Mary Bernard Williams's Objections To Consequentialism

Overall, deontology is based upon not just by following universal rules or performing what is ought to do, but by respecting human beings as rational beings as well. Deontology judges the ethical motive of an action not by its consequences, merely by the reasoning behind it.

Deontology or also know as Deontology ethics is an approach that is taken that determines the goodness and rightness of a specific act or rules and duties that a specific person has to perform. Deontology is the complete opposite of consequentialism. Consequentialism is the where the outcome of an act has a major influence and not the actual act itself. In better words it is what comes after the action that is made and not the action itself. As for deontology an action can be considered right or something acceptable even if the outcome of the action is something bad. A perfect example for deontology would be “ do onto others what you would have them do onto you.” This is just something that

Deontology is an ethical position that examines the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to rule or rules. Many times is described as obligation or rule based ethics (Alexander). Therefore, the only actions that are considered moral are those that are performed solely for one’s duty to the moral law rather than one’s desire. Deontology is the school of thought that Kant comes from. Immanuel Kant was a critical figure in philosophy in the modern age. His work was the foundation of the most famous form of Deontology.

The deontological ethics approach believes that an individual has an obligation to follow the well-defined set of laws or rules. Religion and society set the rules and laws that influence individual’s code of behavior regardless if the decision can increase suffering as predicted, as long as the individual adheres to the law. This belief often gives higher emphasis on a code of laws over personal morals of a person. One example is the fishing industry; we catch fish in the ocean inflict suffering on different species, but it provides food for the people. The method may seem unethical by killing a living creature, but deontological ethics justifies the process based on moral code that is more beneficial to the society.

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

While thorough, Marquis’ argument oversimplifies the comparison between the immorality of killing an innocent adult and the (supposed) immorality of killing a fetus; thus, he erroneously commits moral equivalency. Marquis equates these two creatures on the premise that both share the sufficient feature that makes killing wrong: the loss of a future of value. However, the conclusion that follows, that having an abortion is as wrong as killing an innocent adult, is not sound. Marquis neglects important considerations that make these actions morally distinct, and is therefore guilty of using a false analogy. Arguably the most morally relevant difference between these individuals, is that an adult is an autonomous being, whereas a fetus is fully dependent on the mother. Therefore, abortion is a two-person issue, and as such, we cannot evaluate a singular future-of-value as we would in an instance of an adult’s murder.

In this reading “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” Bernard Williams discusses Utilitarianism: actions that produce moral good and how personal integrity is more affected than justice. Williams also discusses Consequentialism and uses two examples of negative responsibility to justify his reasoning.

Consequentialism refers to the idea that what is morally good or bad is all based on the consequences of one’s actions. It is derived from the Theory of Right Action which is a part of

Consequentialism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results. If you are trying to do harm, when you had the chance to do good, then you are to blame, even if your action manages to maximize well- being. If you intend a kindness, then you are to be praise, even if, through no fault of your own, your action fails and only misery results. Regardless of her intention, Lauren did morally right thing, but she don’t get any credit for

When studying a topic such as ethics, it forces you to search within yourself so that you may grasp the concepts of feelings that you have had your entire life. You knew what the feelings and emotions meant, but you never really understood why you felt the way that you did. Consequentialism relates to actions being “right” as long as they are beneficial consequences. Some believers of consequentialism see nothing wrong with even torture if something good comes out of it. If the outcome of a policy or practice is beneficial and it outweighs the harm done, then it calls be looked at as a “good” policy or practice (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). This perspective almost parallels the position of those individuals who believe that the “war on drugs”

For example, many would agree that stealing is bad. In general, stealing another person’s things is wrong because it causes another person pain, and results in negative consequences for the person being stolen from. In most normative theories, the theory would come to the conclusion that stealing is wrong, but where act consequentialism differs is that sometimes it would be considered to be morally permissible, if the circumstances held it to be. An example of this, going from the stealing scenario, is if it was a very poor person, on the edge of starvation, stealing stale bread from a very wealthy man so that he could stay alive, many would say this is a morally permissible action, because it would bring the starving man much more pleasure than it would the wealthy man pain. The consequences would be a man staying alive, versus a man losing bread that he would have thrown out anyways.

The two things that interest me in this week’s lesson is the friendship objection and the integrity objection. If I had a friend that was a consequentialist they would have a problem with certain aspects of our friendship. For example, say Christmas is in two weeks, my consequentialist friend is going to go to the mall to look for me a gift. I have already gotten my consequentialist friend a gift for Christmas that they have been asking for. The consequentialist friend has saved up $30 to get me some perfume that I have been wanting from the Macy’s Department store. Upon entering the store there is a volunteer from the Salvation Army ringing a bell to get people to donate money for people that are in need this holiday season. My consequentialist

Deontological ethics are based on moral obligations, duties and rights. Rules are to guide decision making in deontological ethics. Deontological ethics have a more individualistic focus, as individuals are supposed to be treated with respect and dignity (Sexty, 2011, 7).

Deontology is an ethical theory that is also referred to as Kantiaism, based on the written teachings of a German philospher Immanuel Kant (Burkhardt, 2014, p. 44). According to Burkhardt, deontology is based on the action of the act itself, not the consequence of the act. So to say the doctors removed the tumor for the greater good would outweigh that the patient had postsurgical complications. It was seen as good at the time.

John Stuart Mill, known for his writing on consequentialism, would be one of those critics. Consequentialism is the idea that “…whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences” (Sinnott-Armstrong). Mill might reason that, if I made a choice based on what would achieve the greatest good, my philosophy would be indifferent from his. While I agree that the morality of certain decisions is contingent on the outcome, I differ from Mill in asserting that this is not the only or most imperative criteria for moral reasoning. Instead, I would concur with Aristotle that virtue precedes any question of action. Who you are is more important than what you choose to do. Furthermore, happiness is, in my mind, not the only end. This directly contradicts Mill’s argument at “happiness is…the only thing desirable” (Mill). The second, and more direct, critic of my philosophy would be William Ross who might argue that an emphasis on outcome is misguided. Instead, he would say that a person should make morality judgments based solely on what ought to be done, without regard to consequence (Ross). Our ideas arrive at an apparent conflict on these grounds. I consider it naïve to see the world in black and white, as I believe questions of right and wrong are seldom as easy as we would like them to be. Moreover, I believe that the character and virtue of an individual is dynamic in nature and capable of dealing with unique