SALINAS, KRISTINA MAJA D.

GEC 008 - ETHICS

Assignment 4A: On Kantian Ethics

Please make a paragraph with at least 10 sentences of each of the following questions:
1. Describe the ways in which Kant’s system is similar to and different from utilitarianism.

Kantianism and utilitarianism use distinct methods to determine if whatever we do is right or wrong. We should
examine our maxims, or intentions, for the specific activity, according to Kant. “Human life is valuable because humans
are the carriers of rational life,” Kantians think. Between utilitarianism and Kantianism, there are few parallels. According
to utilitarianism, an action is right if it results in the maximum amount of happiness (not just your happiness, but others as
well). As a result, utilitarianism considers any activity that does not result in the greatest happiness to be wrong. For
example, utilitarianism holds that killing a mass murderer in order to save a group of people is the moral thing to do if it
makes them happy. However, Kant does not believe that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences.
Acting on a maxim that one may consistently will as a universal law determines the rightness of an action. This may
sound like a mouthful, but Kant's argument is that if you want to do something but aren't sure if it's okay, you should
consider what the world would be like if everyone did it. If everyone does the act, but as the result the act no longer makes
any sense or serves any purpose in that world, then the act is not morally permissible.
2. By citing example /situation, distinguish between Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
Categorical imperatives outline acts we should take regardless of whether or not doing so will allow us to achieve
our goals. “Keep your promises,” for example, is an example of a categorical imperative. Actions we should take are
identified by hypothetical imperatives, but only if we have a specific aim in mind. Ethicist believe that moral rules are
categorical imperatives, because we ought to do something even if we don’t really want to do it. Some examples of
categorical imperatives are; a person wants to keep a promise even though he/she doesn’t want it. That person is still
keeping his/her promises because it’s a promise that should be kept. Another example is, “Thou shalt not steal,” for
example, is categorical, as distinct from the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire, such as “Do not steal if you
want to be popular.” For Kant there was only one categorical imperative in the moral realm, which he formulated in two
ways. Hypothetical imperatives identify actions we ought to take, but only if we have some particular goal. They are rules
such as “If you want to visit Grant's tomb, then travel to New York.” Another example is, “If you want to be trusted, you
should always tell the truth”; “If you want to become rich, you should steal whenever you can get away with it”; and “If
you want to avoid heartburn, you should not eat capsaicin.”
3. Discuss: Never regard a person as a means, but always as an end.
In this sentence, the word "end" has the same meaning as the phrase "means to an end." Immanuel Kant, a
philosopher, believed that intelligent human beings should be viewed as ends in themselves, rather than as a means to
another end. The fact that we are human is worth something in and of itself. If a person is an end-in-themselves, it
suggests that their intrinsic worth is unaffected by anything else, such as whether or not they are enjoying their lives or
improving the lives of others. We are valuable because we exist. Most of us agree with that, even if we don't say it in such
formal terms. We say that we don't believe we should use other people, which is another way of expressing that we
shouldn't utilize other people to achieve our own goals. This concept also applies to us. We should recognize our inherent
worth rather than treating ourselves as a vehicle to our own purposes. This can be used to argue against euthanasia,
suicide, and other self-destructive behaviors. The concept also appears in discussions about animal rights, with the notion
that if animals have rights, they should be treated as ends in themselves.
4. Do you agree with Kant's stand on lying? Why/not? Explain your answer

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, believed that lying was always immoral. He said that everyone is born with a
"intrinsic worth" that he refers to as "human dignity." The fact that humans are the only rational agents capable of freely
making their own decisions, defining their own goals, and guiding their behavior by reason gives them this dignity. To be
human, Kant explained, one must possess the rational power of free choice; to be ethical, one must respect that freedom in
oneself and others. For me, lying possessed a great implication of immorality. Why do people have to lie? Though, at
some cases it has a benefit. Though, lying is still immoral. It could cause emotional and mental incapability of others –
because they would think that lying would benefit them. Lies are therefore ethically reprehensible for two reasons. For
starters, lying tarnishes the most important aspect of my humanity: my ability to make free, reasonable decisions. Every
lie I commit goes against the part of me that gives me moral value. Second, my lies deprive others of their ability to make
sensible decisions.