70). In other words, we will not be held accountable for actions out of our reach, only our ability and willingness to act in a good way—our ultimate duty. He believes this characteristic possesses unconditional value (value in and of itself, or on its own) and as such deserves to be exercised under all possible circumstances (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70-75). He goes as far as to say that actions will posses moral worth only if they are a result of our good will, similar to that which we intend to achieve(Shafer-Landau, pg.
This delineates it from the deontological schools (e.g. ; Kant’s Categorical Imperative) which emphasize certain rules or obligations which are necessarily moral for reasons separated from people and consequences. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the actions to judge moral value; utilitarianism is an example of this school and states that the right thing to do is what maximizes overall utility (Hursthouse, Rosalind, Stanford Encylopedia). These different branches are often philosophically challenged in discourse and also in real life examples of moral dilemmas. Their distinct approaches to judging morality in our world make them mutually exclusive theories.
Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory. Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110).
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. A consequentialist will assess both the positive and negative effects of an action before taking it.
If we are to remain moral as well as logical, then we must restore consistency to our code. This is accomplished by adding exception clauses to current principles, and giving priorities to some principles over others, or by some other device. I argue that we must accept moral dilemmas as an essential part of real-life reality on the grounds that some moral statements concern values. According to Moore's "axiological thesis," whether these statements are true depends on two factors: the set of alternatives from which we make an evaluation, and the scale of values with which we rate them. Also, it is possible that a given alternative is no better than another in some respect.
Kantian Ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print. Hayry, Matti. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics, USA: Routledge, 2013.
In layman’s terms, the characterization of political integrity implies total equality under the law by all laws being justified by the same principles. Still though, he finds it important to make the assertion that it may well be the case that some “breaches” of integrity are, all things considered, better than the alternatives. Dworkin claims that we have two separate principles regarding political integrity. These principles, legislative and adjudication, try to make laws morally coherent, and allow them to be seen in such a manner. Also, when speaking of political integrity, he makes two important background assumptions.
In the theory of virtue ethics, it is because the virtuous action to be taken in this scenario is to be honest, and for the theory of Kant’s duty ethics, the only action to pass the CI formulation this scenario is for Alex to abide by the law. Even, for the theory of act utilitarianism, the recommendation can be subjective therefore it may favor Alex to be honest and abide by the law because of the overall effect honesty has on society which can be considered the greatest good for the greatest number. Works Cited Johnson, R. (2004, 02). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encylopedia or Philosophy.
A rule utilitarian would probably be interested in thinking along the lines of: a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules. So we should judge the morality of individual actions by referring to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules. The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians calculate every action for beneficial outcome for ourselves, while rule utilitarianism is based on a rule promoting beneficial outcomes. Once the rule has been established then one must follow