Kant versus Mill… To be honest, it hard to agree with either
sides. They both are flawed. I am in favor of Kant’s theory on responsibility of
actions. His view is that we should reach happiness as long as we do not lie. We
cannot always determine what the consequences of our actions would be. There are
too many considerable factors. Sometimes while acting with reason, we would
still make the “wrong” or “nonmoral” decision.
I like the theory of Utilitarianism when it mentions act and
rule. No we cannot label actions as completely right or wrong—but, we change
our minds while considering certain situations. For example, what if I promised
to give my cousin a necklace for Christmas. Approaching Christmas, I realize I do
not have the funds. I am asked to buy the same exact necklace from someone I know
who sells stolen merchandise. Should I purchase the necklace from the person
who steals.. KNOWING he/she steals.. or should I break my promise?
This is where we find dilemmas and issues with the theories.
Should we change theories according to situation? Or should we follow them
explicitly without situational factors?
Great point Darrah. I honestly feel that we shouldn't necessarily change a theories, but it all depends on the situation that were in.
ReplyDelete