Albany College of Pharmacy Kant Critique of Happiness as Ethical Principle Paper

User Generated

evzv93

Writing

Albany College of Pharmacy

Description

I need 1100 to 1200 Words essay no more no less please!!!

TOPIC

Consider Kant’s critique of happiness as an ethical principle. Why does he think that happiness (or well-being) fails to provide an adequate standard for morality? What is his alternative? Why does he think it is preferable? Finally, does ‘happiness’ as Kant understands it correspond to happiness as Aristotle understands it? Explain.

Read the attachment for full guidelines please read them carefully and follow them!!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

General Guidelines and Requirements for Papers: 1. Writing must be clear and says what you mean it to say fully and directly. 2. Make sure to address all parts of the question or prompt. 3. You should write for an audience who are generally acquainted with the texts you are discussing, with the aim of clarifying and deepening their understanding of those texts and their main ideas and/or of taking and defending your own position about the issues under discussion. a. your goal will be to try to offer your own account of the ideas covered in these texts, explaining what those ideas are, their meaning, how they can be justified, what is important or significant about them and/or what you object to and think should be viewed otherwise. In all cases, you should provide reasons and evidence in support of your account or your assessment. b. DO NOT write ‘book report’ style papers, where you spend a bunch of time giving basic background about the author or the texts in question. Make sure any background you do supply is directly relevant to the matters you are discussing and is necessary to make them clear. c. DO NOT write in a tone that ‘hypes’ the author or text under discussion. Your goal should be to provide a sober, critical assessment, not make things sound great. 1. On textual support. In the course of your paper, it is important that you establish that the views you are attributing to the authors you are discussing are what they hold. a. There are two ways of doing this. I. In cases where the view can be adequately represented in a summary or paraphrase form, you can provide a citation to the place where the author expresses the view you are attributing to them. II. In cases where the view needs to be exhibited in the author’s own words, you should quote and provide a citation. Quoting can be necessary for a number for reasons, such as precision (which is a good reason to use someone’s exact language in many cases), or because the interpretation of an author’s position on a certain point is controversial and you want to establish exactly what they say in order to support a specific characterization of their view, or because the view needs some explanation, which should start with a careful discussion of their own language. b. Some further points: i. When quoting, be sure to provide enough context and explanation of the text you are quoting to ensure that its meaning is clear, and the reader can understand how it supports or illustrates what you are saying. (Sometimes just quoting will be enough, but often it will not be). ii. Remember, even when you are simply summarizing key ideas found in the text in your own words, you must provide citation references to aid the reader in locating discussion of those ideas in the original. iii. Finally, make sure that you have something of your own to say about the texts you quote or refer to beyond simply stringing together quotations or paraphrases of their content. Tell the reader why and how these texts are important, interesting, or how they illustrate a point you want to make. 5. Some other notes about philosophical writing: a. It is common in philosophy to use first person constructions like ‘I will argue that...’ or ‘I believe that...’. You should feel free to do so, especially since it will almost surely make your writing clearer. b. Philosophical writing relies to a great extent on consistency of terminological usage. Rather than seeking synonyms to avoid using ‘common’ words, or trying to rephrase another author’s formulation in ‘your own’ terms, it is better to use the words that first come to mind when trying to say something and to stick with (or close to) other people’s precise formulations when discussing their claims, especially if you have reason to believe that the language in question contains technical vocabulary – i.e., terms around which the author is developing their concepts. i. Obviously, when using other people’s language, you should enclose what you are using in quotation marks and provide clear references for where they first made that formulation. And references should also be supplied for paraphrases, even when you are not directly quoting. 6. Papers should be formatted according to the Chicago Manual of Style ‘notes and bibliography’ guidelines, with no title page or abstract. a. For examples, see http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html. b. All papers must include complete and correct bibliographic information for all sources cited or consulted. This will always be listed in the footnotes and may also need to be listed in a separate bibliography at the end of the paper. i. If all sources you consulted in preparation of the paper are directly referenced in the footnotes (either as a result of quotation or paraphrase and citation), then you do not need to include a separate bibliography. ii. If, on the other hand, you consulted sources you did not reference in the footnotes, you must include a separate bibliography. c. Footnotes should be created using the ‘insert footnote’ function on your word processing software, not as running footers or manually. i. Every modern word processing program can do this and knowing how to use this function is an important part of university level writing competency. The ‘help’ menu on your word processing software is a good place to start if you’re unsure what to do. Paper will be evaluated for content, including quality and precision of thought, as well as organization and clarity of presentation. Generally, minor grammatical and stylistic issues will be overlooked in favor of these matters of content and presentation, but this will only be true insofar as those issues do not affect the substance of your discussion or its comprehensibility. TOPIC Consider Kant’s critique of happiness as an ethical principle. Why does he think that happiness (or wellbeing) fails to provide an adequate standard for morality? What is his alternative? Why does he think it is preferable? Finally, does ‘happiness’ as Kant understands it correspond to happiness as Aristotle understands it? Explain. 1100 to 1200 Words, no more no less!! Guidelines Must be Followed!! Thanks
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Kant’s Critique of Happiness as an Ethical Principle – Outline
I. Introduction
A. Kant’s definition of happiness
II. Relationship between morality and happiness
A. People’s failure to ascertain the things that make them happy
B. People’s failure to identify actions that give them happiness
III. Reason happiness cannot provide adequate morality
A. Morality denies the attainment of one’s desires
IV. Alternative perception of morality
A. Something ingrained in duty, law, and obligation
V. Kant and Aristotle’s understanding of happiness


KANT’S CRITIQUE OF HAPPINESS AS AN ETHICAL PRINCIPLE

Name
Subject
Date

1
In his description of happiness, Kant mentions that it is ‘continuous wellbeing,
enjoyment of life, complete satisfaction with one's condition.'1 Becoming happy entails an
individual gaining power, health, and wealth that would aid the completion of the satisfaction
and wellbeing of an individual. Kant's description of happiness allows the identification of
reasons for the definitions powerlessness to function as the primary basis of morality.2
According to Kant's definition of happiness, an individual has to get what he wants to be
happy. In some situations, getting what a person wants might require the person to prevent
another person from getting what the individual wants, thus becoming impossible to generate
universal happiness. The definition of morality based on happiness can, therefore, generate
the perspective that not everyone is moral, something that might be wrong.
Kant believes that the basis of morality on happiness or wellbeing is not ideal because
of the failure by most people to ascertain the things that would make them happy. According
to Kant, the indeterminate nature of happiness m...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags