英国伯明翰代写Essay:康德伦理学

2019-01-25 00:41

伊曼努尔·康德经常被认为是义务论者的主要例子(Baase, 2003)。康德伦理学认为，决定行为对错的不是结果;它是个体实施行为的意图。康德(1785)认为，“没有必要在我活着的时候幸福地生活;但有必要，只要我活着，我应该活得体面。”(p.13)。这句话的意思是，在做出一个体面的决定时，这将是正确的做法，因此康德必须假设，这将可能产生良好的结果。决定什么是“体面的”，因此什么是正确的事情，在很大程度上取决于法律。然而，其他影响可能来自教养、社会特征或宗教信仰;例如，麦金农可能是受他自己相信ufo的背景影响。麦金农对ufo的信仰似乎影响了他的行动。麦金农入侵军事机器，试图发现神秘的UFO技术，这似乎与义务论框架相冲突，因为他只是把这一行动作为达到目的的手段。然而，正如Johnson(2001)所指出的，义务论框架规定，决策不仅仅是一种达到目的的手段;如果目的是道德的，那也许是正当的。将此应用到当前的案例研究中，我们可以定义最终的结果是发现隐藏的UFO技术;麦金农的方法是通过黑客攻击。尽管麦金农说他并不想造成伤害，只是看看而已。如果最终的结果是为了让世界了解这些技术，这也许是合理的。这个案子的绊脚石是麦金农没有这样做的授权。或者，如果美国政府同意麦金农可以在不造成任何损害的前提下入侵他们的计算机系统，并且只是看看，根据义务论的框架，这是完全合乎道德的。很难确定麦金农的意图，因为他似乎没有找到这样的证据，其次，因为他被抓住了。康德的义务论的具体类别说:“我不应该这样做，除非我也愿意我的格言成为普遍法则”(第14页)。这也类似于功利主义的规则，如果一个行为不能在任何情况下都是正当的，如果是不道德的。
英国伯明翰代写Essay:康德伦理学
Immanuel Kant is often presented as the prime example of a deontologist (Baase, 2003). Kantian ethics argues that it is not the consequence that makes an action right or wrong; it is the intentions of the individual carrying out the action. Kant (1785) argues that “It is not necessary that whilst I live I live happily; but it is necessary that so long as I live I should live honourably.” (p.13). This statement suggests that upon making an honourable decision, this will be the correct thing to do and therefore Kant must assume that this will likely have good consequences. Deciding upon what is ‘honourable’ and therefore what would be the right thing to do, is largely dictated by law. However other influences may come from upbringing, social characteristics or religious beliefs; for example, McKinnon may have been influenced by his own background in belief of UFOs. It would appear that McKinnons belief in UFOs influenced his actions.McKinnon hacked military machines in an effort to discover secret UFO technology, which would appear to be in conflict with a deontological framework as he is using the action as a mere means to an end. However, as Johnson (2001) points out, a deontological framework dictates that a decision is not used as just a means to an end; it may be justified if that end is moral. In applying this to the current case study we can define that the end result was to discover hidden UFO technologies; McKinnon’s means of doing this was through hacking. Even though McKinnon states he did not intend to cause harm, but merely look. This perhaps is justifiable if the end result was intended to give the world knowledge of these technologies. The stumbling block in this case is that McKinnon did not have authorisation to do this. Alternatively if the US Government had agreed that McKinnon may hack their computer system on the condition of not causing any damage and just to look, this would have been entirely ethical on accordance to a deontological framework. It is difficulty to define McKinnon’s intent as he did not appear to find such evidence and secondly because he was caught. Kant’s specific class of deontology states “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become universal law” (p.14). This again is similar to that of a rule utilitarian, in that if an action cannot be justified on every occasion, if is unethical.