The Secret Joke Of Kant's Soul Summary

Immanuel Kant was a renowned philosopher known for his theories and his deontological way of thinking. Deontology was also known as kantianism

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

All human beings behave in the same particular way. The two things that we constantly experience in our lives are pleasure and pain. We are always trying to find pleasure while trying to avoid pain. We seek pleasure and avoid pain because pleasure produces happiness and pain tends to produce sorrow and anger. An action would be considered right if that action created happiness and an action would be wrong if that action promoted the opposite of happiness (sorrow, anger, etc.). When we try to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action we have to contemplate the consequences of other people involved and not just of our own. Moral actions should result in maximizing happiness because it’s the right thing to do not only for yourself but for others as well. The utilitarianism approach states the we should always try to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the largest amount of people over the longest amount of time. Happiness is something that we always struggle to maintain constant in our lives because we regularly find ourselves in problematic situations. When we are in these controversial circumstances we may not incessantly do the right thing because we simply don’t know what the right thing to do is. How we deal with certain issues defines whether we acquire happiness or not.

Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. In this terminology action is more important than the consequences. Even if the outcome appears to be beneficial, the immoral purposes or actions cannot be

Things in themselves or among each of us is noumena, things as they exist freely of us. We can understand and know they exist, but we really can never know of them, because we institute order, our minds change things in themselves to an understanding form. If we can never really understand this distinction and will never really experience noumena, why is Kant’s response twofold, one the distinction actually shows us the real limitations of human tolerance, and second with such a distinction it is crucial in order to create a foundation for a moral philosophy competent enough in to preserving our own moral autonomy and sentiments in moderation for the onslaught from science and human philosophy. In a way Kant must have connected pure reality with human

Kantianism: In my opinion Immanuel Kant is the quintessential deontological philosopher. Those following Kantianism ask two questions before acting.

We all have seen how in the movies, the main characters decide to take on the situation presented in front of them. Some of would think I would of have it differently, or ask why would you do that? These actions can be defined through the term Utilitarianism. In detail, on Utilitarianism, it is a theory in which it is a concern action that will result the utmost amount of pleasure, or happiness, to the vast numbers of persons. (pg.138) In the most part, Utilitarianism can be connected with Consequentialism “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results. (pg.121) This is simply defined as good actions results in happiness. (pg.119) However, a better understanding follows the interpretation

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be

In contrast, deontology denotes an ethical perspective based on duty or obligation. Moral actions are assessed on the foundation of inherent rightness or wrongness rather than the primary consideration being of consequences (Nagel, 1986). From this perspective, Alyssa should take an action that disclosures and removes any questionable behaviors, no matter the consequences. If fundamental principles, for example life are violated, the action is always considered morally wrong, even if good outcomes ascended.

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

John S. Mill describes utilitarianism, also known as “The greatest happiness principle”, as a philosophical theory of morality. This theory is focused on the end result (a consequential theory) rather than the motive behind it. It argues that the morality of the action is solely dependent on the action’s results. The action is morally ethical as long as it produces the greatest happiness for the majority of people involved. Mill mentions, “… 'the greatest happiness principle ' holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness…” (Mill7). Then if it does, in fact, bring happiness the action is considered to be right. Mill focuses on consequences of actions and not on ethical sentiments. There are two major types of Utilitarianism: act utilitarians perform the action that will create the greatest net utility while rule utilitarians evaluate the rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they obey those rules whose agreement will produce the most utility.

Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

In the presented essay, I argue that both emotions and reasoning might influence moral judgements. It might depend on an individual and his culture, or the situation he is in. I conclude that emotions and reasoning are not two separate processes, but two ends of the continuum. Therefore, it is important not to neglect one or the other, but to consider all the circumstances to decide what exactly influenced the particular moral judgement.