Kantdevelops the concept of morally worthy actions from the notion ofgood will accompanied by other sets of principles. It is from theseprinciples that he outlines the concept of moral obligations. FromKant theory, an action deserves moral praise depending on thepersonal intentions of an individual (Mizzoni,2010).For example, if a person acts for personal benefits, out ofembarrassment, for some mysterious motive, or under coercion, and soon then, these actions do not deserve moral praise even though theyappear morally good. Therefore, an action is morally praise-worthywhen it is not self-centred, done out of good will, and with amorally proper motive. For instance, when a person does something forpersonal gain or satisfaction then, the person should not be givenmoral praise. In addition, the action is not a morally proper thingbecause it only benefits one person. Although these actions are goodand morally permitted to some point of view, they still do not fit inthe morally good actions.
Oneof the major criticisms against Kant’s theory is that it has failedto deal effectively with moral conflicts confronted in the realworld. He bases all actions under one universal law hence, mostactions end up falling under unmorally worthy praise actions.Furthermore, human beings actions are often self-centred. Accordingto Mizzoni(2010),human beings are programmed to act out of self-interest. They are notprogrammed to follow the moral law freely, but follow the paths thatare psychologically conditioned. This is the nature hence,unchangeable. For example, the theory requires a person to givehonest answers in regardless of the outcome. However, this is notalways possible. In addition, Kant theory emphasises more onreasoning, which results in the exclusion of others actions. Forinstance, under the Kant theory, the mentally impaired people lackmoral standing. Unfortunately, this is not true.
Kantargues that good will is not about externals hence, morality is alsonot about externals. Nonetheless, morality is a command that ought tobe followed because it is the right thing. Morality is not aboutpride, happiness, care, self-fulfilment, or even devotion. Then, itis nothing but moral laws in categorical imperatives.
Kantbelieves the two forms of the categorical imperative are equivalent,and that they both forbids and permits that same thing. Kant arguesthat the two are equal because they both make a human beingintrinsically valuable based on reasoning and freedom. In addition,both categorical imperatives have common expressions that is, mostpeople do common actions that have a common goal. For instance,“brush your teeth” and “brush your teeth to avoid cavities”are two commands with the same goal.
Thereare several differences between qualitative pleasure and aquantitative pleasure according to Bentham and Mill. According toBentham, all pleasures are equal. On the other hand, Mill urges thatthere are differences in the qualities of pleasures that can befigured out in the utilitarian calculations. Utilitarianismcalculation is based on whether an action leads to more pleasure tothe concerned people. It is more concerned with the finalconsequences rather than motives. As a result, pleasure may beclassified as qualitative or quantitative. According to Mizzoni(2010),qualitative utilitarian states that mental pleasures are superior inquality and different in kind compared to physical one. The superiorpressure is more valuable, and experience is the only way to judgesuperiority. On the other hand, quantitative utilitarian states thatmental pleasures are different from the physical pleasures in termsof quantity. For instance, the pleasure of reading a novel is equalto the pleasure of eating an ice cream (same quantity). Nevertheless,the pleasure of eating an ice cream may not a have high quantity asreading a novel due to fecundity. Alternatively, reading a novel andeating an ice cream produce different qualities of pressure.Similarly, based on qualitative utilitarianism, it is better for ananimal to be satisfied than a human being to be dissatisfied is. Inaddition, quantitative utilitarianism advocates that valuablepressure depend on the duration and the intensity of pleasure. On thecontrary, qualitative utilitarianism argues that pleasure depend onthe cognitive and the source of the pressure.
Bothteleological and deontological theories are major approaches in thestudy of ethics (Mizzoni,2010).Teleological theory studies the final consequence of an action. Thetheory does not focus on the action, or whether or not the actionadheres to the system of rules, but it is more concerned with theoutcome. For instance, if someone does something bad, the action maybe considered good as long as the outcome is good. On the other hand,a good action may be considered bad if it has a negative consequence.On the contrary, a deontological theory focuses on action and rule.An action is judged based on the set of rules that differ from onesystem to another. In Christianity, the ten commandants are anexample of deontology. For instance, in Christianity, an action maybe considered bad if it is against God set of rules. Unliketeleological approach, the deontological approach focuses on themotive of the action, whether it was right or wrong, rather than onthe outcome.
Mizzoni,J. (2010). Ethics:The basics.Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.