Where it is suggested by Kant suggests that morality is based on the action (consequences do not matter as they cannot be predicted), and that there are duties people need to adhere to, to become a morally good person. One method could be whether a principle is moral or not is based on whether the world will be "in good shape" even if everyone else abides by the same one.
The future is unpredictable. Especially when, for instance, an innovative technology fails, we should not blame the failure, but appreciate the attempt at making the world better. Hindsight is 20/20. Additionally, it's more equal from a "human right" perspective instead of a "number game", for instance, the right to live instead of having to die to save 2 lives... etc. Nobody could force someone to take away a life!
Duty-based ethics accepts as a principle that one should never use another person merely as a means to someone else’s ends. However, in societies, governments often encourage people to join the military even though there is a chance of death in war.
1. This can cut into individuality.
2. As some say, exams are deontologically moral because they test
everyone the same way and everyone is marked the same way, while others
say it indeed already hurts stress and happiness in general, so it's not a good
thing.
So many things are subjective! The theoretical list of what is right and wrong would be WAY too long! Maybe one day we will, but a new invention like totally-safe human cloning gets made, which needs its own evaluation. The moral judgements cannot catch up with the complexity of decision making. It may only be herustical.
Well, from birth, technically, I don’t really do so; I am just an independent human being, an independent entity living my own life. But depending on the person I don’t help, it could affect my morale, reputation, and ego. And depending on how much I lose, helping sometimes isn’t necessarily a bad thing at all! However, there is also the trap that helping too much would cause over-altruism, meaning a sacrifice of the self, so it would be best to do this thing in moderation.
But help is good! The world always needs more help, even nowadays. Though it is not a duty, I think it is a good thing if I actually want to help. Help cannot become a duty; otherwise, it becomes a burden.
If stealing was wrong, how about a near-death person having no money but stealing bread from the supermarket? Also wrong? But causing death is even more wrong. Still, stealing is wrong because society cannot operate where everyone steals. But causing the death of the broke is also wrong because humans have the right to live. If we add a rule that "u can steal if so hungry", a new problem: hunger cannot really be measured.
Also, the classic one is of whether you would tell a murder where your friend was, or to lie. However I would actually solve it with lying! Neither puts him at risk nor is it even a lie. However the recursive idea is that how can the world function if we all remained quiet to questions? The counter is how can the world function if we have to leak private information the moment it is asked? There really is no right answer here.
The assumption that ALL OTHER PEOPLE will copy you is ABSURD; it would likely not apply to real life. Even the perception of the world is subject to lots of bias.
of thought]]