BUSINESS ETHICS essay
1) What is the Categorical Imperative? How are the principles of Universalizability, Dignity of Persons, and the Kingdom of Ends derived from this Deontological Theory?
The categorical imperative is the concept introduced by E. Kant as a way to evaluate motivations for actions (). Kant stood on the ground that humans determine their actions by the categorical imperative which the philosopher viewed as the commandment of reason to act in certain way. In such a way, people could act morally or immorally (De George 71). While introducing the imperative Kant attempted to increase the objectivity of moral norms and principles and deter from utilitarian perspective on morality, which determined the morality of action by the principle of utility and common good. Instead, the imperative became the concept which admitted the presence of free will in individuals and the commandment of reason as the determinant factor that lead to moral or immoral actions undertaken by humans. However, Kant went further in the development of his ideas concerning morality of actions and driving forces (De George 75). This is why he introduced the concept of the categorical imperative which was the absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its requirement in all circumstances both required and justified as an end to itself. In such a way, unlike imperative, which may vary and depend on reasoning of individuals and different circumstances, the categorical imperative is absolute and unconditional that makes its the major criterion of morality that determines the morality of human actions. At the same time, the concept of categorical imperative is grounded on the universal law or principle of universalizability that means that the categorical imperative is universal in its essence (De George 74). In terms of morality and ethic, this means that the categorical imperative is the core moral law which is unchangeable and unconditional whatever circumstances are. At the same time, the categorical imperative emerged within the framework of the deontological theory which held the premise that the morality of actions of the moral agent was determined by moral norms and principles on the ground of which this action was carried out. In this regard, the dignity of persons and kingdom of ends emerged as a part of the deontological theory and key concepts of this theory. The human dignity was the major value which determined the morality of actions since deontologists believed human dignity to be the major moral value that had to be respected unconditionally. The kingdom of ends rejected the utilitarian perspective implying that the ends justify means. Instead, deontologists insisted on the important of morality of actions and means to reach target ends debunking the superiority of ends over means.
2) What is the distinction between causal responsibility and moral responsibility? What are, if any, the excusing conditions for moral responsibility? What role do these excusing conditions play in terms of a) moral responsibility and b) moral accountability?
The moral responsibility implies the responsibility of the moral agent for actions the agent carries out or inaction of the moral agent in accordance with one’s moral obligations. In contrast, the causal responsibility implies the responsibility not for the action, as is the case of the moral responsibility, but for the happening itself (De George 92). The moral agent should have the moral cause to act or not to act and causal responsibility implies the responsibility of the moral agent not for his/her actions but for the fact of happening of a sequence of actions triggered by certain cause.
The moral responsibility is grounded on the morality of action or inaction that means that actions of individuals or moral agents should match existing moral norms and standards. The moral responsibility is the responsibility of the moral agent to respect existing moral norms and rules (De George 95). In such a situation, excuses to the moral responsibility may occur, when action or inaction of the moral agent had the moral excuse. In this regard, such a moral excuse is determinism which actually frees the moral agent of moral responsibility. In such a way, the moral agent can ignore his/her moral responsibility on the ground of determinism which make his/her actions useless if the outcome was determined by fate, for example. At the same time, if actions of the moral agent are immoral, he/she is considered to be morally accountable, regardless of determinism. Therefore, the excuse of the moral responsibility does not actually work in case of the moral accountability (De George 98). In such a way, the moral accountability should be distinguished from the moral responsibility since the moral accountability does not admit the excuse which is applicable to the moral responsibility. The distinction between moral responsibility and moral accountability is very important because it gives insight into the understanding of the difference in the morality of actions of individuals and their outcomes. Even though individuals can avoid the moral responsibility referring to determinism, they cannot escape from or avoid their moral accountability for their actions. At the same time, the moral responsibility has a considerable impact on actions of moral agents because the moral agent bears in mind moral implications of his/her actions since he/she is morally accountable. On the other hand, the moral agent can always refer to determinism to justify who he/she has failed to exercise his/her moral responsibility and committed immoral acts or admitted that immoral acts have been committed by others. In such a way, moral accountability being different from moral responsibility still correlate to each other because moral accountability is always present in human actions.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...