In order for me to determine how I would respond in the given scenario, it would be worthwhile to examine the three ethical approaches of Divine Command Theory, Act-Utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics. I will discuss each of these approaches briefly and then give reasons which one of these three is the most compelling to me. For me, I would like to choose Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, as propounded by Jeremy Bentham, is concerned with one ultimate moral “principle of utility’. This moral principle holds that “we should always try to produce the greatest possible benefit for everyone who will be affected by our action” (Mill 26). According to this principle, regarding a particular situation, we must choose among an array of choices the ones
…show more content…
Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires” (IEP). In other words a morally right action is the one that is commanded by God. An action is right only if God commands it and it is wrong if God says it is wrong no matter how promising its outcomes may be. God forbids to kill even a single person because killing one person would amount to killing all the humanity. From this line of argument, if I kill one person, it would not be different from if the officer in charge kills all the thirty men. I will commit a sin by killing a person, even I do not kill by myself. From the perspective of Divine Command theory, I will not take the sin on my head by killing a person and let the officer in charge take the burden of his sin on himself. Therefore, i will not kill a …show more content…
Unlike Utilitarianism, Kant’s moral law does not concern the consequences of a particular action rather it considers an action right or wrong with respect to a formal rule or law rather than the consequence of an action. Kant counters Utilitarianism by arguing that, “trying to derive moral principles from the desires we happen to have is the wrong way to think about morality. Just because something gives many people pleasure doesn’t make it right” (Sandel). Kant’s morality, their realization, and the pleasure thereby attained, is about the binding force of the “ought” rather than about individuals need. For example lying is never right whatever the circumstances at there, For Kant, morality is a principles for everyone including the one who lies and because we cannot lie to anyone, which should become a universal law, we all need to obey. But if we lie for saving or for a good ending, it is another question and hard to decide it is right or wrong. Reason demands us that we never tell a lie otherwise telling lies would become common among people and therefore, it is unreasonable to tell a lie in any given circumstance. (Sandel) He argues that our moral rules do not actually depend on our desires rather our moral rules are objective and based upon categorical “oughts.” However, Kant’s ethics is conflict with his own disciple Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer, though a Kantian, criticizes
Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires” (IEP). In other words a morally right action is the one that is commanded by God. An action is right only if God commands it and it is wrong if God says it is wrong no matter how promising its outcomes may be. God forbids to kill even a single person because killing one person would amount to killing all the humanity. From this line of argument, if I kill one person, it would not be different from if the officer in charge kills all the thirty men. I will commit a sin by killing a person, even I do not kill by myself. From the perspective of Divine Command theory, I will not take the sin on my head by killing a person and let the officer in charge take the burden of his sin on himself. Therefore, i will not kill a …show more content…
Unlike Utilitarianism, Kant’s moral law does not concern the consequences of a particular action rather it considers an action right or wrong with respect to a formal rule or law rather than the consequence of an action. Kant counters Utilitarianism by arguing that, “trying to derive moral principles from the desires we happen to have is the wrong way to think about morality. Just because something gives many people pleasure doesn’t make it right” (Sandel). Kant’s morality, their realization, and the pleasure thereby attained, is about the binding force of the “ought” rather than about individuals need. For example lying is never right whatever the circumstances at there, For Kant, morality is a principles for everyone including the one who lies and because we cannot lie to anyone, which should become a universal law, we all need to obey. But if we lie for saving or for a good ending, it is another question and hard to decide it is right or wrong. Reason demands us that we never tell a lie otherwise telling lies would become common among people and therefore, it is unreasonable to tell a lie in any given circumstance. (Sandel) He argues that our moral rules do not actually depend on our desires rather our moral rules are objective and based upon categorical “oughts.” However, Kant’s ethics is conflict with his own disciple Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer, though a Kantian, criticizes