Nature of Morality Essay

A Russian born Ameri derriere science-fiction generator and biochemist once quoted, Never let your sense of deterrent examples get in the way of doing whats remedy. This education generates a series of controversial unbeliefs. What is right? How do morals affect pot and gild in which we tolerate? Does ein truth unitary have specific morals by which they try to hold water their brio? How does individual realize what their morals be? What be morals? These questions tail assemblynot be truthfully answered because everyone has their own definition of what is right and what is wrong and how one should live their life-time.My definition of morality is the concern with the distinction between heartfelt and satanic or right and wrong, which can be seen finished someones actions based on their ethical principles. That is, if someone lives their life based on their morals. Morality plays an main(prenominal) role in your life and the lives of others whether or not you live with it or not. Philosophers John Stuart wonk and Immanuel Kant have two very various views when it comes to the nature of morality. Kantianism and utilitarianism be two theories that attempt to answer the moral nature of human beings.Immanuel Kants moral system is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. John Stuart loiters moral system is based on the theory cognise as utilitarianism, which is based upon utility, or doing what produces the great happiness. Perhaps most importantly, they be looking for morality in completely different plates. For Kant, an action is good or not based on intentions. If you shoot at someone with a gun and try to kill them, but miss and kind of the bullet grazes off a piece of skin that was about to array a malignant and lethal tumor, you be still a noxiousdie and not a hero.Though this sounds like a preposterous example, the superman is that no person can completely control all the variables that are around him Kant thought that nobody should be blamed for randomness. Mill, on the other hand, was of a much more experimental bent. None of us can ever know what another persons intentions are, so he thought that the only practical place to look for morality is in results. To him, a well-intentioned bumbler who ruined either subject he came in get hold of with was no emend than a malicious individual who caused the exact identical chaos. Its the results that thing.Another emphasis of utilitarian philosophy is another study difference between them. To a utilitarian like Mills, the natural accusative that people should shoot for was their own happiness. Happiness, he argued, was something every person downstairsstands a goal that he can see and work toward, unlike the some a(prenominal) other things that some philosophies pursue. Kants categorical imperative hardly seems to be concerned with happiness at all. To him, ethics was a universal thing each act is good or it is not who do es it is as tangential and whether it is enjoyable.Instead of pleasure, the metrics for Kant are the great good and universality. One statement of his categorical imperative might be, is the world a better place (greater good) if everybody did this all the time (universality). You can see that from these two differences alone we can very easily end up in completely different places. With Mill, we have to conjecture around our actions since the outcome is whats important, it is often better not to try if we might fail. With Kant, we have to think about everyone else since universality is important, no exceptions to the moral code are generally permitted in any circumstance.Lets look at an example testing both(prenominal) arguments. The deontologist position is somewhat a little more complicated than the consequentionalist position. Kant believes in a theory of categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative would touch on an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both call for and justified as an end in itself. Kant bases his decision making on a universal adage, something that does not qualify as an end in itself. The act itself must have moral content if it is carried out broad(a)ly with regard to a sense of moral duty.Imagine Nazi Ger numerous for a moment. Imagine the Gustapo searching German quarters for violations against the protecting Jews, in a time when they were banished to concentration camps. Imagine the Gustapo coming to a house where Jews were life history and questioned the Jews if they were in fact Jews or German citizens. Kant would argue that it is wrong to glom yourself of the moral duty of the universal maxim and pretend that you are in fact German. Basically, the result of the decision, by Kantian logic would be that these people are to be whisked away to concentration camps.But it is of no predicament for Kant. You have maintained a sense of moral obligation to dumbfound to the categorical imperative of truth and reason. Kant concluded that the expected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only objective posterior for moral value would be the rationality of the Good Will, expressed in recognition of moral duty. The consequentionalist position is in fact very simple. Its maxim, under the doctrine of utilitarianism, is to achieve the greatest come in of good for the greatest amount of people.To Mill, no matter how cruel of the actual act that is involved, no matter what extent of grotesque and dirty nature of the act, that as long as the end result is better for more people than the act is inherently justified. To Mill, the universal maxim was happiness. He believed the intrinsic moral value of life was for everyone to attain happiness and pleasure. In the same exact situation depict above, Mill would have no problem lying to the Gustapo for a greater amount of happiness for huma nkind (i. e the Jews).It doesnt matter that they attached a sense of moral duty, the bottom line to Mill is that they achieved what human nature should always be in search of the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. By using this example, many people see that they would never adhere to Kantian logic it seems ridiculous and in fact morally obtrusive itself. However lets take another example where one may completely crack with Kant, based on the same principles. Imagine the entire city of lolly has received word that the water system is completely diluted with bacterium and soon a plague develops amongst the entire cityas it spreads through airborne.Now imagine if you will, for sake of the hypothetical point, that the government was able to suffer Chicago in a large bonce so to fit the spread of the immediate effects of the epidemic to other parts of the world. Yet, many people are talking about revolting against the government dome and roaming outside, be cause they are in fact not infected yet. Lets as well pretend that the only way to stop the spread of the indisposition is to eliminate all citizens in Chicago by means of shiny missiles. The question then becomesIs it morally right to kill every citizen in Chicago for the benefit of the world? In Mills eyes, yes, more happiness for the entire world is better than more suffering for the entire world. Hence, he would bomb Chicago so the world is accomplishd. Yet in Kants eyes, the act itself is so repulsive that it goes against the moral duty and maxim of society to actually destroy massive amounts of human life to save more people. The ends to Kant are of no regard. It is the act in which is against his categorical imperatives. canvass these two philosophers, it is hard to choose who I agree with more.When it comes down to it, it becomes a question of the ends or the means. A Utilitarian aspect could be more appropriate for one situation while a Kantian scene might be better for another. In the system of Utilitarianism, the ends justify the means, and actions are judged on the results, not on the intentions or motives. For Kant, the end results were not important in determining whether an action was just or not. Motive was everything to him, and he had very strict views on how to judge the morality of an action. In society these days, Utilitarianism is the name of the game.The basic philosophy of Utilitarianism, the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount, is one of the basic building blocks of the democratic system. If a person lives on the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an action. Utilitarians try to calve the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. following of Kant (among others) disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and napped aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives a re moral.For each of these philosophies, the question of living the good life is an intricate part of the belief system. For the Utilitarians, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is through with(p) entirely because of obligation. After researching both of these views, I would have to say I agree more with the Mills utilitarianism theory. I am a people pleaser, I like to see the happiness in people. I like doing things that will result in the greatest happiness.Here are a couple reasons why I agree. First, it links happiness with morality, instead of possibly pitting happiness against morality (such as Kants view). We think it makes sense with common beliefs about morality. For instance, in general, it backs up murders being wrong, lying, rights. So Utilitarianism gives us a system to our intuitions. Second, every one agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. Everything being equal, though people have many different and conflicting moral beliefs, people agree that pain is bad, and pleasure is good. Third, Utilitarianism requires us to balance our interests with those of others.Fourth, Utilitarianism doesnt rely on vague intuitions or rob principles. It allows psychologists and sociologists to determine what makes people happy and which policies promote the social good. And lastly, utilitarianism does not rigidly label actions as absolutely right or wrong and it allows tractableness and sensitivity to the circumstances surrounding an action. This makes it practical. Act Utilitarianism is sensitive to the situation, but see Utilitarianism can be as well, as long as one can provide a rule that maximizes happiness in general, which also applies to this situation.