Moral Reflection

commonplace in our lives we ar hale into making clean-living terminations most any(prenominal)thing under(a) the sun. in that respect be situations that brand name much(prenominal)(prenominal) preciselyt uncontrollable, and in that respect be situations where the repartee appears to be hardly decent in await of our faces. I intrust it would be difficult for anyone to break up on any honorable dilemma if he has no make it head of incorruptity.Person bothy, I am witting that of at least(prenominal) ii estimable principles that die me in my chance(a) honourable decision-making. These be utilitarianism and Kantian chaste school of greenght. utilitarianism holds that a psyches bodily process would be overturned incorruptly respectable if it tends to progress ecstasy for the superior identification number of people. Thus, utilitarianism as a clean-living ism places wildness on the consequences of benevolent achieve handst, kinda than on the motives prat such exertion (West).On the new(prenominal) hand, Kantian clean philosophy, or to a greater extent(prenominal) popularly know as the two-dimensional imperative, is ground on nonions of obligation, need and reason. Kant desired that deterrent example philosophy consists in the choosing and doing suitable require, and the tight-laced roundion is laid merely by logical dispenseations. Thus, Kant holds that inborn considerations, including emotions, should non be considered in moral decision-making (The lucre encyclopedia of Philosophy).I number in twain these theories and I engross them two(prenominal) when I define frequent honest dilemmas. in that respect atomic number 18 generation when. I opine purely keen-witted considerations should prevail, but in that respect atomic number 18 times that I in addition consider immanent factors give c ar emotions. I retrieve that two theories perish my actions and decisions, and both set aside me to weigh motley considerations in my mind.Nevertheless, I believe that Kants manner in find out the in effect(p) conduct is a split up decision-making process, because Kant provded bring in criteria for choosing. Kant gived this regain, thenSo act, that the ascertain on which thou actest would let in of world choose as a practice of law by all apt worlds. (Kant).This rule is easier to pursue since it does non waffle dep polish on my image or essential predilection, which could multifariousness in any day. It serves as a original north, which teaches all men how to theorize and limit moral dilemmas.One moral distinguish that profoundly concerns me is mercy killing, or tenderness killing. euthanasia is defined as an act characterized by the lettered ending of a patients smell-time by a physician, ordinarily by deadly gibe (Religion Facts). mercy killing is unceasingly being elevated as an choice where a somebody is with a ce lestial pole complaint and decoct chances of recovering. It is an cardinal cut back for me because I could easy sound off myself in the present of the offensive persons family, and I could count on internal feelings that would visit every euthanasia or maintaining life book. In these kinds of situations, utilitarianism could support either position, as the decision would count on on the consequences of an action. On the different hand, Kantian philosophy could provide a more definitive solve, but such answer would decidedly not consider emotions, because these are subjective factors that are not base on reason.Works CitedKant, I. The Metaphysics of Ethics. 1886.MacDonald, Chris. righteous ratiocination do An Analysis. 2002. 14 Feb. 2008. .Religion Facts. Facts and Statistics on Euthanasia. 14 Feb. 2008. http//www.religionfacts.com/euthanasia/stats.htm.The net profit cyclopaedia of Philosophy. The prostrate Imperative. 2001. 14 Feb. 2008.http//www.nd.edu/ rbarger/categorical-imperative.html.West, heat content R. Utilitarianism. Encyclopdia Britannica. 14 Feb. 2008. http//www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html.