Kantianism Case

In this paper, I will explain the different points of view of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Contractarianism and their corresponding philosophers, as well as my own opinion about the presented case of the adulterous affair. First, I will begin by explaining how Kant would view this situation and what decisions he would make. In Kantianism, it is imperative to always say the truth and do that which is right. Regardless of the situation that one may find him or herself in, he or she must always say the truth in order to be moral. Kant assumes that by saying the truth, the person wants the good. Kant would find the affair to be completely immoral. Tom has lied to Carol with a lie of omission by cheating on her with Francine for more than a year because he has done something behind her back that they both know they should not do. Kant would also say that in this case, Tom should tell Carol about his affair. Even though Tom knows that Carol will be deeply hurt after knowing the truth, Kant believes that this will only bring good.

Although it seems that Tom is not a bad guy and is doing the right thing by loving his wife and his three children, Kant would say that this is not enough and that he is immoral. Kant believes that to be moral one should be truthful and be good in all aspects of life and at all times. In order to be moral, it is not permissible to pick and choose the times when to be rightful. Tom should love and care for his family, but he should also always be loyal and truthful towards them.

On another note, I will explain what a Utilitarian thinks and what he or she would do in this situation. Philosopher Smart for example, is a utilitarian. Smart applies the theory that people should do that which creates the most good to the most people. I think Smart would not see this situation to be as immoral as it seems. This is because, Tom had the opportunity to have an affair and also have a family. Furthermore, Tom was able to end the affair without getting caught. So, in the Utilitarian reality, nothing "bad" has occurred.

Philosopher Smart also adapts the desert island promise to his beliefs and practices. The desert island promise is when for example, someone commits an act (good or bad) and no one else knows about it, then no one will be affected by actions of that person. We can apply the desert island promise to the adulterous affair if Tom does not tell his wife about his affair. Carol will not get hurt by not knowing the truth about the affair, and since Tom will no longer continue the affair, then his marriage can carry on like if nothing ever happened. Tom would be making his moral decision from his situation in this point in time giving him the opportunity to choose a route of not breaking his marriage and not hurting his wife by not telling her the truth.

Now, I will explain how philosopher Hobbes would view the presented scenario. Hobbes practices contractarianism. Contractarianism is considered to be moral when one follows the rules that have been made in previous agreements by two or more parties. According to the scenario, I can deduct that Tom and Carol although they are married; they have also agreed to be exclusive. Tom has now broken an agreement by having an affair. Hobbes would say that Tom has been immoral by having an affair