Philosophy essay?

Question

Hi there i stayed up till 3:30 am doing this philosophy essay and my head is a bit scrambled from it. can you tell me what you think and if there are any improvements that i could make( apart from rewriting it as I`ve passed the point of no return) any info would be very much appreciated ,why thank you!!



When considering the two case studies that have been used as examples in the essay question it can be seen that the two schools of thought of Kantianism and Utilitarianism will always cause conflict. However each is applicable and should be contemplated when making moral judgements in differing scenarios.

The Utilitarian viewpoint is one of making decisions based on the consequences that will possibly occur and how these results can be best suited to bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This quest for happiness could also be construed as the search for the least amount of suffering. In case study one, the Utilitarian stance would more than likely be to give all money to cancer research and render the wishes of the dying millionaire and his drug addict niece irrelevant. Utilitarianism would favour the amount of good that was possible by undoubtedly bettering cancer diagnosis, cancer care and cancer treatment and in the long term, the hope of an eventual cure.

Kantianism would differ in that absolute rules would have to be followed and that the executor of the dying mans millions would, out of his sense of duty, not be able to lie about who the benefactor was and thus the money would be attributed to his niece regardless of any consequences that follow. If this case study is viewed by the premise that it must be one decision or the other, and that there is no grey area - for example that the money could be split and that there could be a certain amount of happiness for all parties - then the common sense that is inherent in most observers is that the Utilitarian view is correct and should be followed religiously. Although it can be said that refusing a dying man his final wish is a bad thing, in many cases in life and society, a person must do some bad to bring about some good. It is the measure of each of these two variables that determine whether or not certain things are morally right or morally wrong.
Consider if you will, you have a drug addict friend who has been through all rehabilitation and has continually relapsed. Doing this friend a little bit of harm, for example locking him in a room and causing many weeks of brutal suffering and pain from withdrawal, could lead to a fuller longer happier life.

The previous example would seem easy for any sane person to come to a wholly good conclusion but when considering the mightier subject of taking a life which may include such hotly contested issues as euthanasia, abortion and capital punishment more questions are raised than are answered by the twin towers of Kantianism and utilitarianism. What is a life? When does a life become worthwhile? When is it no longer considered a worthy life? Who are the people who have control over a life? These are just a few of the questions that arise whenever debate is opened on one of the subjects mentioned in the previous paragraph. The investigation of these higher questions can be well served by looking closely at case study number two; this scenario requires a deeper amount of thought than the almost obvious answer to case study number one.

Kant`s argument would be that all human life is intrinsically valuable and thus a life should never be taken regardless of any subsequent good that would come from it. In this way Deontology is backward thinking in that it does not look forward to the possible positive consequences only backward to the absolute that life is valuable and should not be taken.

Utilitarians who believe that happiness is the only thing which has intrinsic value would likely view it that two people can be helped and thus seen to suffer less by the killing of one person. Common sense dictates that it is an injustice and a total wrong to kill an innocent person no matter what. This is merely where the debate begins with regards to these two principles as the deeper a person looks into it the more littered with ambiguity the two become until what we are left with is a sort of hybrid view of things.

In case study two, Kant`s views could be interpreted in such a way that you always ought to help others. By doing this, you then relinquish your right to stay alive and thus selflessly give up your own life to save two others. By the same token utilitarian thinkers could understand that by creating a lottery of this type would create widespread fear and panic throughout an entire nation creating a vast amount of unhappiness. Looking at one of the previous cases, lets take abortion for example problems surface at once when Kant`s attitude towards the subject is brought up - a mother does not have the right to unjustly take the life of her unborn child - this leads to all sorts of problems. Consider if the mothers life was known to be at risk if she did not abort. Kantianism would dictate that she simply accept her death as a natural progression and allow the child to be born into a life without a mother. Utilitarians would view the mother’s life as being more important as she is somewhat more sentient and therefore her happiness is paramount This could also be looked at in a different slant in that the potential contribution of the child to society could be extraordinary and that extinguishing that life could bring about a great deal of unhappiness.

In the case of Euthanasia, Kant`s standpoint of never taking a life could lead to a great deal of suffering for an individual who may be confined to a hospital bed in a permanent vegetative state and have no life at all and yet their family members must sit by idly while nothing can be done to end their loved ones suffering. Utilitarians would support the idea of euthanasia if it brings about the general happiness or reduces the overall amount of suffering, but who is to say that the person carrying out the actions of euthanasia on a patient, whether it is passive or non aggressive, doesn’t themselves undergo suffering at the hands of guilt. There are the also the constant advances in medical technologies, treatments and cures which could lead to the recovery of some of these patients.

As can be seen from the case studies and the examples given in this essay, both of these codes of philosophical conduct have their flaws and neither can be followed as dogma. The best a person can hope to do is apply each one to whatever scenario they are faced with and with the aid of the common sense and intuition that is instilled in humanity, choose the one that they feel is the most morally right. What society is left with is a hybrid of the two and it is an individual’s, states or country’s judgement as to which one to apply and where to apply it.













Philosophy Essay
Normative Ethics: Kantianism and Utilitarianism

Answer 1

I've done all nighters before and I can really sympathize.

I'm just going to mention that the differences all arise from the premises:
1) Life has intrinsic value
2) Being good has intrinsic value

But neither is true unless there is a Creator who gave those intrinsic values. "All men are created equal" (Thomas Jefferson). Without a Creator, we're just basing our notions on what makes us feel good and that has no intrinsic value. There has to be a moral authority to Whom we OUGHT to own allegiance.

Answer 2

You ignore the environment in which each would have more utility. In times of crisis one might appear more relelant than the other.

You use examples to illustrate the two schools of thought. Try to separate them from examples, at least initially, to get to the essence of what each is all about.

Also you don't say what the question is. Is it a simple compare and contrast, or are you supposed to form an opinion after your research? If the latter, do so. You do not have tio sit on the fence to be a philosopher (although many do).

Answer 3

Both schools of thought... Kantianism and Utilitarianism are flawed in the sense that neither we find utopia in the present manifest world nor the laws of the society permit anything beyond the written laws (it is these laws that bind the society together)! It is the field of logistics that plays a governing role in the end!

Bhagavad Gita... the most sacred Scripture of Hinduism existing on Mother Earth explicitly clears this doubt! Bhagavad Gita spells out that the destiny of mankind is controlled by the infallible doctrine of karma! And what is this doctrine of karma? As we sow so shall we get... nothing less or more... so says the law of karma!

Bhagavad Gita also states that the spirit... the soul atman within every human being is the absolute governor of all things ephemeral. The human body in absence of soul atman... the spirit is just a body of flesh! As per Bhagavad Gita every soul atman is independent of each other. As we perform (enact our karma)... so shapes our destiny!

If a cancer patient is endowed a will by parents or grandparents... the society has nothing to do with it! It is purely a personal matter within the family! Every human being has been free willed by God Almighty. Until the last breath every human being is always free to act as per ones wishes! Even family members are not supposed to interfere.

The benefit of the society is part of community development. The community can never develop by force. Every single penny that goes to the coffers of the community must come willingly! No individual human being is bound to take care of the needs of the society! In a capitalist society... the power of discrimination available to every human being is ones birthright!

It is this power of discrimination that distinguishes human beings from animals! If I suffer... I suffer due to my own follies... my past karma! If I am a cancer patient... all results from the karma of my previous manifestations! Every human being has ones part of sufferings and happiness. The karma of one can never be enacted by another!

If I win a lottery... that also results from the fruition of positive karma of the previous manifestations! If fate brings bad luck... that also owes its origination to the karma of previous manifestations! All is the result of a system that cannot err! In the house of God there are no free lunches. Nor the system of God is disordered at any stage!

Everything works like clockwork mechanism! If I misuse my power of voice in this life... if I am outspoken or use bad words in my day-to-day dealings... it is just possible that in the next manifestation I am born dumb! If I misuse my eyes in the present manifestation... it is quite possible I am born blind in the next manifestation!

In the circumstances pitying the dumb and the blind carries no meaning! As per Bhagavad Gita... every human being simply reaps the fruits of ones karma! The karma of one can never be affected by the karma of another! Our soul atman within our body makes sure such a thing never happens. Not directly but indirectly our soul atman... the spirit within is the final controller of all events in the manifest world. More on Kantianism and Utilitarianism Philosophy - http://www.godrealized.org/truce_with_my_inner_self.html

Answer 4

Unless we can see the Question Posited:
How can we judge the Answer.

Answer 5

lol - i LIVE for this stuff!! as a therapist, writer and general fan of epistemology and discourse analysis i'd like to thank you for giving me sumfing to look at over my breakfast!!! 'scuse me just saying what i think? if i were your tutor - i've taught everything from basic english to astrophysics - i'd use nlp to work out your 'learning style' but hey, this is a freebie, right?

= revise your intro - NEITHER of these ideas has caused conflict. describe the conflict as you understand it. it would be better if you could stack a quote from Mills against something from Kant to exemplify

=eeeyooo! 'common sense'??? it aint that common and it rarely makes sense!!! still, i like your dichotomising of the greatest happiness/least suffering...these, at least in philosophy, really ARE different.

= you need a comma after 'for example' and you need a 'possesive apostrophe' in mans (man's)

=use 'argued' instead of 'said'

=para' 3 - it's unclear which variables you are refering to as there are at least 6 in the preceding argument! and instead of 'many cases' - perhaps ONE of yours would be good? exemplify, dude!

= by para 4 i am getting a sense of your writing style...THINK about the judgements you are employing....alot of your words are 'theory-laden' ie they can be 'unpacked' into a series of choices and opinions....Baktin says - be careful what words you use, you don't know whose mouth they've been in'!

=para 4 - 'subject mentioned'?....be more explicit...WHICH subject?

=Consider if you will, you have a drug addict friend...this is stylistically leaden and grammatically 'wrong'!!! consider this - consider, if you will - you have a drug...etc

='than the almost obvious' - too general. if you want to make generalisations then personalise 'em...it's one of the few places you CAN personalise, without losing marks, in an academic essay - this is YOUR opinion!!

=where are your refernces? the meaning of deontology is, in ITSELF, a question - here's what wik' says - Deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: δέον (deon) meaning obligation or duty) is "the theory of duty or moral obligation."[1] Deontology is also known as nonconsequentialism.

Deontologists argue the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the goodness or badness of its consequences. In contrast, consequentialism holds that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes or satisfies good consequences as determined by an impartial determination of good and evils. Deontological ethics typically is thought to involve two important elements: prerogatives and constraints. Prerogatives deny that agents must always seek to perform actions with optimum consequences. Constraints place limits on what actions agents may undertake in an effort to bring about their own or the impartial good......always refernce your arguements - it'lll score you points!!! and what do points mean? PRIZES!!!!

=you're confusing 'utility' with 'happiness'... what do YOU mean by 'happiness'?

=again, where's your' (LOL) possesive apostrophe?Consider if the mothers life ??? it might seem pedantic but grammar is what differentiates US from the apes that can use sign language and infers a comprehension of an abstract system of thought which monkeys sooo cannot grasp!!!

=take abortion for example ..uh oh...basic english or oversight?in the same vein -'she simply accept her death'?

='Utilitarians would view the mother’s life as being more important as she is somewhat more sentient and therefore her happiness is paramount '...arguable. check out the 'sphere of liberty' concept mills propounds....this is a really interesting example of the sort of inter-dependency that mills seems not to have considered...is that because of his time-and-place presumptions?

='somewhat more sentient'. ouch!!! you wanna explain how you came to THAT conclusion??

='This could also be looked at in a different slant' do you mean 'light'...watch for your mixed metaphor(scan yor essay - there are other places you do this). 'cos this'll cost you points!(and what do points mean???uh huh)

='In the case of Euthanasia, Kant`s standpoint of never taking a life could lead to a great deal of suffering for an individual who may be confined to a hospital bed in a permanent vegetative state and have no life at all and yet their family members must sit by idly while nothing can be done to end their loved ones suffering'.. you make an interesting point BUT this is not about euthenasia - this is about artificial extension of life and the retraction of said artificial support...where are the doc's spheres of liberty in relation to an unthinking patient's? is sentience a pre-requisite for mills? what does this mean, in application, for the theory? this is a major point - apply the leverage of THOUGHT!

='recovery of some of these patients.' - google sax and reference it! sentience is a SERIOUS site of criticism for kant AND mills

= ok, hatchet job DONE!!! i guess it depends at what level you're studying this, but the essay was interesting to me and raised old points in a new way. in general?

as someone who got an 'a' in the uk, at a-level and then went to university to study philosophy/writing and publishing.. this is an average essay and, if you chuck in some references and unpack a couple of the theory -laden words you use, then you'll be on-track.

if you are into this stuff then i'd suggest you read ayer's language, truth and logic - a 'young' book but full of ideas you can apply to all sorts of problems. also consider the emotional and intuitive intelligence that seems to be ignored in most systems of thought...but that's a question, again, of epistemology!!! be clear in your mind about the difference between quantitative and qualitative evidence, paradigmatic knowledge and the sudden shifts that occur, the techniques employes in history of science - ie that people thought what they thought in the context of their time and place and particular/peculiar 'mind-set'..and, always ALWAYS consider the problem of distinguising between constant conjunction and causality...this last concept is KEY.

hope this gets you finkin and PLEASE forgive the hatchet job i did...the only thing wrong with your essay...at whatever level....is the lack of references! if you state something then reference where it has been accepted and you'll do fine!

THANKS FOR THE HEAD EXERCISE!

=D

LOL - YEAH, WHAT THE OTHER GUY SAID...POST THE QUESTION AND WE CAN TELL YOU HOW WE WOULD APPROACH IT FROM THE GROUND UP|!!!!

Answer 6

i got no learnen

don't no no ethics

paper to long

ug