Morality and Humanism. Dudley and Stephens

Immanuel Kant’s moral theory argued that the top most rules of ethics is typical rationality that dub the Categorical Imperative. All the types of decent requirements, as to Kant, are proven by this code, which implies that all immoral measures are unreasonable because they go against the Categorical Imperative. However other philosophers argue that the ethical needs are based on the levels of wisdom.

The argument was put across on the outstanding policy that a balance should be considered as free, in the sense of being the writer of the rules that governs it. To begin with, prior to conducting an analysis, it would be beneficial to explain Immanuel Kant’s deontological moral theory. The main idea was to argue upon the principals governing the morals of people. Essentially, the theory clearly states that rules or obligations are deeply connected to a person’s duty, which means that the person should prioritize actions first and outcomes second.

In other words, rules dictate what a person should do, or more specifically, how a person should behave according to certain obligations. Kant believed in a Categorical Imperative which argued that people have reason as to why they behave or react to certain issues.

Kant also argued further that moral duties emerge even when people are not concerned. It will be simply be ironical to universalize the aphorism of taking a person’s own life if it promises a lot of trouble than one’s pleasure. He said that people have the best obligations not to dare commit suicide. People are more likely to support other philosophers such, Dudley and Stephen who criticizes the theory of Kant.

Because choosing to kill Parker with a knife, knowing that he was presumably going to die either way, should be an acceptable thing to do because you know at some level people would compel to do the same thing were they to find themselves in this same situation.  However, on the other hand Kant also believed in the Humanity Formulation Humanity Formulation which Kant argues that, a person should be able to behave in humane character with regard of the status, by either to himself or to other persons.

People should not use others to benefit themselves instead they should mutually benefit. so according to Kant treating people as an ends, not means, is to never use anyone to get something else. People should never be used as tools or instruments; they can’t be things you employ to get what you need. All types of decent requirements as to Kant are proven by this code which implies that, all measures are unreasonable because they go against the Categorical Imperative.

In the case of Dudley and Stephens can be seen violating the Humanity Formulation because killing Parker in order to feed on him and survive would be considered using Parker as a means to their ends. The fourth and final sailor in this scenario is Brooks, who claimed he wanted nothing to do with Parker’s killing, yet once Parker was dead he participated in feeding on him. If we are to apply Kant’s moral theory, then it would seem that Brooks did not violate any of Kant’s imperatives. Kant’s means to an end principle applies to all rational humans. Because Parker was already dead when Brooks began feeding on him he cannot be considered a rational being capable of self-governing reason, in which case Brooks did.

It is the main importance in the Kantian ancient of moral philosophy but it is awarded an essential position at John Stuart Mill’s work of utilitarian liberalism. Viewing autonomy as the main principle while supporting the theory of moral can be differentiated with an optional frameworks like moral of being concerned, utilitarianism of a kind, and morals of virtue.

The spiritual utilitarian observed to the Christian God to tackle the main issue, numbered on how to unite the benefits of people that are enhanced by the happiness with the aim of the public at large.  John Stuart argues that anything that people do is not by people’s own but the will of God. It is God who grants the moral virtues of an individual without God peoples’ morals will be punished due the failure of not acting in his accordance.

The principle of value and the connected commitment to being happy as intrinsically admirable final and to ethical equivalency of being happy of various individuals was reformed. Moreover, the theory stresses that happiness has different layers of quality, as well as quantity, essentially meaning that in order to obtain a certain degree of happiness, several rules should be achieved. In addition, if a certain degree of rules that govern ones happiness are fulfilled then it would be much easier to evaluate the overall level of happiness.

The utilitarian moral theory, it would be good to assume that sailors did not know that they will be happy or not, they just wanted to survive. They were not happy after they ate one of comrades because their priority was to live. Although it would be okay to assume that they did feel the happy of not dying in the middle of an ocean, but it is of utmost importance to stress that the outcome would pleasing, which means they violated the core principle of theory.  It is important to mention that Brooks was not feeling eating up anyone in the group, however, he ate the person after Dudley and Stephen murdered him, in turn showed that he was going against the argument theory and was unhappy to do it. At first it seemed as if the sailors went against Mill’s Utilitarian theory, but when we look deeper to utilitarianism, Mills argues that the morally appealing is that results in the good for the greatest number of people.  Example of this would is, taking the life of a terrorist so that to potentially protect many if not thousands of lives. Parker was about to die or a seemed like to die on the view of to the other sailors. Killing Parker was not regard of going against Mills Utilitarian theory since saving a life of three is worth than saving a life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *