As someone who is new to the study of ethics, I’ve found it quite fascinating and incredible the amount of different theories circulating the subject. It’s not all that surprising, though, just take the thousands of different religions that exist, so it’d be silly to assume that you could get everyone to agree on morality and ethics. It does, however, present a rather difficult task of attempting to appeal one way or the other, but I’ll do my best. First, I want to touch on act-consequentialism and why I disagree with this theory and lead into which ethical theory, or combination, I do support. The premise of act-consequentialism is that the amount of goodness from your actions determines whether it’s the morally correct decision to make, …show more content…
As outlined in the textbook, there is no room for moral ties, and thus friendship, or even going above and beyond the call of duty. That alone presents a very cold outlook on life, which is a stark contrast to what act-consequentialism is supposed to be- which is to promote as much good as possible with the decisions we make. With consequentialism, it would be acceptable to push an old lady in front of an oncoming train to slow that train and thus save the lives of six workers further down the tracks. Consequentialism would need a complete re-working of laws such as murder to work, creating a whole hosts of other moral problems and …show more content…
Would he be executed? It’s entirely possible, but he would be saving the lives of others, and it’s also possible he could lead the enemy in the wrong direction long enough to allow for a rescue attempt. With Kant, that wouldn’t be possible. It’s important to note the need for special obligations and options attached to Ross’ theory. There are circumstances, I fully believe, that do require making a decision which will cost the lives of few in order to save many, and before it can be said that this sounds an awful lot like act-consequentialism, let me explain. Take, for example, the United States nuclear bombing of Japan. This is a hotly debated issue, and has been since it happened, as to whether it was morally acceptable, and the debate rages on in many
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
In conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.
In this scenario, Jim’s morally thinking does follow the act utilitarianism theory. Jim weighs his options, of whom he should consider for the job. Jim is using the consequentialism formula to try and figure out what will be the best solution that he can live with morally. But does Jim practice all of the theories that go along with act utilitarianism? Just like in the case Jim believes that he should be acting impartially. Therefore, he is dismissing one of the most important part of the act utilitarian theory. Let’s first examine the formula for consequentialism and see if Jim has followed all of the steps.
Consequentialism tells us not to look at the act, but to look at the outcome. The one thing that Jim should consider is how many lives are saved. To kill one of the Indians in order to save nineteen or to not kill and all 20 will die. Jim would Compare and weigh both outcomes. Therefore, Jim as a consequentialist chooses the better outcome and kills one in order to save the other nineteen Indians. Who does the act is morally irrelevant, when the outcome is for the good of the whole. This is what matters as the greatest happiness principle like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who gives importance to the consequences of the act for the good of the whole. The outcome is what matters and not the process that gave rise to the outcome. Therefore, a consequentialist sacrifices his morality in order to save 19 lives. In this case, Jim has to choose who of the Indians to kill in order to save the rest of the nineteen India...
Ethics are the principles that shape individual lives in modern society. It is a subjective idea that seems to have a standard in society. Ethics and morals are the major factors that guide individuals to make right and wrong choices. Something that is morally right to one person might be the very opposite of what another person would view as right. There are many factors that can trigger a change in an individual’s view of morality.
Consequentialism is described as the theory that states actions are morally right based only on the consequences. Many of my actions are based in terms of consequences. Before, I used to take whatever actions that made my happy, but now, I think more about the results of my actions. More specifically, I think about the negative results. This has made into a bit of pessimist. Whenever I hear ideas, I am quick to think about the negative consequences first before the positive. This usually means that I am not keen on taking risks if the amount of negative consequences outnumber the good. I remember when I was first planning to come to George Fox University. When the idea first hit me, I was quick to think negative consequence of how expensive it was to come to the mainland for college. I wasn’t thinking how the university could benefit my future. Eventually, I figured the positive consequences of coming to George Fox outweighed the bad. On the bright side, at least in my view, being a pessimist has allowed to think farther ahead when it comes to planning. Every action has consequences, and my consequentialism has taught me the importance of thinking before taking action. If I take any actions, it will be the ones that have the fewest negative consequences for me and the people around
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
The first moral theory studied in the course this semester was classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism at its base argument is the attempt to maximize utility. When a person uses the moral theory of utilitarianism, they are looking at that action that benefits the most people or that has the higher good for the most people. Utilitarianism say that a person does a certain action that helps or benefits a higher number of people then that action is moral good. Before discussing Utilitarianism further, there is a need to explain what it has to do with consequentialism. Consequentialism is when a person looks at actions or something that someone does and judges that action based of the criteria that of consequences that action brings. To a consequentialist the only way for an action to be moral good the action itself and what the outcome it brings must be good. Let’s say that person is talking a final on Tuesday and decides to bring a bag of candy to the whole class during their final to have something to keep them up. If this action was to benefit the whole class and that action brings good consequence than that action is morally right to a consequ...
To explain these moral reasoning’s he used scenarios. His first scenario was about a “you” driving a trolley car with broken brakes, would you turn the trolley to kill one worker or continue to go straight and kill five workers. Majority would choose to turn, believing it will be better to kill one instead of five. This belief would be an example of Consequentialist, because the end would show why they
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
On considering the consequentialist theory we need to evaluate the consequences of the situation and action is needed to be taken which seems to be apt. To some extent we Conseqentialist theory works to argue but Deontologist theory works even more better in this situation
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
The term “ethics” discusses how one’s morality needs to take acknowledge that of the rest of the members of the group or community t...
What is ethics one may ask, well according to the oxford online dictionary ethics is moral principles that govern a person 's behavior or the conducting of an activity. That is what a person may view as right or wrong and good or bad. Ethics is very important in one’s society and each society as its own moral and principles governing certain issues and religion and philosophical ethics is no different. For centuries religion and religious principles has been criticized by different denominations across the world. Today I am going to speak on some moral principles of religion ethics whether they are absolute or relative to philosophical ethics, I will also be comparing religion ethics and philosophical ethics and last but not least I will speak