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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 an abstract concept that continues to confuse people worldwide, a concept that is accompanied by the image of a compass. However, people believe that morality is a generalized system, but then how are morals symbolized by a compass if most compasses are different? The answer is obvious in M. L. Stedman 's The Light Between Oceans where the author communicates that morality is not defined in black and white terms, but is rather a blurred shade of grey. Stedman gives readers this answer through the actions and reactions of Tom and Isabel, Hannah, and Lucy on the decision made to keep Lucy on Janus Rock. The decision that rocks an entire town is made by Tom and Isabel.
A consequentialist response to Alyosha's refusal to consent to trade the suffering and death of one innocent in exchange for universal harmony is that, in the present inharmonious order, many innocent children will die horribly, not just one. Alyosha's tender conscience will cost thousands of innocent children their lives. And so the debate continues.
My father has always reminded me that religion plays a big role in one’s morals. Of course that only applies if a person is religious and has a religious background. There are a lot of religious people in this world, and if one were to ask them where their morals came from, they would say that it is based on their religion. So what is it that makes these two things so similar and distinct? Iris Murdoch, author of “Morality and Religion,” discusses how morals and religion need each other in order to work. Morals without religion is nearly impossible because; religion influences our morals, religion allows to set better morals for one’s self, and ideally morality is essentially religious.
“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
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
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
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
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
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."