Chapter 10
Kant's Ideas on Moral Goodness
Human beings occupy a special place in God's creation; they are valuable, irreplaceable and better than all the other creatures. They, therefore, have a dignity that animals and small things lack. The way a human being treats animals is the same way he is likely to treat other people. He strongly objects mistreatment of animals not because the animals will be hurt but because it is a way of taking care of our inner selves. Human's value is also due to their ability to freely make choices, setting goals and guiding their moral conduct by reason. As a matter of fact, moral goodness can only exist when rational creatures act from goodwill by recognizing what they should do and act with a sense of kindness.
How this Idea leads to Kant's Principle of Morality
The categorical imperative is the only principle for the existence of moral goodness. It argues that a person needs to act to treat humanity always as an end and not as a means only because human beings are precious creatures. Treating people ‘as an end’ means treating them exemplary well by respecting their rights, to avoid harming them and endeavor to further the ‘ends’ of others
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How Categorical Imperative Requires Rational Beings to Never treat humans as a ‘Means.’
Treating people ‘as a means to something’ often implies that using one to achieve personal goals. The principle argues that adults do not need to be forced to do things against their will but concerning their rational capacities. People should also be allowed to make their own decisions by themselves.
How Utilitarian Theory of Punishment Violates the Rule that we should never Treat Humans as "ends."
The approach undermines human dignity. Punishing a criminal or imprisoning them to keep the society safe is using the offender for the benefit of others. Considering rehabilitation also violates the rule of treating people as ends because it is a way of changing people into who we want them to be which appears to be disrespectful to peoples' rights. According to Kent, we have a role responding to wrongdoers by paying them back and not by violating their integrity by trying to manipulate their personalities.
Kant's Theory of Punishment
The theory focuses on not treating people ‘as means’ and treating them with respect by punishing wrongdoers strictly for the wrong they committed, not for any other reason like trying to change the society. Consequently, the level of punishment should also be made proportional to the seriousness of the crime. Small penalties should be given for minor offenses and significant punishments for more significant crimes.
Kant's take on Capital Punishment
Capital punishment is a matter of justice, and there is need to balance the injustice of the mistake against the injustice of letting a murderer live. Punishment is in line with Kant's principle of morality because it treats the individual ‘as an end.' Meaning he is treated as a rational being who is responsible for his/ her wrongdoing.
Chapter 11
The Feminist Critique of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
In her book In a Different Voice, Gilligan points out that Kohlberg's theory demeans the thinking of females by the thought that reasoning in females is based on their relationship to the situation while males' thinking of the same situation appears complex, making them to device more advanced solutions. According to her, from the Kohlberg’s story, the two children, Jake and Amy might have had different thoughts but it wrong to regard Amy's way of thinking as inferior. The ‘male way of thinking’ as explained by Kohlberg has an effect of abstracting the details that give each situation their ideal flavor. Women are more sensitive to the primary information of cases and cannot ignore them. They worry about the consequences of every action, and their thinking is centered on safety and avoiding trouble at all costs. Gilligan further sites that all women have a personality meant to caring for others. This is besides being concerned about humanity that often drives them to attend to voices other than their own. They also tend to have a broader point of view of the situation before passing judgment. She admits that women have a moral weakness that is inseparable from their moral strengths, relationships, and responsibilities. Therefore, this characteristic will always manifest itself in any situation they are required to make a judgment.
Ethics of Care
Ethics of care is an act of creating a difference by valuing close personal relationships with friends and family with the thought that they are more special than others. It focuses on the conception of moral life as a network of contacts with specific people by caring for them, attending to their need and maintaining their trust. Priority is given to family and friends only. Obligation and duty are not regarded as fundamental, and there is no need of promoting equal interests for everyone in the surrounding.
Difference Between Ethics of Care and Ethics of Obligation
Ethics of care analyzes the presence of personal relationships before stepping in to help in meeting a person's needs. Therefore, people have no responsibility of helping people they do not know. According to Nel Nodding, care can only exist if there is an interaction between both the one supporting and the one being helped. Acknowledgement is valued, and that's why a one-on-one encounter is encouraged.
Ethics of obligation on the other hand focus on what needs to be done morally, by rightfully reasoning and making a choice on what to do and what not to. Ethics of obligation has an aim of promoting the interests of everyone equally with the available resources regardless of the connections we have with them. It also emphasizes impartial duty, unbiasedness, and absolute goodwill.
How the Ethics of Care is critical of the Ideal in Traditional Idea of Impartiality
The traditional theories of impartiality discourage private life. However, the theory of ethics of care argues that for one to be loyal and dependable, he/she has to be a certain kind of person without necessarily treating everyone equally.
Difference between Ethics of Obligation and Virtue theory
While virtue theory emphasizes on some character traits like kindness, generosity, justice and prudence to accommodate both private and public life without much reason, ethics of obligation on the other hand only emphasizes on impartial duties which calls for treating people with equality. It also requires the moral agent to reason and decide the right thing to do or not to do.
How Ethics of Care is Part of Ethics of Virtue
The ethics of care depends on the theory of virtues. Since the ethics of care focuses on personal relationships, ethics of virtue acknowledges that private life requires love and care. The ethics of virtue also values feminist idea which is one of the underlying principles in practice of the ethics of care.
Chapter 12
Critics of Modern Moral Philosophy
Elizabeth Anscombe criticizes the modern moral philosophy because it does not connect the law and the lawgiver. It is impossible to separate the duty, rightness, and obligation from the self-contradictory notion of modern moral philosophy. She says that people should return to Aristotle's approach and stop thinking of duty, rightness, and responsibility. According to her, virtues should take center stage.
The Relationship between Virtues, Character and a Good Person
A good person is one who has a list of desirable virtues. Virtues are the set of preferable traits that make someone is regarded as good or bad. Virtues differ from person to person because people have different kinds of personalities, live different kinds of social roles, live in different societies and the quality of character that helps them to stand out may also differ. Characters are distinctive features or actions that make up a virtue. Characters also vary from person to person and are different in every society. A virtue in incomplete if it does not involve character. For instance, one can display virtues of compassion by helping the poor, visiting the sick or orphanages. Thus, there is always an underlying reason for doing such things. If the motives are wrong, then character is not involved.
Virtue Theory
Virtue theory offers a natural and attractive account of moral motivation because it goes into the details of explaining the motives and the reasons for ethical behavior. Virtue theory does not only stick on the right actions and personal qualities but seeks to give an account of all the moral life from good deeds like friendship love and loyalty. From Michael Stocker's example of the scenario, the sick patient in hospitals suddenly changes her mood after discovering her visitor’s deep motive for visiting her at the hospital. To her, the visit suddenly appears calculated, cold and hence loses the real value. Virtue theory values love and friendship and it is focusing on building relationships by mutual regard.
Radical Virtue Ethics
Radical virtue ethics is a theory that most writers feel it should be an alternative to all the other virtue theories. According to Anscombe, the theory focuses in assessing between right and wrong conducts by using terms from the vocabulary of virtue. For instance, if an action is ‘morally wrong,' terms like ‘intolerant,' ‘unjust' and ‘cowardly' can be used. However radical virtue ethicists do not need to drop the terms ‘morally right' because actions can still be judged on the reason for or against them. The main issue of the Radical Virtue ethics is the problem of incompleteness because it has failed to explain everything that it should. The theory needs to illustrate further aspects of why a particular virtue is essential and why it is regarded as a virtue. The theory does not explain why something is a virtue when it does not tell whether the virtues apply under challenging cases. Finally, it cannot help in dealing with problems of moral conflict as it does not explain the right virtues needed for particular issues.
