Actions can be both moral and unmoral. The decision on whether or not an action is moral depends on the perspective applied. Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics of Duty are some perspectives used for ethical questions. These perspectives can be applied to the story “The Storm” by Kate Chopin. The story revolves around an affair between Calixta and Alcee that occured on the night of a big storm. Neither Calixta nor Alcee spouse seem to have become aware of the event that took place. In the story “The Storm” by Kate Chopin, the encounter between Calixta and Alcee is both moral and unmoral based on the Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics of Duty perspectives.
The encounter between Calixta and Alcee …show more content…
The Kantian Ethics of Duty generally is said to act opposite of what your instinct is since morality doesn’t always mean happiness. The instinct for humans often means to act on the way that would give yourself the most pleasure possible. Kantian Ethics of Duty highlight the idea that you shouldn’t use or trick people and to act in a way that you would want to be a law. The affair itself is an action that many would not want to be universal law. The fact that Calixta never tells of the encounter and instead, “had set the table and was dripping coffee at the hearth”(596) shows how she was avoiding telling the truth and used the meal and happiness she had to trick her husband and son into being unaware of any event that may of occurred. The letter Alcee wrote that night to his wife saying that, “though he missed them, he was willing to bear the separation a while longer”(596). This was to make her happy and shows how he was tricking the wife to make her think that he was only considering the feeling of her and the kids when truthfully he was considering himself and the affair. The use of wordage can be seen to make his life seem to be just missing them when he was not missing them that night. Calixta and Alcee actions are unethical due to the trickery and belief that they would not want this to be a universal law that was viewed acceptable in the Kantian Ethics of Duty …show more content…
Their uncomfortable encounter and hesitation are signs of proof (593). Alcee was at first determined to stay outside and the things Calixta said truly shocked her. If they believed from the start that their actions were okay then they would of never hesitated at first. The fact that Alcee leaves soon after and neither of them mention the events or who they saw to either spouse proves that they thought it was wrong (595). If they thought that these were acceptable actions then they would not deceive their loved one about what happened that day. In similar situations cheating has ended badly for all which is proof that this encounter was unethical and would lead to bad results. Society’s impact on what is viewed as socially acceptable or the social norm can be seen to play an important role. All in all I believe that the encounter was unethical based on reasons previously found in both Rule Utilitarianism and Kantians Ethics of Duty
The encounter between Calixta and Alcee …show more content…
The Kantian Ethics of Duty generally is said to act opposite of what your instinct is since morality doesn’t always mean happiness. The instinct for humans often means to act on the way that would give yourself the most pleasure possible. Kantian Ethics of Duty highlight the idea that you shouldn’t use or trick people and to act in a way that you would want to be a law. The affair itself is an action that many would not want to be universal law. The fact that Calixta never tells of the encounter and instead, “had set the table and was dripping coffee at the hearth”(596) shows how she was avoiding telling the truth and used the meal and happiness she had to trick her husband and son into being unaware of any event that may of occurred. The letter Alcee wrote that night to his wife saying that, “though he missed them, he was willing to bear the separation a while longer”(596). This was to make her happy and shows how he was tricking the wife to make her think that he was only considering the feeling of her and the kids when truthfully he was considering himself and the affair. The use of wordage can be seen to make his life seem to be just missing them when he was not missing them that night. Calixta and Alcee actions are unethical due to the trickery and belief that they would not want this to be a universal law that was viewed acceptable in the Kantian Ethics of Duty …show more content…
Their uncomfortable encounter and hesitation are signs of proof (593). Alcee was at first determined to stay outside and the things Calixta said truly shocked her. If they believed from the start that their actions were okay then they would of never hesitated at first. The fact that Alcee leaves soon after and neither of them mention the events or who they saw to either spouse proves that they thought it was wrong (595). If they thought that these were acceptable actions then they would not deceive their loved one about what happened that day. In similar situations cheating has ended badly for all which is proof that this encounter was unethical and would lead to bad results. Society’s impact on what is viewed as socially acceptable or the social norm can be seen to play an important role. All in all I believe that the encounter was unethical based on reasons previously found in both Rule Utilitarianism and Kantians Ethics of Duty