Richard Corry A Dilemma Of Consumer Responsibility Summary

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 his article "Vegetarianism and the Other Weight Problem", James Rachels argues that meat eating is immoral and it is a moral duty to be vegetarian. In order to discuss the problems and come up with his conclusions, Rachels considers two arguments for vegetarianism.

In the Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer, expert in Applied Philosophy and Bioethics, addresses controversy head-on by unraveling public misconception about meat consumption, bringing critical attention to how the animals are treated before they are killed, as conscious beings that share the planet with us. He points to the grocery store and the meat aisle where animal meats are purchased that give imagery of spacious ranches and animals grazing on grass peacefully in lush pastures. In fact, this is not the case at all. The lives the animals lead prior to being butchered are brutal, tortured existences, of unimaginable grief, that no living being capable of conscious thought on any level, great or small, should ever endure. Singer illustrates, that meat manufacturers don’t want the public to know this is the case, spending more than 11 billion dollars per year in deceptive advertisement, to convince the public otherwise, obscuring the horrible truth. This selfish, greedy advertising leads Americans to follow the Standard American Diet (SAD), characterized by high consumption of animal-based products, like meat, eggs, and dairy, high in fat and excess protein, consumed in larger than needed portions, more often than needed, paving the way to heart disease, high blood pressure, low energy, and unhealthy living, while meat producers rake in revenue. Singer asks his audience to reconsider the foods they eat, providing valuable insight into why they eat these foods, and

For centuries, meat is one of the major and popular food consumed by the human being. Apart from eating the meat, we rarely take the time to consider about the process involved to ensure that the meat reaches our table. “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace makes readers think of the little-known topic of animals rights, which is clearly explained to bring the whole picture concerning the violation of animal rights. In this essay, a general picture is explored by the ways in which the creatures have to undergo the violation of humans before they end up in the mouths of the consumers. Surely, the animals used for food also have rights, so they should be treated in a more ethical manner.

Ironically, act consequentialists recognize that their theories may not be good for making individual decisions but maintain that their larger conception of morality is legitimate and even superior. They assert that even if rule consequentialism is a better way to make decisions is may not diagnose the rightness of acts correctly because it can only offer decontextualized suggestions about morality, not contingent analysis. Hooker argues that “morality is to be understood as a social code, a collective enterprise” (p. 289) and that were society to internalize a broad a set of moral rules the net production of good would increase as we would have a universal understanding of how to act. However, Hooker is quick to clarify that simply because the code would be so widespread would not invalidate personal conviction towards action. He believes that there is a fuzzy balance inherent to rule consequentialism that allows us to balance abstract theory and generalizations with deeply held beliefs. A morality that both constrains but is also informed by our desires is thus not only more appealing and honest but also more productive of

My essay is going to look at the claim do we have a freedom of choice in Consumer Society , and is it characterised by different concepts or is it by choice we shop and do things in certain ways.

This activity conflicts with the standards of temperance morals, obligation morals and consequentiality morals. According to consequentialism whether a demonstration is correct or wrong relies upon the consequences of the demonstration. The demonstration

The argument for the humane treatment of animals is one that has gained massive attention in the past decade. More and more people are becoming aware of how animals are mistreated in the meat industry and demanding there be change. However, companies are still afraid to make any changes, since they are wary if it will be beneficial to them or not. In “The Imminent Poultry Market of the Future”, I set out to prove to American supermarkets, such as King Soopers, that switching to ethically raised poultry would be beneficial to them since it would comply with consumer demands, promote a positive company image, and overall bring a greater profit. The purpose of this claim was to influence supermarkets to switch to ethically raised meats, therefore forcing major meat producers to change the ways in which they raise their livestock. In order to convince my audience of the benefits of ethically raised chickens, I made a series of different rhetorical choices that would help to prove my claim to American supermarkets.

As with any moral theory, numerous objections have been made about the usefulness of consequentialism. Here I will present some objections that consequentialism needs to address in order to adequately handle issues of environmental ethics. The first objection that is often raised is the calculation objection, and it goes as such: Consequentialism states that an action is right if and only if performing that action would bring about the best consequences. However, due to our limited knowledge of the effects our actions will have, it can be very difficult to determine what action will in fact bring about the best consequences. The calculation objection focuses on this, arguing that to determine through

Deriving the ethicality of actions from both the compliance with the rules and the consequences that result from the actions is the basis of rule-consequentialism. First, it is pertinent that the value of a rule is determined, in order to determine whether the value of an action is enough to surpass it. Value, as defined by Hugh LaFollette and Ingmar Persson in their book The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, can be measured by the presence of pleasure and absence of pain, or the fulfillment of one’s desires (238). This view offers two options for determining whether a rule is ethical: as the rule can be judged by it’s ability to inhibit pain and enable pleasure, or the ability to promote the fulfilment of people’s desires.When discussing

Given the situation, readers would consider reading this article, but, like always, including context in an article is essential when the audience may be unfamiliar with the main ideas, key topics, and/or with the topic in general. All meat eaters, meat lovers, and Earth lovers are part of his intended audience for this article; however, throughout his article, he implies that they lack the knowledge of why exactly eating meat is harming the Earth. As proof, he makes it known that “for many years we [intended audience included] have focused on human behavior as it affects our health or how it affects animal welfare. Today, we now understand that human behavior is changing the environment” (Lyman). That human behavior is eating meat, a claim many individuals do not know about. Additionally, relating to why eating meat is threatening to the preservation of the Earth, he states that “we hear almost nothing about methane which is 23 times as destructive as CO2, most of it coming from livestock production” (Lyman), which is another indicator that the audience is unfamiliar about effects of eating meat. In order to combat the audience’s unfamiliarity with the subject, Howard Lyman effectively uses logic backed by his credibility to appeal to the audience’s emotions. He does so by

In this essay, I will argue that we ought to ban the manufacturing of beef. The consumption and manufacturing of beef has been a leading cause of climate change over the years as it has led to a considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which has led to human suffering. Statistics have shown that greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock industry approximately account for 15 percent of the global total, greater than direct emissions from the transport industry. (Bailey et al. page 2) Thus, if banning the manufacturing of beef can help with lowering greenhouse gas emissions, in turn leading to a more sustainable future, then society is morally required to take action. I come to this conclusion using the ethical approach of Anthropocentrism. I will raise an opposition to my argument based upon one primary claim: beef should not be banned because the manufacturing of beef could arguably cause more harm than good to people. As a result, we should not take such an action that would harm human beings as that would be morally wrong. However, I will show that this objection fails because although it might have short term societal human suffering, in the long run there would be more harm

So should the cost-benefit analysis be the only deciding factor? David Fisher argues in his writing regarding virtues and consequences, “Despite its proud record of social reform, consequentialism has been under sustained attack in recent years from both deontologists/moral absolutists, who hold that fundamental to morality are absolute moral rules… ” The author acknowledges that there is significant credence to the idea that there are absolute moral rules.

Americans tend to have standards for the food we eat. For example, it must be clean, the right size, and not bruised just to name a few. Yet, we all waste food daily as if it were meaningless to us. However, if we saw someone kill an animal and just leave it without making the most of it, it’s considered a cruel and possibly even a criminal act. So I am asking you what is the difference, if there is one? France launched an advertising campaign that was created by Intermarché, entitled “The Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables”. I chose this particular video because it utilizes many, if not all of the rhetorical tools. In this rhetorical analysis we will take an in-depth look at the rhetorical appeals, the triangle, and the canons that this advertising campaign forgoes.

Based on the definitions given in round one, we see this debate rests on ethics. That is, whether the individual or society is “ethically paramount.” Thus, it should be obvious that the framework for this debate could only reasonably be set on how morality is determined. Once determined all that is left is to apply ethics to our question.