behind her back that they both know they should not do. Kant would also say that in this case, Tom should tell Carol about his affair. Even though Tom…
Abstract : . Kant’s ideas or his take on ethics was based upon autonomy (self-governance), and reason. He believed that unless a person freely and willingly makes a choice, then their action has no meaning much less any moral value. Kant also thought that every man when using reason when analyzing moral dilemmas would in fact agree with what he called the Categorical Imperative. In accordance with the good will aspects Kant’s claims on good will is the only thing that can be considered good without limitation. In this paper I will discuss several situations that I have been involved in where both the Categorical Imperative and a good will have applied to my personal experiences. Before I get started I would like to shed a little more light on the Categorical Imperative that Kant and others viewed as very valuable and vital if trying to understand the complexity of ethics and his moral philosophy. It is also important that one must clearly interpret exactly what the Categorical Imperative consist of before trying to administer or apply its formula to anyone. As human beings we tend to always have to have a logical answer based on reasoning from one source or another. Kant as a philosopher probably conceived ethics as the study of how it would be most rational to act, which is pretty straight forward indeed, but a few of the core aspects of Kant’s Categorical Imperative have many arguments posed against them especially from a Utilitarian perspective. I have done a lot of things that can merit a superior conclusion, and I have also committed acts that result in me being rewarded. Now as far as the inferior side of the coin goes, did I enjoy the rewards or gratitude given to me due to my actions that were viewed as moral or the right thing to do? Yes I enjoyed them and I will probably sub-consciously commit those same acts again. Now in…
’s duty to always tell the truth, should take into consideration, the consequences of that truth, so that the greater good could prevail. With Kant’s theory, he is expecting us to accept huge and absurd reasoning, such as, the consequences of our actions are irrelevant to morality and how we think. You could compare this to the actions that a doctor has to do. According to Kant’s theory, then one should not cut someone because we could not accept people cutting one another as a universal law.…
There are certain duties that Kant holds are either perfect or imperfect. According to our class discussion, a perfect duty is one that must always be performed. We have two perfect duties to fullfill, a perfect duty to oneself and a perfect duty to someone else. An example of each, respectively, would be to refrain from committing suicide, and to refrain from deceiving to or lying to others in order to further ones own selfish goals. Then we have imperfect duties, one to ourselves and one to others, that we can occasionally perform. An example of each would be to work towards developing our own talents, and to help others.…