The Ship Has Full Authority

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

Consequentialism is determining whether actions are justified based on the consequences of the action. Singer’s approach of utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, is deepened by arguing that the consequences of the action for all life that is able to perceive pleasure or pain must be taken into account in determining whether the action is right or wrong. Deontology takes a different approach to how actions are determined just. According to Regan’s view, an action is not considered right or wrong based on the consequence of the action, but on the action itself, referring to “moral rules and duties” (p.29). Regan focuses on the intrinsic value that pertains to animals and argues that since they have intrinsic value it is morally wrong

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.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

In this situation, I would have sided with Dudley and Stephens. I believe they have come to a moral course of action through the use of utilitarianism and fairness. Furthermore, they recognize that inaction would cause injury and death to all crew members which is a violation individual rights. By violating a single member’s individual rights, the remaining crew may survive. This is a more logical choice than to let everyone suffer and die together while a viable solution can be reached with minimal harm. That said, if I were to be put in this situation it’s impossible to know if I would feel the same then as I do now. This scenario, while a solid ethical exercise, is one I hope to never encounter. People who have endured things similar to this are forever changed by their experiences and

In this bibliography, Julia Driver approaches the reader with the philosophy of utilitarianism, she also describes to us about how the traditional utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would describe utilitarianism to be identified with what is good, bad, and pleasurable. Julia Driver has been widely recognized for her work in philosophical ethics, she has received young scholar awards from Cornell’s University programs in philosophy. I will use Julia’s views, and thoughts to help sustain my argument, that the utilitarian approach provokes moral assessment and ethical decision-making. Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Michael Meyer. " Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics."

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 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

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

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

Rule consequentialism holds that “any code of rules is to be evaluated in terms of how much good could be reasonably accepted to result from the code” (Hooker, 2013, p. 428). Portmore (n.d.) explains that rules are quite clear-cut and the ones defined are those that are believed to result in the best consequences. However, if it is judged that following a rule will result in disastrous consequences, then the rule can be violated to achieve the best consequence. Act

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

Utilitarianism is defined by the consequences of actions, not the act’s moral or intrinsic value. Jordin (2009, p. 17) states, “Where deontological theories thus talk more in terms about what is right, consequentialist theories are more concerned with the good.” Moral worth is determined by its ability to produce the most amount of good for the greatest number. Here, the ends justify the means.

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

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.