Kantian and Utilitarian Viewpoints on Famine Relief - 1100 Words

Kantian and Utilitarian Viewpoints on Famine Relief (Research Paper Sample) Content: Name:Tutor:Course:Date:Kantian and Utilitarian Viewpoints on Famine ReliefImmanuel Kant proposed the Kantian theory. It is based on view that the only intrinsically good thing is goodwill. As such, an action can only be good if its maxim is good. The argument here is that the moral requirement is based on the standards of rationality, which he termed as categorical imperatives. And that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of ones action and not the goodness of the consequences of the actions. Ones moral worth can be gained if only some one is motivated by morality. On the other hand, utilitarianism has it that at any given circumstance, the right act is one that produces the most welfare, for living creations can fare well or badly onwards into the indefinite future. The utilitarian view is that the source of morality cannot be found in divine commands, general rules, or natural law.One of the major problems facing the world today is lack of food and the struggle to find adequate food. Some scholars have attempted to connect the issue of world famine to personal code of ethics. People have no freedom to achieve higher goals or to contemplate justice amongst equals. According to Kratch (1999), the first key principle as described by ONeal has it that duties of justice have to be fulfilled. If not, people will be used as mere means to achieve ends. Kratch deliberated that Kantian ethics talk nothing as far as moral status of utilitarian action is concerned. The Kantian moral theory primarily states that there should be no injustice and that in the situation of famine, ones duty should be to administer justice and not deception or taking advantage of the situation. The other key principal mentioned pertains to Kantian duties on beneficence. This involves helping to empower and promote capacities for others to become self-reliant. She argued that it is not a crime to use money on luxuries but that money would be better used if contr ibuted toward someone becoming minimally independent, and time should not be a factor. That is the approach of Kantian theory toward famine. There are differences in Kantians famine solutions and the standard utilitarian approach toward famine. The utilitarian approach entails the knowledge and consequences of all possible actions committed or none. There is also a massive and comprehensive scope application to the problem. The scope takes into consideration the entire space-time continuum, the moral factors, the needs of the many, and the unintentional realm of action. Kant believed that people who have done wrong unintentionally are unjust and bad. In the famine approach, there is no need to have suffering details, or the full result of any possible action. Instead, there should be reflection of goodwill and good intention in the action.In contrast to ONeills approach is the Kantian approach. Peter singer strongly disagrees as he adopts a utilitarian solution when he argues by s tating that it is bad for people to suffer and die due to famine. The utilitarian principle of advocating for the greater good should be emulated. He continues to state that if one has the capacity to prevent something bad from happening and refuses to sacrifice something of comparable moral good, one is bound to do it. Due to acceptance that all people are equal, one is bound to help no matter the location affected by famine, without sacrificing of something of equal moral good. There should be no exemption of certain actions like the virtue of time-space reasons. In conclusion, the only instance where ONeill l and Singer agree is that it is bad for people to suffer and die from famine. As for Singer, those with th...