Duty Based Ethics
Name:
Institution: Duty-Based Ethics
Immanuel Kant put forward the ethical theory of deontology (duty-based) ethics. He argued that morally right actions are those that are performed with a sense of duty. Therefore, it is intention behind an action rather than its consequences make the action to be either good or bad. He emphasized the importance of personal will and intention to ethical decision making. The ethical action is one that is taken from duty, that is, it is done only because it is the obligation of a person to perform the action. He argues that ethical obligations are similar for all rational beings, that is, they are universal. His formula for discovering an individual’s ethical duty is the categorical …show more content…
This moral principle is used to decide whether an action is morally acceptable. He provides several formulations for this principle. In the context of this paper, only two will be dealt with. The first formulation is that an action is permissible only if it is performed on the basis of a maxim that one can say to be a universal law. If the maxim is; I will perform action x in situation y for motive z ‘then the universal law should state; ‘everyone will perform action x in circumstance y for motive z’. This is for determining whether everyone will act on the same maxim that you have acted on. The second formulation is that an action is acceptable only if the agent does not treat any human being as a means to an end. He believed that human beings are rational and that they have intrinsic value. He argued that treating someone as a means is using that person as a tool for getting what one wants. Under this second formulation, for an action to be permissible the following conditions should be met: Others are involved voluntarily in the action, the benefits from the action should be equal and others are treated with respect and politeness. The principles described above will be …show more content…
According to this second formulation an action is permissible only if the person does not treat any rational being as a means to an end. To assess whether the action of cohabiting with a subordinate is permissible with regards to this formulation, it will be taken through three steps. The first step is to determine whether the other party, that is, the subordinate is involved in the action voluntarily. This is something that cannot be ascertained but an assumption can be made that Lexie is cohabiting with Anthony voluntarily. However, Lexie being his subordinate, there may be a likelihood of Anthony blackmailing her so that he can gain sexual favors in return for her job guarantee. The second step is to check if both parties benefit equally from the action. It is also important at this point to check if the organization will in anyway benefit from this action. This step is also hard in this case because, we are not privy to the benefits that both Lexie and Anthony may be reaping from the action. However, it goes without saying that the organization will not benefit from this action as the other co-workers are already grumbling and complaining of favoritism and there are chances of a mutiny coming up because of the action in question. The third step is to assess if others are treated with politeness and respect. In light of the knowledge
Name:
Institution: Duty-Based Ethics
Immanuel Kant put forward the ethical theory of deontology (duty-based) ethics. He argued that morally right actions are those that are performed with a sense of duty. Therefore, it is intention behind an action rather than its consequences make the action to be either good or bad. He emphasized the importance of personal will and intention to ethical decision making. The ethical action is one that is taken from duty, that is, it is done only because it is the obligation of a person to perform the action. He argues that ethical obligations are similar for all rational beings, that is, they are universal. His formula for discovering an individual’s ethical duty is the categorical …show more content…
This moral principle is used to decide whether an action is morally acceptable. He provides several formulations for this principle. In the context of this paper, only two will be dealt with. The first formulation is that an action is permissible only if it is performed on the basis of a maxim that one can say to be a universal law. If the maxim is; I will perform action x in situation y for motive z ‘then the universal law should state; ‘everyone will perform action x in circumstance y for motive z’. This is for determining whether everyone will act on the same maxim that you have acted on. The second formulation is that an action is acceptable only if the agent does not treat any human being as a means to an end. He believed that human beings are rational and that they have intrinsic value. He argued that treating someone as a means is using that person as a tool for getting what one wants. Under this second formulation, for an action to be permissible the following conditions should be met: Others are involved voluntarily in the action, the benefits from the action should be equal and others are treated with respect and politeness. The principles described above will be …show more content…
According to this second formulation an action is permissible only if the person does not treat any rational being as a means to an end. To assess whether the action of cohabiting with a subordinate is permissible with regards to this formulation, it will be taken through three steps. The first step is to determine whether the other party, that is, the subordinate is involved in the action voluntarily. This is something that cannot be ascertained but an assumption can be made that Lexie is cohabiting with Anthony voluntarily. However, Lexie being his subordinate, there may be a likelihood of Anthony blackmailing her so that he can gain sexual favors in return for her job guarantee. The second step is to check if both parties benefit equally from the action. It is also important at this point to check if the organization will in anyway benefit from this action. This step is also hard in this case because, we are not privy to the benefits that both Lexie and Anthony may be reaping from the action. However, it goes without saying that the organization will not benefit from this action as the other co-workers are already grumbling and complaining of favoritism and there are chances of a mutiny coming up because of the action in question. The third step is to assess if others are treated with politeness and respect. In light of the knowledge