According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that …show more content…
However, in my opinion, Kantian ethics is a slightly better ethical theory than consequentialism for several reasons. Primarily, the theory of consequentialism compels us in measuring the benefits and harm that could result from our action while Kantian ethics does not. Just as in the case of the “Footbridge Dilemma”, Kant’s approach to ethics does not require us to give value to the lives of the five workers and the innocent man and choose the act that would result in the greatest net benefit. Second, instead of considering the consequences, Kantian ethics focuses on the intent of our action, which means, “the morality of actions depends entirely on what is within our control” (Landau, 2015, p.164). Finally, Kant’s view deemed actions “that sometimes make … the best consequences [as] wrong” (Hurka, 2014, p. 135). This means that acts of killing and stealing, no matter how much optimific results they bring, are immoral under Kantian ethics. However, despite the strengths of Kant’s view over consequentialism, it is undisputable that “Kantian theory is not without its own problems, and many of those are neatly addressed by consequentialism” (Landau, 2015,
(Mark Dimmock) Kantian ethics is not the focus of the consequence but, rather focusing on completing the duty. Here is where Kantian Ethics can be seen in Harrison Bergeron. Kantian ethics has two branches the branch of Natural rights and Contract rights. Natural rights are the ones we are born with and contract rights are the ones society agrees upon. In “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Harrison acted morally unethical because he broke the contract rights the government set up and distorted the life of the people by the way they
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.
Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).
A study was conducted in which participants were presented with three dilemmas. One dilemma was called the Trolley Dilemma: a trolley is headed toward five people standing on the track. You can switch the trolley to another track killing only one person instead of five. Subjects were asked to decide between right and wrong.
Nielsen’s next major premise is that if a consequentialist is faced with a decision from which the overall value of the consequences is unclear, then consequentialism should yield to the relevant deontological rule. That is to say, if it is possible that violating a deontological rule to bring about greater good may l...
The trolley car experiment is detailed as if you were driving a trolley car that couldn’t stop and you had the choice of running over one worker or five workers, most would pick one person. Most rationalize this because of the idea that the needs of the many trump the needs of the few. Now, imagine you are a bystander, and you see a trolley car racing towards five workers, and you only option is to push a heavy set man in the way to stop the car. Most would not be able to do this. Why? Shouldn’t this be the same situation? The reason people can’t push the man is because he isn’t a part of this situation, and if you introduce him and kill him you are killing an innocent man. One feels true harm instead of the no other option situation. One is actually physically killing a man by pushing the man, instead of a removed sense of pulling a switch. The trolley car theory is an essential part of morality, because it shows how consequences cannot justify actions. People need to assess whether or not the action is moral before assessing the consequences.
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.
The Bystander at the Switch case is a fundamental part of Thomson’s argument in “Trolley Problem.” The basis of her paper is to explain the moral difference between this case, which she deems morally permissible (1398), and the Transplant case, which she deems morally impermissible (1396). In the Bystander at the Switch case, a bystander sees a trolley hurtling towards five workers on the track and has the option of throwing a switch to divert the trolley’s path towards only one worker. Thomson finds the Bystander at the Switch case permissible under two conditions:
Kant 's moral theory focuses on the intention of the action, rather than any consequence attached to such action. According to Kant, an individual 's will is what animates the individual 's body, while the duty is the obedience to a moral law. An individual 's will is considered to be strong when it is aligned with duty, even if the consequences harm that individual. For example, a student can fail a test instead of cheating since he or she believes that cheating is wrong. "You should not cheat" is an example of a maxim, a subjective principle that governs action. In order for a maxim to be morally right, it must be a categorical imperative, taken from an individual to a universal scale. In other words, is it rationally possible...
Kant theory is saying that everyone must do things for the right reasons. According to Deontological ethics theory, an action is considered favourable sometimes because of some good aspect of action in itself without considering its good result from the action. This theory is much based upon the one’s morals and values which expresses the “sake of duty” and virtue. Deontology tells us to be fair and not to take advantage of others while teleology tells about doing whatever we want and it gives us a result that is good to us. [17]
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
...nces. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
First we will start with the historical example of the execution of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was put into a situation where a large crowd had attempted to persuade him that Jesus should be killed instead of a convicted murderer, even though Jesus had done nothing wrong. The majority won and he was killed. The Utilitarians can justify this action because the majority gained happiness from this. On the other hand, those who support Kant’s theory will argue that Jesus had done nothing wrong and his right were clearly violated making the action
He presents a few hypothetical stories and one real one to get the students to think this question through. In one of the illustrations used the professor asks how many in the audience would actually push a “fat man” over a bridge onto the tracks below to stop a runaway trolley from killing five workers who were on the tracks in the way of the unstoppable trolley. I was surprised to see that a few hands actually went up. The argument of a student that had raised their hand in hypothetical agreement to pushing the man over the bridge, for the greater good, was that five other lives would be saved for the life of this one. Opposing views, of which whom I agreed with, were that by pushing the “fat man” over the bridge you were actually choosing and making a conscious decision to take a life; who are we to decide whose life is more valuable than