Justification Of Moral Obligation On The Suffering Of People Close By Than That Of Those Far Away

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

So why are people like this? The world may never know but it can be assessed that maybe people just don’t want to have the responsibility of someone’s life on their hands. Like why would you? If you attempt to save them and fail then you are forever haunted by the memory of the look in that persons eyes when the light leaves them. If you succeed you are hailed as a hero and the crushing amount of attention that the media places on your head will crush you and eventually lead to your untimely demise at the hands of suicide or your loved ones finding you hanging from your second story banister, so either way it ends

When natural disasters hit an area, the only way to relieve major suffering is with the help of foreign aid. Major suffering from lack of food, shelter, and medical aid in developing countries is an easily avoidable dilemma. I will present you with Peter Singers’ Basic Argument regarding our moral obligation to relieve suffering that he presents in his paper “Famine, Affluence and Mortality”. There are two problems of spatial distance and shared obligations that help to show the universality of Singer’s Prevention-Principle. Then there are three questions Kekes asks Singer in his paper “On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine” regarding the Prevention-Principle. He displays potential problems for the current principle as described by Singer. The revised version of the principle, after considering the problems, does not support Singer’s original conclusion. In Affluent Countries we should drastically change our moral conceptual schemes and give up luxuries to provide aid to those in developing nations.

Morality, thus, should not be contingent upon conditions or expectations of reciprocity nor should it exclude personal feelings such as love, as it is particularly this characteristic that prevents one from alienation. Railton believes that subjective consequentialism, which requires one to perform before-action deliberate to yield the best consequence, is what produces alienation causing not only “psychological affliction” on oneself, but also to others (137). So, when moral actions become the means for yet another end, one is not acting for the good as an end in itself. Acknowledging the misconception–utilitarian understanding–of consequentialism, Railton expounds upon “sophisticated consequentialism,” which is objective consequentialism in form, but does not endorse subjective consequentialism, leaving space for other forms of decision-making such as love (153). In essence, sophisticated consequentialism is developing dispositions that, ultimately, lead to good, so that one can “allocate” time efficiently, and at the same time able to justify or judge one’s action based on universal morality

Jeanna Bryner, the managing editor of Live Science relinquished an article called “Human Suffering: Why We Care (or Don’t)” in order to explicate the different factors that affect our decisions in availing or not. One of the fascinating reasons mentioned was “To make any difference in Darfur… a person would have to make a much longer-term commitment that could be quite taxing, physically and monetarily.”(par. 17). Bryner expounded that in order to avail others, we need to give up an abundance of time in our lives, and not everyone can do that. Availing others can additionally be hazardous, for example, if we wanted to avail people in Darfur who are under a perpetual genocide, we might have to peregrinate there and there’s an immensely colossal chance of losing our lives. A plethora of times it is physically arduous to avail others. To us the benefit of staying home with our families and having a stable life largely affects our decision of availing others. All those societal factors make us act nonchalant to human suffering, but they are not the only reasons to why we act the way we do.

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.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which seeks to maximize welfare and utility by defining any given situation as right and wrong depending solely on its outcome, yet while utilitarian thinking does in fact accomplish its goal of creating a universal moral code, it does so at the expense of freedom, oftentimes even going against moral instincts. For that reason, utilitarianism works well up to a certain point before it becomes unreasonable. The point where utilitarian thinking becomes unreasonable may be seen in the contrast between The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, the terrorist dilemma, the trolley problem, and the surgeon dilemma. The people of Omelas sacrifice the well-being of one child in order to give happiness to thousands of citizens,

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.