Recent orders
Kantian Theory
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Kantian Theory
Kant theory is a theory by Immanuel Kant that tries to explain the moral behavior of people. According to this theory an action can either be said to be right or wrong thus moral or immoral. This is different as compared to the utilitarian theory that tries to explain the morality of an action by judging the effect the action will have. According to Utilitarian, an action is considered to be good or bad depending on its final consequences. According to Immanuel Kant his principle on morality was anchored by a standard of rationality that he referred to as the Categorical Imperative. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative was an unconditional, rationally essential as well as san objective principle which human’s had to adhere to despite the natural inclination or rather desires that one may experience.
Kantanian theory backed other philosophers including Aquinas, Locke and Hobbes in trying to explain how one needs to act in a society as they all argued that a person’s moral obligation had only to base on the standards. Kant agreed with both these ideas and stated that analyses of practical reason disclose the condition that rational agents must obey all principles or laws that have been laid down. Kant’s position was grounded on his doctrine that an individual’s rational will must be considered as free or autonomous from the viewpoint of being a person who would be law abiding. Thus, the main principle of morality when it comes to categorical imperative is law of autonomous will (Rawls, pg. 283-298). Kantanian philosophy, therefore, is based on self-governing reason in all human beings that makes every person of equal worthiness as well as serving equal respect. Emmanuel Kant theory seems more appealing and reasonable as compared to utilitarian theory because according to Kant, as humans we are always in a position to be able to control our will as well as our motives. Our motives behind doing something will determine if something is either right or wrong.
In order to understand Kant’s theory, it is important to look at how the categorical imperative works. The categorical imperative has three ways of how one can be able to formulate if something is right or not. The first is the Formula of Universal Law. According to Kant there was nothing better than good will in itself. He described will as the ability of Humans to act in accordance to the rules and laws that have been set up irrespective of the consequences that the act is going to have in our lives (Wood, 27-47). According to Kant, one could not make exceptions for themselves for example if you expect people to show you respect then you should also show respect to the other people.
The second principle is the moral worth of a person; a person moral actions are able to determine if he is a good person or not. According to Kant’s theory, it is important for one to set up absolute as well as valid moral rules which are based on reasoning only and not by referencing to empirical data supernatural beings. In setting up the moral rules we use the same logical reasoning that stipulates particular irrefutable in logics and Math such as ‘all triangles are three-sided’ and ‘no circle is a square’ and 1+1=2. Kant proposed that absolute moral truths must first be logically consistent and not self-contradictory. Second, all moral truths must be universal, that is, all absolute truths must be applied to everything without exceptions. The statement, ‘All triangles are three-sided’ illustrates this condition (Timmons, pg. 96).
A good example is a scenario where investigating officers have information about a ticking time bomb and are not willing to divulge any useful information that may help the investigators to stop the attack. A ticking time bomb is a case that has always been used to make us question our moral priorities. In such a case evacuation is not always an option but disarming the bomb is always the law enforcers top priority. If a suspect is apprehended and it is evident that he can divulge information on where the bombs are located, then the dilemma kicks in. the police have to carefully choose to torture the suspect for information or decided not to harm him at the expense of letting innocent civilians too. In our scenario, the chief thinks that torture will help him tell the law enforcer where the bomb is. If this information is not obtained, then the bomb could go of killing a lot of people. To the police chief, keeping the city town is his priority. Being in a situation where bombs are about to blow up and the location is not known then desperate measures have to be taken. In this case the measures would include things such as relocation of people on suspected terror spots or torture the suspect to divulge the information (Buha, pg. 304-327).
Using Kantanian theory, this action can be considered to be immoral. This is because according to moral principles, torturing a person is immoral. Torture is considered illegal in most part of the world. This has been attributed to the fact that torture leads to misleading information. An individual being tortured may give out the wrong information to stop the torture. In interrogation involving terrorist suspects, torture may be a slippery slope. This is because the suspect may give misleading information about an attack to derail the police from actually stopping it as most are ready to die for what they stand for. Using the deontology theory, the police chief went against the laws that have been set. Deciding to torture the suspect is a wrong thing to do as there have laws laid out to protect the suspects. Through torture a couple of things may occur. The suspect may die due to too much pain, the suspect too may provide misleading information to the chief police or may withstand the pain and not talk at all. By considering these three things then the chief police are not right by authorizing torture on the suspect. Laws are also set in place to ensure law and order and police officers cannot go breaking these laws as this is what may actually result in anarchy in a society.
However, a person in support of the utilitarian theory will think otherwise. Using the utilitarianism theory then the police chief did the right thing by obtaining information on the attack. The information obtained through the interrogation will help prevent the impending attack. This means that the situation or the information will bring happiness and be of greater good to many people this makes it morally good. If the police decide not to torture the suspect to get the necessary information, then the bombs might have gone off resulting in the death of several innocent live. The chief not taking a step to get information that would prevent the attack may be considered a bad thing. If trough the torture police were not able to get the right information, the police chief still did the right thing. This was on the basis that as he was making the decision, he was still looking at a bigger picture where people would have died if the bomb eventually went off. There are instances where torture ids often the only resort in getting meaningful information that may save lives (Morris, pg. 42).
Kant’s theory has been criticized for allowing deeds that render the world a less pleasant place. Kant’s philosophy does not consider the consequences of an action but rather the action itself. However, in the world we are living in, good deeds do not always lead to positive outcomes, and neither do bad acts bring about adverse consequences. Therefore, applying non-consequentialist in everything does not make the world a better place. This theory is also abstract in that; it does not explain what particular actions are right and in what situations, rendering it less applicable to day to day life. Some critics claim that the theory is unrealistic since human beings rarely act purely out of a sense of duty (George, pg. 35-86). In many instances, human beings perform certain deeds expecting of something in return. Moreover, Kant’s theory is difficult to actualize since it has no place for personal relations and love but instead states that one should instead act out of a cold feeling-duty. Many critics have refuted this reasoning since human beings are prone to feelings of love and attachment. Therefore, despite the Kantian theory of duty and universal morality being stable, it does not wholly apply to today’s modern world.
In conclusion, in the modern day, Kant’s does not apply to most situations due to its absolutist nature. It sets absolutist rules and has no method of applying to the exceptions. For instance, the theory does not vary the rightness or wrongness of an act despite the context. Lying is considered universally wrong, and therefore, the Kantian approach holds lying as immoral. The theory does not consider outcomes but means. For example, from our example, it would immoral to water board a criminal for example a terrorist to try and reveal where a bomb has been hidden. However, from the Utilitarian theory, waterboarding is allowed gas long the lives of people are saved thus bringing joy to many people. I personally believe murder, stealing, invasion of privacy and lying can be allowed in specific instances.
Works Cited
Buha, Mark J. “Rule Ulitarian and Deontlogist Perspectives on Comparison of Torture Killing.” Washington University Jurisprudence Journal (2010): 304-327.
George, Robert P. “Recent Criticism of Natural Law Theory.” Aquinas and Modern Law. Routledge, 2017. 35-86.
Morris, Jeremy. “The Justification of Torture-Horror.” HoRrOR (2010): 42.
Rawls, John. “The independence of moral theory.” The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series (2013): 283-298.
Timmons, Mark. Moral theory: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.
Wood, Allen. “The final form of Kant’s practical philosophy.” Immanuel Kant. Routledge, 2017. 27-47.
Jurong Point
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Jurong Point
The HR staff at Jurong Point is made up of 3 employees who manage a team of 160. In addition to this, the mall has over 2500 employees working for the tenants of the mall. The tenants of the mall therefore make up the bulk of the employers, and the HR staff has to outsource some of the functions to its tenants. One of the outsourced functions is the recruitment of staff. The tenants use the mall’s job portal to find employees. The task of finding the right employees is usually left to the HR department, and the HR of Jurong Point allows its tenants to carry out this function. In doing so, the tenants can find employees suited to their particular needs. There are also regular recruitment fairs for the tenants to get to meet potential employees.
The second function that Jurong Point’s HR staff outsources to its tenants is conducting traimn9ng programs for its tenants so that they can better manage their employees. The HR department at Jurong Point acts as the overall HR body of the mall, and therefore it is supposed to manage all the employees of the mall. However, it would be quite difficult to manage over 2500 employees, and this has encouraged the HR department at Jurong Point to offer training services to its tenants. When the tenants are well trained on how to manage their employees as well as customers, it makes work easier for the HR department. Millions of customers from all over the world visit Jurong Point each year, and it is essential that their needs are met adequately to keep them coming back. It is the responsibility of the HR department to equip staff with the necessary skills to serve their customers. The tenants can then train their employees on how to do this.
Is democracy the best way for a society to be ruled
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Is democracy the best way for a society to be ruled?
Many countries all over the world prefer the democratic form of government. In this type of leadership, the people choose their leaders through elections. All adult citizens who are eligible to vote have the freedom to choose their leaders after a predetermined period. There are two types of democracies, direct and representative. In direct democracies, each individual is given the power to influence the electoral process without any intermediaries. In the representative form of democracy, there is a political intermediary between the voter and the policies of the country. Most countries prefer this form of democracy because of the large number of voters in each state. The elected representatives remain accountable to the group of people that elected them. The opposite of democracy is tyranny or dictatorship. Here, citizens are not free to choose their leaders, but they are selected through mechanisms such as succession. Both forms of government have their pros and cons, but the benefits of democracy far outweigh those of dictatorship.
Some famous words from Winston Churchill, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” This means that democracy has many flaws, but they are still fewer when compared to those of other existing forms of government. Some of the benefits of democracy include the freedom of citizens of a democratic society. Secondly, the people and their interests are well represented (Dworkin 11). Third, a democratically elected government is more transparent; leading to better governance. Human rights are also upheld in a democracy as compared to a dictatorship. On the flip side, democracies experience slower economic growth compared to autocracies, the democratic governments are all about money, and the electorate is less motivated in a democracy.
The first advantage of a democratic society is freedom. The people are free to choose their leaders in elections, and through this, they have a say in the policies implemented in their country. Another feature is the freedom of people to criticize their leaders. Every individual is free to express their opinion without fear or favor. If they do not like what one of their leaders is doing, they can say this openly. There are also multiple political parties in a democracy that keep the government in check. The opposition to the government makes sure that the government acts in the interest of the people of the country (Moyn). Things are very different in an authoritarian regime. Citizens of such societies are not allowed to question the leaders in power. The consequences for speaking in opposition to the leaders can be imprisonment or even death. Examples of such countries include Bahrain where insulting the emir gets a jail term of between one and seven years as well as a hefty fine of between $2650 and $26,500. This makes it very difficult or even impossible for citizens to call out a president when they act inappropriately. However, not all autocracies are this dictatorial. Apart from the inability to speak out against leadership, the citizens can be free to do any other thing.
The second advantage of democracy as a form of government is that it is representative. People take part in elections to choose leaders who represent them. Every single person has the chance to choose their leaders. If a leader does not act according to the wishes of the people, then they can be impeached and thrown out of office. Such a system ensures that the elite are not the only ones who get a say in the running of the affairs of a society or a country. However, this point of support may not always be valid; the leaders chosen may not reflect the wishes of the majority. The United States and the Electoral College system of electing a president is a perfect example (Dworkin 9). In the 2016 presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote of 65,844,610 against Republican candidate Donald Trump with 62,797636. However, Hillary lost the Electoral College with 227 votes against Trump’s 304 . The popular vote shows that Hillary was the preferred leader, but the Electoral College has the final say. The president who ends up in office is not the same as the one with most voters.
The third advantage of democracy is better governance because of transparency in government. Most democratically elected governments have three branches, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The executive has the most powers, and the other two arms act as a check on its powers. They keep tabs on what is done with the country’s money. If the executive is found to be doing things that are illegal or detrimental to the country, they have to be stopped (Hollyer, et al. 1196). The media also plays a significant role in ensuring the transparency of the government. It explains all the necessary information to the electorate who may not be very knowledgeable on some fronts.
An example of this is discussing Bills that have been tabled in the Senate and Congress in the United States. One of the most controversial issues was the government shutdown in 2019 during which the media educated the public on the causes of the shutdown and the potential effects on the country (Butler 17). The people of the country are therefore kept abreast of what is happening in their government. Fraudulent activities and secret deals can be brought to light by the media. In an autocracy, things are very different. The press is not as free to report on government activities because this information is not made available to the public. The governments can choose to have checks and balance of their power, but this rarely happens.
Another reason as to why democracy should be the preferred form of government is that it respects and promotes human rights. Many human rights are pegged on freedom of speech which is a significant characteristic of democratic governments. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This means that the citizens occupy a central position in government. The citizens can speak out concerning their wellbeing in all areas of life including healthcare, education, infrastructure, freedom of speech among many others. The challenge in this is that people from the same society or country can have many conflicting views and it is impossible to implement them all. The majority will win, and this may jeopardize the rights and freedoms of the minority groups (Moyn).
There also exist some strong points against the democratic rule. The first of this is that democracy can slow down the economic growth of a country or society. Autocracies can do a better job implementing large scale projects necessary for economic growth. This is because there are no avenues for the blocking of the projects such as court injunctions and the like (D’Souza & Nash 241). The projects take much shorter periods proving beneficial to the economy. China, which is the world’s fastest growing economy, is the example of such an autocracy which has been helpful to the economic growth of the country. However, this point has been refuted by the fact that many of the world’s most developed countries are democracies. This is because these countries have moved from manufacturing industries as the base of the economy to service industries. The service industry such as technology, research, and arts requires a lot of freedom and creativity which can only be found in a democracy.
The second point against democracy is that elections have become more about the money than representing the people. The United States is an excellent example of this. Running for Congress requires a substantial financial commitment for the candidate. Because of this, candidacy has been reserved for the wealthy and powerful. It is approximated that the 2008 presidential campaigns cost $1.6 billion and the campaigns for the whole elections amounted to $5.3 billion. These are vast amounts of money that would have been better utilized in other areas of the economy. Autocracies avoid all the excessive spending on campaigns because they do not hold such extravagant campaigns; power is passed quietly from one leader to the next.
In conclusion, the democratic form of government has been shown to have several advantages as well as disadvantages. Some of the main benefits include respect for human rights, freedom of expression, representation of the people and better forms of governance due to transparency. The disadvantages are that it slows down economic growth and waste a lot of money on elections and campaigns. Autocracies, on the other hand, can implement projects for economic growth more quickly and they also do not spend a lot of money campaigning. However, the main disadvantage is that leaders can take the opportunity to enrich themselves because of little oversight over the executive. The citizens are also oppressed because they cannot speak against the government for fear of fines, imprisonment, and even death. Weighing the two options, it safe to conclude that democracy is the best way for a society or country to be ruled.
Works Cited
Butler, Patrick. “A Free Press: Boisterous Watchdog of Democracy.” SAIS Review of International Affairs 38.2 (2018): 15-22.
D’Souza, Juliet, and Robert Nash. “Private benefits of public control: Evidence of political and economic benefits of state ownership.” Journal of Corporate Finance 46 (2017): 232-247.
Dworkin, Ronald. “Constitutionalism and Democracy 1.” Constitutionalism and Democracy. Routledge, 2017. 3-12.
Hollyer, James R., B. Peter Rosendorff, and James Raymond Vreeland. “Democracy and transparency.” The Journal of Politics 73.4 (2011): 1191-1205.
Moyn, Samuel. “Human Rights and Majority Politics: On Felix Frankfurter’s Democratic Theory.” Available at SSRN (2019).