Philippa Foot Double Effect Definition

In some cases though, that’s not always true. Ender’s Game, a science-fiction book by Orson Scott Card, extremely contradicts it. The main character, Ender is manipulated into many terrible actions, while he has good morales and never intended to do these terrible things. He is portrayed as a good kids and one of the underlying themes convey that intentions mean everything, not the action. This has caused many controversial debates with many different views. For example, John Kessel has written a critical essay, Creating the Innocent Killer, about Ender’s game. Kessel’s essay works on all angles of Ender’s morality. The good

Each action we take as humans determines our personal character and ethical theories guide us and teach us right from wrong (Mosser, 2013).

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells tinned food that he knows contains a contaminant that will double the risk of stomach cancer. He sells the food nonetheless, with no identifiable victims and no certainty (Singer

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.

It is believed to be said that people commit crimes because of various reasons and aspects in their life. The community offers their citizens a secure and safe residence to live in. However, some argue that particular individuals are born with specific traits that determine how they react in a negative condition. Individuals make decisions in life that can lead them down the wrong path. An individual may choose to commit a crime, only looking at how it will benefit them. I also believe that people think before they commit any criminal activity. When an individual commits a crime, they act on their own free will. They’re aware of their consequences of their punishment. Also, people can commit crimes due to their society. Such conflicts arise

1. In Killing, Letting Die, and The Trolley Problem Thomson says, “Mrs. Foot thinks that if Edward does nothing, he kills five, and I agree with this: If a driver of a trolley drives it full speed into five people, he kills them, even if he only drives it into them because his brakes have failed.” (page 2323) This is incorrect as Edward is not the means to the man’s death. Nothing he does causes the death, he did not tamper with the breaks to cause them to stop working and run into the men. He also does not intend in any way to cause the killings. He does not want to murder the men on the tracks, he had no input on what was going to happen, no motivations. Therefore, how can it be his fault if he did not contribute to the means and he did

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”, Philippa Foot argues against Immanuel Kant, that morality exists in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives alone serve as moral commands, and it would be impossible for a moral system to be based on hypothetical imperatives because such imperatives serve as means to ends and result from maxims that cannot be universalized into perfect duties. Despite this, Foot holds that acting on many hypothetical imperatives can be morally praiseworthy and can even serve as the basis of moral judgments. Although I agree with Foot that hypothetical imperatives can have moral worth, in this paper, I will argue that a morality based on the purposes that hypothetical imperatives are directed toward appears to be circular. To do this, I will explain Foot’s theory of how morality is known and binds. Then, I will argue that this theory is insufficient to explain the moral purpose that hypothetical imperatives must be directed toward, thus begging the question of what is the moral basis of the purpose directed toward in the hypothetical imperative.

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument’s dependence on consequence. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells food that he knows contains a contaminant that doubles the risk of stomach cancer, yet he continues to sell the food. His lack of certain, identifiable victims does not render this

The doctrine of double effect if often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting good ends. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. The reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally (Uniacke 1984).

Here, Alex explains that goodness and badness in a human being is a natural trait and every human being needs free will to act according to their inborn trait. Nevertheless, such unbiased perception of free will becomes a problem when it is associated within the larger human society. Alex’s behaviour is a clear violation of the “harm principle” described by John Stuart Mill, which means that humans can engage in any action that does not harm anyone.

Occasionally situations arise where people believe that what they are doing won’t make a difference, yet, some claim that sometimes they should do these actions on a moral basis, in spite of this perceived lack of effect. Whether these situations are real, or imagined, it is important to consider them, as it gives us insight into the large importance our actions play into the collective morality of the society in which we operate. Imagined examples of situations where one morally ought to do something despite a perceived lack of potential effect might be participating in a rally, or as Socrates ponders, breaking out of prison . A good example of a situation where one could be considered morally obligated to do something despite there being

The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch

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).

Uttich and Lombrozo also studied the side-effect effect, but explained it differently than Knobe did. They said that the side-effect effect, the differences in ascribed mental states and traits pertaining to intentionality of an action, is due to the side effect’s norm status as opposed to moral status. They named this view the Rational Scientist view. While Knobe suggested the moral status of a side-effect influenced judgments on intentionality, Uttich and Lombrozo suggested that norm status is sufficient alone in producing the side-effect effect. Specifically, they said that norm-violating behavior that outweighs the reason to observe the norm is more informative in explaining intentionality of side effects compared to norm-conforming behavior. By default, people usually follow the norms, unless some sufficiently strong reason compels them to violate them. The Rational Scientist view is consistent with the Theory of Mind, in that internal states support explanation and prediction of behavior, but adds the vital role of norms in those predictions and explanations; moral norms affect Theory of Mind ascriptions by influencing mental state ascriptions.

Morality is an important component of a human being because it helps shape the ethical foundation that every human being has. Whether to be good, evil, honest, or deceitful are just some of the traits morality helps us develop. Thus, it is evident that morality is a crucial component of a human being. However, what ultimately drives moral action? This question is debated and investigated against many philosophers, a few of them being Thomas Hobbes, Frans de Waal, and David Hume.