This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Kantian Ethics Essay
- OCR religious studies advice
- Likelihood of an applied ethics essay (AQA a level philosophy)?
- AQA A Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (7062/2A-2E) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024
- OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- OCR religious studies Kantian ethics question
- Philosophy at Oxford PPL
- ocr rs alevel essay writing help
- PPE
- AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- hey i’m yr 11 and want to pick biology chem and philosophy
- Grade Growth Chronicles | From C's to A's (23-24)
- Politics Philosophy and Law LLB at KCL 2023 Applications
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is my EPQ question too broad???
- Academic misconduct
- Eduqas religious studies a level 2023 : ethics predictions/revision advice
- How can I write a dissertation about psychological trauma as a Masters student?
- Am I cooked for oxford
Utalitarianism and kantian ethics
HI im doing an essay comparing utalitarianism and the ethics of kant and it says i should draw the contrast between happiness and duty what does this mean?
also does anyone have any pointers on what i should write for a discussion on the statement "happinness is the most important consideration in ethics"
thanks alot
also does anyone have any pointers on what i should write for a discussion on the statement "happinness is the most important consideration in ethics"
thanks alot
hi
i think the idea is that with kantian ethics you should do your duty because it is your duty to do it. Whereas in utilatarianism it is about making the most people happy, so i think it is just saying look at what is more important doing your duty because you should or making most people happy.
hopefully this will be some help
xxxx
i think the idea is that with kantian ethics you should do your duty because it is your duty to do it. Whereas in utilatarianism it is about making the most people happy, so i think it is just saying look at what is more important doing your duty because you should or making most people happy.
hopefully this will be some help
xxxx
hughelis
also you should talk about the difference between what kant says about duty and how it differs with what utilatarianism says about happiness
what are the differences tho?
thanks
I'm doing some revision on this at the moment, if I get it terribly wrong i'm really sorry! :P
Kant's theory and Utilitarianism heavily contrast because Kant's is deontological (believing you should do things because they are right in themselves - in this case it is your duty to do something because it's right) where as Utilitarianism is consequential as it believes you should act to give the greatest good to the greatest number.
They differ therefore because unlike Utilitarianism, Kant doesn't believe that every action should be performed because it brings happiness but because it is infact the right thing to do.
As for the statement 'happiness is the most important consideration in ethics' this is really an overview of the ideas of Kantism/Utilitarianism. Look at the pros/cons of both sides - on the one hand, happiness is something which humans instinctually wish to have and is overall, something which we should all aim to achieve.
On the other hand however, there are some things - okay radical example, you don't like someone so you kill them. This has bought you happiness but it may not necessarily have been the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing to do doesn't necessarily bring the most happiness.
Hope that helps in some way!
Kant's theory and Utilitarianism heavily contrast because Kant's is deontological (believing you should do things because they are right in themselves - in this case it is your duty to do something because it's right) where as Utilitarianism is consequential as it believes you should act to give the greatest good to the greatest number.
They differ therefore because unlike Utilitarianism, Kant doesn't believe that every action should be performed because it brings happiness but because it is infact the right thing to do.
As for the statement 'happiness is the most important consideration in ethics' this is really an overview of the ideas of Kantism/Utilitarianism. Look at the pros/cons of both sides - on the one hand, happiness is something which humans instinctually wish to have and is overall, something which we should all aim to achieve.
On the other hand however, there are some things - okay radical example, you don't like someone so you kill them. This has bought you happiness but it may not necessarily have been the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing to do doesn't necessarily bring the most happiness.
Hope that helps in some way!
"you don't like someone so you kill them. This has bought you happiness but it may not necessarily have been the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing to do doesn't necessarily bring the most happiness."
Yes, quite, though its important to distinguish in your essay between utilitarianism and hedonism; (classical) utilitarianism argues that happiness is intrinsically good and therefore ought to be maximised, whereas hedonism is simply pursuing personal pleasure. Furthermore in Mill's formulation, there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasure- undoubtedly killing somebody would rank as a lower pleasure, not to mention the fact that it would create net unhappiness in a number of ways.
Further to the question of Kant, you'll need to outline his Categorical imperatives of course, then just explore some of the meta-ethics, and it should be easy.
Yes, quite, though its important to distinguish in your essay between utilitarianism and hedonism; (classical) utilitarianism argues that happiness is intrinsically good and therefore ought to be maximised, whereas hedonism is simply pursuing personal pleasure. Furthermore in Mill's formulation, there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasure- undoubtedly killing somebody would rank as a lower pleasure, not to mention the fact that it would create net unhappiness in a number of ways.
Further to the question of Kant, you'll need to outline his Categorical imperatives of course, then just explore some of the meta-ethics, and it should be easy.
I think utilitarinism is flexiable,and you can include yourself when you consider making people happy etc.
With Kant everything you do has to be selfless and you do it beause of duty not because you choose to.
E.g if you helped an old woman across the road out of duty that would be fine.But it would be wrong in Kants eyes if you were to do this and get any feelings of happiness,or being pleased with yourself as you took your own emotions into consideration.
This is one of the main criticisms of Kant as it is human nature to feel emotions, therefore everythhing we do is motivated by emotions weather there selfish or not.
With Kant everything you do has to be selfless and you do it beause of duty not because you choose to.
E.g if you helped an old woman across the road out of duty that would be fine.But it would be wrong in Kants eyes if you were to do this and get any feelings of happiness,or being pleased with yourself as you took your own emotions into consideration.
This is one of the main criticisms of Kant as it is human nature to feel emotions, therefore everythhing we do is motivated by emotions weather there selfish or not.
This may be slightly too late but I got a good mark on this mock-test at school. Just some ideas:
a. Explain the main differences between Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant.
Although the ethics of Kant and Utilitarianism have their similarities (for example their scholars’ wish to find a way to apply the same principle to all situations) there are several main differences which shall be outlined in this essay. The differences begin in their basic approaches to ethics, and the terms we must use to comprehend the way Kant discusses ethics in relation to Mill and Bentham. While Kant’s ethics take on a deontological, absolutist approach, the ethics of utilitarianism are far more consequential and situationist (both theories being teleological) when faced with an ethical dilemma. So, in the most basic sense the theories come from opposite end of the philosophical spectrum, as Kant bases his ethics on A Priori reasoning and Bentham and Mill base theirs on A Posteriori logic.
Having observed the underlying theoretic differences, the comparison between Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics becomes all the more distinct when applied to a specific example. Kant wanted to find the Categorical Imperative, which would be a principle which would be the foundation for all other ethical judgements. This Imperative could definitely not be hypothetical (based on preference). However, in the ethics of Utilitarianism, ethics is based upon the preferences of the many. For example, if a woman had been raped and had become pregnant, and was unsure whether or not to have an abortion, she could see the differences between Kant and Bentham/Mill by applying their theories to her situation. In the case of Kantian Ethics, the woman could not want an abortion because she had not the money to provide for a baby, or indeed any other hypothetical reason. She would have to want the abortion because it was the right thing to do, and could be made into a Categorical Imperative, that all people could follow. (However, as this happening is so unlikely, it is probably that any woman in this situation would not have an abortion if basing her decision on Kantian Ethics, or simply abandon the theory.) However, Utilitarianism is based entirely on hypothetical judgements, as it brings ethical decisions into an area where the preference of many (based on pleasure and pain) and the only contributing factors in an ethical decision. Hence, if the woman in question chose to use Utilitarianism to make her decision she would have to decide whether the most pleasure would be caused overall if she had the baby aborted or not, and follow that route. This would of course be a far too situationist idea for Kant to accept.
The hypothetical nature of Utilitarianism is further shown by the Hedonic Calculus, the seven principles in the theory by which the correct action can be determined. These were intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (remoteness), fecundity (chance of there being further pleasures), purity (not followed by pain) and extent. Whereas in Kant’s Ethics have far fewer guidelines for moral actions. In fact, there is only one, however it is far stricter: to “…act in such a way that their actions might become a universal law.” The closest that scholars of Utilitarianism come to this rule is Rule Utilitarianism (more closely associated with Mill). This theory developed an attachment to the original idea of Utilitarianism so that instead of simply working towards the “greatest good for the greatest number”, the principle was changed. The new principle was that actions should be performed which are guided by rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to the greatest happiness. This follows a similar line of logic to Kant’s idea of the Categorical Imperative, however one may argue that Rule Utilitarianism’s idea is far more feasible.
Another key difference between the two theories is the way they view human nature, and the things their scholars believe people will instinctively avoid. Bentham wrote that “pleasure is identical with good and pain with evil” and that humans would do whatever possible to avoid pain, and the pain that would result for others. However, for Kant, the issue of physical pain (or the other three types according to Bentham: political, moral or popular, religion) never enters into ethics. Kant believed that the right thing to do was to act in a way that best glorified God, regardless of the cost to oneself, or to those around you. Indeed this is where the issue of duty arrives for Kant, and that one must sometimes be selfless in order to see the correct moral action. However, any sort of pain should be avoided in the ethics of Utilitarianism, or if it is unavoidable, it should be minimised through using the harm principle introduced by Mill. (The introduction of this principle sealed the previous existing loophole that enabled actions such as gang-rape to be justified by using the original Utilitarianism theory.)
To conclude, the major differences between the theory of Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant are not only the basic philosophical approaches to ethics but also the differing ideas on human nature and the priorities people employ when faced with an ethical decision. The resultant theories end up on opposite ends of the philosophical and ethical spectrum.
b. “Happiness is the most important consideration in ethics.” Discuss
In consideration of the former part of this essay I would disagree with the assessment that happiness is the most important consideration in ethics, however it can be seen as somewhat important. In the field of theist ethics it becomes easy to take this viewpoint, as humans we must adopt the viewpoint of St. Thomas Aquinas and glorify God in our actions, instead of focusing on human emotions, which can be fickle and misleading. It is also questionable that following “pleasure and pain” guidelines as dictated in Utilitarianism is helpful to the advancement of mankind. Philosophers such as Hegel have adopted the stance that “God is the absolute truth”, and this point raises the issue of whether in truth human emotions can truly guide ethical decisions effectively. Surely if logic is true, as logical positivist A J Ayer suggested, then this is the best way of making decisions, as opposed to on emotions, while merely express meaningless, “hypothetical” preferences which should not be brought into the equation of ethics, and rather we should consider greater truths than we do if we rely on human emotions.
Also, by relying purely on happiness we can encounter the problem found in early stages of Utilitarianism, whereby the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others. While basing ethics on human happiness may appear altruistic, is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted.
It is not, however, difficult to see why ethics based on happiness is popular. For example although Utilitarianism and other ethical systems based on human happiness are traditionally more popular with the atheist and agnostic community, it is possible to see the way in which it can extend to those with a religious faith as well. For example the teachings of Utilitarianism can be partly likened to Jesus’ teaching when he instructs people to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This clearly shows a consideration for the overall happiness of other people and shows the truly altruistic side to the quote given in the title. Another strength of making moral decisions based on happiness is that it invariably ends up a democratic process. Although there may be some disadvantaged people when the ethical decision is made, a genuine attempt is made to act selflessly and do the right action in a way that makes sense to the majority of people.
So although I maintain my belief that happiness is not the single most important consideration when making ethical decisions, it is easy to see why it should be considered an important maxim when attempting to make a moral decision, or a point from which to begin when unsure of a course of action to take.
a. Explain the main differences between Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant.
Although the ethics of Kant and Utilitarianism have their similarities (for example their scholars’ wish to find a way to apply the same principle to all situations) there are several main differences which shall be outlined in this essay. The differences begin in their basic approaches to ethics, and the terms we must use to comprehend the way Kant discusses ethics in relation to Mill and Bentham. While Kant’s ethics take on a deontological, absolutist approach, the ethics of utilitarianism are far more consequential and situationist (both theories being teleological) when faced with an ethical dilemma. So, in the most basic sense the theories come from opposite end of the philosophical spectrum, as Kant bases his ethics on A Priori reasoning and Bentham and Mill base theirs on A Posteriori logic.
Having observed the underlying theoretic differences, the comparison between Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics becomes all the more distinct when applied to a specific example. Kant wanted to find the Categorical Imperative, which would be a principle which would be the foundation for all other ethical judgements. This Imperative could definitely not be hypothetical (based on preference). However, in the ethics of Utilitarianism, ethics is based upon the preferences of the many. For example, if a woman had been raped and had become pregnant, and was unsure whether or not to have an abortion, she could see the differences between Kant and Bentham/Mill by applying their theories to her situation. In the case of Kantian Ethics, the woman could not want an abortion because she had not the money to provide for a baby, or indeed any other hypothetical reason. She would have to want the abortion because it was the right thing to do, and could be made into a Categorical Imperative, that all people could follow. (However, as this happening is so unlikely, it is probably that any woman in this situation would not have an abortion if basing her decision on Kantian Ethics, or simply abandon the theory.) However, Utilitarianism is based entirely on hypothetical judgements, as it brings ethical decisions into an area where the preference of many (based on pleasure and pain) and the only contributing factors in an ethical decision. Hence, if the woman in question chose to use Utilitarianism to make her decision she would have to decide whether the most pleasure would be caused overall if she had the baby aborted or not, and follow that route. This would of course be a far too situationist idea for Kant to accept.
The hypothetical nature of Utilitarianism is further shown by the Hedonic Calculus, the seven principles in the theory by which the correct action can be determined. These were intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (remoteness), fecundity (chance of there being further pleasures), purity (not followed by pain) and extent. Whereas in Kant’s Ethics have far fewer guidelines for moral actions. In fact, there is only one, however it is far stricter: to “…act in such a way that their actions might become a universal law.” The closest that scholars of Utilitarianism come to this rule is Rule Utilitarianism (more closely associated with Mill). This theory developed an attachment to the original idea of Utilitarianism so that instead of simply working towards the “greatest good for the greatest number”, the principle was changed. The new principle was that actions should be performed which are guided by rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to the greatest happiness. This follows a similar line of logic to Kant’s idea of the Categorical Imperative, however one may argue that Rule Utilitarianism’s idea is far more feasible.
Another key difference between the two theories is the way they view human nature, and the things their scholars believe people will instinctively avoid. Bentham wrote that “pleasure is identical with good and pain with evil” and that humans would do whatever possible to avoid pain, and the pain that would result for others. However, for Kant, the issue of physical pain (or the other three types according to Bentham: political, moral or popular, religion) never enters into ethics. Kant believed that the right thing to do was to act in a way that best glorified God, regardless of the cost to oneself, or to those around you. Indeed this is where the issue of duty arrives for Kant, and that one must sometimes be selfless in order to see the correct moral action. However, any sort of pain should be avoided in the ethics of Utilitarianism, or if it is unavoidable, it should be minimised through using the harm principle introduced by Mill. (The introduction of this principle sealed the previous existing loophole that enabled actions such as gang-rape to be justified by using the original Utilitarianism theory.)
To conclude, the major differences between the theory of Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant are not only the basic philosophical approaches to ethics but also the differing ideas on human nature and the priorities people employ when faced with an ethical decision. The resultant theories end up on opposite ends of the philosophical and ethical spectrum.
b. “Happiness is the most important consideration in ethics.” Discuss
In consideration of the former part of this essay I would disagree with the assessment that happiness is the most important consideration in ethics, however it can be seen as somewhat important. In the field of theist ethics it becomes easy to take this viewpoint, as humans we must adopt the viewpoint of St. Thomas Aquinas and glorify God in our actions, instead of focusing on human emotions, which can be fickle and misleading. It is also questionable that following “pleasure and pain” guidelines as dictated in Utilitarianism is helpful to the advancement of mankind. Philosophers such as Hegel have adopted the stance that “God is the absolute truth”, and this point raises the issue of whether in truth human emotions can truly guide ethical decisions effectively. Surely if logic is true, as logical positivist A J Ayer suggested, then this is the best way of making decisions, as opposed to on emotions, while merely express meaningless, “hypothetical” preferences which should not be brought into the equation of ethics, and rather we should consider greater truths than we do if we rely on human emotions.
Also, by relying purely on happiness we can encounter the problem found in early stages of Utilitarianism, whereby the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others. While basing ethics on human happiness may appear altruistic, is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted.
It is not, however, difficult to see why ethics based on happiness is popular. For example although Utilitarianism and other ethical systems based on human happiness are traditionally more popular with the atheist and agnostic community, it is possible to see the way in which it can extend to those with a religious faith as well. For example the teachings of Utilitarianism can be partly likened to Jesus’ teaching when he instructs people to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This clearly shows a consideration for the overall happiness of other people and shows the truly altruistic side to the quote given in the title. Another strength of making moral decisions based on happiness is that it invariably ends up a democratic process. Although there may be some disadvantaged people when the ethical decision is made, a genuine attempt is made to act selflessly and do the right action in a way that makes sense to the majority of people.
So although I maintain my belief that happiness is not the single most important consideration when making ethical decisions, it is easy to see why it should be considered an important maxim when attempting to make a moral decision, or a point from which to begin when unsure of a course of action to take.
I believe that, regarding the second question, some confusion has arisen between the ethical theory of happiness-as-good and some sort of emotivism. Happiness as the end of consequentialist ethical consideration, by no means precludes logic (incidentally Ayer was by no means a champion of logic in ethics).
"in early stages of Utilitarianism... the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others... is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted."
A rather central point of utilitarianism is that happiness is the only good, and therefore is worth the same regardless of whose happiness it is. Further, utilitarianism always calculated net happiness, not 'temporary happiness' or a specific 'number of people' at the exclusion of others. Likewise utilitarian methodology does not lead to short-sightedness, it would be self-contradictory for utilitarianism to be flawed on utilitarian grounds; that a given calculation made on utilitarian grounds might be 'short-sighted' is quite apart from the point, as said short-sightedness would exclusively be due to the absence of information contingently- a point valid to a critique of consequentialism perhaps but nothing to do with happiness per se.
More broadly, and pertinent to the first question, I would argue that Kantian deontology and utilitarianism are closer in actuality than presented in the discussion so far. With regards to the question of applied ethics, I would maintain that the categorical imperative leads to utilitarianism quite naturally. The deontological aspect of Kantian thought is a point that is to some extent aside from the question of ethics, except from a view of meta-ethical consideration; as Singer pointed out there is a certain triviality regarding conceptualisations of the definition of [an essence of] morality.
"in early stages of Utilitarianism... the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others... is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted."
A rather central point of utilitarianism is that happiness is the only good, and therefore is worth the same regardless of whose happiness it is. Further, utilitarianism always calculated net happiness, not 'temporary happiness' or a specific 'number of people' at the exclusion of others. Likewise utilitarian methodology does not lead to short-sightedness, it would be self-contradictory for utilitarianism to be flawed on utilitarian grounds; that a given calculation made on utilitarian grounds might be 'short-sighted' is quite apart from the point, as said short-sightedness would exclusively be due to the absence of information contingently- a point valid to a critique of consequentialism perhaps but nothing to do with happiness per se.
More broadly, and pertinent to the first question, I would argue that Kantian deontology and utilitarianism are closer in actuality than presented in the discussion so far. With regards to the question of applied ethics, I would maintain that the categorical imperative leads to utilitarianism quite naturally. The deontological aspect of Kantian thought is a point that is to some extent aside from the question of ethics, except from a view of meta-ethical consideration; as Singer pointed out there is a certain triviality regarding conceptualisations of the definition of [an essence of] morality.
TCovenant
I believe that, regarding the second question, some confusion has arisen between the ethical theory of happiness-as-good and some sort of emotivism. Happiness as the end of consequentialist ethical consideration, by no means precludes logic (incidentally Ayer was by no means a champion of logic in ethics).
"in early stages of Utilitarianism... the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others... is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted."
A rather central point of utilitarianism is that happiness is the only good, and therefore is worth the same regardless of whose happiness it is. Further, utilitarianism always calculated net happiness, not 'temporary happiness' or a specific 'number of people' at the exclusion of others. Likewise utilitarian methodology does not lead to short-sightedness, it would be self-contradictory for utilitarianism to be flawed on utilitarian grounds; that a given calculation made on utilitarian grounds might be 'short-sighted' is quite apart from the point, as said short-sightedness would exclusively be due to the absence of information contingently- a point valid to a critique of consequentialism perhaps but nothing to do with happiness per se.
More broadly, and pertinent to the first question, I would argue that Kantian deontology and utilitarianism are closer in actuality than presented in the discussion so far. With regards to the question of applied ethics, I would maintain that the categorical imperative leads to utilitarianism quite naturally. The deontological aspect of Kantian thought is a point that is to some extent aside from the question of ethics, except from a view of meta-ethical consideration; as Singer pointed out there is a certain triviality regarding conceptualisations of the definition of [an essence of] morality.
"in early stages of Utilitarianism... the happiness of some is worth more than the happiness of others... is it not in fact selfish and insensitive to weigh up ethical worth on the basis of the temporary happiness of a number of people, if not in the worst case scenario very short-sighted."
A rather central point of utilitarianism is that happiness is the only good, and therefore is worth the same regardless of whose happiness it is. Further, utilitarianism always calculated net happiness, not 'temporary happiness' or a specific 'number of people' at the exclusion of others. Likewise utilitarian methodology does not lead to short-sightedness, it would be self-contradictory for utilitarianism to be flawed on utilitarian grounds; that a given calculation made on utilitarian grounds might be 'short-sighted' is quite apart from the point, as said short-sightedness would exclusively be due to the absence of information contingently- a point valid to a critique of consequentialism perhaps but nothing to do with happiness per se.
More broadly, and pertinent to the first question, I would argue that Kantian deontology and utilitarianism are closer in actuality than presented in the discussion so far. With regards to the question of applied ethics, I would maintain that the categorical imperative leads to utilitarianism quite naturally. The deontological aspect of Kantian thought is a point that is to some extent aside from the question of ethics, except from a view of meta-ethical consideration; as Singer pointed out there is a certain triviality regarding conceptualisations of the definition of [an essence of] morality.
Hmm, I had not thought of that way. Nice insight
hey guys
i am writting an essay regarding genetic testing of an eight year kid for myotonic dystrophy whose mother and mothers brother was positively tested for myotonic dystryphy? so i put that the kid should not be tested according to kant and should be tested according to Mill? Am I right? or can you explain how it works related to Kant or mill? i want my answer not to be tested.
Thanks
i am writting an essay regarding genetic testing of an eight year kid for myotonic dystrophy whose mother and mothers brother was positively tested for myotonic dystryphy? so i put that the kid should not be tested according to kant and should be tested according to Mill? Am I right? or can you explain how it works related to Kant or mill? i want my answer not to be tested.
Thanks
funny
hey guys
i am writting an essay regarding genetic testing of an eight year kid for myotonic dystrophy whose mother and mothers brother was positively tested for myotonic dystryphy? so i put that the kid should not be tested according to kant and should be tested according to Mill? Am I right? or can you explain how it works related to Kant or mill? i want my answer not to be tested.
Thanks
i am writting an essay regarding genetic testing of an eight year kid for myotonic dystrophy whose mother and mothers brother was positively tested for myotonic dystryphy? so i put that the kid should not be tested according to kant and should be tested according to Mill? Am I right? or can you explain how it works related to Kant or mill? i want my answer not to be tested.
Thanks
Yeah you are right. However you have to explain why. Apply the universal law with Kant and say how it goes against it. Then using mill say how it is right as it does not go against the fact that greatest happiness rule e.t.c
funny
Is human reproductive cloning unethical according to Kant? i think that it is unethical according to Kant? any opinions. i also think that it is ethical accoring to mill's utilitarianism. is it right ? any answers in depth ?
With regards to Kant use his 3 universal laws and apply it to the situation. Can aruge that is treating a fetus as a means to and end and not an end in themselves and therefore it is wrong. However you could agrue that fetuses are not humans and therefore it may not apply here and so can be acceptable.
Please do bear in mind of the diversity of Utilitataranism, there are several striking differences between Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Singer.
Related discussions
- Kantian Ethics Essay
- OCR religious studies advice
- Likelihood of an applied ethics essay (AQA a level philosophy)?
- AQA A Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (7062/2A-2E) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024
- OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- OCR religious studies Kantian ethics question
- Philosophy at Oxford PPL
- ocr rs alevel essay writing help
- PPE
- AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- hey i’m yr 11 and want to pick biology chem and philosophy
- Grade Growth Chronicles | From C's to A's (23-24)
- Politics Philosophy and Law LLB at KCL 2023 Applications
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is my EPQ question too broad???
- Academic misconduct
- Eduqas religious studies a level 2023 : ethics predictions/revision advice
- How can I write a dissertation about psychological trauma as a Masters student?
- Am I cooked for oxford
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Full marks OCR a level religious studies answer.Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Religious Studies (7062/1) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 1 (1RA0 1A-1C) - 9th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
A level Philosophy tips to get A/A*??Last reply 1 month ago
i need help for philosophy !!Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies B Paper 1 (1RB0 1A-1G) - 9th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Plato's form of the good versus Aristotle's prime moverLast reply 2 months ago
OCR A Level Religious Studies 2024 predictions!!!Last reply 2 months ago
Eduqas A Level Religious studies 2024Last reply 5 months ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 9th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 months ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 months ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 months ago
AQA A Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (7062/2A-2E) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 months ago
Religious studies eduqas A-level A02 30 marker structure helpLast reply 5 months ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 months ago
Eduqas religious studies 2024Last reply 6 months ago
AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 2 (7582/2) - 22nd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 months ago
AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
