Women in Military Combat (continuation)

As such there has been a raging debate as to whether women should be allowed to participate in active combat. Individuals have diverse views on the subject based on their moralistic outlook. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are ethical theories used to examine the appropriateness of actions or decisions. This paper seeks to apply the two hypotheses in the analysis of these issues while looking at their pros and cons.

Utilitarianism

The theory is part of the broader philosophical studies known as consequentialism. The principal idea of this wide school is that the moral uprightness of an action is dependent on their effects. To be specific the school of thought holds that the only effects of actions that matter are either the negative or positive results they produce. As a part of consequentialism, the main role of the utilitarian theory is to evaluate a wide range of things that entail the dilemmas, which individuals face including actions, policies, codes of ethics and laws among others. It is principally concerned with the goodness or badness as well as the rightness or wrongness of the results of actions. Generally, the theory proposes that whenever faced with an ethical conundrum, people ought to choose the alternative that produces the best overall outcome. Hence, that is the choice, which maximizes the utility or results in the greatest amount of good. Despite the simplicity of the thesis, its proponents argue that in order to clearly comprehend its requirements, one has to at least understand three issues; good and bad things, persons whose utility should be maximized, and whether the outcomes are actual and foreseeable.

Jeremy Bentham, one of the supporters of this theory, dealt with the first issue in accordance with hedonism. In compliance with this approach, the only fruits of good are pleasure or happiness as the case may be. Pleasure and happiness are the ultimate good because they are an end and not necessarily a means. Thus, all the niceties such as wealth, having many friends, abundant food, and freedom among others, are just the instruments to achieve goodness without which a person may experience despair or pain. Consequently, anything that contributes to the well-being of an individual or group of person can be said to be valuable or morally correct. The second issue concerns the ultimate beneficiary whose well-being should be maximized. Basically, the welfare of all people to be affected must be taken into consideration when reaching the decision. The option that favors a majority of them should be chosen. If two or more categories are involved, they should be compounded together; then the one that produces the net results will prevail. It is worth noting that while choosing, the decision maker must act from an impartial perspective. The final aspect concerns a conclusion between actual and foreseeable consequences. The former represents the immediate effect of a resolution whereas the latter relates to the futuristic outcome. Utilitarians argue that the instant results may obscure the future ones as the two may differ. Thus, it is better to take into account the forthcoming consequences of actions as opposed to the immediate ones.

Using the criteria presented in the preceding paragraph, a decision maker is better placed in determining whether women should be enlisted and allowed to participate in active combat. The first question that should be answered is whether permitting females to engage in active combat is good. Does it bring happiness (pleasure)? If the response is yes, then utilitarianism pushes for their involvement. On the contrary, if it does not promote their well-being then the resolution should be shelved. Secondly, people should consider whose welfare will be maximized if women are allowed in combat. Are we enlisting females so as to only satisfy the desires of feminists or the society will benefit as a whole? If the majority of the public feel that it will be to the communitys detriment to enlist women then it should not be authorized. Lastly, the immediate and future consequence of engaging females should also be reviewed. Will ladies be happy to join the force but find it difficult to face the challenges that come with being at the war front? Will the society be pleased to have finally incorporated women in the working environment but the public finds it hard to bear the breakdown of family values in the long run? Hence, these are the issues that should be considered in evaluating the choice using utilitarianism, which is likely to result in a denial of the chance to serve on the battlefront.

One of the merits of utilitarianism in the analysis of the case is its simplicity. The basic principle is that every action has a consequence, which will be judged to be moral if it pleases the greatest number of people. Hence, a lady who intends to join the army can assess the likely reaction of the masses before making such a step. Another advantage of the theory is that it focuses on the benefits and happiness of the public majority. Thus, it discourages selfish decision-making processes. Therefore, it promotes positive behavior that will result in the greatest good for the larger part of people. The main demerit of utilitarianism is that it is a highly subjective theory. Favorable results are dependent on the individual using the thesis to make their argument. Another disadvantage of applying the utilitarian perspective is that it promotes negativity in certain instances. For example, it allows the killing of one person to save the lives of two or more. In general, men are physically stronger than women. Consequently, denying them an opportunity in the army at the expense of males seems acceptable under utilitarianism.

Kantianism

Kantian ethics is part of the deontological moral theory. According to this school of thought, the correctness or otherwise our ideas, decisions, policies among others, is not dependent on the consequences but rather whether they fulfill our moral obligations. Therefore, Kantianism counters the views espoused by the consequentialists. Hence, it is inherent that according to Emmanuel Kant, or Kantianism ethics opposes the utilitarianism on moral philosophy. While the utilitarian school is only concerned about the outcome of actions (good or bad), Kantianism and its followers believe that deeds do matter and there are certain performances that are bound to bring more happiness to individuals than others. Thus, while it may be permissible to kill under utilitarianism for the benefit of a greater number of people, Kantian ethics contradicts this since murder is a wrongful act in itself.

In compliance with the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant, there exists a supreme principle of morality against which all moral principles must be evaluated. This chief principle is known as the categorical imperative. On that account, evaluating the moral worth of a course of action or decision, entails weighing it against the categorical imperative. The latter is the ultimate duty of human beings towards their fellows. Kantianism poses two questions that individuals must ask themselves before deciding to act. The first is whether one would rationally desire that everybody else behave in the same manner? Secondly, whether ones actions reflect selfishness or the overall goals of humankind? If the reply to the first question is no, then an individual should desist from acting. Similarly, if the response to the second question is also negative, then one should not perform the act. Kant noted that these issues are equal and if the answer to either is no then the action should not be taken.

Using deontology and Kantian ethics by extension, the commitment of whether to allow women to serve on the battlefront should be examined from the point of view of the act itself rather than the effects of this resolution. The categorical imperative in this case would be the denial of entry into a profession because of the gender. Using Kants test of what an ethical choice is, the questions posed to a decision-maker would be the following. Would I be happy, if I was denied entry into a profession just because of my gender? Secondly, would the denial of entry into the army to engage in active combat promote the goals of human beings or will it be selfish? The responses are likely to be in favor of enlisting women in the armed forces. Therefore, the Kantian opinion is likely to favor allowing females to serve on the battlefront.

The main advantage of the application of Kantian ethics is that it has its basis on universal rightness. If following the moral standards of the society would improve, vendettas or behaviors deemed to be unacceptable would be likely to decrease. Thus, this point extends to our case. It promotes gender equality and would, therefore, encourage women to join the army and fight at the battlefront. The other benefit of Kantianism is that it gives the individual the autonomy to select the course of action using the reason. If one chooses the correct side, positive assets will follow and vice versa. The main demerit of the theory is that it insists on doing the right thing even when the outcome is negative. Kantianism also assumes that morality is universal. However, this assumption is fallacious because human beings are different and the manners in which people perceive situations vary.

The involvement of women in combat has been subject to debate for a long time. The reasons for opposition are various and numerous just like the ones for their participation. The arguments fronted by both sides can be evaluated from the point of view of ethical philosophies. The utilitarian and Kantian standards of ethics were analyzed to explain the evidence of both sides. Accordingly, by using utilitarianism, one is likely to oppose the enlistment of women in combat while Kantianism would allow them. Nevertheless, application of these theories to the argument has merits and demerits. The choice of ethical principles is, therefore, largely determined by the way how a person feels about the issue.

This post was written with the help of the author: Luna Anderson is a bachelor in English philology and sociology at California University. She is currently working as one of the best writers at the https://essays-writer.net/analysis-paper.html  She also studies feminine psychology.