If you had the ability to stop a crime before it happened are you morally pure because you stopped it or are you morally dirty because you refused to what needed to be done? How do we know what is moral and what is not? Morality consists of moral rules that you place on yourself. From research, I have learned that Kant, Mill, and Sarte all have solid views on what is right and wrong.
Kant believes, “Only thing that is good without qualification is the good will.” The good will is the will to do the right thing. Only good actions are the ones you do for respect of the moral rules. Kant has two types of moral rules— categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are prudence than moral. Hypothetical imperatives are good as …show more content…
Existentialism is built around a number of key insights—things are weirder than we think, we are free, we shouldn’t live in bath faith, we free to dismantle capitalism. Sarte believes the best thing you can do is to live authentically. The people we look up too—parents, politicians, etc.—are all faking it, because they don’t know all the answers either. Any meaning your life has, you’ve given it to yourself. No moral theory can help you decide what situation is right. The only true choice is the choice the person chooses because it is determined by the values one chose to accept. Sincere actions paint a picture of what all humans should be like. We are defined by our actions. If a person believes that they are nice person, but they go around and perform mean actions then some existentialists would say that they are mean person based on the actions they performed. There are no good or bad situations.
Overall, Kant would not be okay with a person lying because it would create the opportunity that it is okay for everyone to lie. Mill would be okay with a simple white lie because someone other than yourself is benefited from it, but Mill would not be okay with a big lie. Sarte’s views align with Mill and Kant by simply saying based on what we do, we determine how humans are supposed to
Kant believes, “Only thing that is good without qualification is the good will.” The good will is the will to do the right thing. Only good actions are the ones you do for respect of the moral rules. Kant has two types of moral rules— categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are prudence than moral. Hypothetical imperatives are good as …show more content…
Existentialism is built around a number of key insights—things are weirder than we think, we are free, we shouldn’t live in bath faith, we free to dismantle capitalism. Sarte believes the best thing you can do is to live authentically. The people we look up too—parents, politicians, etc.—are all faking it, because they don’t know all the answers either. Any meaning your life has, you’ve given it to yourself. No moral theory can help you decide what situation is right. The only true choice is the choice the person chooses because it is determined by the values one chose to accept. Sincere actions paint a picture of what all humans should be like. We are defined by our actions. If a person believes that they are nice person, but they go around and perform mean actions then some existentialists would say that they are mean person based on the actions they performed. There are no good or bad situations.
Overall, Kant would not be okay with a person lying because it would create the opportunity that it is okay for everyone to lie. Mill would be okay with a simple white lie because someone other than yourself is benefited from it, but Mill would not be okay with a big lie. Sarte’s views align with Mill and Kant by simply saying based on what we do, we determine how humans are supposed to