Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for. AU is an ethical theory credited largely to Jeremy Bentham. AU attempts to assign every action a value, or utility.
the answers to new scientific questions we can expand our knowledge. However it is the questions that we cannot answer that which are remembered most prominently in history and that inspire films and literature, for example what is beauty? This essay will discuss whether all questions can have a definite answer and whether having a definite answer makes a question more or less important. Judgments of fact are the only one which can have definite answers; they can be proven true or false.
with the condition one does not harm another individual (Mill 11). However, the definition of harm is vast, and could range from murder or rape to insulting an individual’s feelings. To account for this, Mill specifies what constitutes harm. In this essay, I will consider Mill’s interpretation and definition of harm. Mill argues harm is unwelcome and discernible damage against an individual, through injury, imprisonment, monetary loss, or slander (Mill 81). This definition goes beyond simple physical
Bill Gates founded Microsoft, but his foremost important ethical contributions have come from his charitable work as a business-man. Mr. Gates achieved the success as a philanthropist after Microsoft became a multi-billion-dollar corporation. The success of his corporation made Gates the wealthiest individual in the world. His contribution in the charitable work makes Bill Gates one of the utmost ethical leaders of this modern generation. There a several means that leadership might be evaluated.
Rules and Exceptions One of the factors which have led many philosophers to adopt a more or less sceptical attitude in moral philosophy has been the recognition that most rules have exceptions. This has commonly been regarded as a threat to the entire moral enterprise. How can a philosopher even attempt to find an account of the moral relations that obtain among things which will weave them into the unity of a stable system if every principle, every rule, every judgment has to be qualified by
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”1 Introduction In an increasingly globalised world, governments control ever-greater proportions of our economy. Increasing longevity means greater requires increasing taxation for the majority. This essay seeks to analyse taxation current, and proposed, and perhaps, where relevant, insights into mediocre utilitarian2 views, a thinking man’s deontological3 approach, and the virtuous approach; and also tax avoidance and evasion. We also deal with non-natural
Primate Virtues: A Cross-species Study of Morality In his 1881 book, Daybreak, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, We do not regard the animals as moral beings. But do you suppose the animals regard us as moral beings? –An animal which could speak said, ‘Humanity is a prejudice of which we animals at least are free’. This passage expresses Nietzsche’s belief that animals do not judge human actions as morally good or bad. Only humans think in moral terms, Nietzsche believes –a prejudice of