Moral Theories
Moral theories aim is to guide us in determining the actions that are right or wrong. This essay will be on the four moral theories formulated by the following philosophers, Kant, Mill, Aristotle and Held. The main difference that exists among these theories has more to do with their approaches to resolving a moral dilemma, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. Kant’s uses the deontology approach, which is the principle of duty and fulfilling obligation, while Mill’s approach centers on consequences of an action that yields the greatest happiness, this is in contrast to Aristotle’s character- centered approach, conversely Held “focuses on fostering connectedness among people” (Held, p. 114). Though distinctly different …show more content…
For instance, in resolving the Trolley driver crisis described on page 428 in the textbook, Kant’s theory, unlike others, will be the best in resolving this crisis. The only thing that counts in Kant’s theory is “the maxim upon which an individual act that is guided by a command of reason” (Kant, p. 98). Making the right turn is certainly the better choice for the driver though it will lead to the demise of the man on the track. While this seems like an awful decision, for Kant the only thing that matter is the driver’s maxim, which is base on “a command of reason” and is irrespective “of anyone’s particular desires” (Kant, p. 98). Utilitarian may object to Kant’s conclusion on the use of its maxim as a disguised and hypocritical attempt not to accept that the driver instead uses the utilitarianism approach. Utilitarianism as earlier stated it is a theory that judges the moral worth of an action base on the consequence of producing the pleasurable end. If so, in order to accept their arguments, we would be agreeing that killing a person and not the other five is justifiable because it produces minimal pain and suffering, and maximizes happiness. This seems absurd because it is unfathomable irrespective on which side one stands to measure the pain of some people against the …show more content…
"It is a universal rule that lying is wrong, but in any complex society", Rachels argues that "there must be a presumption in support of truthfulness. There must be a condition in which it’s thought permissible to lie; nevertheless, this will be an exception to a rule that is in force in the society" (Rachels, p. 63). “The maxim” of my action is the only thing that counts, if my intent of telling a lie is “done out of duty, and not on my inclination, and if I can will that the maxim of my action should become a universal law” (Kant, p. 100). then if I accept this rule, lying could be a right thing to do in some situation. In addition, I ought not to lie, if doing so involves using a person, as a means to an end, otherwise lying is
Moral theories aim is to guide us in determining the actions that are right or wrong. This essay will be on the four moral theories formulated by the following philosophers, Kant, Mill, Aristotle and Held. The main difference that exists among these theories has more to do with their approaches to resolving a moral dilemma, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. Kant’s uses the deontology approach, which is the principle of duty and fulfilling obligation, while Mill’s approach centers on consequences of an action that yields the greatest happiness, this is in contrast to Aristotle’s character- centered approach, conversely Held “focuses on fostering connectedness among people” (Held, p. 114). Though distinctly different …show more content…
For instance, in resolving the Trolley driver crisis described on page 428 in the textbook, Kant’s theory, unlike others, will be the best in resolving this crisis. The only thing that counts in Kant’s theory is “the maxim upon which an individual act that is guided by a command of reason” (Kant, p. 98). Making the right turn is certainly the better choice for the driver though it will lead to the demise of the man on the track. While this seems like an awful decision, for Kant the only thing that matter is the driver’s maxim, which is base on “a command of reason” and is irrespective “of anyone’s particular desires” (Kant, p. 98). Utilitarian may object to Kant’s conclusion on the use of its maxim as a disguised and hypocritical attempt not to accept that the driver instead uses the utilitarianism approach. Utilitarianism as earlier stated it is a theory that judges the moral worth of an action base on the consequence of producing the pleasurable end. If so, in order to accept their arguments, we would be agreeing that killing a person and not the other five is justifiable because it produces minimal pain and suffering, and maximizes happiness. This seems absurd because it is unfathomable irrespective on which side one stands to measure the pain of some people against the …show more content…
"It is a universal rule that lying is wrong, but in any complex society", Rachels argues that "there must be a presumption in support of truthfulness. There must be a condition in which it’s thought permissible to lie; nevertheless, this will be an exception to a rule that is in force in the society" (Rachels, p. 63). “The maxim” of my action is the only thing that counts, if my intent of telling a lie is “done out of duty, and not on my inclination, and if I can will that the maxim of my action should become a universal law” (Kant, p. 100). then if I accept this rule, lying could be a right thing to do in some situation. In addition, I ought not to lie, if doing so involves using a person, as a means to an end, otherwise lying is