Assign 2 HUM 1020 Fall2022 MIll Kant (4)

docx

School

Indian River State College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1020

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateSummer13047

Assignment 2 Please read: 1. Elliot Cohen, “Health Care Ethics,” and “Ethical Theory and Mental Health Practice,” pp. 17-35. 2. John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism,” pp. 35-43. 3. Immanuel Kant, “The Categorical Imperative,” pp. 43-49. Please answer the following 10 questions and submit this whole document with your answers. Whenever possible, please use your own sentences in your answers. Try not to use quotes. In this assignment, we will look at two moral theories. In the next assignment, we will look at cases in which to apply the theories. ____________________________ Question 1 : According to Cohen, on page 21, what is ethical theory? Answer 1: Cohen asserts that ethical theory is a division of philosophical ethics that conveys ideals for differentiating between what is morally good from what is morally bad. This theory is backed up with a justification for why it should be respected, and it offers ways for living the “good life” and preventing evil. It does not list things of what to do or what not to do, it tries to explain our moral experiences, judgments, and obligations. There are a few forms of ethical theory. One form is rule/principal ethics which is philosophically defended as rules/principals of ethical behavior. Another form of ethical theory was created by feminist thinkers, and it’s called care ethics. Care ethics takes relationships of caring to be vital to the main idea of ethics. ___________________________ Question 2 : According to Cohen, on page 17, explain the two distinct ways in which we might study morality. Answer 2: Cohen explains two distinct ways we might study morality. The first way is the social scientist view which entails giving an explanation of dissimilar moral viewpoints as assented to by different subcultures, groups, or cultures. Therefore, this viewpoint is important considering studying morality through this point of view, we would report it and investigate it. Cohen uses the multiple examples of this viewpoint, such as the views on sexual morality generally held by the people of Sweden. The second way is studying morality philosophically. The philosophical study of morality is a part of ethics that deals with the explanation or resolution of moral issues. Cohen mentions that using this way when studying morality can help assess points of view and how to find solutions. ____________________________ Question 3 : On page 18, what are the three divisions of ethical theories, and what are examples of each of these kinds of theories? Answer 3: The three divisions of ethical theories are virtue ethics, rule ethics, and care ethics. Virtue Ethics is the ethics that highlights an individual’s character and explains what a morally good person is. Rule Ethics is the ethics that provides rules for resolving moral issues. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two theories that have conquered

modern discussion of ethics. Care Ethics is a more recent way of looking at ethics. It is the ethics that takes tangible social relationships as the main concern of ethics. ___________________________ Question 4 : After reading Cohen’s and Mill’s explanations of utilitarianism, what makes an action morally right on the classical view of utilitarianism? Explain utilitarianism. (See pages 18, 22, and 36.) Answer 4: Utilitarianism, in simpler terms, is the ethics of utility. This ethics establishes right and wrong actions solely in terms of the penalties or outcomes of actions. The classical form of utilitarianism ethics was hedonistic, in other words, it was the theory of the good. Classical utilitarianism ethics took “good” to mean “pleasure" and took “evil” to mean “pain”. Therefore, according to the classical view of utilitarianism, an action is morally right or morally wrong based on if an action produces or reduces pleasure and reduces or produces pain. The utilitarian ultimate happiness principle is “action A is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount happiness overall” (Cohen 36). ___________________________ Question 5 : Explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism. (see pages 18 and 22-24.) Answer 5: Act utilitarianism is the ethical theory where an action is ethically vindicated if its performance is calculated to amplify human happiness. Rule utilitarianism is the ethical theory where an action conforms to a rule that amplifies happiness when it is always followed. For example, if there was a rule to not kill people with the death penalty, rule utilitarianism says that we should follow this rule, even if it turns out in some case that we can maximize happiness by killing people using the death penalty. ___________________________ Question 6 : From pages 24 and 25, choose one objection to utilitarianism, explain the objection, and then explain the reply that utilitarians can give to the objection. Answer 6: An objection to utilitarianism is the supererogatory acts are required objection. This objection states that supererogatory acts are very good, however, go beyond what is required. In other words, supererogatory acts are heroic acts. A reply that utilitarians can give to the supererogatory act’s objection is that the act utilitarianism does not require people to perform heroic acts. They believe this because typically individuals are not capable of performing in those types of acts. Utilitarians also believe an individual can have a responsibility to perform an act only if it is the sort of act that people are typically capable of doing. ____________________________ Question 7 : Explain Kant’s theory of morality. (See pages 19-20, 25-29, and Kant’s paper.) Also state the categorical imperative -- write out exactly what it says (p. 26) -- and explain what it means. Answer 7: Kant’s theory of morality is called a deontological theory considering what is important is performing for the own good of duty alone not for the own good of making good significances. His ethics takes the idea of “duty for duty's sake” as the core basis for determining the moral worth of actions. This theory is the opposite to

utilitarianism considering actions done for the sake of significances may be beneficial, however what is beneficial is not the same as what is moral. The categorical imperative are necessities of morality. Concurring to Kant, “an act is performed for the sake of duty when motivated by respect for an unconditional command of reason known as "the categorical imperative." In one form, this principle of duty prescribes acting only in ways that any rational being could consistently accept as universally binding: ‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature’”. Question 8 : According to Kant’s theory, an action is morally acceptable if it passes the categorical imperative test. According to this test, if your action is morally permissible, the motive (or maxim) of your action has to be universalizable; it must be able to become a universal law. Kant tries to explain what this means with 4 different examples. See pages 44-45. Please read those 4 cases. Explain what is going on in each case. State what Kant says is the motive (or maxim) in each of the four cases. Then explain what Kant concludes about the action in each case — does he say it morally permissible or not. Use one paragraph for each case. You should have 4 paragraphs. Answer 8: Case 1: In this case a man is contemplating taking his own life because of many misfortunes. Kant explains the maxim in this case to be that the man wants to end his life because it continues to bring him more evil than pleasure. Kant then universalized the suicide and came to the conclusion that this case is not permissible because it does not hold as a universal law of nature. This suicide case’s maxim opposes itself on the base of the continuance of life, and it is therefore a not justifiable system of nature. Case 2: In this case there is a man makes a promise to borrow money because he really needs it, however, he knows that he will not pay it back. He lies in order to get the money because he knows that if he doesn’t lie and say he can pay it back, then he won’t get the money. Kant explains the maxim of this case is financial personal advantage at the dispense of others. A person that is deeply in need can make a promise in order to further their personal advantage with little to no purpose of keeping the promise. Kant universalizes this lying promise case and concludes that it is not morally permissible because it results in a conflict. A person making a lying promise whenever they think they can get away with it would never work if every person did it. Case 3: In this case a man has a talent that can make help him make better living for himself. However, he chooses to be lazy and give himself up for pleasure and relaxation. The maxim in this case is neglecting the development of natural gifts for enjoying the pleasures of the world. Kant concludes that this cases not morally permissible because it can’t be universalized. Case 4: In this case a man is living his best life, however, he is surrounded by people who are struggling and could easily be helped by him. The man thinks to himself that he does not need to help them because it doesn’t affect him. The maxim in this case is to steer clear of disturbances for oneself with lethargy towards others. Kant concludes that this case cannot be morally permissible because it could

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

not be universalized. There are many circumstances in life that requires sympathy and love from others and therefore, by universal law, no one would be ablet to get the help they wanted if this case was universalized. _____________________________ Question 9 : What do you think of Kant’s conclusions in each of the 4 cases you explained? Do you agree with Kant’s conclusion in each of the two cases or not? Explain why or why not. Use 4 paragraphs, one for each case. Answer 9: Case 1: I do agree with Kant’s conclusion in this suicide case because committing suicide is never the way in my opinion. If everyone who has bad days or has many misfortunes came to the resolution that committing suicide is the only way to handle the pain, then this world would be in shambles. There are different ways in handling emotional distresses; suicide is never the answer. Case 2: I do agree with Kant’s conclusion in this case because it is not right to make a promise to someone that they will pay them back when they know they financially can’t. Just because it is helping you in the moment at the cost of others, does not make it morally right in my opinion. The person may think that making a lying promise is a good idea because it helps them out for a short period of time, however, in the long run it won’t benefit them because people are never going to trust them ever again and you committed a crime by stealing. Case 3: I do agree with Kant’s conclusion in this case because the man shouldn’t neglect his natural talent just so he can be lazy. In my opinion, considering he knew he had a talent that can make him successful in life, then he shouldn’t have given up on it just to enjoy the pleasures of the world. If everyone in the world thought like that then society won’t progress and people would just be lazy instead of working hard. Case 4: I do agree with Kant’s conclusion in this case because apathy towards others, in my opinion, cannot be morally justifiable by simply ignoring those in need of help. Everyone living on Earth needs help from time to time even if you are thriving. There is no justifiable reason as to why someone wouldn’t help someone else who is struggling when they know they can easily help them. ____________________________ Question 10 : What do you think of utilitarianism and Kant’s theory? Do you think one is better at explaining morality? Do you think that either theory can be any good? These are the two main theories that are used in medical ethics. Answer 10: Once I learned about both utilitarianism and Kant’s theory, I don’t think one theory is better than the other at explain mortality. I believe both are important theories for figuring out if a person action is moral or not. Both theories can be utilized in different circumstances in my opinion. I do think utilitarianism theory is any good considering it attempts to attain the utmost good for the utmost quantity while making the quantity of harm the utmost quantity of suffering. I also think Kant’s theory is any good because it is important to anticipate what duty is being satisfied when inquiring reason.

Assign 2 HUM 1020 Fall2022 MIll Kant (4)

Related Documents