Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Essay Example

Moral relativism is the perspective that something is morally correct of incorrect based on what an individual perceives. This position can be evaluated from two different approaches. The approaches are Subjectivism and Conventionalism. Subjectivism is the perspective of what is morally correct or incorrect is founded on the beholder’s perspective. Conventionalism is what is mo5rtallly correct or incorrect is founded on what the society perceives to be morallycorrect and incorrect (Latus 1).

Individualrelativism is the perspective that what is ethically correct is relative to every person. If an individual believes that it is correct, then it is correct (Yount 1)

Cultural relativism is the perspective that what is ethically correct is correlated with the context of the culture from which it is perceived (Yount 1).

Consequentialism is founded on the premise that the context of correctness or incorrectness of an activity is reliant on the outcomes of the action. The more frequent that are the good outcomes that occur as a result of the action, the better that the act can be deemed (BBC 1).

The principle of utility ascertains the correctness of actions by the influence on the complete happiness. . This refers to the real outcomes of particular actions(Utilitarian 1).

Bentham’squantitative or quantity of hedonism refers to the more elevated quantity and duration of the pleasures that are experienced by an individual is the factor that determines its value (Herrnstein 399).

Mill’s qualitative perspective refers the quality of the hedonism. This perspective infers that the complexity or the simplicity of the pleasure is the characteristic that determines its value (Herrnstein 400).

Kant postulated that the moral requisites are founded upon criteria of rationality. Thiscriterion is known as the categorical imperative(Johnson 1).

The first categorical Imperative describes that an individual should act as if their principles for behavior were a universal tenet of nature (Johnson 1).

The second categorical impert5ative infers that an individual possess a perfect responsibility not to apply their humanity as a means in order to accomplish another end. In the event that an individual seeks to find perfection in themselves or others, it should be their moral responsibility to conclude that all people are treated equally (Johnson 1).

The trolley problem details that an errant train is careeningtoward four men who are fastened to a track. There is the option the switch on the track can be thrown. In the event that the switch is thrown, there is a man who is tied to another track. If the train is not detained,all of the four people who are fastened to the track will die. The observer is positioned next to the switch. The disaster is approximating. The question is should the observer divert the train, kill the one person and save the four. Should the observer do nothing?These are the utilitarian and deontological questions that will be answered in this essay (Edmonds 1)

The utilitarian perspective states that the decision should go with the outcome that has the greatest benefit. The deontological perspective states that the all lives are equal and that no one has the authority to take life from another. If nothing is done all of the four people would die. The stance that would be chosen is the utilitarian stance. The utilitarian stance is attributed to the costs and the outcomes. The decision of the taking the utilitarianstance is attributed to the fact that the needs and the outcomes of the four individuals who are tied to the track outweigh the needs of the one man who is tied to the alternate track. The greater social good would be best served by diverting the train to the track that has one person tied to it. Although murder is wrong, the greater value is that of the four men who are tied to the track. In order to try to avert the murder, at the final moment, the four men would be asked for help in moving a boulder, or obstacle onto the track of the impending disaster in order to prevent the train from killing the one person who is tied to the alternate track (Edmonds 1).

Works Cited

BBC. “Ethics guide: Consequentialism.” BBC, 2014. Web 19 October 2014. http://www,bbc.co.uk/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml.

Edmonds, David. Would you kill the fat man? The trolley problem and what your answer tells us about right and wrong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. Print.

Hernstein, RJ.”Quantitativehedonism.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 8.3-4 (1971): 399-412.

Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (Summer 2014 edition) Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant-moral

Latus, Andrew. “Philosophy 1200 Introduction to Philosophy.” UCS, 2014. Web 19 October 2014. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/Introd.html

Utilitarian” Introduction to utilitarianism” Utilitarian, 2000. Web. 19 October 2014. Web. http://www.utlitarian.org/utility.html

Yount, David. “Individual and cultural relativism: Dr. David Yount, Mesa Community College.” Saylor, 2014. Web 19 October 2014. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp/- content/uploads/2012/08/BUS20511.2.1.pdf