The Explanations of Morals (Kant, Mill, Aristotle and Held)
Morals (mor – als)
Noun; plural
1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information or an experience.
2. a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
This essay intends point out the relevant aspects of moral theologians, Kant, Mill, Aristotle and Held and to answer the question of the best suited approach in resolving ethical problems and dilemmas.
Kant
I have found that Kant’s theory is the most complicated and confusing of the four. It was only made somewhat clear by the explanation in O’Neill’s reading. Kant’s moral theory was based on motivation. Kant believed that the highest good was good will. Good will is shown and achieved by our actions but it also looks at what our motives are behind our actions. Kant thought that reason can explain the idea of morality. In other words, they cannot be found by scientific methods without exception. Kant also argued that happiness and pleasure are not essentially good. Kant proposed that we have the option to choose and that there was no value of pleasure and that the moral rule is universal and absolute. It had to be universally accepted by everyone. He proposed two imperatives, I believe that these are commands; the first is the categorical imperative, meaning that the supreme imperative of reason that directs the will absolutely or unconditionally, irrespective of anyone’s particular desires (pg. 100-103). In other words, if we are told to do something, we must do it regardless of what we want. The second is the hypothetical imperative in that the command of reason that recommends some action as necessary to achieve some desired objective. In layman’s terms, we must do something in order to achieve a target, considering our goal is the target. He also pointed out the first formulation of the categorical imperative, in which, one can act only in accordance with that maxim through which one can at the same time it becomes a universal law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, that one act in such a way that one uses humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, ways at the same time as an end, never as a means. (pg 104-106) He would lead us to draw the conclusion that rationality is the source of all value and that this will is inherently good. What makes us as humans different from everyone is that we can use our reason to formulate rules and ideas. Kant wants us to look beyond ourselves. Aristotle Aristotle is considered one of the first to look at ethical virtues. He believed that our highest good was to achieve or gain happiness. In other words, the good for people is what people actually want to find (happiness). …show more content…
I believe that the foundation is built within us. I used Aristotle at the base, in that to be the best person that I can be I have to look for characteristics in forming habits that will make me a better person. In that quest, there would be the balancing and putting things into the right proportion to fit in my life so that everything is balanced. The next layer would be Kant’s idea of “good will”. I see this in a sense of the effect of other people aside from myself. I would consider will I cause harm to other people, regardless of how big or how small. While I find that this layer is probably the smallest, because I feel that it is still an important step. Finally, the top layer, I find that Mill has the strongest point in that our actions should be determined by the consequences by determining the maximum utility because it is vital. Every action has a reaction, whether it is good or bad. The outcome is going to happen because an action has to happen. Not to be selfish, I look at myself, others and think of the consequences of my actions. However, the “good” that I decided was to turn the money back in, while I needed it, someone else probably needed it more than I did, or at least I like to tell myself this. Morally, I thought that that was the best choice, not only would I be making someone else happy by returning their money, I also felt happiness, in that I know I made someone’s
Morals (mor – als)
Noun; plural
1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information or an experience.
2. a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
This essay intends point out the relevant aspects of moral theologians, Kant, Mill, Aristotle and Held and to answer the question of the best suited approach in resolving ethical problems and dilemmas.
Kant
I have found that Kant’s theory is the most complicated and confusing of the four. It was only made somewhat clear by the explanation in O’Neill’s reading. Kant’s moral theory was based on motivation. Kant believed that the highest good was good will. Good will is shown and achieved by our actions but it also looks at what our motives are behind our actions. Kant thought that reason can explain the idea of morality. In other words, they cannot be found by scientific methods without exception. Kant also argued that happiness and pleasure are not essentially good. Kant proposed that we have the option to choose and that there was no value of pleasure and that the moral rule is universal and absolute. It had to be universally accepted by everyone. He proposed two imperatives, I believe that these are commands; the first is the categorical imperative, meaning that the supreme imperative of reason that directs the will absolutely or unconditionally, irrespective of anyone’s particular desires (pg. 100-103). In other words, if we are told to do something, we must do it regardless of what we want. The second is the hypothetical imperative in that the command of reason that recommends some action as necessary to achieve some desired objective. In layman’s terms, we must do something in order to achieve a target, considering our goal is the target. He also pointed out the first formulation of the categorical imperative, in which, one can act only in accordance with that maxim through which one can at the same time it becomes a universal law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, that one act in such a way that one uses humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, ways at the same time as an end, never as a means. (pg 104-106) He would lead us to draw the conclusion that rationality is the source of all value and that this will is inherently good. What makes us as humans different from everyone is that we can use our reason to formulate rules and ideas. Kant wants us to look beyond ourselves. Aristotle Aristotle is considered one of the first to look at ethical virtues. He believed that our highest good was to achieve or gain happiness. In other words, the good for people is what people actually want to find (happiness). …show more content…
I believe that the foundation is built within us. I used Aristotle at the base, in that to be the best person that I can be I have to look for characteristics in forming habits that will make me a better person. In that quest, there would be the balancing and putting things into the right proportion to fit in my life so that everything is balanced. The next layer would be Kant’s idea of “good will”. I see this in a sense of the effect of other people aside from myself. I would consider will I cause harm to other people, regardless of how big or how small. While I find that this layer is probably the smallest, because I feel that it is still an important step. Finally, the top layer, I find that Mill has the strongest point in that our actions should be determined by the consequences by determining the maximum utility because it is vital. Every action has a reaction, whether it is good or bad. The outcome is going to happen because an action has to happen. Not to be selfish, I look at myself, others and think of the consequences of my actions. However, the “good” that I decided was to turn the money back in, while I needed it, someone else probably needed it more than I did, or at least I like to tell myself this. Morally, I thought that that was the best choice, not only would I be making someone else happy by returning their money, I also felt happiness, in that I know I made someone’s