Ethical Theories
Introduction
This paper seeks to give an analysis on fundamental moral theories. In this regard, the Kantian categorical imperative utilitarianism and deontologism will be considered. To shed more light on this, the elements of the principle of double effect will be illustrated. The doctrine of Ross on prima facie will also be covered accordingly. Subsequently, an analysis will be accorded to the notion of killing just war theory abortion and euthanasia. Sources of morality will also be considered.
Ethical Theories
Given that a categorical imperative is an unconditional and generally acceptable moral duty, and Kant assert that one ought to act in a manner which can be adopted in the universal order therefore, ones choice of actions in a given situation should point to what can be universally acceptable and applicable. This maxim can have different interpretations but the most core thing is that the action undertaken be universally permissible. In Christianity, it can relate to the dictum that holds that one ought to do to others what one would like them do to him. Therefore, all rational beings and with a Good Will acts in accordance with the categorical imperative and further to that evaluate their actions to ensure that they are universally fitting.
Arguing form the point Kantian point of view it can be said that one ought to act in a manner that is not only harmful to himher but also to others. For example, it is not fair to others when one of the students in the University hostels puts loud music in hisher room making other fellow students not to concentrate in their studies or to get some peaceful sleep. It is no doubt that this student would not wish another student to make noise whenever she is studying or having some rest. Therefore, why not reflect on the needs of others by first understanding the importance of those needs from ones experience.
It is important to note that a categorical imperative is different from a hypothetical imperative. The difference is as follows a categorical imperative implies a command while on the other hand a hypothetical imperative is a preconditioned command. For example, one can argue that if one wants to be happy then she must be a virtuous person. In a hypothetical imperative one is not absolutely obliged such that it only depends on this or that. Kant categorically asserts that moral imperatives are not conditioned to anything as they serve as ends in themselves. Consider the following example it is good to speak the truth always no matter what the case or it is good to help the poor in all ways and by all means. In these examples it can be argued that one is obliged to speak the truth always and that it is a duty to help the poor regardless whether it is a personal interest or wish or desire. Ones duty is ones duty and one must do it whether she wants or not. Indeed, this is the nature of morality. On the contrary, in the case of a hypothetical imperative, one would argue that it is good to speak the truth if this or if that. For example, one would say that it is good to speak the truth if asked to or it is good to help the poor if one is wealthy and has enough to give.
Hypothetical imperatives are not collective or absolute or universal because they are as such conditioned on some objective or aspiration. However, there are criticisms in respect to the categorical imperative in that not all acts can be universally acceptable. This is true considering the era of ethical relativism where people have different opinions and suggestions. Once again, consider the following examples Mr. X is convinced that he can steal a car when he wants to. This is not tenable in the Kantian sense. This course of action lacks universal desirability as stealing in itself is not something that can be desired in the universal order. Still, one would not still a car simply because there are many cars around or because the act will not cause inconveniences in the movements of others. One should not justify the act simply because it lacks grave consequences but as such, because stealing is morally unjustified and it is a duty to keep away from such act.
Moral Theories Double-Effect
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe that the end always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. The act in itself reflects whether it is morally good or morally wrong.
Deontologism is a moral theory whose tenets are of a non-consequentialist nature. It never believes that the end justifies the means. Contrary to what utilinitarianism believe that one should always exploit the good in hisher actions in the deontological sense, it is not the pursuit of the good but what one should consider is the moral element in the act. It is the act in itself that counts for a deontologist and not the end of it. This is what justifies it as moral or immoral. The following is the principle of double effect.
The act must never be intrinsically evil. It must symbolize ones deep commitment and identification with God and neighbor including the person himself the undesired effects should never be directly intended. The agent must avoid the undesired effects as much as possible the beneficial effects must not be as a result of the evil act. Or better still the desired results should never derive from the bad course of action the desired results must be proportionate to the harmful effects and finally the desired effects must follow from the harmful effects immediately and simultaneously.
The above moral principles can be used to analyze the case of the standard trolley example, and the fat man trolley example as followsThe case of the trolley problem states that a trolley is moving down a truck without braking. A trolley moves towards five people. A person is on a bridge that the truck will pass and can stop it by blocking a heavy weight before it. There is a fat man where the person instead uses him to stop the truck to save the five but leaving him dead.
Looking at the above example and from a deontologicalutilitarianism point of view there will be different interpretations. The overall tone in utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means. The case where the fat man is used to stop the track can be justified from an utilinitarianist point of view since saving the five is the perceived good. In other words, the end is to save the five and not the fat man. In light of the principle of double effect the act of using the fat man to stop the track is not evil. The person should not intend to kill the fat man but instead should occur as an unintended consequence. Finally, the desired effects should not be as a result of the bad course of actions.
A prima facie duty is a duty an individual has if all factors connected to it remain constant. This is because such duties are never absolute but fluctuating. On the contrary, a non-prima facie duty compels an individual to act in a manner that is not absolute. Consider the following example a thief comes running and seeks refuge in the priests house. The angry mobs come looking for him because they want to kill him. The priest has a prima facie duty in telling the truth but on the other hand, he has a prima facie duty in protecting a life.
An action is a prima facie duty only if it holds moral quality features and the actions executed must prove to have been the only action possible at that time. He further asserts that there are no absolute standards or universal principles in morality. He further asserts that there are duties that are clear to ones intuition. These duties are keeping promises, correction of a wrong doing, expressing gratitude, acts of justice, benevolent inclinations, personal growth and development and keeping off the possibility of harming others. Therefore, acts of agreement and commitment to promises made are prima facie duties. In other words, commitment to an agreement made or fulfillment of a promise is simply some thing that individuals should maintain without difficulties.
However, this theory has some defects in that it is hard to connect the different prima facie duties available to the agent it is unpredictable and with minimal determination it presents an arbitrary framework in moral judgments hence relativism in major ethical issues like abortion, euthanasia or manslaughter just to mention a few. The problem of intuition occurs because it is hard to fathom how moral principles can be self-evident.
Social contract theory is the view that individuals moral responsibility andor political responsibility are punctuated by the contract or agreement among themselves in a bid to form a society (Gauthier 1988). Social contract theory is an expression of total conformity by which people let go of the state of nature in order to form a society which they live presently. This was first coined by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan doctrine and John Locke.
Today, political systems are more committed to democracy. In this respect, the social contract is embedded on fundamental principles of democracy. Here, the government is solely a representation of the citizens wish and above all, where the majority take the day. Such situations can suppress the rights of the minorities or it can promote policies that are not within the whims of common good. Therefore, democracy should be guided by common good in order to realize a just and equitable society. Again, the government will not be influenced by what people want but will only implement what is the common good whether it offends a section of people or not. It is better to annoy the public because the government intends to take a just cause of action.
Case Study
There are debates all over the world regarding acts of killing in relation to human beings. Killing has been defined in many ways it has been called murder, suicide, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide just to mention a few. Whatever it is to what extent is each of this justified
It is important to note that there are three fundamental sources of morality to human acts. They are as follows the act it self intention of the acting agent and the circumstances. This is what makes any act morally justified. In this light, the aspect of killing will be analyzed on this ground and in the light of double effect discussed above.
Killing involves the deprivation of life in animals or plants, in any manner andor by any means. One can kill in the process of self-defense or by accident. Murdering is killing with malicious pre-meditated intention. For instance, in the case when a thief assassinates a person in the act of theft.
Euthanasia involves intentional killing by terminating a persons life due to the alleged benefit. Euthanasia is voluntary if the person chooses to be killed but on the other hand, it is involuntary if the person killed has not requested it or consented to it. Suicide is typically the taking away of ones life. It is an assisted suicide if a person provides another with ways and means to take away the other persons life it is physician assisted suicide when a medical practitioner assists another person to kill himselfherself. Euthanasia can involve use of a lethal weapon in taking ones life.
If by trick or design a person would be persuaded or forced to commit suicide, the unanimous legal opinion is that the persuader or coercer should be considered to have committed the crime of murder. The same would be true if the suicide had died at his own personal request in the hands of a comrade who, out of compassion or commiseration, acceded to the request of terminating the friends life. By logical extension, it would seem appropriate that one who causes another to commit suicide may also be guilty of murder even where death is not anticipated. Thus, where A, in raping B, inflicts serious or disfiguring wounds on her and B, out of shame and pain to bear an ugly face, thereafter decides to terminate her life. A will be guilty of felony murder.
Consider the following case An armed robbery takes place in Washington D.C. leaving one person dead. Witnesses say that while struggling for the robbers gun to disarm him, the gun accidentally or intentionally went off with a bullet going through the victims forehead. Subsequently, the victim blacks out and later die while on his way to the hospital. This robber should be charged of felony murder even though he might argue that he had no intention of killing the poor fellow. Similarly, a robber who accidentally guns down his accomplice or confederate in the course of a robbery, may equally be guilty of felony-murder in some jurisdictions.
Abortion is the taking away of a fetus life while still in the womb. This is never justified although it is argued that abortion is permissible in moments when the mothers life is in danger. The principle of double effect has widely been used to interpret this phenomenon by moralists. When a doctor performs surgery in a bid to remove a life threatening uterine cancer from a pregnant woman may be excusable or permitted, since the action is not evil in itself, even if it may occasion an abortion. The intention must always seek to realize the good effects. The evil effect that is, death of the baby ought to be permitted only on matters of grave reason. A life threatening cancer and not a mere minor surgery may once again occasion abortion. However, other options ought to be explored before arriving at the killing of the fetus. It must appear that it was the only option.
A state should endeavor to understand the principles of just war before engaging in it. There has to be a just cause and this sets the tone for all other procedures there must be a right intention. Any state that engages in war must do so in the framework of its just cause the war must be declared by the right authority the decision to go to war must be as a last resort the state should consider the probability it has to succeed in the war and finally there ought to be a sense of proportionality. The benefits must be worth the cause.
Conclusion
As we can see from the study a lot has been mentioned. The differences between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative has been presented where in the former, a person is obliged to act but on certain conditions while in the latter case, one is obliged to act in a certain way no matter the circumstances. We have also seen how utilitarianism and the expositions of double effect apply to the case of the fat man and the trolley and in the case of abortion and euthanasia. The reflection of prima facie duty is impressive but I concur that it has so many flaws as the agent of the action will have exceedingly many choices to consider hence creating a multifarious circumstances in making moral judgments. However, I believe there are obvious moral acts that as human beings we do not need to think much. I believe this is what led Ross to look at intuition as a source of moral judgments. We have also explored the classification of killing in its various dimensions and the just way theory. In general, morality is a discipline that despite its complexities, it operates within fundamental principles. I would like to reiterate the major sources of morality that ought to guide human actions the act itself must be good the intention must be good and the circumstances must be favorable at all times and in all ways.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment