In Steven Cahn’s book, Exploring Ethics, we learn about many philosophers and their approach on ethics. Ethics is considered to be the moral principles that govern a person 's or group 's behavior. (Wikipedia) Cahn takes us in to the approaches by Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mills, Aristotle and Virginia Held. Each philosopher had a very different view on morals and how we should approach them but we also find similarities throughout their views.
Immanuel Kant believes that good will is defined by duty. He believes that “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, it is good only through its willing.” (Kant) Kant believes that we should act in such a way that we …show more content…
Kant’s view on duty has to do with duty for the sake of the law but Mill’s view is that one duty is increasing happiness among large numbers of people. They both feel that a person has a duty to fulfill whether it is self-sufficient or because they are following rules. A similarity that follows both Aristotle and Mill is that they both founded their views on happiness even though they might disagree on their understanding of the subject. Aristotle vies happiness as an “end in itself”, whereas Mill sees happiness as both quality and quantity. Mill has many similarities with both Kant and Aristotle. He sees the opinions and views of both philosophers but does not always agree with both …show more content…
I have struggle with many situations that involved doing the just view of others and had to decipher what was morally correct to me. While teaching in a school one day I had a parent bring in food for their child which was against our no outside food policy. She knew her child would not eat the food on the menu so she asked me to feed him the food she brought. I was in the dilemma of following the parents request or following the schools rule. I knew the child would go the rest of the day hungry if I did not provide him the food his parents brought, but I could get in trouble for feeding a child outside food.
I knew that there were many food allergies among the other classrooms and mine, so it made it hard to give the child the food from home. I debated on asking our Principal because I did not want the parent to get in trouble. After several minutes of debating on whether or not I should give the child the food, which personally I did not want the child to go without eating. I called the Principal and asked whether or not I should give the child our school food or the outside food. The Principal replied that he needed to eat the school food and that if he was hungry enough he would
Immanuel Kant believes that good will is defined by duty. He believes that “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, it is good only through its willing.” (Kant) Kant believes that we should act in such a way that we …show more content…
Kant’s view on duty has to do with duty for the sake of the law but Mill’s view is that one duty is increasing happiness among large numbers of people. They both feel that a person has a duty to fulfill whether it is self-sufficient or because they are following rules. A similarity that follows both Aristotle and Mill is that they both founded their views on happiness even though they might disagree on their understanding of the subject. Aristotle vies happiness as an “end in itself”, whereas Mill sees happiness as both quality and quantity. Mill has many similarities with both Kant and Aristotle. He sees the opinions and views of both philosophers but does not always agree with both …show more content…
I have struggle with many situations that involved doing the just view of others and had to decipher what was morally correct to me. While teaching in a school one day I had a parent bring in food for their child which was against our no outside food policy. She knew her child would not eat the food on the menu so she asked me to feed him the food she brought. I was in the dilemma of following the parents request or following the schools rule. I knew the child would go the rest of the day hungry if I did not provide him the food his parents brought, but I could get in trouble for feeding a child outside food.
I knew that there were many food allergies among the other classrooms and mine, so it made it hard to give the child the food from home. I debated on asking our Principal because I did not want the parent to get in trouble. After several minutes of debating on whether or not I should give the child the food, which personally I did not want the child to go without eating. I called the Principal and asked whether or not I should give the child our school food or the outside food. The Principal replied that he needed to eat the school food and that if he was hungry enough he would