There are two different moral theories on how to approach decision-making in life: utilitarianism and deontology. In this paper, there will be an exploration of the two theories and its application to a scenario of embezzlement. It is within this frame that we are able to determine which theory better justifies their argument after evaluating the actions of the company’s accountant, Kayla Archer
The philosophy of Utilitarianism is the belief that the consequences of actions are important to obtaining the greatest overall happiness. It identifies this happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. The moral theory developed a cost-benefit calculation, relying on the value and measure of pleasure and pain, for agents to determine the correct …show more content…
It relies on the thought process behind each action and the moral laws that we impose on ourselves. The faculty of reason falls into two categories: theoretical in which we use reason to figure out what to believe, and practical, in which we use reason to figure out what to do. It must be noted that there is a relationship between reason and the good will. The agent uses reason to describe the action and the purpose behind it while the will is an inclination towards what the agent is considered good. Good, in this sense, is “not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some purposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself” (p. …show more content…
The first principle states that “I should never act except in a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (p. 246). In this formulation, there are two sets of subsets of duties divided into perfect duties that we have to fulfill at all times and imperfect duties that we have to fulfill but at our own discretion as to where and when. If we apply Kayla’s actions to this formulation, the maxim would be “to steal when you can” which cannot be universalized. There is an assumption that there is ownership of property. In the case of embezzlement, money is considered a private property. If this maxim was universalized, it will create such a world where there is no ownership of money. Therefore, if there is no ownership of money, it can not be stolen. It is logically
The philosophy of Utilitarianism is the belief that the consequences of actions are important to obtaining the greatest overall happiness. It identifies this happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. The moral theory developed a cost-benefit calculation, relying on the value and measure of pleasure and pain, for agents to determine the correct …show more content…
It relies on the thought process behind each action and the moral laws that we impose on ourselves. The faculty of reason falls into two categories: theoretical in which we use reason to figure out what to believe, and practical, in which we use reason to figure out what to do. It must be noted that there is a relationship between reason and the good will. The agent uses reason to describe the action and the purpose behind it while the will is an inclination towards what the agent is considered good. Good, in this sense, is “not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some purposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself” (p. …show more content…
The first principle states that “I should never act except in a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (p. 246). In this formulation, there are two sets of subsets of duties divided into perfect duties that we have to fulfill at all times and imperfect duties that we have to fulfill but at our own discretion as to where and when. If we apply Kayla’s actions to this formulation, the maxim would be “to steal when you can” which cannot be universalized. There is an assumption that there is ownership of property. In the case of embezzlement, money is considered a private property. If this maxim was universalized, it will create such a world where there is no ownership of money. Therefore, if there is no ownership of money, it can not be stolen. It is logically