Immanuel Kant Essay

Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Rights Theories, and Religious Ethics A functional channel, in the set sense, is unriv tout ensembleed what alleges that we ought to do something beca subroutine it entrust realize more total happiness than doing anything else would. Act utilitarianism (AU) is the moral theory that holds that the chastely cover propelion, the act that we conduct a moral duty to do, is the ace(a) that will ( in all likelihood) maximize returns (happiness, welfare, well- be). AU is non to be confuse with egoism.The egoist really only cares well-nigh his own happiness. AU says that every hotshots happiness counts equally. Suppose that executing Joseph would in the long run commence more total happiness than letting him live would. Then harmonize to AU, we ought to execute Joseph. Now if Joseph is a convicted serial murderer who would probably thrash and commit more murders if we tried to incarcerate him, past its probable to think that executin g him would be the counterbalance thing to do. But what if he has committed no crime?What if he is simply an extremely chafe person with no friends or loved ones, and the umteen lot with whom he has contact in his disembodied spirit history are very sensitive and disfavor him intensely? Since more total happiness is produced if Joseph dies (the increased happiness of the some who no drawn-out incur to endure him outstrips his unhappiness active dying) than if he lives, AU says that its estimable to kill him. This example illustrates what is probably the main(prenominal) objection to AU it tells us to fracture rights/commit injustices when doing so is requisite to produce the greatest total amount of happiness.A utilitarian argument in a looser sense is one that alleges that we ought to do something because of its ripe consequences (or non do something because of its gravely consequences), where approximate/bad consequences neednt be trammel to what increases or decreases happiness, still might include new(prenominal) things that a strict utilitarian theory attaches no positive or negative inalienable assess to. An example the FDA shouldnt applaud the morning after pill, because it will only promote out-of-wedlock sex. This argument assumes that out-of-wedlock sex is something that is per se bad, and that the risk of undesired pregnancy and babies will deter at least some, perhaps many, from prosecute in it, thereby reducing the total amount of it. The strict utilitarian rejects the idea that such(prenominal) sex is an intrinsic moral malevolent, holding sooner that if such sex is bad, it is bad only insofar as it causes bad consequences like unwanted pregnancy and babies. This argument for why the FDA shouldnt approve the morning after pill is transgress described as consequentialist sort of than utilitarian. All strictly utilitarian arguments are consequentialist, but non all consequentialist arguments are strictly utilitari an. The important point is that one neednt remember that utilitarianism is the correct moral theory in order to believe that consequentist arguments of all the strictly utilitarian kind or early(a) kinds provide good reasons. We roll in the hay admit that the increase in the happiness to others is a good reason to execute Joseph. But we can say that the fact that it would unwrap his right to life is an so far better reason non to do it. Respect for rights trumps maximizing utility.Suppose that we want to build a avenue that connects cardinal cities. The shorter highroad would require destroying some scenic wilderness that is enjoyed by some nature lovers. The longer route avoids that but entails a longer driving time for bulk who commute between the two cities. Which route should the highway be built on? Here its believable to think that we should make the decision on the basis of utilitarian considerations. We formula at all the costs and benefits of both alternatives and pick the one with the close favorable benefit to cost ratio.The other three viewsKantian moral philosophy, ingrained rights theories, and ghostlike ethicsall agree that there are many circumstances when maximizing utility would be rail at. Perhaps the strongest objection to AU comes from the inseparable rights theory AU is false, because it tells us to indulge peoples rights when thats necessary to maximize utility. The example of Joseph illustrates it, but heres other example. A surgeon has I healthy and 5 toss and dying patients. Each of the sick and dying patients needs a freshly organ one a bare-ass kidney, a nonher a new liver, the third a new heart, etc.and would fully recover if he received it. It so happens that the 1 healthy patient would be a suitable organ donor for all of them. If the surgeon kills the 1 and redistributes his organs, he saves 5. If he does nothing, then 1 is alive and 5 are dead. On the assumption that all six are equally happy, loved by o thers, and productive of utility for others in society, then the way to maximize utility is to kill the 1. But if he wont consent to creation killed and having his organs transplanted (he doesnt believe in utilitarianism), then killing him would violate his right to life.The objection is simply that it would be wrong to violate his right withal if its the way to maximize utility. Kantian ethics is establish on what Immanuel Kant claimed is the supreme principle of morality, the Categorical Imperative. Kant claimed that there were a fewer diametric but equivalent ways of stating the Categorical Imperative. The first, the Universal jurisprudence Formula, says that we should act only on principles that we can will to be a universal rectitude that applies to everyone. The idea here seems to be that when people act im chastely, they want everyone else to obey the rules but want to make an exception for themselves. some other way of stating the Categorical Imperative, the one well focus on, is the precept of manhood. It says that whenever we act we mustiness be sure always to underwrite all persons (both ourselves and others) as ends and never as mere agency. Persons in Kantian ethics refers to any creation with the capacity to make moral judgments and conform to them (where that often requires that one extend various urges, inclinations, and temptations to act against them). Persons have free will and reason. Babies are not yet persons, and cows and pigs never will be.Kants tenet of military personnel implies that it is only persons who possess dignity and must be treated as ends. Animals only have a use value and may be treated as mere means or resources. Animals may be used in experiments to test new drugs, but persons may be used in such experiments only with their informed consent. Kantians agree that killing the 1 healthy person in the above example is wrong, even if it maximizes utility for society as a whole. It is wrong because it treats h im as a mere means. Kant held that if one commits suicide because one believes that the remainder of ones life will be filled with more discomfort than pleasure, then one starts to treat oneself as an end. So long as one retains the capacities that make one a person, then one has dignity and one ought to respect this dignity. To think that life is worth living only if it is gentle is to fail to respect this dignity. Another objection that Kantians have to AU, especially the hedonistic version, is that it is a degrading to tenderity to think and act as though pleasure were the point of life.Kantians think that the point of life is the exercise of ones personhood capacities in moral deliberation and choice. This does not mean that Kantians must oppose all suicide and euthanasia. They support it in cases where people have permanently lost the capacities for free will and reason (e. g. PVS patients like terry cloth Schiavo). Euthanasia in these cases provides a dignified ending. O f course some generation when people talk about dying with dignity theyre assuming that its the need to be cared for by others (e. g. to wear Depends diapers and have them changed by others) thats undignified. A Kantian has to say that those people have mistaken views about the basis of human dignity. Its personhood, not the ability to care for oneself without supporter from others, that gives human beings their dignity. Another implication of the article of faith of Humanity is that lying is typically wrong. A woman who persuades me to sell her my new car at a low price by telling me a lie that I believe (males who drive your model of car are 20 times more likely to develop testicular cancer than males who dont) treats me as a mere means.She manipulates me in a way that I would not consent to if I were aware of what her purposes are. What many people have criticized in Kant is not his claim that lies like this one are wrong, but his view that lying is always wrong. In the case wh ere lying to evil people will help to thwart their evil aims (e. g. someone smell on committing murder asks me the whereabouts of his mean victim) Kant held that lying remains wrong. Instead of lying, I should simply not say anything. The main problem with the precept of Humanity is that its not entirely clear what it means to treat another person as an end. Its been claimed that it means you must treat others in ways that they would not object to if they were morally sensitive, thinking clearly, and well-informed about relevant factual matters. When society puts a thief in prison, its treating him as an end, because even though he might object to being incarcerated, he wouldnt object if he were morally reasonable he would admit that thieves deserve to go to jail. One problem with this interpretation of the Principle is that it assumes some other, independent standard of whats morally reasonable. Wasnt the Principle of Humanity itself supposed to provide that standard?Another p roblem is that it probably cannot support Kants judgment that lying is always wrong. After all, if the morally reasonable thief must admit that he deserves a difference of liberty as punishment for his crimes, shouldnt a morally reasonable person agree that lying to him is okay as a means of preventing him from committing murder? The Principle of Humanity is sometimes interpreted as keep the Principle of autonomy.The Principle of Autonomy says that everyone has the right to live his/her life in accordance with his/her own views about religion, the meaning of life, the moral virtues, dignity and honor, etc., so long as one doesnt infringe on the right of others to do the same. (Since this principle asserts the existence of a real moral right, certain inwrought rights-based moral theories might also support it). You violate my familiarity if restrict my liberty for my own good on the basis of value that I reject.Consider two examples. First, you knock a cup of coffee bean out o f my hands before I can drink from it. I object, but only because I assume, incorrectly, that theres nothing wrong with the coffee in fact, it contains poison. You have not violated my autonomy, because your interference can be justified by an appeal to my own values.Second, a competent, magnanimous Jehovahs Witness refuses to consent to a blood blood transfusion because its against his religion, but his friends force him to have one anyway, because they are convince that he has misinterpreted the Biblical passage that forbids the eating of blood. In this case the Principle of Autonomy is violated. I think that the Jehovahs Witness is better off having the life-saving transfusion. The Principle of Beneficence tells doctors to do what is in their patients best interests. Hence, this Principle supports ignoring the JWs wishes and giving him the transfusion.This is a case in which the Principle of Autonomy disputes with the Principle of Beneficence. I agree with the AMA that the do ctor may not treat the JW without his informed consent. Hence, in this sort of case the value of respecting autonomy trumps the value of doing whats best for the person. Are there any cases where the two principles conflict but beneficence overrides respect for autonomy? Our textbook correctly mentions libertarianism as one natural rights based moral theory. (Natural rights are supposed to be moral rights that exist whether or not the government recognizes and protects them.They are not to be confused with legal rights). Let me make a two points about libertarianism. It holds that our basic human rights include rights to life, liberty, and private property. The right to life is only a negative right (a right not to be killed by others), not a positive right (a right to be provided by ones society the minimum nutrition and other goods that one needs to stay alive, if one cannot obtain them oneself). Other natural rights theorists disagree with the libertarian, holding that we have p ositive as well as negative natural rights.A right to decent, affordable health or to free health care if one is poor is an example of a positive right. Second, in saying that someone has a natural right to do x, were not necessarily saying that its morally permissible to do x. All were saying is that others do not have the right to interfere, to use coercion to prevent him from doing it. Consider a racist giving a public speech in which he advocates denying black people the right to vote. To say that he has a natural right to free speech only means that others (especially the government) are mastery to step in and prevent him from speaking.It doesnt mean that theres nothing morally wrong with his speech. There obviously ispromoting racism is immoral. And in saying that we think his speech is immoral we dont violate his free speech rights. We exercise our own. There are many different varieties of religious ethics, but we should focus on three religious ethics ideas often introduc ed into biomedical ethics controversies in this country. They arei) The sanctity of life doctrineit is absolutely forbidden either to accomplish or fail to run some action with the aim of causing or facilitating the remainder of any innocent human being (oneself or another), whether or not the person to die consents to the act or omission, and whether or not he is better off with a quick and painless death. Hence, euthanasia (voluntary or not) is forbidden.The taking of innocent human life is Gods prerogative, not mans. No human being has the right to play God. On the basis of the sanctity of life doctrine many religious people oppose the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. (They usually have other objections to legalization not based on this doctrine). ii) Unnatural acts are wrong.though in-vetro fertilization and refilling birthing are both wrong for this reason, the use of fertility drugs by a couple that has had difficulty in conceiving is n ot. iii) (Roman universality only) The Doctrine of Double Effect It is permissible to perform an act the evil consequences of which one foresees but does not intend (e. g. the death of an innocent human being), so long as the intended good consequences of the act outweigh or justify the unintended but foreseen bad consequences.It is permissible to perform an act with such consequences, even though it would be impermissible to perform it if the evil were intended as an end or as a means to bringing about some other end. The craniotomy and hysterectomy examples and RC moral righteousnesss rejection of consequentialism. The craniotomy is supposed to be wrong, because the babys death is intended as a means to saving the mother. (It is supposed to be wrong, even though both mother and baby will die if the craniotomy is not performed). The hysterectomy is supposed to be permissible, because in that case the babys death is a foreseen but unintended side-effect of the hysterectomy.The cla im that people who condemn homosexuality, masturbation, surrogate motherhood, reproductive cloning, etc. as wrong because unnatural are relying on religious ideas is controversial. Contemporary Roman Catholic philosophers who defend the natural law theory of morality (e. g. John Finnis) deny that their view presupposes a judgement in God and Gods purposes (though it is certainly compatible with such a legal opinion). They hold that we can know by means of unaided reason that these things are wrong. The natural law theory, they claim, is different from the churchman look across theory of right and wrong. According to the latter, what makes an act wrong is that it violates a divine command. So to know that homosexuality, for example, is wrong, we would have to know that the Bible, or Quran, or whatever, is the revealed joint of God and read it to see if it includes a prohibition on homosexuality. Since the belief that the Bible or whatever is the revealed word of God rests on rel igious faith, it follows that a condemnation of homosexuality based on the divine command theory likewise depends on faith.