Immanuel Kant Essay

1 Introduction Have you ever watched a group debate an honourable conclusion given a accompaniment case study with several different variations to the story? It is fascinating to watch. well-nigh of the individuals feel so strongly ab pop being right they pass on moot until they get their point across. Others waffle and try to look at the situation from a variety of perspectives. Given a incident(prenominal) shift Study based on terms of confidentiality, this paper give the sackvasss the basis of exampleity downstairs two alternative ethical systems utileism and Kantianism.We entrust explore the surmise behind each ethical system, describe the f feigns of the Case, and interpret a mannikin of ethical achieve using two ethical systems, and the significance of this dilemma. I chose to examine the Utilitarianism and Kantianism ethical systems because at times they seem diabolic solelyy argue based on the theoretical precedenting behind choosing a particular acti on. Yet, in many cases the chosen action is the uniform. For this particular case on confidentiality, a person-to-person descent elbow greases to complicate how to determine the mor solelyy counteract action. I explore this correlation by comparing Utilitarianism and Kantianism.Utilitarianism uses a relatively straightforward cost-benefit analysis where the reckoning is indifferent to persons and family relationships (Dombrowski 2000248). Consequently, when using a Utilitarian system to examine what ethical action is appropriate every atomic number 53 is on check footing (Dombrowski 2000248). This is somewhat of a simplistic view of how individuals make decisions however, it is a primary view that al crusheds you to make a somewhat unbiased decision. A decision non based on rank, status, wealth, race, gender, or individualised relationship (Dombrowski 2 2000248).Similar to Utilitarianism, Kantianism would too negate the significance of any personal relationships. The Kantian would do unto others, as they would have to treating you. The one widely distri preciselyed personal manner to act should carry from person to person regardless of your personal relationship to that person. Let us explore the similarities and differences between these two ethical theories. Next, we will take a c meet look at the items of one particular Case Study where personal relationships do come into play. Then, we will comp are how a Utilitarian and a Kantian major power act and why.What motivates the decision-makers to a lower place each moral system? 2 Comparing Theory 2. 1 Theory Utilitarianism 2. 1. 1 Pleasure versus Pain Utilitarianism is a somewhat ordinary term for a variety of perspectives that all(prenominal) generally fall low the guise of this theoretical stance. In any case, I will attempt to summarize the major theoretical viewpoints of this ethical system. For the to the highest degree part, Utilitarianism recognizes two absolutes in the world painfulness and pleasure. Moral fair play follows the Principle of Utility, in other words, what motivates human beings.They found that Good has priority over the right (Justice) (Griffin 2005, personal communication) and they make ethical decisions by determining the outstandingest useful purity for the greatest turn of events of people (Dombrowski 200054). Good equals mirth (pleasure) and alternatively freehanded equals pain or displeasure and has no value. Utilitarianism determines the right or mark action based on a formula that shows which action results in maximized good (happiness/pleasure). Maximized good takes into account all those individuals affected by the actions under conside symmetryn.2. 1. 2 Cost-Benefit Analysis Utilitarianism simplifies moral law to a quantitative calculation that determines ethical election come Pleasure Total Pain = Total Utility (Griffin 2005 personal communication). Utilitarianism uses a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether we t ell or do non tell. We determine what is ethically 3 correct by dint of an design and quantitative measure of utilitarian goodness. measure it for the appropriate number of people, compare it to measures of ill effects for the remaining people, plug it all into an algorithm, and take care the solution (Dombrowski 2000). Utilitarianism, born out of the technological and scientific revolution, uses a scientific approach to morals.Theoretically, Utilitarianism does non take into account whose happiness is at back up and the action with the highest total value program is the correct action. 2. 2 Theory Kantianism 2. 2. 1 Sense of Duty A sense of duty is the guiding doctrine to Kantian theory. Ethics does not come from a higher control nor does it rely on the individual to weigh the competing interests of the participants in an ethical dilemma. distant Utilitarianism, Kants ethical system represents a ordinary categoric exacting rule of ethics. The Categorical arbitrary is an expression of the moral law.The imperative is the correct, right, or good action taken in a particular situation. A categorical imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both infallible and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end the foeman of a hypothetic imperative (www. wikipedia. org). In Kants Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, he outlines the Categorical lordly in one-third different styluss (www. wikipedia. org) 2. 2. 1. 1 Universal law of character formulation process only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. 2.2. 1. 2 Humanity or End in Itself formulation Act in such a dash that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, neer simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. 2. 2. 1. 3 Kingdom of Ends formulation All maxims as proceeding from 4 our own hypothetical making of law ought to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. 2. 2. 2 Reason versus blessedness Kantianism recognizes Reason, not happiness or pleasure, is the initiation of moral law. Reason is the faculty of creation, which en competents us to ingest the principle, or rule on which we act (Griffin 2005, personal communication).The categorical imperative is an underlying moral system based on Reason, the integral connexion independent of a particular context it is universal. To understand the basis of morality (the existence of a moral law) you must look for it in the force for reason and not in the capacity for pleasure and pain. The very foundation of Kantianism is that you must treat people the way they would consent to you treating them the same way. Your act is universal with no contradictions. Kant considers immorality as the product of individuals trying to clear a different standard for themselves compared to the rest of humanity.Immorality ignores the categori cal imperative. The Right comes before the Good (happiness) in other words, there are moral constraints on what one may do to promote happiness. One has a duty to obey the moral law, and the moral law is not unconquerable by figuring out what promotes happiness (Griffin 2005, personal communication). You cannot reduce humans to meer means treating someone is a way in which they would not consent. 3 Case Study Facts 3. 1 Case Study Overview You are sedulous as a proficient communicator by Caduceus Company, a major provider of software systems for the wellness care industry.Currently, you are working on help-desk book of instructions for a new software system that operates from a database accumulated from all the records of all the hospitals, clinics, HMOs, laboratories, and physicians in your state. These records carry a good deal of super personal data on patients and are, of course, private and confidential. The revelation of some of this entropy to the wrong people could b e seriously damaging for those patients. Improper unload of this breeding could, for example, limit their employability, damage their reputations, or restrict their access to health 5 insurance at affordable rates.Part of your meditate, in fact is to ensure that confidentiality is maintained by all who use the system season preventing access to those who might misuse it. Just yesterday, you learned of some solemn information. While observing the typical daily operation of the help-desk staff in resolving users questions, you recognized the name of one of the clients called up on a screen. It is the name of your first cousins groom-to-be, and the entry indicates that he has tested arbitrary for HIV and has received counseling about HIV and help from a local clinic.You and your cousin are very c endure, and you are certain that she is unaware that her intended spouse has tested positive for HIV. The marriage is only a few weeks away. She would be highly endangered after marr iage but excessively in their current relations without this knowledge. Do you infract this information to your cousin but violate the privacy and confidentiality that you have sworn yourself to and are legally obliged to maintain? Or do you keep the information to yourself but jeopardize the health and sustenance of your cousin by preserving the guile by her groom-to-be (Dombrowsky 2000238). 3.2 Choices or honorable Action As I understand the case, there are very only triplet different courses of action to choose from. 3. 2. 1 Do not regularize anything at all 3. 2. 2 Reveal the truth to your cousin 3. 1. 1. 2. 1 Talk to your cousin 3. 1. 1. 2. 2 Write an anonymous letter to your cousin 3. 2. 3 Confront the potential fiance 3. 1. 1. 3. 1 Talk to the fiance and explain why he needs to tell your cousin 3. 1. 1. 3. 2 Threaten fiance if you do not tell my cousin I will tell 4 Comparing the Application between Ethical Systems 4. 1 To compare the moral significance of the above stated fact, I will look at the theory behind Utilitarianism and Kantianism to determine which action is the correct action.4. 1. 1 Application Utilitarianism 4. 1. 1. 1 According to Dombrowski (2000), he suggests Utilitarianism is the most reasonable ethical approach to take due to the simplistic nature of the principles of the Utilitarian moral law. However, he also recognizes how it is hard to apply measurable, objective costs to the loss of the technicians job, workal reputation, pain, suffering, violated trust, and a upset(a) relationship (Dombrowski 2000248). In any case, I attempt to illustrate through with(predicate) the following parry (Table 1) what the Utilitarian application may look like.Table 1. Utilitarianism Cost-Benefit Analysis Choices TOTAL PLEASURE TOTAL PAIN = TOTAL utility(prenominal) 1. Do not say anything at all Keep job first cousin gets HIV and dies Cousins kids get HIV Cousins marriage dissolves Lots of pain by cousin = low utility 2. Reveal the truth to your cousin Cousin does not trend HIV and lives Lose job Company loses credibility You can not get a job Lots of pain by expert foul communicator but cousin does not die = medium to high utility 3. Confront the potential fiance Keep job Cousin does not contract HIV.Fiance is upset by having to discuss with cousin Happiness for technical communicator and cousin, a little pain for fiance = high utility 4. 1. 1. 2 Examining the Table, you can see I have outlined three separate 6 survival of the fittests, determined the total pleasure, total pain, and total utility. I was unable to determine an objective, absolute number to measure each factor, however, I did rank the total utility by low, medium, and high. As you can see, if the technical communicator chooses not to say anything at all, she would keep her job, but her cousin would most definitely contract HIV and her cousin could die from it or one of her kids could contract the disease.In any case, the cousins marriage is most definitely sledding to dissolve once she finds out that her husband was not open with her from the beginning. Consequently, I stratified the total utility to LOW UTILITY due to the vast pain the cousin would ultimately endure. The second choice was for the technical communicator to reveal the truth to her cousin either directly or anonymously. The pleasure obtained from this decision would result in the technical communicators cousin not spying HIV and living (as a result of this situation).However, the technical communicator would probably lose her job, the company could lose its credibility and that could effect the jobs of other company employees, and the technical communicator may not be able to find another job because she breached her trust with the client and her company. The total utility, therefore, results in a lot of pain for the technical communicator. Fortunately, the cousin would not contract HIV and increase her happen of dying. Due to the nature of the utili ty death versus life, I ranked this decision at MEDIUM to HIHGH UTILITY because the cousin would experience a great deal of happiness that would far exceed the unequal but opposite pain of the technical communicator.The third choice, confront the potential fiance, would result in 7 pleasure for the technical communicator because she could keep her job. In addition, the cousin is able to nurse herself from contracting HIV. In contrast, the fiance would be upset by having to discuss this difficult issue with his new wife. Due to these circumstances, I ranked this choice as having VERY HIGH UTILITY. The technical communicator is happy, keeps her job, and does not lose her cousin. Her cousin does not contract a life threatening disease.Yet, the fiance experiences discomfort with having to discuss this relatively important issue with his new wife. Consequently, a Utilitarianist would find this last choice to be the best and most ethically correct choice. Dombrowski (pg. 248) points out how difficult it is to reduce this case to a simple cost-benefit utility analysis for a number of reasons. Yet, the most poignant reason is the inability to neutralize the scenario and avoid the personal relationship the technician has with her cousin. Theoretically, the entire cost-benefit ratio should be the same no matter the personal relationship.However, I laughable your ethical action would tilt in a different way should your motivations be driven by the patients partner. If you do not know the patients partner why would you risk your job, residence life, and economic security for someone you do not even know. Is it really for the greater good? If so, why not find out everyone who has AIDS and post it on street corners? I am baffled by this strict compliance with the Utilitarian perspective. 4. 1. 2 Application Kant 4. 1. 2. 1 Kant would argue that we should act as we would expect others to act toward us and in way that should have universal applicability (pg. 247). You mu st treat people the way they would consent to you treating them the same way. Given that this decision could 8 result in a life-threatening situation, Dombrowski argues that of course the cousin would want to know and would consent to treating them the same way. Dombrowski suggests that this is quite probably a universal ethical law. Yet, Dombrowski also recognizes that most people probably would agree that the seriousness of the stakes so heavily tip the ethical scales against the side of blind compliance with the law that the ethical judgement to disclose should be binding on all people in such situations (pg.247). In this interpretation, the seriousness and/or life threatening properties of the case motivate the Kantian. This interpretation suggests that the Kantian is obligated to the cousin and not to the patient not because the cousin is a relative or has a special personal relationship to the technician. The technician is obligated to the moral universal law and would tell a nyone should they find out. However, Kantian Moral law also says a promise should be kept. So then, the technicians promise to her profession could take precedence over what appears to be the obvious categorical imperative.Kant might also agree with an ethical course of action where the technician approaches the potential fiance and makes it clear that if he does not tell, she will tell her cousin. In this variation, the categorical imperative recognizes that revealing this information to the cousin is in clear colza with the law. By approaching the potential fiance it also reduces the possible consequences because the expiration will ultimately result in your cousin finding out but not through you. As a result, the Kantian does not violate the law but also does what is ethically correct.9 5 Conclusion To summarize, Utilitarianism is an ethical system that proposes that the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people should be our guiding principle when making ethi cal decisions. In contrast, Kantianism suggests that the morally correct action is an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end (www. wikipedia. org). In the Case of Confidentiality, both Utilitarianism and Kantianism found that the best and most correct choice was to confront the fiance.In this scenario, the presumed authority for methods & solutions is the profession meaning that personal ethics & religion do not have prima facie authority. Yet, for the Kantian I think it is hard to figure out how to prioritize the relationships between competing duties (expression of law) master promise versus an individual ethics. I also wonder how your promise to your family to protect them and keep them safe plays into this account. However, the Utilitarianism cost-benefit analysis revealed how this ethical tradition takes into account all who are affected by the actions under con sideration.As for the Kantian conclusion, the choice represented a universal expression of moral law. In both cases, the personal relationship did not and should not come into play as a significant fact. But I wonder, how this could possibly ever be the case. REFERENCES 2000 Dombrowski, Paul. Ethics in Technical chat. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication Boston & London. 2005 Griffin, Chris (friendly neighbor Professor of Philosophy). Gratefully summarized Utilitarianism and Kantianism one night at the dinner table. 2005 www. wikipedia. org. Discussions posted on July 25, 2005. 10.