Question

Kant says that to act morally is to act out of duty. How does this differ from the virtue ethics approach? Are you likely to admire someone who always acts out of duty alone? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Immanuel Kant supported duty based deontological ethical approach which suggests that no matter what the outcome is one has to do one’s duty. It doesn’t worry about how much that action contributes to the welfare and happiness of those at the receiving end. For example, a soldier has to kill the soldier of other nations in a war, a police has to torture a suspect to extract the truth, government has to use force to control the group movements that it feels a threat etc. Virtue ethics suggests that people should choose between good and bad. So, literally speaking if the person feels that the action the person is about to perform is bad, they shouldn’t do it and on the other hand if the action is good, they should do it no matter what follows next. I would admire someone who acts to fulfill one’s duty but not always. Most of the times, people do what they have to do and not because they like to do. This controversy exists in most of the government jobs which demands people to act in certain way whether they like it or not.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.