Comparisons in Ethics

What would different ethicists argue about Kant's deontology #ethicsbeef

Aristotle would argue that Kant's categorical imperative is unrealistic, and that it is unreasonable for it to be applied universally. Despite his appreciation of human equality, ignoring the impact of emotions and connection to contingent beings and the effect thhis acn ahve on a person's actions. Choosing duty for duty's sake may be impossible for those, whom have had free choice taken away.

Ayer as always, would argue that anything a priori, such as knowledge of a categorical imperative, cannot be verified. Ayer would also argue that speakig in terms of 'good' leaves one without meaning, especially as a categorical imperative cannot be defined, for example, using Wittgenstein's picture theory. To Ayer ethical statements only exist to convnce another person of one's feelings so no categorical imperative can be universal. Kant is only tring to convince others of his view

Bentham and Mill might argue that ignoring the possible consequences of an action may sometimes lead to very bad outcomes, and so is it not sometimes better to break a rule if the consequences were to be catastrophically negative. They would argue there should be no set of laws, none of which…