The impression that morals originate not from tradition or authority drives my conviction of Kantian Deontology. The theory’s appeal is underwritten by the fact that goodwill is what justifies a good virtue. Essentially, Kant idealizes goodwill and posits that a right action is deemed good for its motive, even if it fails to achieve the indented purpose (Hartman et al., 2017). Say, for instance, a friend was in life-threatening danger, and the only way to save him was to lie. From a non-consequentialist standpoint (as in Deontologist’s), it would be wrong for me to lie, even if that would save the friend. As much as telling the truth will implicate my friend, it satisfies the categorical imperative – that as a moral agent, I acted as a means, not an end. Thus reasonably, Kantian ethics are far more objective and less bound to subjective desires.
I reason that in favoring Kantian deontology as the ideal theory, I promote selflessness and universal cooperation. For instance, the maxim “ Do not use persons as means to an end, only as ends in themselves ” requires that individuals do not merely seek to serve their interests, but conceive their fellow humans as sentient beings (Messick, 2006). As well, the second adage, “ The rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfil our duty ,” further demands that people perform their responsibilities with cheerfulness since doing so grudgingly is as good as not dong (Messick, 2006). Furthermore, laying emphasis on the value of universal laws rather than human laws promotes more harmonious cooperation between individuals. I also vouch for the deontological theory, since despite its absolutism, it provides a viable basis for fundamental human rights. That said, I accept the view of duty as the moral good since it promotes a wholesome value system.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Hartman, L. P. & DesJardins, J. R., & MacDonald, C. (2017). Business Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Messick, D. (2006). “Ethical Judgment and Moral Leadership: Three Barriers” in Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment, and Policy . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
