Crash and the philosophical theories - Essay Example

Kant also makes several arguments about lying, whether it is morally acceptable to lie. He argues that lying at all times and in all possible circumstances is always morally wrong. He says that all human beings have what is referred to as an intrinsic worth called human dignity. Human beings are rational being who are capable of making their own decisions and guarding their own conduct by the use of reason. They have a rational power that enables them to be ethical in their deeds and actions. They are therefore set to make the right choice in every circumstance that presents itself before them that is in need of a decision or a choice.

The fact that they are moral beings gives them the aspect of morality enabling them to make the right choice. It is for this reason that Kant argues that lying is morally wrong because it introduces corruption into the most important quality of a human being; that is the ability to make a free will. When one tells a lie, the lie contradicts the part of this person that gives him moral worth. This is what it does to the person lying. To the people who are being lied to, the lie robs them of the freedom to make a rational choice.

It is for this reason that Kant argues that lying is morally wrong because it introduces corruption into the most important quality of a human being; that is the ability to make a free will. When one tells a lie, the lie contradicts the part of this person that gives him moral worth. This is what it does to the person lying. To the people who are being lied to, the lie robs them of the freedom to make a rational choice. When people make a decision because of a lie, a decision they would not have taken if they were told the truth, then the lie interferes with their human dignity and autonomy.

Kant in his belief that in our endeavor to value other rational being as ends and not merely as means to an end, we are obliged in all circumstances never to damage, interfere with or to misuse in any way the ability of a human being to make a free will decision. John Stuart Mill, a philosopher, makes several arguments concerning utilitarianism, he corrects the misconceptions that have been said concerning this subject. One of the arguments that mill disagrees with states that life has no higher end than pleasure.

He says that this is a doctrine worth of only the swine. He argues that action must not be evaluated by how much pleasure we derived from it to know how much happiness can be derived from it. His argument is that a higher pleasure must be taken to be in kind, that is what brings much happiness and not how much pleasure that can be derived from it. This is to say that an action might derive much pleasure but it is not in kind and therefore it must not be used as a measure of happiness. The only action that should bring happiness is that which is done in kind and not that which brings much pleasure.

Raping someone might bring much pleasure but in the measure of things that bring happiness, not raping someone might bring much happiness with less pleasure, which is a kind action. The other objection by Mill concerning the principle of utility is that it is not easy for people always to act from the inducement to promote the interests of the public. According to Mill, our actions should not always be motivated by a sense of duty but we must be motivated by ethics. Almost all our actions are always done from other motives and are always considered right if they conform to the rule of duty.

Mill says that when we want to do the right thing we should never be motivated by the concern of happiness. Many of the actions we do intend the good of ourselves and not the good of the world. Yet the good that is