Star Trek: Into Darkness is a film with a multiplicity of moral themes and dilemmas, and it can be argued that each character adheres to a particular ethical theory. For Spock, the ethical theory adhered to is rule-based utilitarianism. Kirk seems to adhere to a care ethic. Khan, on the other hand, seems in many cases to be motivated by a combination of a misled form of retributivism, a form of psychological egoism, and a form of care ethics. In this paper, I will analyze the ramifications of these views within the context of each characters statements and actions, and will evaluate what evidence can be drawn in support of these arguments.
There is much evidence for the argument that Spock adheres to utilitarianism. For example, on planet Nibiru, an M-class planet with a primitive pre-warpdrive civilization, Spock is willing to die to save the Nibirans. It is not simply the fact that he is willing to sacrifice himself to save the species, but the particular justification he gives for this action: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Spock's reasoning is an example of a utilitarian ethic. If he dies, much less net utility is lost than if the entire species perishes. It is clearly the consequences that matter in this case - he is weighing the consequences of his actions, and attempting to choose the action that will lead to most overall net utility. In fact, Spock does not want to be saved, as he says such an action "would violate the Prime Directive", the directive to not interfere with the development of other species. It is clear that Spock adheres to the Prime Directive because of the adverse consequences it could have for the development of other species. It is not that the Prime Directive is good-in-itself,...
... middle of paper ...
... comply with orders then nobody would follow them.
The overall message of Star Trek: Into Darkness is that ethics is complex, with multiple possible interpretations and often no clearly delineated boundary between definitively right and wrong. Spock often reasons from a utilitarian perspective, and yet at the same time seems to hold to a Kantian-duty principle of never lying. Kirk saves Spock, violating the Prime Directive by reasoning from a care ethic, but later risks his life seemingly on utilitarian grounds. Khan deeply cares about his crew, but is often willing to do just about anything to achieve his own interests, with little to no regard for the welfare of others. This is the ultimate message of the film: that ethics is complex, different situations can often call for different ethical viewpoints, and that ethical decisions must be considered carefully.
Often, a person is seen as the embodiment of the value of their action, thus a person can be seen as “good” or “bad,” and the consequences of justice that affect them are based on the general value of their general actions. The value given to actions is based on a soc...
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Ethics is an important proponent when considering any decision. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something everyone should know. However, the importance of ethics gets minimized when a decision that seems wrong actually has benefits. In the efforts of improving society, often ethics is violated. Sometimes in order for society to be better off as a whole, there has to be little sacrificing of ethical practices along the way to do so.
We have studied the two major theories that answer the question, “who should I be?”. These theories are egoism and altruism. In this paper, I will argue that the correct moral theory lies in-between the theories of egoism and altruism.
The Teleological Ethical Theories are concerned with the consequences of actions which means the basic standards of our actions being morally right or wrong depends on the good or evil generated (Business Jargons, n.d.). More specifically this campaign relates
To apply this system of moral values effectively, one must understand the structural levels at which ethical dilemmas occur, who is involved in the dilemmas, and how a particular decision will affect them. In addition, one must consider how to formulate possible courses of action. Failing in any of these three areas may lead to an ineffective decision, resulting in more pain than cure.” Ken Blanchard states, “Many leaders don’t operate ethically because they don’t understand leadership; these executives may have MBA’s from Ivey League schools or have attended leadership training; they may routinely read the best-selling management books, however, they don’t understand what it means to be a leader.” They don’t model a way of ethical behaviors.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
In the movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Spock best exemplifies Aristotelian ethics. A logical alien from the planet Vulcan, Spock displays a perfect balance of the virtues proposed by Aristotle as he seems to have reached the golden mean in all facets of the scales and whose telos is logic and reason and his pursuit of the logical decisions guides his choices. Spock’s ethical mastery is displayed in the opening scenes of the movie as he prepares to risk his life to save the native inhabitants of an alien planet and comply with the prime directive. As Captain Kirk debates with Spock over whether or not they should save him, Spock makes a claim reflecting the Aristotelian virtuous ideals of magnanimity and courage, both of which are the golden
Torchwood’s third season “Children of Earth,” contains many momentous events which question human rationality, having good sagacity, judgment, and equanimity. Throughout these events two ethical philosophies unravel. The first philosophy, egoism, actions with solely one’s interests in mind, plays a major role in the season. Ethical egoists believe that one should look out for no one else but themselves, and a theory of psychological egoism states that whatever the reasoning is behind an action, the action is always an individual’s self-interest. The inconceivable enthralling events in the season are due to the 456’s yearning for ten percent of the children population. However, their request is not based upon a life-supporting necessity, but merely an egotistical longing for a pleasurable “high” the children supply them with. The second philosophy, utilitarianism, is based on Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility, actions which amplify happiness and diminish pain for the majority of people, play an essential role. To restrain the heinous act from occurring, Jack sacrifices his own grandson, Steven, to spare the lives of the other children on Earth.
This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Now with both of these normative ethical theories in mind, what will be presented in this paper is how does this portray to the movie, The Dark Knight. So before watching this movie, it has been decided that a thesis statement must be created. The thesis will be that the Dark Knight also known as Batman is a Utilitarian hero. Not seeing this movie before, it is unaware of what ethical theory category the Dark Knight will fall under. Therefore it will be a surprise either way with what kind of results that will be
Utilitarianism is defined to be “the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved” (Vaughn 64). In other words, for a utilitarian,