Ethics

1110-040
Midterm paper
Kant paper analysis:
In the excerpts of Kant, he explains what he calls the categorical imperatives and
breaks it down into four duties that we are to follow. The four duties being perfect duties
to oneself, perfect duties to others, imperfect duties to oneself, and imperfect duties to
others. This all being under the idea of the universal law of nature which is the idea that
if something is okay for any one person to do so then it is always okay for everyone else
to do so. The first of the duties is, doing perfect duties to oneself; When we look at how
we are to treat ourselves and determine if it follows the natural universal law. In the
example of why we should follow this law Kant gives the follow, He says that a man who
is debating on taking his own life should not do so, even though he feels that by doing
so would bring less pain overall it would be wrong if others were to do so. Because it is
not a natural occurrence to want to commit suicide or because Universally it is not
morally right then the man in the example should not do it. Because we should not
commit suicide on any terms and preserve our body it means that we should consider
this a moral duty to do so. The second is a perfect duty to others, while we are still to
consider our own well being, we must also consider how others see us and what that
means for us. The example he gives is a man who is debating on asking for money
knowing that he will not be able to pay it back and the reasoning for now doing is is that
if later on, he is to ask for money even with the attention of paying it back people will not
believe him. The moral being that we as beings should have the interests of others in
our consideration because it will help further our own being and will ensure that others
will be able to aid in our self-preservation. This also falls in the idea of it is always okay
to want to preserve ourselves and that we should have other beings be able to help us
out with that if need be. The third of the duties is the duty to find and cultivate one’s
talents and to allow them not to go to waste. This duty is to one’s imperfect self and
relates to the other duties in the same was that they follow the moral natural law, as far
as they do not contradict one another. Kant says that we have a moral duty to go out
and seek our talent, to not only become more respectable and beneficial to our own
well-being but also because by not doing so we are letting out own talents go to waste,
we are not reaching our full potential. Finally, the fourth duty is the imperfect duty to
others. This is the duty we have to others and to be able to help others when they are in
need of assistance; we aught to help others because it is universally right for not only
us as an individual to help but also for others to help us. If we were to look only for our
own interests then it would be fine to cheat others, betray others and overall violate
them for our own ends. Seeing as that is not a universal law that should be followed it is
our duty to look out for the interests and well-being of there individuals.

John Hospers’s Rule-Utilitarinasim

Rule-Utilitarianism is the idea that we ought to do the greatest amount of actions
that will lead to the most amount of pleasure within the set rules that will lead to the
greatest good to the greatest number. Meaning that we should be doing the most good
while also not breaking the rules we have set. Hospers say that when we are thinking
about how to decide what will produce the most pleasure, thinking about the future and
amount of people it will affect is crucial. One of the arguments used is on how
democracy works, and on how the whole system is based on individual people having to
vote to make a decision that will be implicated on the whole population. Because we all
have a duty to vote for it to work we must, but sometimes it might feel that with so many
people our own individual votes will not make a difference in the long run, but if
everyone was to have this same thought and no one went to vote then the system as a
whole would collapse and it would not work for the best interests of everyone. Our
decision should not look toward pleasure just as pleasure but also as something that will
continue in the future and will better everything in the long run. This example helps us
see one of the arguments Hospers had against act-utilitarianism. When thinking about
the things that will bring more pleasure it might be more pleasurable not to vote and to
do other things that will bring more pleasure to one’s self, but because we have the duty
to vote we are looking at the future of not only ourselves and others but also helping the
system that is for the best interests of there’s as a whole in long terms. Hospers
believes that we have to look out for what will bring the most pleasure but also look at
who all it will affect and how it will affect us in the future.