To find our moral decisions, we need to use logical evidence and theories to decide if our ethics and morals will allow us to harm an innocent child to create more happiness in the lives of others and our own. There are many different theories of morality that we can use to make this ethical decision. In this paper, we will look at many of the options and see how they are structured. Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Kant’s moral theory will all be put to the test and a decision will need to be made. First, we will discuss the properties of each theory. Next, we will see how some believers may argue against our decisions claiming we are on the wrong side of morality and that we may be misguide in our attempts to use the theories. Then you
…show more content…
There are three versions of how Kant argues his theory. We will discuss the first two and how they are formulated and used. Kant states that moral truth or code must be absolute, also referred to a imperative. Now, the imperatives need to be a rational code that can stand up to argument as well be useful and adaptive to new moral outlooks. Kant’s categorical imperative states, “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant’s paper) Now to use this theory as truth we must always have others, and ends in the back of our minds when making decisions. The second version of Kant’s theory, states that “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Kant’s paper). His second version was created as an aid to proving the first version and showing its value. Since Kant sees humans as rational beings, then they are imperatives and therefor must be treated not for what can come of them for us but what can happen to them if our decision is made. Both of his formulations are categorical imperatives and must be universal throughout time and space. With the implementation of the theories we have to see humans as ends and we must act only if we would wish that the same would happen to us in every other similar situation. (Kants
There are three versions of how Kant argues his theory. We will discuss the first two and how they are formulated and used. Kant states that moral truth or code must be absolute, also referred to a imperative. Now, the imperatives need to be a rational code that can stand up to argument as well be useful and adaptive to new moral outlooks. Kant’s categorical imperative states, “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant’s paper) Now to use this theory as truth we must always have others, and ends in the back of our minds when making decisions. The second version of Kant’s theory, states that “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Kant’s paper). His second version was created as an aid to proving the first version and showing its value. Since Kant sees humans as rational beings, then they are imperatives and therefor must be treated not for what can come of them for us but what can happen to them if our decision is made. Both of his formulations are categorical imperatives and must be universal throughout time and space. With the implementation of the theories we have to see humans as ends and we must act only if we would wish that the same would happen to us in every other similar situation. (Kants