A False promise means “a promise that is made with no purpose of transporting it out and esp. that is made with purpose to lead on or defraud” . Nowadays. doing false promises has become omnipresent in our day-to-day life. Is it a right action or non? Based on Kantian ethic and Utilitarianism. there are different positions in doing a false promise.
Utilitarians’ position in doing a false promise For Utilitarianism. it looks at the effect of an action for all those people affected by the action. If the overall balance of felicity over sadness is its effect. the action is right ; unhappiness over felicity. it is incorrect. ( Chan Chun Fai’ s notes. Moral Theories. p. 2 ) Besides. the rule of public-service corporation applied to it is by and large expressed as “Always act to bring forth greatest felicity for the greatest figure of people. “ ( Chan Chun Fai’s Power Point )
For illustration. Betty has made a false promise to Peter. She borrowed some money from Tom as to go to Taiwan with her friends and promised him that she would return money to him after one hebdomad. So. Tom was glad to tilt her money. Betty made a false promise to hold adequate money going with their friends and her friends were so thrilled about that although Tom would experience down about it. However. this action produces greatest felicity for the greatest figure of people that Betty and her friends felt happy while merely Tom felt unhappy. Therefore. it is considered as a right thing to make.
But for rule-utilitarianism ( RU ) . it is treated as a incorrect action because RU looks at the effect of a regulation and the rule of public-service corporation is applied to a regulation. Besides. if everyone following the regulation could bring forth good effect. so we should stay by that rule—a right regulation. ( Chan Chun Fai’s Power Point ) In this state of affairs. if everyone made false promises. people would halt believing promises and each other. As this action consequence in bad effect. it is non a right action in the construct of rule- utilitarianism. Kantians’ position in doing a false promise
Kant’s deontology is non about effect and felicity. It is about to move with a good will ( which is an absolute good ) is to move out of responsibility ; to move out of responsibility is to move with moral jurisprudence. ( Chan Chun Fai’s notes. Moral Theories—Kant’s deontology P. 1 ) If we do things merely for our desires or feelings. it is non considered as a genuinely moral action. For illustration. Peter does some societal services merely because it benefits him to acquire into university. In this instance. as his societal services are based on his desires. they are non done out of responsibility. So. these actions are non treated as moral actions.
Of class. in Betty’s instance. she made a false promise to Tom and she acted without a good will. Besides. she made a false promise to acquire what she wants has indicated that she did this only for her desires. Therefore. doing a false promise is non a moral action in Kantians’ position.
Besides. there is a rule of morality in Kant’s deontology called “Categorical Imperative” . It is the central rule of morality. “A categorical jussive mood is unconditioned and independent of any fortunes. ends. or desires. ” ( Chan Chun Fai’s notes. Moral Theories—Kant’s deontology. P. 2 ) Kant expressed this thought in two preparations called “universal law” and “the terminal in itself” . Base on this two expressions. we can judge an action whether it is right.
Refer to the expression of cosmopolitan jurisprudence. we need to move merely on that axiom whereby we can at the same clip will that it should go a cosmopolitan jurisprudence. In general. if it is right for you to make something. so it is right for anyone in similar state of affairs to make the same thing and you are required to be consistent—do non do exclusions for anyone. including yourself. Obviously. doing a false promise can non be a cosmopolitan jurisprudence as it is impossible for everyone to make the same or for you to will that everyone acts as you do. In fact. most of people must be unwilling to be made a false promise. As doing false promises has exclusion that no 1 is willing for everyone to follow this regulation. it can non be a cosmopolitan jurisprudence. Due to this. it is non a right action.
Harmonizing to “the terminal in itself” . it is stated “Act in such a manner that you ever treat humanity. whether in your ain individual or in the individual of any other. ne’er merely as a agencies but ever at the same clip as an terminal. ” ( Chan Chun Fai’s notes. Moral Theories. P. 4 ) That means. we need to handle all rational worlds as terminals. ne’er simply as a agency to an terminal. Additionally. Kant stated that “Every adult male is to be respected as an absolute terminal in itself ; and it is a offense against the self-respect that belongs to him as a human being to utilize him as a mere means for some external intent. ”Hence. it is morally incorrect for Betty to do a false promise to him that uses Tom simply as a agency to accomplish her terminals because Tom besides has terminals of his ain. Therefore. doing false promises is a incorrect action in Kantian’s position as executing this action doesn’t non respect others and usage others simply as a agency. My point of position over Utilitarianism and Kantian moralss
In my sentiment. Kantian moralss is better than Utilitarianism as making things with Kant’s Deontology can heighten harmoniousness in our community. Say. if we do societal services out of responsibility. non of desires or feelings. such sort of behaviours can last longer. If we do societal work base on the construct of utilitarianism in order to acquire some benefits or to fulfill ourselves. we will halt making societal services sooner or subsequently once we have been satisfied. In add-on. Kant’s deontology advocators respect of others while utilitarianism is more aggressive and selfish. If everyone does things with the construct of utilitarianism. it can be harmful to our society as all of us merely think about ourselves alternatively of being considerate to others.
Decision In an facet of utilitarianism. if doing a false promise can bring forth greatest felicity for the greatest figure of people. it is a right action while it is a incorrect thing to make in rule-utilitarianism as it result in bad effect.
Furthermore. doing false promises is with a bad will and for people’s desires that it is non a right thing to make in Kantians’ position as it uses others simply as a agency and it will non be a cosmopolitan jurisprudence. Personally. I think Kantian’s moralss is more ideal than utilitarianism because of societal harmoniousness.