Comparing Kantian Deontology And Virtue Ethics

Kantian deontology refers to rights and duties so; ethics involves performing or avoiding certain kinds of actions and respecting the rights of others. Many would say that no matter what the consequences, we have certain rights and duties, for example, we should never commit homicide. For Kant, our reason for acting should always be derived from reason. In fact, for him, a person who acts purely because it is his duty is morally superior to one that does not. Kant’s view on sympathy is that all should be your rational conceived duty than sympathy. He believes our duty-based reason should be rational. Lastly, Virtue Ethics refer to arguments from a character. More modern conceptions might say that we have the capacity to flourish as human beings the same way that a healthy plant might flourish as human beings. Virtue is by finding one’s fine balance between excess and deficiency. Running around a continuum. Being selfish in relation to being stupidity generous. For example, he was being a coward and being greedy. Virtue ethics is not as much about discerning right action, as it is about living the good (human) life. Helping an individual would be accommodating or generous. An important feature described in lecture that utilitarianism, Kantian deontology and virtue ethics all share …show more content…
Kant’s theory is that every action we do, we have reason to it, for ex: you itch yourself you have a reason to itch yourself. This theory also does not care about your emotions. It is a duty based forced to do something. Stoker’s theory is emotionally based we do certain things because we care. Dillon’s theory is similar to Stoker’s because it refers to the meaning of flensing the individual down to the bare bones of the abstract personhood. All persons deserved to be treated the same or have their “me-ness” (what one self-seems to be and sense of