Within philosophy, there exists many ethical perspectives that seek to justify moral or good actions from immoral or bad actions. But what truly makes something ethically permissible? Similar to many topics in philosophy, this question cannot be met with a simple answer, but instead, it should be explored through the unique perspectives of a multitude of different philosophers. Because a multitude of differing yet acceptable answers exist to the question, “what is the ethical or moral choice in this situation?” philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill have taken the forefront with radically different yet illuminating ideals on the ethical permissibility of our actions. Although a multitude of other moral principles could be applied
…show more content…
Based on this theory, an action would be deemed moral if the person does the act solely for the sake of doing it; however, Kant believed it was impossible to know if peoples’ actions truly had moral worth because people can appear to act purely out of duty but actually be acting out of self-interest. According to Kant, “since moral laws ought to hold good for every rational creature, we must derive them from the general concept of a rational being” (6). In other words, human beings are rationale creatures and we should protect that ability to be rational. Kant’s deontological theory is based upon categorical imperatives because moral duties according to Kant are not hypothetical. The first of these categorical imperatives states that you should “act only to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 12). In other words, before making a moral decision, Kant believes we should ask ourselves, “what if everyone did that?” In this case, maxims are our personal principles that ultimately guide our decisions and could be described as the person’s intention. For example, if everyone were to always lie, then everyone would know they were being constantly deceived. If everyone knew they were being lied to, then we could not be lied to, so therefore, lying cannot become a universal law. Because lying cannot be a universal law, it is not the ethical decision in any
Based on this theory, an action would be deemed moral if the person does the act solely for the sake of doing it; however, Kant believed it was impossible to know if peoples’ actions truly had moral worth because people can appear to act purely out of duty but actually be acting out of self-interest. According to Kant, “since moral laws ought to hold good for every rational creature, we must derive them from the general concept of a rational being” (6). In other words, human beings are rationale creatures and we should protect that ability to be rational. Kant’s deontological theory is based upon categorical imperatives because moral duties according to Kant are not hypothetical. The first of these categorical imperatives states that you should “act only to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 12). In other words, before making a moral decision, Kant believes we should ask ourselves, “what if everyone did that?” In this case, maxims are our personal principles that ultimately guide our decisions and could be described as the person’s intention. For example, if everyone were to always lie, then everyone would know they were being constantly deceived. If everyone knew they were being lied to, then we could not be lied to, so therefore, lying cannot become a universal law. Because lying cannot be a universal law, it is not the ethical decision in any