Ethics Questions


Question1: Explanationof Singer’s Argument

Inhis arguments, Peter Singer raised interesting point encouraging thedeveloped (rich) world to exercise a moral obligation by giving somepercentage of their income (discretionary income) to the developingnations. Discretionary income refers to the money spent on vacations,unimportant goods and services, and luxury items. Therefore, Singersuggested that it is imperative for the developed nations to use allof their discretionary income to help people suffering and dying ofhunger in the developing countries. Additionally, he implied thatpeople die or suffer due to lack of basic needs such as shelter,food, and medical care. Singer developed two arguments: ethicalargument and practical argument. Through ethical argument, Singerstipulates that rich people are driven to see that they cannot helpby giving their discretionary income to the poor who cannot satisfytheir basic needs since they earn below living wages. Throughpractical argument, Singer stipulates how much rich people are togive to the poor. He prescribed the proportion of the income one cangive based on their income level.

Equally,it is negative duty to put off something bad from occurring withoutsacrificing anything of considerable moral significance. Thisargument helps to just prevent what is bad, while promoting what isgood. Positive duty includes contributing something to the relieffunds which is an act of charity. Therefore, utilitarian argue forattention to people affected by the policies and actions evaluatedunder auspices of utilitarianism. However, the blurring horizons comeout very demanding, inflicting obligations or duties to enhancewell-being of the entire world population. Utilitarian also holdsthat duties do not single out utilities, but bind people with manyresources so as to help others to greater satisfactions fromdiscretionary pursuits only if the shift of the resources will helpto raise the general utility score.

Question2: Williamviews on Utilitarian

Williamcontends that utilitarianism basically rest upon a tremendous notionof impartiality that concentrates on the consequences of what peopledoes. Therefore, the doctrine takes away integrity from the people.This occurs since utilitarianism separates people’s actions fromtheir “project”. Worthwhile, utilitarianism is generallycommitted to a very tough doctrine of negative responsibility that isdriven forward from the certainty that it dispenses ultimate value toconditions of affairs. With respect to moral viewpoint for theconsequentialist and utilitarian, there is no perceptible differencebetween bringing a particular outcome by myself and someone elsebringing it. William describes a very important feature ofutilitarianism which is a kind of thoughtfulness which people make adifference to what they perceive in various circumstances. Therefore,people are specifically responsible for what they do, but they arenot responsible for what other people does. This notion is very muchconnected to the integrity value. However, he further claims thatutilitarianism cannot allow or account for the value of integrity.The reason behind this premise is that utilitarianism does not valueintegrity since it cannot describe the inherent relationship betweenman’s actions and his projects. Therefore, the utilitarian oftenconsiders the psychological effects of a line of actions of thepeople. Consequently, the unclear notion of utilitarianism alienatesus from our moral feelings and from our actions as well.

Question3: Kantagainst Consequentialism

Kantclaimed that acting permissible entails behaving under the preceptsof underlying codes that everyone in the world can will to beuniversal rule of nature. In this light Kant asserted that moralworth can be qualified barely by acts that encompass the aforesaidunderlying code, and that are carried out from the drive of duty.Kant’s view on ethics rejects consequentialist position, and ispegged on the deontological ethical theory that implies that it ishinged on the notion that there are particular objective ethicalprinciples in the globe. Kant’s believed that human beings aresupposed to act in particular way and in line with moral principles.This proposition is pegged on the assumption that human beings arebasically capable of reasoning in a similar way and more importantlyon the same level.

Humanduty should be based on the action and intent and not on theconsequences of the action. In this vein Kant asserts that the everyindividual should by no means treat another individual as a means tothe end. Kant demonstrates his theory by using the illustration amurderer who appears at your door and enquires about the whereaboutsof your offspring so that he can murder them. You can decide to lie,a decision that would be supported by many people, but visualize ifall people in the globe decide to act in the same way all times, thenit follows that no one would be telling the truth and as such itwould appear there is no ‘real’ lying. It is clear that such anaction has cannot be a universal rule for all people. Therefore anindividual has a duty of telling the truth the murderer at yourbecause this is the only way that they can act in way that they canform a rule that can be applied universally.

Theintention of every action is the most important aspect of Kantiantheory, for the consequence of the action is not viewed as important.To act in an ethical manner entails making choices and acting in away such that our intentions are morally acceptable before the eyesof every human being and in a manner that our acts can form auniversal rule that can be followed by everyone. It is the duty ofevery person to act in way such that universalization of such actionswould be possible. Man has a duty to aim conscientiously at truth inthe acquirement of our beliefs.

Question4: Kantagainst Utilitarian Theory

Humanbeings have a natural sense of justice and a tendency of punishingpeople when they have done something wrong. Kant believes thatjustice is achieved through punishing wrongdoers. He based hisarguments against the premise of pure notion of utilitarianism thatholds that punishing culprits adds evil on top the other. Utilitarianthinks that punishing is an evil act, but just for eliminatingcriminals from society or for reducing criminal acts. Therefore,utilitarian don’t perceive revenge as justifiable base forpunishment. Kant proposed for retribution and strongly believed indeath penalty. However, his reasoning was counter-perceptive in away. He also proposed that people should be taken as ends in person,and not as means, since human beings perceive things in a rationalway and they are capable of making ethical choices. Therefore, ifpeople commit a crime, they are treated as a rational being and thus,it is concluded that they have made their choice about how peopleshould be treated. They are dealt with accordingly, the same way theyhave treated the people they have erred. Therefore, through punishingpeople for their delinquencies, they are respected as autonomous,rational beings, and they are treated according to the ethical coursethey have chosen.

Mostsignificantly, it is imperative to consider the ethics of self-helpjustice which is based on whether a person who is considered to be inthe right is essentially justified to punish a person who isconsidered to be in wrong. Kant believed in the justice ofbully-beating, but one thing is apparent that Kant he was not goingto administer those bully-beatings personally. There is no assurancethat someone in the right is the one who triumph the fight. In fact,many bullies spend much time meditating on fighting, if notpracticing it. Less belligerent normally do not that, nevertheless.Practice and knowledge lead to the development of skill, regardlessof whether the skill is bad or good. Therefore, bullying delinquencypeople does not conform to our very sense of cosmic justice, but onlywhen the sense is a bit realistic.

Kantexpresses his view on punishment that is only justifiable whencriminal has committed a crime. This is contrary to the utilitariantheory of punishment that is only justifiable when punishment bringsgood to the society. Therefore, Kant rejects the theory ofutilitarian for two reasons. Firstly, he rejected the theory ofutilitarian since he believed that the utilitarian treated wrongdoersas only means to the good of others. Secondly, utilitarian theorypossibly could justify punishing guiltless person simply for the goodit may bring to society. Thus, according to Kant, this kind ofinjustice is totally intolerable.

Accordingto the Kant, whoever commits murder is deserved to die. In this case,there is no juridical substitute that can be given for thefulfillment of justice. There is no equality between life, no matterhow painful, and death and thus there is no impartiality between thefelony of murder and the reprisal of it, but what is judiciallyachieved through execution of the criminal. While executing deathpenalty, however, the death must be exempted from maltreatment thatwould otherwise amount to humanity suffering. Therefore, theequalization of the crime with punishment is only possible throughonly possible through judicial sentence that extend to death penalty,based on the right of retaliation.