In chapter 7 Zack talks about different philosopher view on what is right and wrong. The first philosopher mention is Immanuel Kant and his deontological ethics. Kant’s deontological ethics surround what it means to be good. According to Zack, he is premier theorist on secular human dignity. In other words, he is one of those philosophers who believe religions should not be used to determine what is good. Kant thinks to determine what is right we must take different things into consideration. These include reasonings and consideration of others. He theorizes that being good should be a legal obligation, and one should not be done because of pleasure, rewards or consequences. This leads us to the question; how would we know what is moral? (because
…show more content…
They believed that our actions are right if and only if they produce the greater goods. For example, you are driving in the woods when you see 10 people being chased by a bear. You decide to offer help but can only carry 8 of the 10 as your vehicle will break down if you exceed this limit. What should you do? Should you take a risk by putting everyone lives in danger by carrying all 10? Or do you bring the 8 knowing that 8 lives will be saved? Bentham and Mills would agree the right thing to do is bring the 8, as having only 2 people dying are better than having 10 people dying. These philosophers believe that pleasure and happiness should not be only for oneself, but it should be for the greatest number of people; the more lives save the greater the …show more content…
While Kant argues that we should treat people as ends but never as a mere means. This stems from Kant’s categorical imperative formulas, which means you should not manipulate others for your own benefits, for human are self-govern and should, therefore, be respected. Bentham disagrees with this, he believes that sometimes we have to use people as mere means if using them will produce greater happiness. There are many scenarios used to show people how both philosophical theories differ. One of this example is, 3 people are on a waiting list for different organs. They are on it for a while and their time is running out. The surgeon who will perform these transplants knows the faith of these individuals if they don’t receive the transplant as soon as possible. He decides to kill a homeless guy because he feels the homeless guy has given upon society, he doesn’t serve any purpose, and no one will miss him. Bentham would agree with the surgeon because they see it as the greater good. While Kant would disagree with seeing it has immoral. Kant sees us as all humans who are all equal despite the misfortunes. He believes we all value, goals, and interest; therefore, we have to take these into consideration when we are about to do something for ourselves. To conclude, if the role was to reserve and the surgeon was now homeless he wouldn’t
They believed that our actions are right if and only if they produce the greater goods. For example, you are driving in the woods when you see 10 people being chased by a bear. You decide to offer help but can only carry 8 of the 10 as your vehicle will break down if you exceed this limit. What should you do? Should you take a risk by putting everyone lives in danger by carrying all 10? Or do you bring the 8 knowing that 8 lives will be saved? Bentham and Mills would agree the right thing to do is bring the 8, as having only 2 people dying are better than having 10 people dying. These philosophers believe that pleasure and happiness should not be only for oneself, but it should be for the greatest number of people; the more lives save the greater the …show more content…
While Kant argues that we should treat people as ends but never as a mere means. This stems from Kant’s categorical imperative formulas, which means you should not manipulate others for your own benefits, for human are self-govern and should, therefore, be respected. Bentham disagrees with this, he believes that sometimes we have to use people as mere means if using them will produce greater happiness. There are many scenarios used to show people how both philosophical theories differ. One of this example is, 3 people are on a waiting list for different organs. They are on it for a while and their time is running out. The surgeon who will perform these transplants knows the faith of these individuals if they don’t receive the transplant as soon as possible. He decides to kill a homeless guy because he feels the homeless guy has given upon society, he doesn’t serve any purpose, and no one will miss him. Bentham would agree with the surgeon because they see it as the greater good. While Kant would disagree with seeing it has immoral. Kant sees us as all humans who are all equal despite the misfortunes. He believes we all value, goals, and interest; therefore, we have to take these into consideration when we are about to do something for ourselves. To conclude, if the role was to reserve and the surgeon was now homeless he wouldn’t