The opinions of Mill and Kant

Mills functionalism on Kant and Baxters argumentsIn John Stuart Mills arguments for utilitarianism, it screw be observed that his concept of that which is costly corresponds to the maximization of utility, or the promotion of the superior merriment for the sterling(prenominal) number. Further, Mill maintains that estimable betions ar those that primarily promote satis f fulfil while on the another(prenominal) roll actions that resolvent to the reverse of happiness be wrong actions.At this raze, it should be remark that Mill is arguing for the cardinality of a form of consequentialism in his excogitation of actions and their resulting virtuous worth. That is, the moral worth or value of the actions of man female genitalia be assessed through the very takingss that they give rise to.As charitable have is basically directed by the quest for happiness or utility, Mill elaborates tho that the very directive of men to acquire happiness does not suggest to case-b y-case happiness or the happiness of each person taken singularly but kinda to the collective happiness or the happiness for the sterling(prenominal) number of people. Among the numerous possible manifestations of such(prenominal) happiness that may be perceived, he only argues that the greatest happiness is to be want after in connection to the greatest number of individuals. From this point, we are to break the arguments raised by Immanuel Kant and William Baxter on the aspect of rational agents juxtaposed with the turn of contaminant.Both Kant and Baxter resort to the claim that men as rational agents should occupy the central role in estimable considerations. Prior to Baxter, Kant has already maintained that gay beings, as agents imbued with and the capacitance to origin, should not be treated as the representation to possible or given ends. Rather what Kant strongly proposes is that humans beings should be considered as the very ends themselves in the course of t he actions of every individual. On the other hand, Baxter strongly argues in line with the Kantian prescription for the acts of man. That is, mans actions should be that which is what ace ought to do.Mill go away nearly presumable tell us that Baxters conclusions do not ultimately promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in the immediate consequences of mans actions towards the environment. Mills utilitarian principles will maintain that Baxters conclusions on the scope of environmental moral philosophy and prescribe what men ought to do.This prescription, when employ to several environmental issues such as mans catch for rarified animals for the therapeutic values of their body parts, will most(prenominal) likely condemn the given example and other related instances. However, Mill will argue that, since the gathering of the body parts of such a rare animal will most likely contribute to the betterment and eventual happiness of the greatest number of human beings, the act in it ego is a right act. The apparent consequences of such an action are deemed with the greatest get along of merit in classifying such action as morally right.For the most part, Mill might have instead argued for the claim that even if pollution becomes a result of the actions of man towards his environment, these same actions should be taken if it promotes the greatest degree of happiness for the greatest number of individuals as its consequence.Mills arguments cannot in any way directly support and uphold the ethical guidelines preen forth by both Kant and Baxter in seeking the proper air for the status quo of the environment.Mills utilitarianism on Carrs Is Business Bluffing Ethical? one essential feature of the utilitarian ethical doctrine is that its moral point of view rests firmly on the consequences of the actions made. That is, an action is and then to be categorise as either soundly or bad depending on the consequence or result of the acti on intended. However, what differentiates the utilitarian principles from other ethical or moral tenet is that the former further qualifies the outcome of the actions as good in terms of maximum realises conferred by the deed.In a sense, a good action, then, is one which has maximized benefits or advantages not to oneself but, more importantly, to the most number of individuals as well in the end. Thus, in essence, such doctrine of utilitarianism can be briefly summarized as one that seeks to establish the greatest good for the greatest number.In adopting the principles being set forth by utilitarianism one is run to take over the belief that the welfare of the majority is being taken with utmost fearfulness and that, parallel to such aspect of utilitarianism, the greatest happiness or the benefit of the most number of people is seen as fitting enough to further accept the ethical theory of utilitarianism. The intercourse consequences in adopting these principles highlight a co nnection to the modern world inasmuch as the welfare of the majority rather than the individual is deemed to outweigh individualized motives.Thus, the extent of Mills conception of the utilitarian doctrine will firmly hold that business bluffing is ethical so long as it promotes the good of the majority through the greatest good such an action is able to produce.For instance, when company executives are tasked to cope dealings or negotiations with fellow executives, customers, government authorities, labor groups, or the plane section heads of the same company the executives work in, they can resort to many forms of deception. The act of deceiving these other people in terms of its moral value can be analyzed through the apparent consequences such a conduct is able to make materialize.Especially in cases wherein the fate of the whole company or the status of the entire structure of the line of laborers is at stake, business bluffing is deemed right if and only if it is able to su stain the welfare of the general members of the company as its immediate consequence.Or even in the smallest of the departments in a business establishment, the relative gains of that small unit when taken as a whole should be reason enough, at least in Mills utilitarian approach, to pursue actions that will ensure the greatest gains for the greatest number in that department. These actions, in turn, are qualified as ethical and, hence, right down the stairs the utilitarian perspective as far as Carrs touch on the extent of cases where the business player resorts to bluffing is concerned.On the other hand, the extent in which Mill will contradict Carrs proposals for deception rests on the site wherein bluffing does not promote the general welfare but instead advances the personal aims of the executive. In such cases, even if there are positive consequences for the businessman, the fact that the relative gains of the businessman for his own goes against the utilitarian principle o f the maximization of the good. It ignores the decisive part of utilitarianism that prescribes actions which ensures the furtherance of the welfare of the majority.Thus, such an instance is essentially wrong inasmuch as it is not right as far as the tenets of utilitarianism are concerned.Kants ethical theory on DeJardins and Duskas Drug scrutiny in EmploymentIn order to analyze DeJardins and Duskas claims in the article, an understanding of Kantian ethics should kickoff be noted. Kantian ethics can be roughly started with the presumption that if we are to strictly note the assertion that the goal of the lives of men is the attainment of happiness in general, then every individual will most likely be inclined to seek personal gratification so as to arrive at happiness.Nevertheless, the attainment of happiness is not entirely within the human capacity and that its actuality can be interpreted as a matter of notice that depends primarily on the varying capacities of man. No uni versal assurance on the attainment of happiness can then be seen. Consequently, by hard to remove cynicism and nihilism and by allowing the ethical norms of man to occupy the actions of all, it is infallible for these ethical doctrines to be unconditional such that there should be no exceptions and universal in the sense that these tenets should be applicable to every human being.Kant proceeds with his idea of the good will by defining it as a will that operates for the saki of duty and as a good-in-itself. For the most part, the concept of duty is central to the ethical precepts of Kant which he regards crucial by considering the difference that dwell between actions in accordance with duty and actions performed for the sake of duty. For Kant, the latter phrase is the only one that bears moral worth implying a greater moral worth in mans actions that result from a persons greater disinclination to act notwithstanding for the sake of duty. That is, if a person is motivated to do a trustworthy act simply because one is entirely inclined to do such an act, then the act itself is considered to be bereft of moral worth.Duty for Kant is the inevitability or necessity of functioning out of a strict observation for laws that are universal. Consequently, the worth or value of the action done by the individual in terms of moral precepts is essentially drawn from the intention of the action thereby stressing the essence of the actions in terms of intent as significant. This content can be further expressed in two manners. The first states that there are maxims or imperatives that stipulate that there are acts base on the desires of the individual. This is what Kant calls the hypothetical imperative. On the other hand, those which are based on reason and not merely dependent on ones desires belong to the categorical imperative. The latter type deals with what ought to be done.All these can be roughly transposed and summarized into Kants conception of the practical imperative that claims that one ought to act to treat human beings as ends in themselves and never merely as a inwardness to any given end, whether the individual is the self or another person.Thus, in line with the arguments proposed by the authors of Drug testing in Employment, Kant will very well argue that drug testing among employees in companies is unethical for the reason that it treats the employees as mere objects or means in achieving the ends of set forth by the company. The delicate private entropy that are to be obtained from the drug tests, moreover, gives rise to the possibility that these information can be manipulated for sinister ploys even if the protection of these information is given delinquent recognition.Moreover, as the authors of the article suggest, drug use is not always note relevant. If this is the case, then information concerning drug use is not relevant as well hence leading to the observation that drug tests are tangential and that these only impair the centrality of man as the end for every action.The reason to these claims rests on two crucial aspects. First is that the practical imperative will not allow the treatment of the employees as schemes for the purpose of the upkeep of the mesh status of the employer or of the company. Second is that drug testing undermines the rights of the employee thus, relegating our financial aid back to the first reason, undermining as well their existence as human beings and rational agents.ReferenceMill, J. S. (1863). What Utilitarianism Is. In Utilitarianism (pp. 4-16).