Foundations of Kantian Ethics and the Discussion of Ethics - Assignment Example

Ethics Discussion Boards

DB 2A: Kantian Ethics is the Most Logic Non-consequentialist Theory

Immanuel Kant reasoned that people have the moral responsibility to participate in the right activities and desist from performing wrong deeds (Scott 18). Kant argued that people should not judge actions based on the outcomes because the results do not validate the means. Kantian ethics suggest that people have moral obligations towards each other. Kantian ethics consider slavery as a wrong action because it is a disgrace for humanity despite resulting in economic gains in a society (Weir 5). Besides, Kantian ethics ascertain that personal or social relationships assign obligations to each individual. For instance, people who make promises should keep them. Kantian ethics view actions as wrong or right, depending on how they take place. Thus, each individual has the moral responsibility of participating in activities that do not harm other people (Weir 5). Kantian ethics judges actions based on reason and considers duty as a person's experience. Kant reveals that morality is not about following feelings but doing one's duty. This theory treats all people fairly and equally, meaning that people should not seek happiness by exploiting others (Unkantrolable). However, Kantian ethics fail to consider that individuals do not have a universal understanding of ‘good will’ because each situation is unique (Unkantrolable). Kantian ethics denies that people have absolute duties such as breaming a promise (Unkantrolable).

DB 3A: Medics can Reveal Private Medical Information to Protect Others from Harm

Laws and regulations governing healthcare consider medical information as highly sensitive and confidential (FindLaw). However, some extraordinary circumstances require medics to disclose patients’ medical information. Kantian ethics suggests that people have a moral duty to others (Scott 18). Therefore, doctors can share patient information with others when the client is in danger, for example, when the patient has suffered a traumatic injury (FindLaw). Revealing medical information in this situation is an act of goodwill because the patient cannot make viable medical decisions. Doctors can discuss with patients’ friends and relatives about the medical condition to help improve care (FindLaw). Utilitarianism suggests that morality should improve life and holds that right actions result in happiness for most people or the least possible adverse effects (McCombs School of Business). Medics can reveal patient information to the government to report different diseases affecting the nation’s health in a specified period (FindLaw). However, this information does not include patients’ identity. This data can help the government to monitor people’s health and plan on resource allocation. Kantian ethics suggest that doctors can reveal medical information when clients’ mental state can make them harm themselves or others. Utilitarianism proposes should participate in actions after evaluating the benefits or outcomes (McCombs School of Business). Medics can also reveal patients’ medical records in a court of law after if the patients presented a compensation claim (FindLaw).

DB 4A: Active Euthanasia is more Ethical than Passive Euthanasia

Active euthanasia is the act of using drugs to end the life of a person with under critical health situations to relieve them from excess suffering and pain. Patients endure euthanasia when the health condition is chronic or almost incurable. Utilitarianism sorts out the wrong actions from the right by evaluating the outcomes (McCombs School of Business). Active euthanasia is more ethical because it relieves patients from stresses linked to a predicted slow and agonizing death (Duwell 74). Medics use drugs for active euthanasia, and thus, the process of dying is faster. Patients who choose active euthanasia over passive euthanasia consider dying a decent and less painful death. According to utilitarianism, people should engage in activities that result in the greatest joy to most people (Duwell 74). Active euthanasia brings more happiness to relatives and patients because it is faster than passive euthanasia. Relatives will not spend too much time and resources to support the life of a dying patient. Active euthanasia helps families to relocate finances and time to other development projects. Although the outcome of both acts is death, the net impact of active euthanasia is increased happiness to the family and society. Active euthanasia removes the aspect of continued patient existence, thereby relieving more pain.

DB 5A: Purpose of Punishment

The utilitarian theory maintains that governments should use the law to maximize the joy of most people in society (McCombs School of Business). Crime and disorder undermine the happiness of society, and therefore, the authority should punish criminals to deter misconducts and maintain a crime-free community (Van Prooijen 50). The primary purpose of punishment is to protect society by discouraging people from participating in activities that disrupt peace in society (Van Prooijen 51). Utilitarian theory looks at punishment based on benefits. Punishment will make individuals fear committing crimes because of the pain inflicted on criminals. Utilitarian theory suggests that punishment should have influence the offender’s behavior. Continued confinement makes offenders less capable of committing crimes. Punishment should exceed the overall evil to make the criminal regret committing the crime (Van Prooijen 50). Utilitarianism support keeping criminals in prisons and rehabilitative centers to punish and isolate them from society. Offenders face punishment because they deserve it. Punishment make offenders become aware of their crimes and rehabilitate to prevent future wrongdoing (Van Prooijen 50-51). Utilitarianism hold that actions such punishment should result in overall good for most people (Duwell 74). Punishment discourages the offender from engaging in criminal activities and therefore, society will enjoy peace and joy. Punishment help to rehabilitate wrongdoers and encourage them to uphold morals (Van Prooijen 51). Punishing offenders through rehabilitation programs helps to deter future crimes.

DB 6A: Arguments for and Against Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the act of executing lawbreakers of heinous crimes by judicial killing after the court convicts them of the misconduct (Bushman). Kantian ethics hold that nations have the moral duty of protecting the welfare and safety of their people (Weir 5). Murderers and assassins are a threat to the peaceful coexistence and safety of people in the community. Therefore, subjecting murderers to the death penalty can make the society that the convicted criminals do not murder other citizens. Kantian ethics hold that people should take actions that result in greatest happiness to the society (Newkirk). Capital punishment is an act of good will because it prevents recidivism. People who argue against the death penalty reason that judicial killing is vengeance, thus, an immoral concept. Capital punishment does not result in overall good for society because execution degrades human dignity. Opponents of death penalty hold that the practice does not deter crime (Bushman). Opponents also hold that capital punishment can result in killing of innocent lives, thereby minimizing happiness in society. Capital punishment tends to encourage the idea that killing is acceptable and “answers violence with violence” (bushman). Death penalty is a cruel act that infringes pain and suffering to offenders instead of encouraging them to rehabilitate, and thus, it is unethical.

DB 7A: Affirmative Action Policies Can Result in Reverse Discrimination

Affirmative action can read in reverse discrimination because such policies promote sharing of opportunities among all people at the expense of the majority. For example, white job applicants in the United States suffer “white victimhood” (Newkirk). Affirmative action encourages result discrimination of the majority group to promote universal good. Minority groups earn benefits that would be enjoyed by the superior group, thereby making the majority feel grieved and neglected (Newkirk). Studies reveal that 57% of all whites in the US believe that affirmative action policies contribute to reverse discrimination, thereby resulting in a significant societal challenge (Newkirk). Kantian ethics suggests that government and institutions should take actions that promote good will for the greatest population (Unkantrolable). Therefore, affirmative action initiatives are justifiable because they uphold societal equality by giving special treatments to minority groups and less fortunate groups. Affirmative action ensures that institutions and workstations obtain and maintain diversity by tolerating more communities. Kantian ethics hold that people have moral duty towards each other (Unkantrolable). Affirmative action is justifiable because it enables less fortunate people to access opportunities, thereby resulting in universal good. Affirmative action helps to compensate minority groups for suffering many years of oppression, and thus, all people will be at equal playing grounds.

DB 8A: Preventing Sexual Harassment in Organizations

Sexual harassment is relates to verb insults, physical assault, and unwelcoming sexual advances towards a person (HR Library). There challenge with handing sexual aggravation claims is that women and men have different understanding of things or behaviors that constitute harassment (Wicks). Employers are using stringent measures to curb sexual harassment, for instance, employers provide workers with a work environment free of harassment (HR Library). Employers must ensure strict adherence to employments laws to deal with and prevent sexual harassment. A statement of intent requires all stakeholders to commit themselves to fighting against sexual harassment (HR Library). Besides, employers are introducing anti-harassment policies to educate employees about acts and punishments for harassment (HR Library). Kantian ethics suggest that actions are good and moral if they result in joy for the greatest population (Weir 5). Sexual harassment is immoral because it demeans the victim, thereby minimizing happiness. The current legal environment does not place unfair burdens on institutions and employers to prevent harassment. According to Kantian ethics, people have moral responsibility towards other individuals (Scott 18). Therefore, employers have the moral and legal obligation of protecting the welfare of their employees. Sexual harassment degrades human dignity and results in sorrows and psychological pain on the victim. Employers should bear the responsibility of protecting employees from experiencing low self-esteem and decreased happiness due to sexual harassment.

DB 9A: Animals have Rights and People Should Protect Them

Buller et al. (1) reports that animals have significant contribution to the world food system, and thus, people should protect and enhance animal welfare. Most people have started recognizing animal welfare through supporting regulations and initiatives that improve animal care. Mellor (2) expounds the five internationally accepted standards of enhancing animal rights. First, animals have the right to access well-balanced and nutritious meals to prevent them from suffering hunger and thirst (Mellor 2). This right helps to keep animals productive and healthy. Second, all animals have right to comfortable shelters and freedom from exposure (Mellor 2). Therefore, humans have the moral duty of keeping animals in safe environments to enable them live healthy. Third, animals have the right not suffering pain, injury or disease (Mellor 2). Therefore, humans should protect livestock by faster diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Animals have the right to exhibit their natural traits, thus, humans should construct firm housing facilities with adequate spacing to meets the requirements of each animal (Mellor 2). Animals have the right not to experience fear and distress (Mellor 2). Humans must guarantee the happiness of all animals by providing an environment that prevent them from experiencing psychological anguish (Mellor 2). Human beings should protect animal rights and promote their welfare.