Kant's Utilitarianism
In his book, The Right and the Good, W.D. Ross defends the theory of moral pluralism, which is “the idea that there are several values that may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with one another” (New World Encyclopedia). In accepting this approach, we must assume that our ideas of right and wrong are influenced by multiple sources. According to Ross, in order to act morally right, we must be able to maintain a balance between our conflicting duties, or prima facie obligations (Klement). A prima facie obligation “[refers] to the characteristic which an act has, in virtue of being a certain kind (e.g. the keeping of a promise), of being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time another kind which
…show more content…
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is organized around the notion that everyone is bound by moral duty, no matter who they are, and that decisions should be made simply because they are right (Kant). His disregard for the consequences deviates from Ross’ firm belief that outcomes do matter. Similarly to Ross’ seven prima facie duties, the Categorical Imperative is broken into three maxims that apply to everyone: Universality, Fair Treatment, and Absolute Moral Theory. With universality, Kant hopes that we “[will] never to act in such a way that [we cannot] also will that the maxim on which [we] act should be a universal law” (Kant 11). Following this principle of universality, as we discussed in class, Kant believes that every human must be treated as an end, rather than a means to an end, and that there must be reciprocity in order to achieve universal fairness. In contrast to Ross’ argument that morality comes from multiple sources, Kant not only insists that our will is the only source for morality, but that, “Nothing in the world — or out of it! — Can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL” (Kant 5). While he is not really implying that nothing else in the world can be considered “good,” Kant is declaring that the only qualified moral good is a good
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is organized around the notion that everyone is bound by moral duty, no matter who they are, and that decisions should be made simply because they are right (Kant). His disregard for the consequences deviates from Ross’ firm belief that outcomes do matter. Similarly to Ross’ seven prima facie duties, the Categorical Imperative is broken into three maxims that apply to everyone: Universality, Fair Treatment, and Absolute Moral Theory. With universality, Kant hopes that we “[will] never to act in such a way that [we cannot] also will that the maxim on which [we] act should be a universal law” (Kant 11). Following this principle of universality, as we discussed in class, Kant believes that every human must be treated as an end, rather than a means to an end, and that there must be reciprocity in order to achieve universal fairness. In contrast to Ross’ argument that morality comes from multiple sources, Kant not only insists that our will is the only source for morality, but that, “Nothing in the world — or out of it! — Can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL” (Kant 5). While he is not really implying that nothing else in the world can be considered “good,” Kant is declaring that the only qualified moral good is a good