I. Introduction
The models of utilitarianism and Kantian philosophy are among the mostly used ethical theories involving subjects relating to morality. This study intends to look into these ethical theories and examine their basic premise when they are applied in issues relating to modern life. To this effect, the study will be using the perspective of the said models with respect to their stand on discrimination as reflected in the Weber case.
II. Kant’s Ethics
The notion of moral autonomy was established into modem philosophy by Immanuel Kant in the later part of the eighteenth century. Kant was certain that the autonomy and dignity of the individual compelled that the person observe those laws provided by him or herself. (Guevara, 2000, 66) To possess laws impressed on one from the external, even when the external law provider is God, is to be in the miserable state of heteronomy. This was a far-reaching notion, and superficially it would appear to bring about disorder. This is accurate considering the probability of having numerous diverse persons providing law to them, won’t this consequence in numerous different laws. In the case of the Weber case, one may consider discrimination is at all times immoral. However, another individual may think otherwise. Another individual may think that it is only allowable when it is really in awful situations.
Basically, the model of Kant states that even supposing that people have diverse personalities for a lot of functions. Everyone have an equal lawgiving character, coined as Practical Reason. (Guevara, 2000, 93) Thus, then several individuals don’t ratify several laws. This is basically what is noted in the tenets of the case of Weber. There exists a single law for everyone. Disorder is barred; independence and universality are settled, existing contentedly in concert ever after. Whether one concur with this model or not, it reminds people that the idea of moral autonomy makes no sense with the exception of the idea of self. If one is to comply with only oneself, then all anchors on the manner in which one conjure up this self.
III. Affirmative Action and the Deontological View
To a certain extent, the issue of affirmative action is indistinguishable with mere preferential treatment of a certain group of individuals. To this end, affirmative action is merely a glorified version of preferential treatment. Preferential treatment is essentially wrong so as other concerns cannot cause it to be morally reasonable. Preferential treatment is morally erroneous unerringly akin to discrimination. Consequently, to contend that preferential treatment can be morally reasonable if it has respectable social outcomes is in the vein of saying that discrimination can be morally acceptable if it has good social end results. This is obviously wrong; discrimination would still be erroneous even supposing it essentially encouraged usefulness or some other social nobility. Likewise, preferential treatment is morally wrong in spite of its end results. Preferential treatment, consistent with this less categorical account is similar to discrimination and thus erroneous in no less than a single context. That is to say, both preferential treatment and discrimination depend on immaterial characteristics, which is morally offensive. This does not denote, nevertheless, that preferential treatment essentially is wrong all things measured, as other concerns may make a preferential treatment policy (such as affirmative action) acceptable in any case.
IV. Utilitarianism
Different to Kant, John Stuart Mill had faith in an ethical hypothesis acknowledged as utilitarianism. (O’Rourke, 2001, 113) Utilitarianism is a different model in which the key object is to clarify the character of ethics and morality. There are a lot of formulations to this model. Utilitarianism is anchored on utility, or doing what constructs the most happiness. It affirms that the deeds of an individual are supposed to be found on the principle of greatest happiness. This standard claims that ethical deeds demand the utmost quantity of happiness for the most number of individuals. Mill’s main position is that one is supposed to direct his or her decisions by what will provide more satisfaction. He deems that an individual is supposed to constantly intend to acquire gratification and discard pain. Therefore, the formulation is that the morality of an action can be held honorable if the outcome creates the furthermost overall utility for everybody who may possibly be openly or in some way influenced by the action. Utilitarianism concentrates on the results of an action as opposed on the inherent and central character of the action or the motivations of the agent.
V. Conclusion
The Kantian moral premise and Utilitarianism both tries to clarify how one can perform ethically, nonetheless they vary in the manner in which they gauge morality and in the employment of rules. Kantianism states that an action is considered moral if it is carried out for the benefit of duty and if its principle can be considered as a common norm. Kantianism can consequently be perceived as a rational and commonsensical premise in which judgments can be completed. Utilitarianism, alternatively, would merely perceive the action as ethically allowable if the cost of that deed generate maximum utility and happiness for all concerned. Utilitarianism has no general collection of rules on to which morality is anchored.
A major criticism of affirmative action is that such programs go against deontological rights, either the fundamental right of the personnel who is most eligible for a specific job to occupy that position, or the right of the managers and company owners to employ whoever they believe is most capable for the job they have offered. It would be complicated to defend the standpoint that the personnel have a right to that work for which they happen to be even preferably fitting. Even though it could be reasonably contended that employees or employers have certain rights which are endangered by affirmative action, rights are by no means definite. Concern of the utmost good, or reverence for more basic deontological rights or responsibilities, customarily permits acceptable limitations on the rights of people in society. Affirmative action limits an manager’s or company owner’s right to hire individuals at will; nonetheless, this limitation is necessary for the reason that it points to the greater good, a society liberated from unreasonable discrimination.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment