Wednesday, February 6, 2019

An Examination of Deontology and Utilitarianism in Deeply Moral Situati

An Examination of Deontology and Utilitarianism in deeply Moral Situations Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), an American patriot and politician, once stated, Mankind are governed more(prenominal) by their feelings than by reason1. This statement is significant, as it undermines two of the capital ethical doctrines in philosophy - the deontological view defended by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) in Foundations of the Metaphysics of ethical motive (634), and utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) in his essay, Utilitarianism (667). Deontology and utilitarianism are severalize theories. The former focuses on the intrinsic deterrent example worth of our actions, whereas the latter argues that the consequences of our actions mark off their deterrent example value. Nevertheless, some(prenominal) perspectives substantiate Mills claim that our moral a furcate of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty (678). dry land is an indispensable aspect of Kants deontological view, as he believes the will is a capacity unique to rational beings. In Kants opinion, the will is essential, as it facilitates our ability to act according to the universalizable maxims we establish for ourselves (653). Reason is also a crucial element of utilitarianism, as it is the intellectual faculty that enables us to distinguish the course of action with the best possible end (i.e., the choice that will ensure the greatest happiness or to the lowest degree amount of pain for as many people as possible) (688). However, since both deontology and utilitarianism are governed by the notion that moral judgements are established by reason, can either theory apply in circumstances in which rational thought is not feasible? For example, during World War II, a Nazi soldier offers a ... ...the least possible amount of pain). As a result, the subjective emotional component that invariably arises in situations of moral import reinforces the difficulty in ascribi ng concrete rules and principles to circumstances that involve moral deliberation. All that can be shown is that the womans final decision may ostensibly correspond to either deontology or utilitarianism in hindsight however, her unavoidable emotional fear hinders her ability to think rationally in terms of either perspective at the time in which she is forced to make her decision. Work CitedBailey, Andrew, ed. scratch Philosophy Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy. 1st ed. Toronto Broadview Press, 2002.Notes 1 Steven J. Hayes. Quotes by Adams, Samuel from Basic Quotations. 16 Dec. 2002. Online. 15 Feb. 2004 .

No comments:

Post a Comment