Elizabeth Anscombe argued that the taking of an innocent life as a means to an end is always murder. In her understanding of morality, it was intention, not outcomes, which determined the moral value of behavior. In so reasoning, she found it reprehensible that one would make the argument that any ends could justify the using of a human life as a tool for accomplishing a goal. She does not argue for pacifism or an abstention from killing, as Anscombe writes, “. . . one human being deliberately to kill another is not inevitably wrong.” Instead, she asked that the focus be removed from the outcome all together. The means by which an outcome is reached holds the only moral significance. That is to say, if someone were to have her own person …show more content…
The calculus was a guide for a moral agent in navigating the decision making process. Bentham believed that his calculus, though, was not just a moral guideline, but instead, the basis of all moral action. That is to say that his calculus is what all morality was attempting to do, distilled to a pure form. The calculus he proposed holds certain measurements which were to be used in understanding the value of an action. Bentham’s measurements are degrees of pleasure and pain. The seven measures are as follows: “1 its intensity. 2 its duration. 3 its certainty or uncertainty. 4 its nearness or remoteness. 5 its fecundity, or chance of creating more of the same result. 6 its purity, the likelihood of not producing the opposite result. 8 its extent, the number affected.” In Jim’s case, the Benthamite would argue it is necessary to take the one life to spare the nineteen. Though it may create a large amount of pain for the one to die, such pain is significantly shorter lived than the joy of remaining alive for the other nineteen. Similarly, Jim’s own pain from taking a life in such near proximity to himself would be overwhelmed by the joy of having saved nineteen lives. Jim would likely not suffer from such a scenario again, meaning, the likelihood of his action having repercussions on his future deliberations, is minimal. And, where this case is most clearly won, is in the extent of …show more content…
To use a person in such a manner is to deprive them of their right to be an end unto themselves. Such a deprivation means that Jim, in this scenario, is indeed, a murderer. That being the case, even if Jim saves more lives, or produces more happiness, he is not excused of his moral wrong, just because it presented a better outcome than if he had abstained. Likewise, it is necessary to focus on Jim’s options in this scenario. Just because he would be unsuccessful in an attempt to rescue the captives, does not mean he is morally obligated to dismiss this opportunity. Jim could take the gun and attempt to free the natives, and while he may be unsuccessful, he would not become a
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
Although, Jim may not like killing anyone; the other Indians would be very appreciative if he did kill just one of them. The other nineteen Indians would be safe, and only one life is lost as opposed to nineteen. This type of outlook is Utilitarianism; Jim could justify his actions, because it is for the greater good of society. By intervening Jim causes one death instead of twenty deaths, which would justify the means of killing. Not killing someone to save a mass of people is more wrong than just killing one person because of the damage that is caused. More people survive and are happy when one Indian is killed; therefore, Jim could justly kill one Indian.
This was, however, not the only factor to be looked after. What options they had does not dictate the morality of an act, it is only one part of a larger whole. Law is, in itself, morality, by nature of the fact that to defy law results in chaos. Originally the law was created to serve as a means of carrying out Justice, but the sheer nature of the fact that it has since, as in this case, acted in some way other than to uphold such a concept proves that it is a separate entity unto itself. Rather than considering the morality of a decision in the administering of Justice, it is now reasonable and required to consider the law as a factor in determining the morality of a decision. When the virtue of the decision is determined, then can Justice, and thus punishment, be considered. It is important to understand this concept: law is no longer a means of carry...
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Bentham's theory calls for "ultra-democracy", he believes that each individual has the right to decide what the public interests are. He insists that the interest of the community is nothing than the sum of the interests of several members who compose it. And to be able to understand any individual's interest, you should understand his preferences and the pleasure he seeks, which could be achieved through maximizing the preferences of the greater numbers. Bentham was objected to the "sinister interest" of the ruling elite, because he has a great believe that they were bound to pursue their own interest, which in turn the interest of the minority and could be conflicted to the rest of the society's interests. Therefore, the only remedy for this evil is to allow each person a share in choosing who will represent his or her interests in the parliament.
...s as far as saying he will go to hell if that is the cost to be a true friend to Jim, his loyal companion and even a father figure. With this, he acknowledges that he is an evil person and that society has the correct answers when it comes to being ethical. His moral crisis near the end illustrates that he desires to be “good”, but he is unsure of what that entails. By society's standards, 'being good' would mean sending the letter informing Miss Watson of her runaway slave. In his heart though, being good means protecting those you care about, despite violations of any rule or law. So his choices are turning Jim in, or to help Jim escape from his captors, the latter being is the choice he makes. Society hinders and disrupts the development of his strong moral compass, because he believes that he is going to hell, even if he also believes he made the right choice.
“Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
Although Bentham and Mill were both undoubtedly utilitarian, there are some crucial topics they disagreed on. Jeremy Bentham is an act-utilitarianism, meaning he believes that an act is right if and only if it leads to greater utility (Johnson, “Consequentialism” 4). While Mill is a rule-utilitarianism—he believes that an action is right if and only if it conforms to a general rule which, if followed consistently, leads to greater utility (Johnson, “Consequentialism” 4). More simplistically, it seems as though Bentham would judge an actions morality based on the results of said action, whereas Mill would judge the morality of an action based on the intentions and reasoning for deciding upon such
Judgments of the heart between good and evil, right and wrong that is moralities purest form. Morality is a misleading mistress because, whatever is decided as moral and immoral can be just as easily justified as the opposite in a new era. Many with a rationalist view will describe morality as a virtue which allows for laws and justice to take place. An immoral action is an action taken through the perpetrator believing they will receive no punishment. A question is then presented why are there such distinct classifications of morality and immorality? Glaucon wants to prove that men are only moral so that justice will be had for them if something immoral or unjust is done unto them. He also wants establish that the origin of morality is not found in man themselves but in the fact they do not want immoral or unjust crimes committed against them. He tries to provide adequate instances, but the most preferred method for choosing any action moral or immoral is by using different instances in history with the same information. As well, Glaucon also wants to prove that an immoral life is better than a moral. He provides few examples to support his theories toward Socrates during their battle of wits. While I understand his theories I choose to disagree because there are underlining circumstances that show why a man may choose to be immoral. And in many instances those choices are not selected by preference but by necessity. I agree with Glaucon to the extent that wealth and power tend to lead individuals to immoral actions, but I disagree that this observation applies to all individuals if they were to face the same obstacles. Morality is based upon will and desire. In Plato’s recount of the argument I receive the implication that each...
Bentham stressed that the world is controlled by both pleasure and pain, and that sometimes this can be a good thing or a bad. Just like pain and pleasure, there is a right and wrong, but these days, several people are all about personal gain, and always seem to overlook the pain that certain action
Why be moral? This is a question that I’ve asked myself for many weeks since the beginning of this class. I wanted to know why is being moral so important to some people myself included. This also lead me to another question, which is why is it easier for some people and harder for others to be moral? First, let 's understand what it is to be moral. One definition of moral is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Another definition is a person 's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. From both of these definitions, we get that being moral concerns right and wrong and being able to differentiation from both of those and having your actions reflect what you believe is right and wrong.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
This world has turned into a place where people are required to take full responsibility for their actions and words. Often we do this informally, via moral judgment or if not through legal judgment. In other words we become morally responsible, deserving praise, blame, reward or punishment for an act or omission based upon one’s moral obligations, thus contradicting the concept of free will. Main viewpoints on moral responsibility interact with the following three, constructed by human action: determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. A philosopher once said “Just as we separated the concept ‘free’ from the concept of ‘will’ in order to better understand ‘free will,’ so we need to separate ‘moral’ and responsibility."