The concept of paradigms of laws and Kant's ethical formalism has attracted heightened debates and discussions among various philosophers as some criticize Kant ethical theory/deontology ethical theory for having disregarded the consequences of doing what is right or what is wrong ( Capraro et al., 2018). However, this concept has broadly been applied in retributive justice, such as rehabilitation, the death penalty, and corrective laws. According to Kant, it is possible in many cases that a person does something wrong or weird because of his/her bad intentions, but this might result in bringing problems in the society. On the other hand, a person might do something right out of his/her good intentions, but this might result in bringing problems in the society as well, and this is the reason why Kant believes that such doing right must be a person’s obligation and this is what he refers to as duty-based ethics ( Capraro et al., 2018). Therefore, the consequence of man’s action is in his/her control and people can only control their motives when acting morally meaning the moral worth of our action is depended on our good will .
The Paradigm of Universal Laws and Duty-Based Ethics
The duty-based ethics or ethical formalism is a form of ethics that define the moral judgments concerning their logics such as universal prescriptions or laws as opposed to their substance such as judgments regarding certain actions that would promote a person’s well-being ( Hyson et al. 2019). This principle of universal law/ Kant's ethical formalism/deontological ethics usually contains critical implications, and that is why certain philosophers have criticized Kant for having defined morality concerning formal features such as universal law as well as attempting to derive concrete moral duties from formal features. Therefore, my action of lying to the inmate was justifiable because it was my moral duty to act in a way that would promote the inmate’s well-being. By reporting him to the facility authorities, the authorities would take a corrective measure against the inmate, thus helping him reform and quit his bad behaviors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A Justification of Whether You Lied To the Inmate
According to Kant, it would be wrong to lie to save someone from a murderer, in that case, I did wrong by lying to the inmate to remove the information about the contraband from him. I had a duty to do the right thing even if I needed that information also . Therefore , I could not have tricked the inmate, but instead, I could have just done the right thing apart from castigating lies ( Hyson et al., 2019). This is the reason why contrasting the deontologists with the consequentialists ; it is apparent that the consequentialists will start by considering doing the right things and in this case do the right actions because they are only the ones that can produce the maximum of such right things. Therefore, I acted unethically when I lied to the inmate because according to the universal laws and Kant's ethical formalism, it was my ethical obligation to act ethically and in a manner that could promote the inmate’s well- being ( Hyson et al. 2019). On the other hand, some deontologists might argue that I acted ethically by reporting him to the correctional facilities authority because the authorities were likely to take certain corrective measures that would change the inmate’s behaviors.
How I Treated the Inmate
Based on the universal laws and Kant's ethical formalism, I both treated the inmate badly and rightfully at the same time. The first thing I did that is contrary to these ethical laws was to lie to the inmate to remove the information about the contraband from him. It was indeed my responsibility to do the right thing even if I needed the crucial information from the inmate and in that case, I ought not to have cheated him, but instead I ought to have stuck to the truth ( Kerstein, 2013) . On the other hand, I did something right to the inmate by reporting him to the correctional facility authorities. According to the deontological ethics, it is a person’s obligation to take actions that would promote a person’s well-being if the action would not seem conducive to the person.
Whether the Actions Would Be Considered Universally Acceptable
The universal laws/ moral laws require rational beings to obey such laws merely because they are rational and this must apply to everyone across the universe. In my case, I would say that my actions could partly be considered universally acceptable while, on the other hand, could be considered universally unacceptable ( Kerstein, 2013) . My action of lying to the inmate to remove the information about the contraband from him could be considered universally unacceptable because I did the wrong thing by lying while the action of reporting him to the correctional facility authorities could be considered universally acceptable because this action promotes his well-being.
Whether this was a form of Retributive Justice
The deontological ethics requires people to emphasize the action itself instead of considering its consequences, and that is why it is sometimes referred to as the inconsequential ethics. In this kind of ethics, a society is needed to take actions that could contribute to each and everyone’s well-being regardless of the consequence of the action ( Miller, 2011) . In this case, the act of cheating the inmate to divulge important information that could contribute to the well-being of the corrective facility is a form of retributive justice. Even if cheating him was the wrong action, but such kind of information would help to correct the individual and assist the smooth running of the facility as well.
Kant's Ethical Formalism in View of the given Scenario
Immanuel Kant teaches that all rational beings could do what is right, even without depending on God, community or anyone else tell them or identify to them what is right or what is bad ( Ramaswamy, 2018) . In this case, regarding the Kant's ethical formalism, it was my duty to do what is good like reporting the inmate to the correctional facilities authorities for the appropriate that could promote his well-being to be taken. However, it was not justifiable to lie to him to remove the information concerning the contraband from him because that was against the Kant's ethical formalism. According to Kant, doing good is a very important and essential part of ethics.
References
Capraro, V., Sippel, J., Zhao, B., Hornischer, L., Savary, M., Terzopoulou, Z., ... & Griffioen, S. F. (2018). People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are. PloS one , 13 (10), e0205066.
Hyson, P., Macauley, R., Sexton, K., & Sanford, J. (2019). Surgical Overlap: An Ethical Approach to Empirical Ambiguity. International anesthesiology clinics , 57 (1), 18-31.
Kerstein, S. J. (2013). How to treat persons . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, C. B. (2011). The Continuum companion to ethics . New York: Continuum.
Ramaswamy, K. (2018). The Right to Education: An Analysis through the Lens of the Deontological Method of Immanuel Kant. Nw. UJ Int'l Hum. Rts . , 16 , 47.
