Do The Ends Justify The Means

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

In contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

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

Deontological ethics is concerned with actions, not consequences. To act with good intention but have a bad outcome is still moral. Similarly if the intention

When I first heard about the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", I thought it was just a reading assignment when I was in high school that I had to complete for a grade. As I began reading I became particularly interested in Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cells. In "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", Rebecca Skloot talks about Henrietta Lacks and how her cells were taken without her permission, and how her family suffered afterwards. Skloot shows how medicine and science were seen back in the 1950's compared to now.

explains the consequentialist as the idea of looks to the consequence of an action in order to evaluate it. Even if the intention of the action is wrong or violent someone’s right, the its result for the general good is still the focus. In the other hand, deontological is more about the idea of only right or wrong. There is no intention or consequence, just with the moralistic ethics. One example of contrast he used in the book is the idea of utilitarian. Utilitarian can be express in the prospect of consequentialist ethics, because it will look at individual situation and create a decision that will benefit the greater people. However, the same situation in the idea of deontological

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

A possible course of action is to accept the further promotion as a whole school, to enable access to new equipment and resources for all students and for Molly to be able to extend her talent.

Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary

Consequentialist: Focuses on the result of an action. The act is considered a good act if the result is good, likewise and act is considered bad if the result produced is bad. Under the consequentialist theory, we have Egoism and Utilitarianism.

For example, in Movie “the lone survivor”, the squad’s duty is to conduct a surveillance mission in Afghanistan. However, during the mission they discovered two local people. They have two option, and any option will result in different outcome. The first option is to kill them to ensure the mission success, in spite of those people are innocent. But, the outcome they will face is the condemnation, due to the murder. The second option is to let them go, based on the virtue and ideology from public opinion. However, the consequence they will suffer is to confront the attack and death threat from the Taliban, because of the report of those released people. It is related to the deontology and consequentialism. If you are a deontology, you will choose the second option. Contrarily, if you are a consequentialism, the first one will be your

Many people have heard of the question, “does the end justify the means?”, but what does it mean? This question can be answered on both sides as yes it does justify and no it does not justify the means. It all depends on the situation in hand. Were the steps to achieve the end good or bad? If the steps to the end were good then it justifies but if it was bad then it does not justify. So the answer to the question would be depending on the means to get there and the end results.

There are three main terms I will be referencing in this paper. The first is consequentialism. Consequentialism is, at heart, a framework

Proponents of deontological ethics do not consider consequences as important when determining whether an individual is moral or immoral. Morality is based solely on the person’s action. Several ethical theories are deontological theories.