Charity should not be compulsory, it is arguably morally correct to do so if the exceptions’ are met. Although in a globalized world, the gifts given are not often times charitable. Voluntary work is a charitable manner, and ought to be reasonable successful. Many corporations have granted non-profit community organizations to make charity a non-compulsory means but more of a voluntary aspect. Grants are funded in order to boost economic opportunities.
Looking at a Deontological perspective, which bases ethics on an ideal of duty. Morality stems from mankind’s freedom revealed in our freedom. If it was voluntary, we wield ought to conceiving of our duties. At first glance, one might believe they ought to be charity. Voluntarily makes it self-improvement
…show more content…
Ordinarily, we think a person is morally entitled to favors herself or her family (to some extent) over other people, but direct (or acts) utilitarianism claims that our obligations depend on an impersonal assessment of the consequences of our actions, and if we have a choice between doing more for strangers or less for ourselves and/or our friends and relations, then we must give preference to the strangers. Ordinary morality is ‘agent-relative’ and allows each person to favor those near and dear to him, but for utilitarianism each person is fundamentally morally equal to every other, and any favoritism must be justified by overall good consequences for people generally. This ends up making direct (or acts) utilitarianism a rather demanding moral doctrine, and opponents of such utilitarianism often criticize it for being too demanding. But this charge can be evaded or rendered less damaging if one adopts a form of direct utilitarianism that doesn't require the production of as much good/pleasure as possible as a condition of right action. Utilitarian’s must hold that producing more good is always better, but Bentham (in his earlier years), Karl Popper, and (more recently) Judith Lichtenberg, Michael Slote, and Michael Stocker have all formulated versions of act-utilitarianism allowing for an act to count as morally (all) right if it produces enough on-balance good/pleasure, even if the agent could have produced more on-balance good/pleasure. Such ‘satisficing’ utilitarianism allows for moral supererogation and is, therefore, less demanding than more standard optimizing/maximizing versions of act-utilitarianism. But recent theorists such as Peter Railton, Samuel Scheffler, and Shelly Kagan have questioned whether the charge of over-demandingness really can be made to stick against standard forms of act-utilitarianism (and
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
Utilitarianism concerns itself with promoting the best outcomes for the greatest numbers in order to be ethically acceptable, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach which aims at results of actions regardless of how they are carried out. Utilitarian monsters, a term coined by R. Nozick, are those who “get enormously greater gains in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose. For, unacceptably, the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility”.(The Utility Monster, 2011)
The Theory of Utility teaches that we make our decisions in life based on the basic principle of maximizing happiness – which can be measured in pleasure and pain. Morality can also be defined as that which brings about the largest amount of happiness, and the least pain. Unlike other theories, however, Utility states the happiness of all is to be considered over the happiness of one. When faced with a choice, one must choose the option that will cause the greatest pleasure and the least pain. Applying this part of the Utilitarian argument to the supplied scenario, it would seem that Utility would say stealing the ice cream and breaking the law are the morally right course of action. However, Utility continues on in its teaching stating that
One definition of utilitarianism in general highlights the idea that an action is considered morally right or wrong depending on their results of the action (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The idea highlights that the end results are the only factor that truly matter in the decision of whether or not an action is morally right or wrong(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Utilitarianism can be split into two more detailed perspectives which are act and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism focus is on an individual case’s outcome (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Rule Utilitarianism looks at the action and its outcome in general (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Jeremy Bentham is associated with utilitarianism and his view of hedonism which is in response to the question of what is considered good in the world (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Hedonism focuses on pleasure or happiness as being the only good (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Pleasure and happiness are considered goods themselves since compared to friends or families that can produce such valuables as pleasure and happiness (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). This means that the gift of happiness one that cannot produce anything that would be of greater value. The views associated with hedonism have been rejected in cases since they only considered the
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. In order to make the correct moral choices, we need to understand what duties and morals exist for us as individuals and as a society and how we need to follow them. We will be behaving morally when we follow our duty, and behaving immorally when we fail to follow our duty, no matter what the condition of that duty may be. Ty...
As human beings, we often have desires that are not always consistent with yielding the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism would argue that putting one’s own desires first and pursuing one’s own interests is wrong and immoral behavior. While some moral theories acknowledge that pursuing one’s own interests can be morally optional, in Utilitarianism, it is always forbidden (Moral Theory, p. 135). This makes the theory overly demanding because one is constantly forced to consider others. Utilitarians can respond to this objection by challenging the claim that pursuing one’s own desires cannot ever be consistent with the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Certainly there can be times when pursuing one’s own desires is also consistent with producing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarians might also point out that moral theories are meant to be demanding because they are teaching individuals how to act morally and acting morally is not always the desirable course of
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...