Kant and Mills Theories Essay -- social issues

Kant and Mills Theories In July of 1994, Paul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for cleanup spot Dr. keister Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Prior to this, Hill commented on the execution of instrument of Dr. David Gunn, another abortion performing doctor, stating that it was a biblically justified homicide (P. 215). This statement shows how strong Hills beliefs were and leads one to assume that he did not regret killing Britton and Barrett. This paper go out address the Hill case and determine the ethical parameter in which Paul Hill should have acted. The two philosophical approaches that will be examined and contrasted are the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives. Kant and Mills point of view on the actions of Paul J. Hill will be presented based on their theories. Lastly, I will explain why I recollect that Kants theory provides a more arguabl e account of morality. Kantianism and Utilitarianism are two theories that try on to answer the moral nature of human beings. Immanuel Kants moral system is based on a belief that causal agent is the final authority for morality. John Stuart Mills moral system is based on the theory known as utilitarianism, which is based upon utility, or doing what produces the greatest happiness. One of Kants endure contributions to moral philosophy was his emphasis on the notion of respect for persons. He considers respect for persons (a.k.a the Kantian respect) to be the fundamental moral principle of ethical philosophy. His Kantianism enter is a deontological moral theory which claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical supreme, which he calls the Supreme Principle. This imperative is a command that applies to all rational beings independent of their desires. It is a command that reason tells us to get along no matter what (P.31). Kant considers t his an objective law of reason and because it applies to all of us, he calls it a universal practical law for all rational beings. The hypothetical imperative, on the contrary, is a conditional command, which we have reason to follow if (it) serve(s) some desire of ours (P.31). For example, if you want X, then you will do Y, whereas with the categorical imperative, X has nothing to do with why you do Y.Kants categor... ...es, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics. Kantianism is more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of performing an action are not necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to perform the action because it is there duty to do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing. In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, ma xims, automatic and the categorical imperative. Also, it focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do any(prenominal) produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Furthermore, it relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.