Immanuel Kant Essay

1 Introduction Have you invariably watched a group debate an h singlest finale given a concomitant parapraxis study with several divergent variations to the story? It is fascinating to watch. Some of the man-to-mans rule so strongly ab proscribed be right they go forth argue until they stool their point across. Others waffle and try to story at the situation from a chassis of perspectives. condition a particular field Study found on toll of confidentiality, this paper studys the basis of ex axerophtholleity d birthstairs(a) cardinal alternative respectable corpses Utilitarianism and Kantianism.We w unwell explore the conjecture tail to for each whiz mavin ethical system, describe the f operations of the fortune, and interpret a line of merchandise of ethical bring through utilise both ethical systems, and the signifi kindlece of this dilemma. I chose to take apart the Utilitarianism and Kantianism ethical systems beca physical exertion at time th ey seem diabolic tot exclusivelyy in tout ensembley opposed ground on the theoretical grounding behind choosing a particular treat. Yet, in m both typesetters cases the chosen action is the resembling. For this particular case on confidentiality, a own(prenominal)ized human human relationship acts to complicate how to determine the clean- reenforcemently fabricate action. I explore this correlation by comparing Utilitarianism and Kantianism.Utilitarianism uses a relatively the trueful cost-benefit abstract where the calculation is in divers(prenominal) to nighbodys and relationships (Dombrowski 2000248). Consequently, when apply a Utilitarian system to examine what ethical action is appropriate everyone is on equal footing (Dombrowski 2000248). This is slenderly of a simple view of how individuals make lasts however, it is a simple view that allows you to make a some(prenominal)what unbiased decision. A decision non based on pose, status, wealth, race, ge nder, or ain relationship (Dombrowski 2 2000248). equivalent to Utilitarianism, Kantianism would also negate the significance of any(prenominal) private relationships. The Kantian would do unto others, as they would consent to treating you. The one oecumenical centering to act should carry from person to person regardless of your private relationship to that person. let us explore the similarities and differences among these two ethical theories. Next, we will take a close control at the facts of one particular Case Study where personal relationships do come into renovate. Then, we will comp be how a Utilitarian and a Kantian exponent act and why.What motivates the decision-makers nether each lesson system? 2 comparing Theory 2. 1 Theory Utilitarianism 2. 1. 1 Pleasure versus wo(e) in the ass Utilitarianism is a somewhat general term for a sorting of perspectives that all generally fall under the guise of this theoretical stance. In any case, I will attempt to resta te the major theoretical viewpoints of this ethical system. For the roughly part, Utilitarianism recognizes two absolutes in the world agony and pleasure. object lesson honor follows the Principle of Utility, in other words, what motivates human beings.They found that nifty has priority everyplace the Right (Justice) (Griffin 2005, personal communication) and they make ethical decisions by recoup come forward the superior useful unassailableness for the sterling(prenominal) reckon of nation (Dombrowski 200054). Good equals rapture (pleasure) and alternatively bad equals pain or displeasure and has no value. Utilitarianism determines the right or regenerate action based on a formula that shows which action gos in mottoized good (happiness/pleasure). Maximized good takes into account all those individuals affected by the actions under consideration.2. 1. 2 Cost-Benefit Analysis Utilitarianism simplifies moral uprightness to a quantitative calculation that determin es ethical pickaxe Total Pleasure Total Pain = Total Utility (Griffin 2005 personal communication). Utilitarianism uses a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether we severalise or do non part. We determine what is ethically 3 correct through an mark and quantitative quantity of utilitarian goodness. measure it for the appropriate number of plenty, compare it to measures of ill effects for the remaining plenty, plug it all into an algorithm, and calculate the solution (Dombrowski 2000). Utilitarianism, born step forward of the technological and scientific revolution, uses a scientific approach to ethics.Theoretically, Utilitarianism does non take into account whose happiness is at stake and the action with the laid-backest summate expediency is the correct action. 2. 2 Theory Kantianism 2. 2. 1 Sense of handicraft A sense of duty is the channelize principle to Kantian theory. Ethics does non come from a higher chest of drawers nor does it rely on the individual to iron out the competing interests of the participants in an ethical dilemma. Unlike Utilitarianism, Kants ethical system represents a widely distri exactlyed monotonous shrill rule of ethics. The mat crying is an expression of the moral justness.The imperative is the correct, right, or good action taken in a particular situation. A categorical imperative denotes an absolute, tyrannical extremity that allows no exceptions, and is both need and justify as an end in itself, not as a mean to some other end the opposite of a hypothetical imperative (www. wikipedia. org). In Kants Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, he outlines the Categorical desperate in tercet divers(prenominal) agencys (www. wikipedia. org) 2. 2. 1. 1 Universal Law conceptualisation correspond only according to that maxim by which you can at the corresponding time will that it should become a cosmopolitan law. 2.2. 1. 2 Humanity or End in Itself formulation Act in such a flair that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, just now always at the same time as an end. 2. 2. 1. 3 Kingdom of Ends formulation All maxims as proceeding from 4 our own hypothetical making of law ought to harmonize with a achiev open kingdom of ends. 2. 2. 2 Reason versus enjoyment Kantianism recognizes Reason, not happiness or pleasure, is the can of moral law. Reason is the faculty of humans, which en adapteds us to choose the principle, or rule on which we act (Griffin 2005, personal communication).The categorical imperative is an underlying moral system based on Reason, the integral link fissiparous of a particular context it is oecumenical. To figure the basis of morality (the existence of a moral law) you must look for it in the capacity for reason and not in the capacity for pleasure and pain. The very metrical unit of Kantianism is that you must treat mass the way they would consent to you treating them the sa me way. Your act is universal with no contradictions. Kant considers immorality as the mathematical product of individuals trying to create a different standard for themselves compared to the rest of humanity.Immorality ignores the categorical imperative. The Right comes before the Good (happiness) in other words, at that place are moral constraints on what one may do to promote happiness. One has a duty to obey the moral law, and the moral law is not persistent by deliberation out what promotes happiness (Griffin 2005, personal communication). You cannot trim back humans to meer means treating someone is a way in which they would not consent. 3 Case Study Facts 3. 1 Case Study Overview You are employed as a good communicator by Caduceus ships company, a major provider of software package systems for the wellness care industry.Currently, you are working on help-desk instructions for a new software system that operates from a database accumulated from all the records of all the hospitals, clinics, HMOs, laboratories, and physicians in your state. These records carry a good cross of highly personal information on patients and are, of course, private and confidential. The disclosure of some of this information to the wrong people could be seriously damaging for those patients. outlawed release of this information could, for extype Ale, limit their employability, upon their reputations, or restrict their access to health 5 insurance at low-cost rates.Part of your job, in fact is to visit that confidentiality is maintained by all who use the system while preventing access to those who efficacy misuse it. Just yesterday, you learned of some shocking information. While observing the regular daily operation of the help-desk staff in resolving users questions, you recognized the forebode of one of the clients called up on a screen. It is the name of your full full full cousin-german-germans groom-to-be, and the entry indicates that he has test ed verificatory for human immunodeficiency virus and has stock counseling about HIV and back up from a local clinic.You and your cousin are very close, and you are certain that she is unwitting that her intended spouse has tested positive for HIV. The trade union is only a a couple of(prenominal) weeks away. She would be highly endangered subsequently sum but also in their current relations without this knowledge. Do you chance on this information to your cousin but relegate the privacy and confidentiality that you constitute sworn yourself to and are legally obliged to maintain? Or do you keep the information to yourself but jeopardize the health and life of your cousin by preserving the deception by her groom-to-be (Dombrowsky 2000238). 3.2 Choices or Ethical accomplish As I understand the case, there are really only three different courses of action to choose from. 3. 2. 1 Do not maintain anything at all 3. 2. 2 Reveal the truth to your cousin 3. 1. 1. 2. 1 Talk to y our cousin 3. 1. 1. 2. 2 Write an anonymous garner to your cousin 3. 2. 3 Confront the electric latent groom-to-be 3. 1. 1. 3. 1 Talk to the groom-to-be and explain why he inescapably to control your cousin 3. 1. 1. 3. 2 queer fiance if you do not tell my cousin I will tell 4 Comparing the Application between Ethical Systems 4. 1 To compare the moral significance of the above stated fact, I will look at the theory behind Utilitarianism and Kantianism to determine which action is the correct action.4. 1. 1 Application Utilitarianism 4. 1. 1. 1 harmonise to Dombrowski (2000), he suggests Utilitarianism is the most reasonable ethical approach to take cod to the simplistic nature of the principles of the Utilitarian moral law. However, he also recognizes how it is hard to apply measurable, butt costs to the loss of the technicians job, professed(prenominal) reputation, pain, suffering, violated corporate trust, and a broken relationship (Dombrowski 2000248). In any case, I attempt to illustrate through the following control board (Table 1) what the Utilitarian application may look like.Table 1. Utilitarianism Cost-Benefit Analysis Choices TOTAL joyousness TOTAL PAIN = TOTAL service 1. Do not say anything at all Keep job full cousin lounge arounds HIV and dies Cousins kids energise HIV Cousins marriage recesss Lots of pain by cousin = low utility 2. Reveal the truth to your cousin Cousin does not abbreviate HIV and lives Lose job Company loses believability You can not get a job Lots of pain by technological communicator but cousin does not die = medium to high utility 3. Confront the potential fiance Keep job Cousin does not acquire HIV.Fiance is upset by having to controvert with cousin Happiness for adept communicator and cousin, a little pain for fiance = high utility 4. 1. 1. 2 Examining the Table, you can see I have outline three separate 6 choices, determined the total pleasure, total pain, and total utility. I was unable to determ ine an objective, absolute number to measure each factor, however, I did rank the total utility by low, medium, and high. As you can see, if the technological communicator chooses not to say anything at all, she would keep her job, but her cousin would most definitely contract HIV and her cousin could die from it or one of her kids could contract the disease.In any case, the cousins marriage is most definitely going to dissolve once she finds out that her husband was not open with her from the beginning. Consequently, I ranked the total utility to LOW UTILITY due to the extensive pain the cousin would lastly endure. The second choice was for the technical communicator to divulge the truth to her cousin either without delay or anonymously. The pleasure obtained from this decision would core in the technical communicators cousin not contracting HIV and living (as a result of this situation).However, the technical communicator would likely lose her job, the company could lose its credibility and that could effect the jobs of other company employees, and the technical communicator may not be able to find another job because she breached her trust with the client and her company. The total utility, therefore, results in a lot of pain for the technical communicator. Fortunately, the cousin would not contract HIV and ontogenesis her risk of dying. overdue to the nature of the utility death versus life, I ranked this decision at MEDIUM to HIHGH UTILITY because the cousin would experience a great deal of happiness that would far exceed the incommensurate but opposite pain of the technical communicator.The third choice, tolerate the potential fiance, would result in 7 pleasure for the technical communicator because she could keep her job. In addition, the cousin is able to protect herself from contracting HIV. In contrast, the fiance would be upset by having to discuss this difficult issue with his new wife. Due to these circumstances, I ranked this choice as having VERY HIGH UTILITY. The technical communicator is happy, keeps her job, and does not lose her cousin. Her cousin does not contract a life threatening disease.Yet, the fiance experiences discomfort with having to discuss this relatively of the essence(p) issue with his new wife. Consequently, a Utilitarianist would find this last choice to be the dress hat and most ethically correct choice. Dombrowski (pg. 248) points out how difficult it is to reduce this case to a simple cost-benefit utility analysis for a number of reasons. Yet, the most poignant reason is the inability to neutralize the scenario and avoid the personal relationship the technician has with her cousin. Theoretically, the entire cost-benefit ratio should be the same no matter the personal relationship.However, I suspect your ethical action would tilt in a different direction should your motivations be driven by the patients match. If you do not know the patients partner why would you risk your job, home life , and frugal security for someone you do not even know. Is it really for the greater good? If so, why not find out everyone who has AIDS and post it on passageway corners? I am baffled by this strict compliance with the Utilitarian perspective. 4. 1. 2 Application Kant 4. 1. 2. 1 Kant would argue that we should act as we would expect others to act toward us and in way that should have universal applicability (pg. 247). You must treat people the way they would consent to you treating them the same way. Given that this decision could 8 result in a life-threatening situation, Dombrowski argues that of course the cousin would want to know and would consent to treating them the same way. Dombrowski suggests that this is quite probably a universal ethical law. Yet, Dombrowski also recognizes that most people probably would agree that the sincerity of the jeopardize so heavily tip the ethical scales against the side of blind compliance with the law that the ethical judgement to disclos e should be binding on all people in such situations (pg.247). In this interpretation, the seriousness and/or life threatening properties of the case motivate the Kantian. This interpretation suggests that the Kantian is induce to the cousin and not to the patient not because the cousin is a relative or has a special personal relationship to the technician. The technician is obligated to the moral universal law and would tell anyone should they find out. However, Kantian Moral law also says a prefigure should be kept. So then, the technicians portend to her calling could take precedence over what appears to be the obvious categorical imperative.Kant might also agree with an ethical course of action where the technician approaches the potential fiance and makes it the whole way that if he does not tell, she will tell her cousin. In this variation, the categorical imperative recognizes that disclosure this information to the cousin is in elucidate violation with the law. By ap proaching the potential fiance it also reduces the possible consequences because the government issue will ultimately result in your cousin finding out but not through you. As a result, the Kantian does not violate the law but also does what is ethically correct.9 5 Conclusion To summarize, Utilitarianism is an ethical system that proposes that the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people should be our directive principle when making ethical decisions. In contrast, Kantianism suggests that the morally correct action is an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end (www. wikipedia. org). In the Case of Confidentiality, both Utilitarianism and Kantianism found that the better(p) and most correct choice was to confront the fiance.In this scenario, the presumed authority for methods & solutions is the profession meaning that personal ethics & religion do not have prima facie authority. Yet, for the Kantian I value it is hard to figure out how to prioritise the relationships between competing duties (expression of law) professional pledge versus an individual ethics. I also wonder how your promise to your family to protect them and keep them safe plays into this account. However, the Utilitarianism cost-benefit analysis revealed how this ethical tradition takes into account all who are affected by the actions under consideration.As for the Kantian conclusion, the choice correspond a universal expression of moral law. In both cases, the personal relationship did not and should not come into play as a significant fact. only when I wonder, how this could possibly ever be the case. REFERENCES 2000 Dombrowski, Paul. Ethics in Technical chat. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication Boston & London. 2005 Griffin, Chris (friendly neighbor professor of Philosophy). Gratefully summarized Utilitarianism and Kantian ism one night at the dinner table. 2005 www. wikipedia. org. Discussions posted on July 25, 2005. 10.