Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Chapter 6: Deontology
Transcript of Chapter 6: Deontology
Mira Kartheiser Do the moral act, regardless of consequence. Deontology Criticisms of the
Categorical Imperative -John Stuart Mill-- consequences must be included in moral theory -But what if we are conflicted between two things we have to do? 3. The Loophole -People may design a moral rule that only applies in their ONE case (loophole) Categorical Imperative 4. What is rational? -Rationality is subjective--
depends on personal interpretation. 5. No exceptions? -Absolutist Moral Theory—a moral rule allows for no exceptions. What would the utilitarian say? Should Batman kill the Joker?
What would Kant say? Rational Beings Are Ends in Themselves Kant Says, Using
another person for your
own means is immoral.
No exceptions. Person's Shouldn't
Be Used as Tools What is the Rational Being? Realm where all people have universalized intentions Kingdom Of Ends Kant says, it is only a "good" act if it could be made into a general law for everybody.
AKA: Do onto others what you would want done to you. all humans Categorical Imperative is "categorical" because it applies to every situation. 1. Consequences Count -What if everybody does what they want to do? 2. Conflict Between Duties -Categorical Imperative is limited to cases where duties are not in conflict. -Kant’s Theory—moral conflict
is one between what we have to
do and what we want to do. -Example: We’re supposed to send our taxes in on time, but it’s been a hard year and we’d like special consideration—if
this only applies in OUR case, then loophole is found. -The categorical imperative needs further clarification to avoid this “escape clause” -When goals change, the ideal of a reasonable course of action changes. -Assumes we all have the same general goals -if everyone uses reason without
looking at self-interest, then we will all agree on
the same result. -Kant -Kant’s reasoning: we should always stick to the rule. We have no responsibility for the consequences. shows autonomy and can set up moral rules for oneself and others "Ends"-indicates that the people treat one another as ends only---as beings who have their own goals in life---never merely as means to other people's ends "Kingdom"-describes a community of people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79hOZdh4PkQ http://fullersbox.blogspot.com/ http://vannevar.blogspot.com/2009/03/depression-kant-categorical-imperative.html http://media.photobucket.com/image/bags%20of%20money/Curtis1Jackson50/money_bags.png?o=3 http://www.guthriecenter.lib.ia.us/archive/2008/10/boardmeeting http://www.mind-expanding-techniques.net/studying-techniques.html http://www.disassociated.com/tag/dollar-bills/ http://tattooedphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/kant-on-tattoos/ http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-ethics-part-i-moral-philosophys.html http://www.viralblog.com/online-marketing/6-pros-and-cons-of-google-for-small-business/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEqfzr-5dBY http://www.comicvine.com/news/off-my-mind-should-batman-kill-the-joker/140977/?page=3&sort=first http://www.xamse.com/ REFERENCES Rosenstand, N. The moral of the story: An Introduction to Ethics. (6th ed., pp. 275-311). New York: McGraw-Hill.