Kant's Ethics Categorical Imperative

¶ … solving throughout this term. Solve the dilemma using Kant's ethics (Categorical Imperative). Solve the dilemma using any other method we have discussed to date (with which you agree.) State which resolution (Kant's or the other one you chose) you prefer and why. Britain's lush canopy tree is in danger of extermination due to axe-happy people preoccupying themselves with chopping it down.

Reason includes the facts that they cause shedding of fruit at unsuspecting passersby heads; that they drop conkers, and leaves that make pavements slippery, as well as that they sink roots under houses and pavements. In their place, British architecturalists grow the so-called lollipop trees which are not only smaller, more compact varieties with shorter root systems, but also supposedly cheaper to grow.

However, these trees do not provide the same advantages of the canopy ones which "clean air, capturing molecules of pollution; absorb CO2 while giving off oxygen; act as sound and wind barriers; cool heated cities; help prevent erosion and moderate and lessen flow of rain to storm drains" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/27/ethicalliving.carbonemissions) Although the problem is not on the same level as that of the Amazonian rain forest, British environmentalists are still concerned that Britain's priceless tree is in danger of extinction.

Kant's Deontological ethics place the focus on obligatory principles of right and wrong; practicing certain principles because you are morally obligated to do so. Their principles have universal application and exist regardless of circumstance and place. They are rule based and obtain virtue from moral obligation to fulfill them rather than from personal sentiment or inclination to do so.

As applied to this scenario, rule-based principles may be established that will apply to any country and any place regardless of circumstance and this will state whether or not to save the canopy trees. In other words, a person may decree that they pose danger to human lives and therefore decree that they be felled. This will be applicable to all times and places regardless of differences in these times and places.

The reverse may be that another decree may be to save these trees regardless of situations that warrant the reverse (or warrant some trees to be felled). This decree is a categorical imperative that must be fulfilled regardless of personal sentiments. Utilitarian ethics proposes that actions are considered right or wrong according to the greatest amount of people that they help and/or make happy. Utilitarianism takes the happiness and consequences of the many into account as opposed to the pleasure of the one or the few.

As connected to this situation, Utilitarian's may consider which amount of people would suffer more by trees being displaced. If more people would gain a greater amount of pleasure by the presence of the lollipop trees, than his canopy trees would be felled. (Deontological ethics however would focus on the principle of the matter: whether or not it is wrong to fell these trees in the first place). Neither resolution is preferable since both have their problems. Deontological is too inflexible.

Whilst it is good to a have a standardized system of rules, the canopy trees may actually be dangerous in some places, or at times certain trees may need to be felled. Kantian ethics may actually be harmful and detrimental by being too rigid. Utilitarianism on.