There are two major theories in Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
Utilitarianism comes in part from the developed from the writing of John Stuart Mills.
Mills
Mills is the most influential philosopher of the 19th century. He believed that the
most useful way for society to succeed is for the welfare of the masses to be put before individual
pleasures. Mills says pleasures can be measured by utility as well. The video below summarizes Mills
theory in detail.
The problem with utilitarianism as stated in the video is that it caused be used to
justify things that are clearly immortal. Kant has come up with a more morally responsible theory
called Deontology.
Kant
Kant is a a germany philosopher who theorized deontology.
Deontology has three basic rule believes 1) Consequence is not what makes things
right and wrong. Consequence determines weather or not what we are doing is dutiful.
Duty is reason 2) Humans are not the means to a end but have intrinsic value. Humans are a end-in-
itself. 3) A rule is only moral if it can be used by everyone if they are in the same moral dilemma.
The video below explains Deontology in greater detail.
Deontology applies with more accuracy to wider range of circumstances then Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism puts a bigger influence on the greater good. Where as Deontology takes into
consideration the worth the individual.
In my opinion Deontology is not prefect but if I had to choose between the two
I would side with Kant because individuality is a important factor in self fulfillment.
According to Aristotle happiness has to do with the ability to flourish.
I believe one can't flourish without intrinsic value or the time the option to consider themselves.
Kant makes this point in his book Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
"There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all
outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will…
Moderation in affects and passions, self-control and sober reflection not only are good for aims,
but seem even to constitute a part of the inner worth of a person; yet … The good will is good
not through its willing, i.e. good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison,
it is to be estimated far higher then anything that could be brought about by it in
favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, of the sum of all inclinations"
No comments:
Post a Comment