JAY
PEE B. ILACAS
Immanuel Kant
Synopsis
Immanuel Kant was born on
April 22, 1724, in Konigsberg, Prussia, or what is now Kaliningrad, Russia.
While tutoring, he published science papers, including "General Natural
History and Theory of the Heavens" in 1755. He spent the next 15 years as
a metaphysics lecturer. In 1781, he published the first part of Critique of
Pure Reason. He published more critiques in the years preceding his death
on February 12, 1804, in the city of his birth.
Early Life
Immanuel Kant was the fourth
of nine children born to Johann Georg Cant, a harness maker, and Anna Regina
Cant. Later in his life, Immanuel changed the spelling of his name to Kantto to
adhere to German spelling practices. Both parents were devout followers of
Pietism, an 18th-century branch of the Lutheran Church. Seeing the potential in
the young man, a local pastor arranged for the young Kant's education. While at
school, Kant gained a deep appreciation for the Latin classics.
In 1740, Kant enrolled at
the University of Konigsberg as a theology student, but was soon attracted to
mathematics and physics. In 1746, his father died and he was forced to leave
the university to help his family. For a decade, he worked as a private tutor
for the wealthy. During this time he published several papers dealing with scientific
questions exploring the middle ground between rationalism and empiricism.
Full-Fledged Scholar and
Philosopher
In 1755, Immanuel Kant
returned to the University of Konigsberg to continue his education. That same
year he received his doctorate of philosophy. For the next 15 years, he worked
as a lecturer and tutor and wrote major works on philosophy. In 1770, he became
a full professor at the University of Konigsberg, teaching metaphysics and
logic.
In 1781, Immanuel Kant
published the Critique of Pure Reason, an enormous work and one of the
most important on Western thought. He attempted to explain how reason and
experiences interact with thought and understanding. This revolutionary
proposal explained how an individual’s mind organizes experiences into
understanding the way the world works.
Kant focused on ethics, the
philosophical study of moral actions. He proposed a moral law called the
“categorical imperative,” stating that morality is derived from rationality and
all moral judgments are rationally supported. What is right is right and what
is wrong is wrong; there is no grey area. Human beings are obligated to follow
this imperative unconditionally if they are to claim to be moral.
Later Years
Though the Critique of
Pure Reason received little attention at the time, Kant continued to refine
his theories in a series of essays that comprised the Critique of Practical
Reason and Critique of Judgement. Kant continued to write on
philosophy until shortly before his death. In his last years, he became
embittered due to his loss of memory. He died in 1804 at age 80 (Editors, 2015) .
Kant’s Deontological Ethics
The term
deontological comes from greek word “deon” meaning “duty”. This approach to
ethical decisions holds that some moral principles are binding, regardless of
consequences. This approach is duty based, action based approach, also called
humanitarian approach. Deontologists do not look at how much good might be
caused by an action. They look at the action itself, deciding whether it is
prohibited or made obligatory by one of their rules. Usually, the rules are
expressed negatively: do not lie, do not steal, and do not harm the innocent.
In a few cases, the rules are expressed positively: keep your promises; treat
all persons as beings with rights, tell the truth. These rules are often called
constraints. A “constraint” is like a set of handcuffs – it stops you from
doing something, even if you want to do it. about lying or killing that is
simply wrong, regardless of what good you could accomplish by lying or stealing
– or killing – in some particular case (Priyanka92, 2013).
Deontological
theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an
admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of
their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a
favorable outcome.
Kant is
responsible for the most prominent and well-known form of deontological ethics.
Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the human being as having the
unique capacity for rationality. No other animal possesses such a propensity
for reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability that requires
human beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law or duty.
Kant believes human inclinations, emotions and consequences should play no role
in moral action; therefore, the motivation behind an action must be based on obligation
and well thought out before the action takes place. Morality should, in theory,
provide people with a framework of rational rules that guide and prevent
certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires.
According
to Kant, the moral worth of an action is determined by the human will, which is
the only thing in the world that can be considered good without qualification.
Good will is exercised by acting according to moral duty/law. Moral law
consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature – we are bound by
duty to act in accordance with categorical imperatives (Shakil).
Categorical Imperatives
There are three formulations of Kant’s categorical
imperative.
The First
Formulation of the Imperative
“Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
without contradiction.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of
Morals
Kant
states that a true moral proposition must not be tied to any particular
conditions, including the identity of the person making the decision. A moral
maxim must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding its
proposition and should be applicable to any rational being. According to Kant,
we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical
contradictions.
Second,
we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason but allow for
interpretation regarding how they are performed. Because these duties depend
loosely on the subjective preferences of mankind, they are not as strong as
perfect duties but are still morally binding. Unlike perfect duties, people do
not attract blame if they do not complete an imperfect duty, but they receive
praise if they complete it, for they have gone beyond basic duty and taken
responsibility upon themselves. Imperfect duties are circumstantial, meaning
that one cannot reasonably exist in a constant state of performing that duty.
What differentiates perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties are
never truly completed.
The first
formulation of the categorical imperative appears similar to the Golden Rule:
“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” Kant’s first
categorical imperative sounds like a paraphrase of the Golden Rule. However,
the Golden Rule is neither purely formal nor universally binding. It is
empirical in the sense that applying it requires context; for example, if you
don’t want others to hit you, then don’t hit them. Also, it is a hypothetical
imperative in the sense that it can be formulated, and its “if-then”
relationship is open for dispute.
The
Second Formulation of the Imperative
“Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely
as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.” –
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals
This
imperative states that every rational action must be considered not only a
principle, but also an end. Most ends are subjective in nature because they
need only be pursued if they are in line with a hypothetical imperative. (A
hypothetical imperative is a demand of reason that is conditional. It tells us
how to act to achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I need to
slake my thirst.)
For an
end to be objective, it would need to be pursued categorically. The free will
is the source of all rational action. Because the autonomous will is the one
and only source of moral action, it contradicts the first formulation of the
categorical imperative to claim that a person is merely a means to some other
end instead of an end in him or herself.
Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation
from the first. A person has a perfect duty not to use themselves or others
merely as a means to some other end. For example, someone who owns slaves would
be asserting a moral right to own a slave by asserting their rights over
another person. However, this reasoning violates the categorical imperative
because it denies the basis for free rational action and disregards the person
as an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one cannot treat another person as
a means to an end. Under the second formulation of the categorical imperative,
a person must maintain her moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all
people (Shakil).
Within
the categorical imperative, Kant (2006) states that “…every rational being,
exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means.” Kant is saying that we
should never use people to attain our desired end result; that we should treat
everyone with respect regardless of the outcome. O’Neil (1986) uses an example
in which a person deliberately makes a promise to another person without ever
intending to honour that promise. In this sense, the person who is being
deceived cannot consent because the rule, or maxim, of the first person is not
known.
The Third
Formulation of the Imperative
“Therefore, every rational being
must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the
universal kingdom of ends.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of
Morals
A truly
autonomous will is not subjugated to any interest; it is subject to those laws
it makes for itself, but the will must also regard those laws as if others are
bound by the laws. If the laws are not universal, they are not laws of conduct
at all. Kant suggests that people treat themselves and others always as ends
and never merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims that harmonize
with a possible kingdom of ends. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims
that create incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs when we attempt
to universalize them, and we have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that
lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs for all parties
involved.
Using
reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether
it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for example,
the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty,
and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim
that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the
universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and
contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If
everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the
act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option
is to go to a shop and order or plant one’s own flowers.
There are
a few acts that are always forbidden, such as lying, which negatively affects
trust between people and the meaning of truth. This rule remains the case even
when lying has advantageous or even morally admirable consequences. Imagine a
psychotic criminal wants to kill your colleague, who fired the psychotic. If
you lie about the whereabouts of your colleague, then an innocent life will be
saved. It seems moral duty forbids you from lying. However, a higher moral duty
trumps the duty not to lie. That is, the obligation not to kill or help others
in killing, is a higher moral duty that we should follow (Shakil).
Deontological Ethics of Some Moral and Controversial
Issues
Moral
Issues in Business
Based on
the first maxim from the categorical imperative, Kant suggests that every
action should follow a certain set of guidelines that is adheres by everyone as
a universal law without any exception. One of the positive outcomes from the
first maxim is that it ensures a certain level of certainty when it comes to
ethical decision making. This is because Kant’s duty-based theories only focus
on the actions and not the consequences of those actions. So, an individual
should be able to take a moral action without much dilemma if the decision is
right and govern to a set of rules that can be universalized . For example,
from a business point of view, a company who tried to re-negotiate a contract
is considered as immoral. This happens with a company who tried to reduce the
price that are stated in the initial contracts with their suppliers. So, one has to think whether the action of
breaking contracts can be universalized. The answer is no simply because
contracts will cease to exist as nobody will believe that the other party has
the intention of keeping their promises.
However,
most critics argue that in the real world, nothing is clear cut. Since Kant’s
duty-based theories can be considered as an absolutist, there should be no
exceptions to any given rules. Many business organizations will often
re-negotiate contracts due to many factors such as economic change. A contract
that is made 5 years ago may no longer be relevant today. Although this
situation often occurs, many businessmen still believe in the action of
contract making. If it is solely based on Kant’s first maxim, then, contract making
will become irrelevant.
Another
advantage of applying this ethical theory is the emphasis given to the moral
values of every person. Kant’s second maxim proposes that every human being
should be treated as an end and not as an instrument to meet an end. The focus
of this principle is to give equal treatment to every human being. In order to
achieve this, Kant’s has suggested two different forms of freedom; negative and
positive freedom. Negative freedom emphasizes that an individual should not be
deceived or coerced into doing something. Meanwhile, positive freedom is the
privilege to allow an individual to develop to his or her full capability. In a
nutshell, in order to treat another human being with respect, an action should
not involve any form of deception or coercion and it must allow the development
of a person’s moral potential.
For
instance, due to the current economic downturn, many companies are laying off
their employees. To many people, this may seem to be an immoral act. However,
according to Kant’s second maxim, this may not necessarily unethical as long as
the employers do not deceive or coerce their employees into taking the job.
This is because most employers argue that employees should be well aware there
is a chance of unemployment when they are hired for the job position.
Furthermore, workers often jump from one job opening to another in search for
better personal benefits. Therefore, this makes the action of laying off
employees morally correct. As a result, critics argue that Kant’s duty-based
ethics permits wrong actions to occur that consequently will make the world a
less happy place. Employees lay off during economic turmoil has bad
consequences. During this time, workers are looking at their employers to treat
them with respect and reward them for their loyalty. When this situation does
not happen, critics debate that employers are not exercising human rights. This
act in itself goes against Kant’s second maxim.
Finally,
the third formulation suggested by Kant that is each member of the society or
organization should act as if they are a member of an ideal kingdom in which he
or she is the ruler as well as the subject. This brings about the advantage
that every individual possesses the autonomy and rationale to make informed as well
as ethically correct actions. In a business setting, any regulations and
policies that are made by an organization should take into account the interest
of every individual before they are implemented. This allows the ability for
every human being to be treated with respect under a set of rules that are
agreed by everyone.
However,
critics argue that Kant’s duty-based theory does not deal with conflicting
situations. In a real business scenario, it will involve giving employees a lot
of autonomy when it comes to decision making. An individual’s interest has the
power to overrule the interest of the whole group. Kant’s third maxim will also
mean that an organization should not have a hierarchical organization where
workers perform the orders by their managers. When duties are conflicted, Kant
duty-based ethics does not suggest any resolution for the situation.
Furthermore, without a certain autonomy given to the managers, an organization
will cease to work efficiently (wordpress, 2015).
Moral
Dilemma in the Law Enforcement
Universality.
Kant suggests that we should consider the implications of our actions as if
they were universal. If we are considering not paying transit fares by jumping
over the turnstiles, we should consider the implications if all transit users
did not pay. In a law enforcement context, we should consider the ramifications
of our actions. For example, a lead investigator may consider misleading the
media in order to trick a suspect into making a mistake and exposing himself.
When the investigator applies the universality rule (i.e., the spectre of all
investigators lying to the media universally), it allows the investigator to
consider the negative ramifications of the action, even if the lie was made
with the intentions of bringing out a moral consequence. This is comparable to
rule utilitarianism, in which the universal application of actions should be
considered.
The
importance of duty. Law enforcement officers are required at
times to fulfill their duty no matter what the personal costs. When confronted
with a duty that they may not want to perform, the officers should consider
that they agreed to perform duties when they swore their oath. These duties
must be performed by someone, and when this duty falls to them, they must do
their duty. For example, a patrol officer who does not want to criminally
charge an acquaintance must consider her duty and the oath that she took when
she joined the agency. The caveat to duty is that the duty must be done in good
faith; that is, the duty should not be performed if the officer is aware that
there is a lack of morality in the duty. It is often said among experienced
police officers, “you are paid not for what you do, but for what you might have
to do.” This maxim refers to dangerous duty that you may not want to do, but
are paid to do, and ought to do.
Law enforcement officers
facing a dilemma in which rule utilitarianism and Kantian logic are at odds
should further understand that the choice between the two schools of thought
will yield different outcomes, and that the two schools of thought will help
the officer understand the options and how to rationalize the decision
made. It is not easy to know what option to choose, but officers should take
into account the stakeholders involved, including witnesses, suspects, society,
the agency and of course themselves.
Respect:
Kant believed that a person should never be treated as a means to an end. The
moral decision that a person makes must not in any way take advantage of a
person. An example is lying to a person to gain “something” in return, even if
the “something” is good or a conclusion that will assist and help people. An
example in a law enforcement context would be an investigator using an
informant to obtain information on another suspect, while offering the
informant the chance to remove a charge, when the investigator knows that this
will not happen (Keefe).
The
Ethical Issue of Whistleblowing
Whistle-blowing
always involves an actual or at least declared intention to prevent something
bad that would otherwise occur. It always involves information that would not
ordinarily be revealed.
Looking
at the conclusions and certain criteria given by many ethicists,
whistle-blowing is an ethical action. According to the standard theory –
Michael Davis ‘Some Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing’ (Davis 1996) points that
whistle-blowing is morally required when it is required at all; people have a
moral obligation to prevent serious harm to others if they can do so with
little costs to themselves. The action is morally justified when it meets the
requiring five criteria. In his complicity theory, Davis states that because
the whistle-bower is complicit in wrong doing rather than from the ability to
prevent harm. There is a moral obligation to help right the situation.
Using the
employment relationship as basis for the employment agreement signed by both
parties unless loyalty is specified as a clause. There is no obligation from
either side for it to be more than what the agreement is, so if whistle-blowing
is an immoral action it means you are not fulfilling the terms of the
contracted agreement you have with your employer. For example, if you are
disregarding your duties in order to seek out company wrong doing. The
deontologist might say that the rule ‘You should neglect your duties’ cannot be
made universal so therefore the action cannot be morally right. A
consequentialist still might argue that the harm caused to the company by the
employee’s neglect is not as significant as the harm caused by the company’s wrongdoing
to the community so therefore the action of whistle-blowing is an ethical
action after attempting to right the wrong through internal means (Lal, 2015).
Disclosing
the irregularities of an organization or institution both private and public is
a moral responsibility of an employee who is a witness or knowledgeable of
such. However, tolerating the supposed wrong doing due to fear could never
correct the mistake and the wicked action of the culprit goes on. Deontologist would
suggest then that as a loyal employee who are legally adhered to a contract
must do what is right and that is to report the matter to the immediate manager
to stop the fraud or any irregularity.
In the
Philippines, we have at least two famous whistleblowers and they are Sandra Cam
who divulged the secret bank accounts of then President Joseph Estrada; and
Benhur Luy who disclosed the pork barrel scam involving Janet Napoles and other
government officials like Senators Ramon Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and Juan
Ponce Enrile.
In
conclusion, I do believe that whistle-blowing is an ethical action if done in
the correct manner and also done for correct reasons because morally it is the
right thing to do, to prevent something evil that would have otherwise
occurred. As for incentivizing whistle-blowing, they should be put in a
witness protection program for as long as the whistle-blower is acting with
integrity and the intention is to prevent harm.
The
Ethical Issue of Abortion
Abortion
is defined as a deliberate termination of a pregnancy and it has been a
real-world ethical issue for a long time. There are different viewpoints from
debates provide arguments on whether it is ethical or moral to terminate a
fetus’ life during a pregnancy and before the normal childbirth. Nowadays,
modern medical technologies allow people to have an abortion based on their own
wills and needs in many countries. However, is it ethical enough to do so?
Before discussing this ethical issue, we need to consider these questions: Is a
fetus a human person who has rights, self-consciousness and self-awareness? The
fact is that there is no sufficient or solid evidence for this question. Some
say that a fetus is able to feel pain between twenty to twenty-six weeks during
the pregnancy. No matter what the answer is, the better way is to apply this
issue with different philosophical perspectives under multiple situations. Here
we are going to discuss this issue in terms of two opposite views from Immanuel
Kant and Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism.
According
to Kant, all behaviors and actions are done by people simply because they are
the right things to do. Second, people do things based on whether it is moral
rather than on any purposes. Kant would believe that an abortion is morally incorrect
because it is not right to kill a person and it is considered as a murder under
any circumstances. In other words, no matter what is the situation that the
pregnant women encounters, it is always not morally correct to have an abortion
to the fetus.
Kant
thinks any human actions should have certain moral worth instead of doing the
right thing for the immoral reason. On behalf of this view, an abortion does
not have any moral worth because it is considered by Kant as a murder to
another person no matter what are those reasons for the pregnancy. Also,
in Kant’s view, he believes that a fetus is a human person because it has a
soul which emphasizes the reason why he thinks that an abortion is not
permissible. For the purpose of doing an action, Kant believes that the
moral worth of an action is neither the expectation for it nor in any principle
which requires to borrow its motive from this expectation. Therefore, even if
the pregnant woman was raped and she cannot afford to raise this child, she
cannot have an abortion in terms of Kant’s perspective on the moral worth of an
action. This fact brings us to the next philosopher, Jeremy Bentham and his
principle of utility.
An
abortion, according to Bentham’s view, might be permissible under specific
circumstances. For instance, if the mother does not have enough financial
resources to support the growth of this future child, or the mother knows that
the fetus will be born with physical disability, then an abortion is allowed
for the reason of achieving a balance of pleasure over pain. If the child is
going to be born with innate disability that cannot be cured with any medical
methods, his or her life might be miserable from the mother’s view. Thus, why
not have an abortion? If it is already known that the child is going to suffer
all his or her life, why not choose a better way to relieve the pain and turn
that into happiness for both sides? As mentioned in “Principles of morals and
legislation” by Bentham (1780), a person’s value of a pleasure or pain considered
by itself is based on the following aspects: its intensity, its duration, its
certainty or uncertainty and its propinquity or remoteness. This is clear and
logical enough to analyze a solution to an abortion as it offers the capacity
of finding a better one than the other. There is no absolute distinction
between what is right and what is wrong based on Bentham’s view, only if the
consequences are the most favourable for the person’s greatest happiness, even
including the majority of the people related to this person who is responsible
to give that action.
By
comparing viewpoints of Kant and Bentham and relate it to our modern society,
it is able to observe that Kant provides a more straightforward answer to
whether it is moral to have an abortion. The standard of Kant is that, the
final decision is only based on the moral worth of the action and furthermore,
an abortion is a way to kill a person that is always considered as a murder and
it is never a moral action. Thus, although Kant knows an abortion is needed
when the mother is raped so hindered by many restrictions from the society or
how unwilling the mother is about having that abortion, he would reject it
anyway. Unlike him, Bentham would say that if that is the case, an abortion is
not morally wrong accords with the happiness of the mother and the fetus and
consider about their future life (Jasmine251, 2011).
In
conclusion, both philosophers provide their moral and ethical perspectives on
abortion. By contrasting and comparing the moral views of Kant and Bentham and
insofar as all the evidence available. For me, I would say that I agree with
Kant’s perspective because his view is so straightforward to decide what is
right and what is wrong, abortion is a sin in the eyes of God and besides the
fetus inside the womb is so innocent and therefore, he has the right to live in
whatever circumstances and whatever family and environment he would belong to.
Criticisms
Against Kant’s Deontological Ethics
Kantian ethics has much to recommend it. Among
other things, it can acknowledge that certain practices, like torturing and
killing innocent people in order to reduce the crime rate, are simply wrong,
regardless of the consequences. The inability to acknowledge this was one of
the main problems with utilitarianism.
Unfortunately, Kantian ethics faces some serious
difficulties of its own. First, because all duties are absolute, it can’t help
us to resolve conflicts of duty (for example, telling the truth vs. protecting
your friends). Second, it discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy
and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. Third, by completely
ignoring the consequences of an action, it is purposefully blind to a fact
about action which, although perhaps not strictly determining moral
worth, does seem to be relevant, at least sometimes (Summary of
Kantian Ethics).
Moreover, Kant’s theory has these weaknesses and limitations as follows:
§ It
doesn’t fit our intuitions.
There are aspects of
Kant’s theory that fall clearly outside of our ‘moral intuitions’. For example,
Kant’s scenario where a madman is at your door with an axe asking if your
friend is inside goes against our moral intuitions. Surely it is more moral to
lie than allow someone to be brutally murdered but according to Kant and the
categorical imperative it is your duty to tell this madman the truth. Our
actions here lead to a murder – how can this really be moral?
It doesn’t tell us how to
act. Another objection is
that Kant’s approach is impractical because it provides no substantive help in
making moral decisions when we are faced with moral dilemmas. The Categorical Imperative does go some way
in this direction but if we encounter conflicts between different duties Kant
offers no way for us to choose. Sometimes we are confronted with conflicting
duties. We use the term ‘moral dilemma’ to refer to those real-life situations
where we have two duties of equal weighting that are in conflict. The problem for Kant
was that he believed our duties are absolute and so we are compelled to obey
the command of each duty – where these duties conflict, Kant provides no
procedure for resolving this conflict.
§
It doesn’t acknowledge
the role of emotion. A further objection to Kant is that he encourages a cold and calculative
approach to ethics by demanding that we put aside our feelings for the fellow
suffering of others. Kant’s claim that emotions are irrelevant, and that the
only appropriate motive for moral action is a sense of duty seems to be at odds
with our intuition that certain emotions have a moral dimension, such as guilt
and sympathy or pride and jealousy – don’t we regard that possession of such
emotions itself as morally praise- or blame-worthy (Criticisms
of Kant).
Conclusion
Although Kant’s
deontological ethics have its limitations and challenges but if the three
maxims are taken as a whole, it can serve as a guide to all of us -people- to
become better agents of goodness and sound morality. Kant’s duty-based ethics likewise emphasizes
the value of every human being. Thus, they must be given equal respect at all
times. Kant is saying that people should always be treated as valuable - as an
end in themselves - and should not just be used in order to achieve something
else. They should not be tricked, manipulated or bullied into doing things. They
should not be used for personal aggrandizement nor personal glorification.
Kant’s deontological ethics although absolutist in nature and doesn’t consider
the outcome or result of an act reminds us to do what is right and pleasing to
God from the beginning. Moreover, Kant’s philosophical ideology somehow help
people deal with the moral dilemmas of everyday life, and provide all of us an
essential guide to acting rightly. The Golden rule should never be neglected as
a way of life in promoting camaraderie, compassion and selflessness.
Looking
at the other side of the coin, the absolutism of Kant’s deontological ethics is
impractical because there are instances where people break the set standards or
rules in exchange for better outcome and for humanitarian reasons, particularly
saving one’s life in danger. I believe that indeed in every rule there should
always be an exception.
There
are other criticisms forwarded by other philosophers and deontological critics
but the bottom line here I believe is doing the right thing that is acceptable
before God and without impairing others in fulfilling our ends in life.
REFERENCES
(n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2017, from philosimply:
http://www.philosimply.com/philosopher/bentham-jeremy
Criticisms of Kant. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2017,
from www.richmond-philosophy.net/philosophy/.../morality/.../Criticisms%20of%20Kant.p...
Editors, B. (2015, July 28). Immanuel Kant
Biography. A & E Television Networks. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from
https://www.biography.com/people/immanuel-kant-9360144
Jankowiak. (n.d.). Immanuel Kant. USA. Retrieved
June 19, 2017, from https://www.saylor.org/site/wp.../BUS205-11.3.2-Immanuel-Kants-Ethical-Theory.pdf
Jasmine251. (2011, December 10). Moral Philosophy.
wordpress. Retrieved from
https://aes251fall2011.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/final-paper-ethics-on-abortion/
Keefe, J. (n.d.). Deontology. Retrieved August 17,
2017, from
https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/2-3-deontology/
Lal, R. (2015, May 20). Is Whistleblowing an Ethical
Practice? Retrieved August 17, 2017, from
http://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2013/05/-is-whistleblowing-an-ethical-practice.html
Priyanka92. (2013, May 14). Deontological Ethics.
Retrieved August 3 2017, from
https://priyanka92.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/deontological-teleological-and-situational-ethics/
Santos, J. A. (2016, August 10). PH " war on
drugs'should draw lessons from other countries. Retrieved March 24, 2017,
from rappler: www.rappler.com
Shakil, A. (n.d.). Kantian Duty Based
(Deontological) Ethics. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from
http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics
Summary of Kantian Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved June
19, 2017, from
https://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/IntroBook/ValueTheory/Deontology/KantSummary.htm
wordpress. (2015, March 15). Moral Issues in
Business focusing on Kant's Duty-Based Ethics. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from
https://ncys82.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/moral-issues-in-business-focusing-on-kants-duty-based-ethics/
No comments:
Post a Comment