Dwivedi, and Joseph G. Jabbra list 8 types of accountability, namely:
The presence of moral evil in human beings can be explained by their possession of an innate propensity to subordinate the moral law to inclination.
the subject must know an act violates moral law to be considered sinful. complete ignorance of a moral teaching exonerates the person of moral responsibility for the act, while knowledge of moral law and freely choosing to go against it is a moral sin. Determination of Good Moral Character Compliance for Initial Broker or Salesperson Licensure by Examination, Reciprocity, Waiver of Educational Requirement or . The reality is that veterinarians diagnose illness based on “clinical symptoms” that are “observable,” that is: that they can see, witness, or identify pursuant to examination or .
He ultimately rejected this and in his Religion, he not only shows that a universal propensity to radical evil is possible, but also gives an account of how it is possible. Contrary to the latitudinarianism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others on the subject of human nature, Kant holds to the following An examination of moral accountability thesis: Ethically, human beings are either wholly evil or wholly good by virtue of whether or not an agent has adopted the moral law as the governing maxim for all of his or her maxims Religion 6: For either the moral law is the governing maxim for the choice of maxims or it is not; making the moral law the ground of our maxims is sufficient for moral goodness.
This thesis turns on a second thesis: An individual with a morally good character or disposition Gessinnung has adopted a moral maxim as a governing maxim, and incorporates the moral law as a basis for choosing all other maxims.
If an agent has done so, then by virtue of making all other maxims compliant with this maxim, these subsequent maxims will be consistent with the moral law.
Nevertheless, when an alternative maxim—that of self-conceit—is chosen as a governing maxim, then this egoistic alternative becomes the basis for maxim choice and the moral law is subordinated to an alternative governing maxim along with every other maxim.
Consequently, the ethical choice facing the moral agent is either to subordinate all other maxims to the moral law, or to subordinate the moral law with every other maxim to an egoistic alternative. The fact is that human agents, although conscious of the moral law, nevertheless do in fact incorporate the occasional deviation from it as part of their individual maxim set.
When an agent mis-subordinates the requirements of morality to the incentives of self-conceit however small it may bethe result is radical evil Religion 6. Note that this propensity does not amount to the rejection of morality. It is in fact perfectly compatible with our acceptance of the requirements of the moral law, but only insofar as they are compatible with a maxim of inclination.
But the next question, as always with Kant, must be one of possibility: Every human being possesses the incentive to adopt the moral law as the governing maxim for maxim choice by virtue of it having arisen out of a basic predisposition to the good.
They belong to us as part of our motivational DNA. By itself, a predisposition is generally not a conscious choice, but a source of motivation for choices, some of which happen to have ethical significance.
For a human agent to have an original predisposition to the good yet nevertheless to be capable of evil, suggests that the possibility for the corruption of human nature is a consequence of the corruption of one of our basic predispositions.
Although it would be tempting to do so, it would be a mistake to identify the source of this corruption in our sensuous animal nature the predisposition to animality. This predisposition concerns itself with the purely instinctual elements of the human being qua mammal: While the inclinations of animality indeed influence us ignobly, they are nevertheless necessary for every member of the species to survive and flourish.
Hence human sensuality and appetite alone could hardly make human beings radically evil. As Kant states Religion 6: For unlike the predisposition to animality, the predisposition to personality shares, with humanity, the property of rationality. This leaves humanity as the remaining basic predisposition susceptible to corruption.
Although it shares the property of rationality with the predisposition to personality, humanity is distinct by virtue of the fact that it is concerned with the practical and therefore calculative elements of life. Yet this basic predisposition also possesses the inclination to seek equality in the eyes of others and to determine whether or not one is happy by comparison with others Religion 6: It is manifestly egocentric since it relates to others in terms of its concern for happiness.
Yet it is not by itself evil. Rather, it is from these positive characteristics within our predisposition of humanity that evil becomes a possibility and constitutes a propensity to egoistic and malignant self-love as self-conceit. The Propensity to Evil: Universal and Innate Once Kant is able to show how radical evil, as an innate condition, is possible the question becomes: How can evil, insofar as it rests on a propensity, constitute a genuine choice?
Generally speaking, a propensity Hang is an innate yet non-necessary feature of every person that serves as a motivation for action in distinctively human affairs.
However, unlike a basic predisposition e.
It demonstrates a tendency to respond or act in a particular manner, either in accordance with, or in tension with the moral law. The obvious requirement for Kant at this stage is to give an account of the nature of the propensity to evil, which he provides in psychological terms as a disordering of incentives.
As opposed to other vices, this propensity is essentially depravity, and stands in contrast to frailty fragilitas and moral impurity impuritas, improbitas. Depravity or perversity perversitasunlike frailty, is not mere weakness and an inability to resist sensuous inclination Religion 6: And unlike impurity, it is more than merely obeying the moral law from alternative motivations instead of a sense of duty.
And so, what makes for an evil character is deviating from the moral law as the basis for maxim choice and adopting self-conceit in its place Religion 6: Note that for Kant, the faculty of volition or desire, or freedom of the will Willehas two different senses, a broad sense and a narrow sense.Accountability entails responsibility; therefore, anyone who is responsible is ultimately accountable for his or her own actions.
Cherry and Jacob () define accountability as “an ethical duty stating that one should be answerable legally, morally, ethically, or socially for one's activities” (p.
Accountability in nursing is unquestionably multifaceted. The subject of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of religion has received more attention in the beginning of the 21 st century than it did in Kant’s own time.
Religion was an unavoidable topic for Kant since it addresses the ultimate questions of metaphysics and morality. For, as he presents it in his. 1/ 12 COMBINED CIVIL SERVICES - I Group I B Services (Preliminary Examination) General studies (Degree Standard) Topics for Objective Type Code No In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.
As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private and individual initiativeblog.com leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of .
Contact Us Alder Community High School Mottram Old Road Gee Cross Hyde Tameside SK14 5NJ Tel: Fax: Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life [Sissela Bok] on initiativeblog.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Is it ever all right to lie? A philosopher looks at lying and deception in public and private life—in government.