Immanuel Kant ( notice that he lived in the 1700’s and people likely had different positions back so ) . a philosopher. believes that utilizing ground. one can do a list of ethical actions. Kant says that one must generalise the certain action he is about to make to see if it is sensible. For illustration. you ask yourself “should I cut the line in the cafeteria? ” The manner you can reply this inquiry is by inquiring yourself “What if everyone cut the line? ” Of class. if that happened so there would be pandemonium. so you shouldn’t cut the line. This besides applies to stealing. murdering. and maintaining promises. He fundamentally says that everyone is equal and you shouldn’t warrant your actions to yourself because you are non particular and you wouldn’t want others to make that to you. “Treat others as you would hold them handle you. ” Golden Rule. But. if merely you do this and no 1 else does you are traveling to acquire eaten up by the universe. This may belie a person’s adaptability and may negatively appeal to emotion ; you will experience like a B—- .
Veil of ignorance- You have two people who love bar. State one individual to cut a bar in half but allow the other choose which half to take. Again. Golden Rule.
Kant says there is a difference between objects and people. you can replace objects but non people. Person broke my computing machine. I am sad. He buys me a new one. I am happy. I am about to decease. my parents are sad. They can clone me. should they be happy? He besides says that you shouldn’t kill people for the greater good. But what if they were liquidators or rapers aren’t they doing unhappiness. and their deceases would in fact be for the greater good?
Kant sees that a individuals purposes that count instead than the concluding consequence. But what if I am assisting a individual. who is bad and corrupt. against a stealer who is merely seeking to feed his household. rather the quandary. Kant uses merely concluding instead than emotion so that people ever do what is right instead than when they feel like it. Consistency is cardinal to his theories.
Criticisms of Kant
Moral Absolutism – You can’t ever non lie. What if a liquidator wants to kill your pa? Your pa fells and so the slaying interruptions in and asks you were he is. If you follow Kant’s thoughts. you would state him where your pa is. There must be some kind of emotion to antagonize those who do non follow the doctrine of Kant. But once more. Kant is stating that EVERYONE should make this. and this liquidator wouldn’t exist in Kant’s ideal universe.
Rule worship- To blindly follow regulations without utilizing your ain cognition. “If regulations can non be set. so they should be broken. ” Conflicts of duty- should you steal the medical specialty for your deceasing married woman? Should you salvage your grandma from the combustion house or the physician who can salvage many people?
Moral coldness- The universe would be passionless and sad. There will be small infinite for felicity because everything is traveling to be so changeless and emotions will hold a really little presence.
Utilitarianism- Seek the greatest felicity for the greatest figure.
What if you could randomly pick 10 people to decease and salvage 100? Would you make it?
You can state yes. because it logical. you use no emotion what so of all time. That goes against Kant though because he says that people have self-respect and you shouldn’t take that off.
You can state no. where you are largely utilizing emotion.