Related to philosophy of the Mind/Theology – Essay Example

Each of the papers is to be a defense of or an attack on a particular position or claim from the previous section’s readings or speakers. The claimused must be appropriately narrow. (You can’t defend “Life is a good thing.”)
The claim must be fairly important to the work in which it appears. (You can’t take an incidental reference to the weather as your starting point.)
The claim, and any other material from any resource, must be used in light of the author’s own understanding. (You can’t twist the author’s words or take things out of context.)
You must announce your thesis as the final sentence of the first paragraph of your paper. A thesis is not a topic or a question. It is a statement that is possibly controversial and requires some argument to establish. For instance, suppose you wanted to attack Socrates’ implied claim that what we take for reality is really just a shadow play compared to the truly real. In that case, your thesis could be: “Socrates’ view that we are constantly deceived about reality is false.” None of the following would be acceptable as theses:
“Is Socrates’ skepticism about our knowledge of reality justified or not?”
“This paper is about Socrates’ skepticism about our knowledge of reality.”
“I believe (feel, think, am convinced) that Socrates’ view that we are constantly deceived about reality is false.”
After you have announced an appropriate thesis at the end of your first paragraph, you should argue in favor of it in the following way. First, spend a paragraph explaining the single most convincing argument in favor of your thesis. Then, spend a paragraph explaining the single most convincing argument against your thesis. Finally, spend a paragraph explaining why the argument against your thesis does not succeed. Then, write a concluding paragraph claiming that your thesis has been established, and explaining why the thesis is important to you or to the reader. In all cases, there must be good, clear transitions between these sections, so that your reader is not confused.
Utilitarian and Kantian Ethical theories have been played a significant role towards developing the aspects related to many aspects and are prevalent in all theologies. Both theories play a critical role towards impacting the issue of world poverty. According to utilitarianism, ethics is not beneficial unless its implemented in real life methodology. An ethical judgment is difficult to make due to the fact that simple rules conflict. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist system as it regards an action as right as long as it benefits the whole society. Kantian and Utilitarian ethics play a fundamental role in defining the daily aspects of individual decision making through perceptions, actions, and moral outcomes of each theory.
The first element that dictates the course of actions taken by an individual is seen through their set of notion of ethics. Utilitarianism ethics argues that suffering, starvation and death from lack of food is detrimental. If one does not take any action to prevent this suffering without being shallow, then according to utilitarian ethics they are wrong. If one fails to donate to an agency and does not facilitate that process directly himself, they are ethically wrong and at fault. In addition, the concept of Golden Rule is embedded in the utilitarian ethics itself. If one understands the fact that the limit their lavish spending to bare minimum, they can drastically eliminate some of the poverty in society.
Consequently, Kantian ethics takes a different approach in this situation. Donating to a charitable organization often is considered a virtuous act. However, Kant argues that rather than enhancing the condition of the poor, we should focus on ourselves. In essence, it is wrong for an individual to prioritize the conditions of others from the condition of oneself. For instance, if a mother devotes her time helping a charity and does not spend time with her kids; she becomes a victim of depriving herself of the benefits in the future. The duty to assist the poor according to Kant is imperfect duty. Since Kant tends to focus on the fact that rather than improving the condition of others, one should focus on oneself—it is not surprising to realize that we should be morally obligated to serve ourselves.
The second element that proves that individuals are keen to agree with utilitarian ethics is because of the free will and predestination logic associated with it. Without a doubt, both theories are essential towards the idea of poverty. Utilitarian ethics agree that although most individuals do have the free choice of controlling their faith, some people are inflicted with unfortunate circumstances. Utilitarian ethics acknowledge the idea that most people do not possess enough resources to sustain themselves. The idea of giving and being engaged in charity is essential because everyone possesses different circumstances. One cannot make the judgment that the person is unfortunate due to their own fault. For instance, kids in Africa strive every day to get a bucket of water and have to walk for several miles just for this resource. Consequently, kids in America have resources to educated themselves and be nourished on daily basis. It is the moral obligation of humanity itself to serve those who are in need because it is a moral duty. Truly one can only reach salvation when an individual understands this key concept.
The last element that proves that most individuals continue to believe in utilitarian ethics more than Kant’s ethics is because of the favorable outcomes that utilitarian ethics encounter.
Without a doubt, Kant’s moral theory is not necessarily to focus in consequences necessarily, but rather focusing on an issue that should be done regardless of the burden it creates. The theory automatically assumes that an individual should naturally execute an action regardless of the consequences. An individual should commit to an action even it causes unhappiness and is not logical. This concept is extremely essential base on the fact that humans should not care if their actions are moral as long as they are ethical. For instance, one cannot blame someone else if they attempt to be nice but instead end up hurting the other individual. One must comprehend that that person had good intentions and meant well. Again, this is vital in the society that we live in because it creates diffusion and a moral viewpoint on conflicts and tensions that occur every day. Moreover, if the outcome that an individual desired was not the end product, then an individual’s decision to act in a certain manner should not affect that particular judgment. It is quite essential to understand this concept as many decisions made by individual in our society tend to think that a certain approach was no appropriate due to the fact it did not benefit them. For instance, if a person was to give another person a CPR and that individual still passes away, one cannot question the notion of the person’s valiant attempt to save their life. Since Kant’s ethics are absolute, one can seriously question the challenge it poses. For instance, lying is an absolutely forbidden according to Kant’s ethics. However, can one not lie in life-threatening scenario or to get someone medication that they desperately need and do not possess the adequate resources? Kantian ethics takes a different approach than utilitarian ethics. For instance, donating to a charitable organization often is considered a virtuous act. However, Kant argues that rather than enhancing the condition of the poor, we should focus on ourselves. In essence, it is wrong for an individual to prioritize the conditions of others from the condition of oneself. For instance, if a mother devotes her time helping a charity and does not spend time with her kids; she becomes a victim of depriving herself of the benefits in the future. The duty to assist the poor according to Kant is imperfect duty. Since Kant tends to focus on the fact that rather than improving the condition of others, one should focus on oneself—it is not surprising to realize that we should be morally obligated to serve ourselves.
All these elements have dynamically impacted individuals in their regular decision making. These philosophies have engaged individuals to decide the fate of their actions, their morality, and their own ethics. Undoubtedly, both Kantian and Utilitarian ethics will continue to make huge impact on the ideals of philosophies for centuries to come.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals, and What is enlightenment?. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1959. Print.