Existentialism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Leopoldian Land-Ethic



Existentialism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Leopoldian Land-Ethic

Introduction

Ethical judgments are judgments by which an individual, who is facing an ethical dilemma, evaluates the ethical problems, consider alternatives and choose an alternative that best solves the problem to attain the most beneficial outcomes (Fang, 2006). In addition, the judgments are formed after weighing all the considerations of what are morally right and wrong in the context of acceptable standards (Marta, 2004). Philosophers have studied a variety of standards and business ethicists have built the appropriate standards in their work. In order to give reason and not defend on ultimate success and failure of any kind, can be justified with the theories of very influential German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) (Marta, 2004). The theory states that the only unqualified good is a good will.

Discussion

Kant considered that excellent or bad fortune should affect neither our ethical verdict of an individual and his activities, nor his ethical evaluation of himself.

The excellent will is not excellent because of what it results or achieves or because of its adequacy to obtain some recommended end; it is excellent only because of its willing, i.e., It is excellent of itself And, considered in itself, it is to be important incomparably greater than anything which could be introduced about by it in support of any trend or even of the sum complete of all inclinations. Even if it should occur that, by a particularly regrettable fortune or by the niggardly supply of a phase maternal characteristics, this will should be completely missing in energy to achieve its objective, and if even the biggest attempt should not utilize it to obtain anything of its end, and if there stayed only the excellent will (not as a simple wish but as the summoning of all the indicators in our power), it would glimmer like a gemstone in its own right, as something that had its complete value in itself

Effectiveness or fruitlessness can neither reduce nor enhance this value. He would presumably have said the same about a bad will: whether it achieves its wicked requirements is fairly unrelated. And a plan of measures that would be reprehended if it had a bad result cannot be vindicated if by fortune it changes out well. There cannot be fairly risked. This perspective seems to be incorrect, but it appears in reaction to an essential issue about ethical liability to which we have no sufficient remedy.

The issue produces out of the normal circumstances of ethical verdict. Just before expression it is naturally possible that individuals cannot be fairly evaluated for what is not their mistake, or for what is due to aspects beyond their management. Such verdict is different from the evaluation of something as an excellent or bad factor, or situation. The latter may be existing moreover to ethical verdict, but when we liability someone for his activities we are not merely saying it is bad that they occurred, or bad that he exists: we are knowing him, saying he is bad, ...