BUSN3017 Topic 5

.docx

School

University of the Fraser Valley *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3017

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CommodoreAlligator3429

BUSN3017 Topic 5 Alexander Ho TQ5.1: Describe the difference between consequentialist and deontological ethical reasoning in your own words. Consequentialist and deontological ethical reasoning are two distinct approaches to moral decision-making. From a consequentialist perspective, I believe that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes. In essence, an action is right if it leads to the best possible results, often measured in terms of overall happiness or utility. This perspective resonates with utilitarian principles, emphasizing the greatest good for the most people. On the other hand, deontological reasoning suggests that actions can be morally right based on principles or duties, regardless of their outcomes. This means there are certain actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, irrespective of the consequences they produce. As I see it, deontological theories often revolve around moral rules or principles, such as the duty to tell the truth or the obligation to keep promises. While consequentialists focus on outcomes to determine rightness, deontologists emphasize the inherent nature of the action itself. For instance, from a deontological standpoint, I'd argue that lying is wrong, even if it leads to a beneficial outcome, because it violates a fundamental moral principle. TQ5.2: After reading the Knaus (2022) news article, try to identify any consequentialist and deontological reasoning being used in the article. Do you think the Australian War Memorial should accept money from Lockheed Martin? In the Knaus (2022) article, consequentialist reasoning is evident in concerns about the Australian War Memorial's (AWM) association with Lockheed Martin, especially given the company's involvement in nuclear weapons and its financial gains from warfare. The potential repercussions of AWM’s ties with such a company are underscored. On the other hand, deontological reasoning is highlighted by veterans and historians who believe that companies profiting from conflict shouldn't be linked to a memorial honoring war casualty, emphasizing the inherent wrongness of the act over its outcomes. As for the AWM accepting money from Lockheed Martin, it's a complex issue. While funds can aid the memorial's mission, the ethical implications of associating with an arms manufacturer must be weighed against potential benefits. TQ5.3: Throughout the lecture and tutorial we have covered lots of examples of deontological and consequentialist reasoning. Which approach do you tend to favour? Why might that be? I find myself leaning more towards consequentialist reasoning. The idea of evaluating actions based on their outcomes resonates with me. In everyday life, I often find myself making decisions by weighing the potential results.It also stem from living in a results-driven society. We're often rewarded based on outcomes, whether it's grades in school, performance in sports, or even feedback on social media. This constant feedback loop has perhaps conditioned me to think more about the end results of my actions rather than just the inherent rightness or wrongness of them.

TQ5.4: What does it mean to be an ‘ethical pluralist’? How might ethical pluralism be useful if you were trying to encourage people to act on the issue of climate change? Being an 'ethical pluralist' means recognizing and respecting that there are multiple valid moral perspectives and principles. Instead of believing that there's only one correct way to approach ethical dilemmas, an ethical pluralist understands that different situations might require different moral considerations. When addressing the issue of climate change, ethical pluralism can be incredibly valuable. Climate change is a global challenge that affects people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs. By embracing ethical pluralism, we can approach the issue from multiple angles, appealing to a broader range of moral principles. For instance, some might be motivated to act on climate change out of a duty to protect future generations (a deontological perspective), while others might be driven by the potential positive outcomes for the planet and its inhabitants (a consequentialist perspective). By acknowledging and leveraging these varied ethical standpoints, we can potentially resonate with a wider audience and encourage more collective action against climate change.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version