All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them- Walt Disney
Management 6: This is an example of looking at different ethical perspectives- Kantian vs. Utilitarian
Prompt: Kant compared with Mill with example, Which do you lean toward? Describe how each two sets of theories differ from one another, if possible with examples. Conclude by describing which of each theory you are in agreement with.
Regarding Kant versus Mill— a Kantian perspective discourages the use of one's own self-interest to guide actions. Moreover, Kant acknowledges that there are universal laws one should act on for their maxims. When looking at the trolley problem, Kant would choose to not interfere with the lever as this would be seen as unethical due to Kant's beliefs against using people as a means rather than an end. By pulling the lever you would be using someone’s life as a means to save more people. While Kant focuses on the intentions behind an action and little on the result, Mill is the opposite— only caring about the result. A Utilitarian perspective would choose to pull the lever due to the results of saving more people over one.
In reflection, I realized that my morals did not fall directly into the Kantian or Utilitarian ways of thinking, but was a mixture of both depending on the circumstances. I fall more in line with Utilitarianism with the trolley problem, but there are many factors when dealing with ethical problems that, normally, do not make a person fall into one direct category.
In reflection, I realized that my morals did not fall directly into the Kantian or Utilitarian ways of thinking, but was a mixture of both depending on the circumstances. I fall more in line with Utilitarianism with the trolley problem, but there are many factors when dealing with ethical problems that, normally, do not make a person fall into one direct category.
Management 6: This is an example of looking at different ethical perspectives
Prompt: Rawls vs. Nozick with example, which do you lean toward? Describe how each two sets of theories differ from one another, if possible with examples. Conclude by describing which of each theory you are in agreement with.
Regarding Nozick versus Rawl— Nozick's entitlement theory argues for justice in acquisition and transfer: the validity of the distribution of goods is decided by how these goods were acquired. Moreover, the materials that come about trade are not unjust due to the fact they were acquired fairly. If a good was not taken reasonably then there needs to be a process in place to return it to its rightful owner. In contrast, Rawl's argument utilizes the "veil of ignorance" in the original position to fairly take away one's biases towards the social class. Further, Rawl focuses on trying to create the most universal prosperity for all. On a matter like welfare, Nozick would be against while Rawl would be for its implication. Moreover, Nozick would see this as an unjust acquisition of goods encroaching on someone’s liberty. Contrastly, Rawl would see this as a way to create universal prosperity.
With neither theory being perfectly just in this matter, Nozick's theory is the one that is closest to my morals. Regarding liberty, I believe that Rawl's theory encroaches on the subject the most due to the nature of wanting to reach absolute equality. While Nozick's theory preserves property rights and encourages a hard-working nature even with its flaws. Thus, Nozick's theory is juster.
With neither theory being perfectly just in this matter, Nozick's theory is the one that is closest to my morals. Regarding liberty, I believe that Rawl's theory encroaches on the subject the most due to the nature of wanting to reach absolute equality. While Nozick's theory preserves property rights and encourages a hard-working nature even with its flaws. Thus, Nozick's theory is juster.