Bernard Williams Morality

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

In Normative Ethics there are three distinct schools of thought, and each differentiate through moral intentions. Consequentialism relies on the consequences of an action in order to distinguish whether or not something is morally acceptable. Deontology considers the morality of an action by one’s reason for doing a certain deed. Lastly, virtue ethics bases morality off of virtuous character, and how a virtuous person would act given a certain predicament. Ultimately, consequentialism provides the most practical explanation for morality due to the notion of providing the best possible result. Contrarily, deontology and virtue ethics do not always provide an individual with the most sensible course of action, and therefore prove to be

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

Contextualizes and explains our example: Brian Williams was a chief news anchor and managing editor for NBC Nightly News. He has earned many awards in journalism as well as recognition in the entertainment field. In 2003, Brian Williams,was reporting on the U.S invasion in Iraq. In this expose, he flew in 1 of 4 helicopters and one helicopter, the one directly ahead, was hit with an RPG requiring a forced landing. However, in 2013, Williams went on a late night news show and blatantly stated that his helicopter was also hit; which was not true.

Question 1: Williams thinks that the doctrine of negative responsibility, which follows from the principle of utility, undermines personal integrity. Do you agree that being held responsible for the consequences of not acting, of failing to prevent something, will (always or sometimes) erode the idea of personal integrity? Is there any way to be a utilitarian and still respect the integrity of individuals?

“People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet?” (Moseley) An egoist would argue that one acts for one’s own self. More specifically, an ethical egoist is one who thrives to improve ones own self being, with much respect to morality. Ethical Egoism is the theory that one should pursue his or her own interest above all the rest. It is the idea that all persons should act from their own self interest in relation to morality.

Wonderful, short, summary of the views applicable to this case, and the defense for the view that you hold most. However, I believe that there is more to the Christian-principle based view of ethics, than what you give credit for. According to Arthur F. Holmes’ book, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, one would find that the Christian view holds four tenants, or ideas, to shape the understanding of ethics, in which these views are: cases, area rules (moral rules), principles, bases (theological and philosophical). Thereby, one must go through these four sets of criteria to figure out if an action is right or if it is wrong. Following this line of logic, and if one were to look in the Bible for the answers, one would find torture is not right.

Ethical Egoism is a normative theory which focuses on individualistic consequences (Burgess-Jackson, 2013). Everyone is said to be motivated by their own self-interest, as it is their moral obligation to do what is best for themselves (Rachels, 2003). How an individual ought to behave is determined by whether the action creates the highest net utility for themselves (Rachels, 2003). In Thomas

Williams has a recurring gripe with the ideas of utilitarianism. He believes that in making a utilitarian decision one must forget his integrity, for in making his decision, it is not his personal reputation which takes priority.

On the other hand, ethical egoism is a theory that prescribes moral obligation, where all people should be motivated out of self interest (Rachels, 2003, p. 70). This means that every person ought to act in a way that is best for him/herself. Ethical egoism claims that it is moral for all of an individual’s actions to be based on self-interest, without concerning him/herself with the interests of others. In fact, this thought may be continued by stating that altruism is, therefore, personally hindering and even demeaning (Brink, 1997, p. 122). Hence, ethical egoism must consequently mean that actions taken in an individual’s self-interest are moral actions, and actions taken that are not self-beneficial to an individual are immoral and should, as a result, be avoided.

In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.

Ethical egoism claims that all our actions can be reduced to self-interest. This is a controversial moral theory which sometimes can be detrimental. Without a well-defined framework of the nature of self-interest, ethical egoism enlarges the animalistic nature of humanity in which can result in unfavorable consequences. Ethical egoism also fails to provide a solution when a conflict of interest arises. By only acting out of one’s self

In Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Bernard Williams aims to question the figure of the amoralist. The amoralist can be characterized as a person who, regardless of acknowledging the world’s claims of moral considerations, does not possess these sensitivities himself. Furthermore, the foundational values of morality, which direct—for the most part—the actions of others, do not influence the amoralist’s judgments similarly. When Williams addresses the amoralist, he wants to show how someone might be able to convince another individual who is insensitive to moral concerns to be swayed in hopes of look at morality as a way of decision-making.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.