Analysis of Kant and Right Theory

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential of all philosophers. Equal in

influence to Plato and Aristotle. As we shall find, Kant argues that morality is deontological.

‘Deon’ is Greek for duty. This states that we do moral acts because they are good-in-themselves

– not because they cause good consequences, nor because of emotions (either prior to or after

the act).A perfect duty, such as the duty not to lie, always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as

the duty to give to charity, can be made flexible and applied in particular time and place.

The claim that all humans are due dignity and respect as autonomous agents means that

medical professionals should be happy for their treatments to be performed upon anyone, and

that patients must never be treated merely as useful for society because there is a perfect duty

to tell the truth, we must never lie, even if it seems that lying would bring about better

consequences than telling the truth.

 Analysis of Utilitarianism

The standardized definition of Utilitarianism is that actions are defined as being “right”
or “correct” based on the ability it has to promote happiness. Something is then considered
“wrong” if it creates the opposite reaction. This structure means that the ends often justify the
means when seeking to create a specific result. That means if an action results in bringing
happiness more than any other available alternative, then that is the acceptable choice to make.

Happiness is always good for the individual. If you have an opportunity to increase this
emotion, then you should do so because it is a core human desire. That means when each
member of a group or organization is happy, then so will the entirety of that team.

By focusing on happiness first, we will all be collectively better as a society because our
focus is on how to improve ourselves. This theory does run into some practical concerns upon
implementation, which is why a look at its advantages and disadvantages is so important.

Utilitarianism suggests that the only item of intrinsic worth is happiness, but there are
also other commodities that are worth considering. Having life is something that provides value
to people. Being free to make your own choices has a certain worth that shouldn’t be ignored.
When love is in the picture, the relationships that cause this emotional reaction are also present.

Utilitarianism prove that happiness cannot be the only part of the foundation upon which
we make decisions. There are times in life when the correct decision is the one which only you
are willing to make. Humanity would lose its integrity if it decided to follow this way of life,
even if there are some notable benefits to consider. It is clear that any strengths are clearly
outweighed by the weaknesses of this theory.
 Analysis of Justice and Fairness Theory

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often
today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the
two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness
often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or
interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly
general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being
treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness.

The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it
was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals
should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is
sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in
ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved."

Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits
and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the
institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong
presumption that those institutions should be changed. Retributive justice refers to the extent to
which punishments are fair and just.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our
moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons
equally. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic
dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community
we must treat each other as equals.