Utilitarianism is defined as ethic based on consequences. An act, either it is morally wrong or good is acceptable as long as the end outcome is greater. In this essay on utilitarianism, I would argue Peter Singer’s calculus preferences, equality is for all living being but sacrificing one for greater good is plausible. Counter argument of Immanuel Kant’s moral deontology claim, it is immoral to consider a human being as a means to an end. John Mills’ actions are right as long they promote happiness, wrong if they produce the opposite of happiness as the reply for the counter argument. In conclusion, I would ethically rectify my claim in supporting utilitarian argument.
Singer claimed that it is wrong to choose animals as research subjects in order to benefit human beings. Both humans and animals should be considered equally in the moral calculus, if it is morally permitted to use human being in research, then only, would it be permitted to use animal. And, if we were to consider the use of humans as well as animals and the research was considered to have great overall benefit for all, then the animals might be used since the general good is the most important thing.
“Moral law should be universalized”. Kant stated that concept of a good will from morally proper motive is the base for considering any action. If it is the act from some hidden motive or for personal gain it is label immoral duty even if it is otherwise appears morally good. Cruelty to animals reduces the feeling of compassion in man, an immoral duty. Therefore, researching animal to gain cure for diseases is wrong, because it is immoral action to sacrifice another living being for the personal gain of humans, although the end results appear morally good.
Kant’s theory is a strict morality. Universalize moral duty is good but some situations are exceptional. The outcome of the act is the reason the act was perform and if the outcome is general happiness then it is a morally right thing to do. Mill supported this as he stated actions are right as long they promote happiness, gaining a cure for incurable disease promotes happiness overall to general public. Therefore, researching on animals for cure will provide a plausible outcome which in this case a general happiness for the entire society. According to Mill, general happiness is the foundation of standard moral deed, overruling Kant’s concept of good will.
In conclusion, I have to agree on utilitarian concept on judging the consequences than the action. Although it is immoral act to achieve the morally good, the final outcome is the most important objective in life.
Deontology is defined as ethics based on duty or act. Moral value lies in the action, not in the consequences of the action. In this essay on non-consequentialism, I would argue Immanuel Kant’s deontology based on categorical imperative. Counter argument from Mill, general happiness is the foundation of standard moral deed. Replies based on Kantian views and conclusion on disagreeing non-consequentialism concept.
“There is no if in moral action”. An action is considered moral only if one acts out of a sense of duty alone, without bearing in mind the consequences or self-interest. To understand Kant’s imperative, we need to know his description of inclinations and duty. Inclinations are based on desires, passions and emotions, whereas duties consist of reason alone. People are different, emotionally and rationally from animals as they make decisions based upon an inclination, a duty or a combination of the two. According to Kant, the source of moral justification is the categorical imperative and it must be based on reason or duty alone. In order for an act to be categorically imperative, it must be thought to be good in itself. As a categorical imperative, it asks us whether can we "universalize" our actions, that is, whether it would be the case that others would act in accordance with the same rule in a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document