Kant And Sir William David Ross Essay

C.S. Lewis covers many topics in his fourth book contained in Mere Christianity titled BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. He addresses such topics as theology, what it means to be the Son of God, the three personal God, the relationship of God and time, the cost of being a Christian, how God works to turn us into image of Christ, why Christian growth is both hard and easy, and also what he thinks about our old personalities before becoming Christians. These are all relative topics that apply to us and our daily lives. Learning and understanding this book can help a Christian tremendously in forming a deeper relationship with God.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis stands as a work in Christian apologetics, serving as a defense to the faith. The book was originally presented by C.S. Lewis during World War II, and aimed to be a simple, precise explanation of the Christian faith (Lewis 1). Lewis uses easy-to-understand language and vivid analogies to present a coherent case for Christianity, and addresses fundamental questions about morality, human nature, and God’s existence. A former atheist turned devout Christian, C.S. Lewis invites readers to inquire intellectually about faith and challenges them to consider the implications of their current beliefs and search for profound truth. While Christianity has many denominations, Mere Christianity aims to create a common ground

I remember when the Christian faith finally began making sense to me. By the end of my reading of the first book of C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” I began to feel a spark of faith and hope. Lewis’ apologetic is geared primarily toward nonbelievers, and discusses social law as evidence for God, as well as a short glimpse of the Christian faith. Lewis uses the existence of what we a call a “conscious,” or the notion that there are things that people should and should not do to point to the existence of a higher power.

Lewis upholds his focus on “mere” Christianity by not focusing on a certain denomination’s beliefs, but he focuses on what is accepted by Christians, of all sects, as a

3) Kant and Ross represent two very different forms of deontological ethical theory. Begin by explaining what their two theories have in common. Explain Kant’s categorical imperative. Pick an example and show how his position compares to Ross’ notion of prima facie obligations.

Duty-based ethics are based on duty or obligation. Kant argues that there are higher principles that are good in no matter the time, situation, or culture. Therefore, when faced with

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

Immanuel Kant was an influential philosopher that looked at ethics and morality from a different perspective from Utilitarians. Kant believed that people are obligated to follow

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

There are four main philosophers that set the basis for different styles of ethics. The four Philosophers that made a huge impact on us all are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. All four philosophers are very well known for their intelligence and work in the ethics community. Although all of the philosophers have the same goal of defining ethics and how we should behave in terms of the highest good for human beings they all do it in different ways in which they feel is the proper way. Throughout this paper I will be comparing each of the four main Philosophers that we learned about this semester to each other so that you can

Immanual Kant theorised that moral rules are based on reason, in other words the ability to think and form logical judgements.(2) He believed that this moral reasoning is a priori, which meant that there is no knowledge needed of the outcome of an action to know if it is right or wrong.(2) His theory is an example of a deontological theory – the

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.