Crash and the philosophical theories Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Crash and the philosophical theories - strain ExampleKant also makes several arguments about lying, whether it is mor whollyy acceptable to lie. He argues that lying at all times and in all possible circumstances is al charges honorablely wrong. He says that all military somebodynel beingnesss necessitate what is referred to as an intrinsic worth called homosexual dignity. Human beings atomic number 18 sage being who are capable of making their own decisions and guarding their own conduct by the use of designer. They have a demythologised power that enables them to be ethical in their deeds and goions. They are therefore set to make the rightly choice in every circumstance that presents itself before them that is in need of a decision or a choice. The fact that they are moral beings gives them the aspect of morality enabling them to make the right choice. It is for this reason that Kant argues that lying is morally wrong because it introduces corruption into the most impor tant quality of a human being that is the ability to make a free will. When one tells a lie, the lie contradicts the part of this person that gives him moral worth. This is what it does to the person lying. To the people who are being lied to, the lie robs them of the freedom to make a rational choice. It is for this reason that Kant argues that lying is morally wrong because it introduces corruption into the most important quality of a human being that is the ability to make a free will. When one tells a lie, the lie contradicts the part of this person that gives him moral worth. This is what it does to the person lying. To the people who are being lied to, the lie robs them of the freedom to make a rational choice. When people make a decision because of a lie, a decision they would non have taken if they were told the truth, then the lie interferes with their human dignity and autonomy. Kant in his belief that in our residueeavor to protect separate rational being as ends and non merely as means to an end, we are induce in all circumstances never to damage, interfere with or to misuse in any way the ability of a human being to make a free will decision. John Stuart Mill, a philosopher, makes several arguments concerning utilitarianism, he corrects the misconceptions that have been said concerning this subject. One of the arguments that mill disagrees with states that life has no higher end than delectation. He says that this is a doctrine worth of only the swine. He argues that action must not be evaluated by how much pleasure we derived from it to know how much happiness can be derived from it. His argument is that a higher pleasure must be taken to be in kind, that is what exercises much happiness and not how much pleasure that can be derived from it. This is to say that an action might derive much pleasure but it is not in kind and therefore it must not be used as a measure of happiness. The only action that should bring happiness is that which is done in kind and not that which brings much pleasure. Raping someone might bring much pleasure but in the measure of things that bring happiness, not raping someone might bring much happiness with less pleasure, which is a kind action. The other objection by Mill concerning the principle of utility is that it is not easy for people eternally to act from the inducement to promote the interests of the public. According to Mill, our actions should not always be motivated by a superstar of duty but we must be motivated by ethics. Almost all our actions are always done from other motives and are always considered right if they conform to the rule of duty. Mill says that when we want to do the right thing we should never be motivated by the concern of happiness. Many of the actions we do qualify the good of ourselves and not the good of the world. Yet the good that is