complicated and we may not always know for sure what the virtuous person would do in a situation. “Being” is a state. Not like Minnesota. Having the right intentions and doing the right things make us a virtuous person. We may not always be able to prove our intentions though and what we might find to be the right thing to do, may not actually be.
Jonathan Bennett seems to be a combination of the different theories, seeking balance in our decisions. I found his sympathies and moralities theory to be that intersection between feeling and principle. I feel his theory is a combination of both “doing” and “being”, as we should find proper balance between our feelings and principles. This balance involves our duties and our character. We are at …show more content…
Deontology theories believe that whether or not an action is right or not is contingent on if it fulfills our duty vs consequences that come from such actions. Kant formulates The Categorical Imperative to assist us in determining what are moral duties are. There are three different formulations of the CI. These three versions are what Kant deems as the supreme principle of morality. Imperatives are commands. Categorical Imperatives command unconditionally.
The first formulation is considered The Formula of Universal Law. It states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (of nature)”. Unless you want it to be lawfully ok for everyone to cheat on their taxes, commit murder or steal, you shall not commit such acts. This can also be something as simple as lying …show more content…
Most transactions are good actions, where both parties are entering the transaction with good intentions. Stealing vegetables out of someone’s garden then selling them for profit would have ill intentions. You would be using someone to gain profit for yourself. You are doing so without their knowledge. When you use someone as a mere means they are not able to consent to the action.
Another example of means vs mere means would be lawn mowing for a summer. Let’s say I need my lawn mowed once a week all Summer and don’t want to have to pay a company to do it. I also don’t have the time or desire to do it myself. I can ask the neighbor boy if he would be interested in earning some money helping me out. He is trying to save money to get a puppy for his sister. He agrees. At the end of the summer he has mowed my lawn every single week, done a good job and I now owe him the agreed upon
Jonathan Bennett seems to be a combination of the different theories, seeking balance in our decisions. I found his sympathies and moralities theory to be that intersection between feeling and principle. I feel his theory is a combination of both “doing” and “being”, as we should find proper balance between our feelings and principles. This balance involves our duties and our character. We are at …show more content…
Deontology theories believe that whether or not an action is right or not is contingent on if it fulfills our duty vs consequences that come from such actions. Kant formulates The Categorical Imperative to assist us in determining what are moral duties are. There are three different formulations of the CI. These three versions are what Kant deems as the supreme principle of morality. Imperatives are commands. Categorical Imperatives command unconditionally.
The first formulation is considered The Formula of Universal Law. It states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (of nature)”. Unless you want it to be lawfully ok for everyone to cheat on their taxes, commit murder or steal, you shall not commit such acts. This can also be something as simple as lying …show more content…
Most transactions are good actions, where both parties are entering the transaction with good intentions. Stealing vegetables out of someone’s garden then selling them for profit would have ill intentions. You would be using someone to gain profit for yourself. You are doing so without their knowledge. When you use someone as a mere means they are not able to consent to the action.
Another example of means vs mere means would be lawn mowing for a summer. Let’s say I need my lawn mowed once a week all Summer and don’t want to have to pay a company to do it. I also don’t have the time or desire to do it myself. I can ask the neighbor boy if he would be interested in earning some money helping me out. He is trying to save money to get a puppy for his sister. He agrees. At the end of the summer he has mowed my lawn every single week, done a good job and I now owe him the agreed upon