Utilitarianism is defined as ethic based on consequences. An act, either it is morally wrong or good is acceptable as long as the end outcome is greater. In this essay on utilitarianism, I would argue Peter Singer’s calculus preferences, equality is for all living being but sacrificing one for greater good is plausible. Counter argument of Immanuel Kant’s moral deontology claim, it is immoral to consider a human being as a means to an end. John Mills’ actions are right as long they promote happiness, wrong if they produce the opposite of happiness as the reply for the counter argument. In conclusion, I would ethically rectify my claim in supporting utilitarian argument.
Singer claimed that it is wrong to choose animals as research
…show more content…
Mill criticises categorical imperative, stating that it is basically the same as utilitarianism, since it involves calculating the good or bad consequences of an action to determine the morality of that action. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance, telling a lie in particular situation is good if telling that lie produces good consequences. As an example, lying to a rapist or a killer the location of the victim, an immoral action but for happier consequences for all.
However, a Kantian would argue against this view, pointing out that we have full control only over our motives, not the consequences of our actions, so our autonomous will can only approve or disapprove of motives. An ethics that focuses on consequences, then, is not based in the autonomy of the will.
In conclusion, although Kant shaped modern thought on moral decision-making, I’ve to disagree with his deontological system. Some circumstances are different as for my opinion consequence plays a major role in evaluating moral thoughts. A duty is not being ignored but, rather, outdone by the greater need.
Virtue is ethics based on character. Theory in which depends solely on the individuals themselves. In this essay on virtue ethics, I would argue Macintyre’s individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking. The two
Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.
When talking about ethics it is hard to distinguish between ethics and morality. It is also hard to distinguish exactly what realm of ethics contributes to my everyday decisions. Ethics can be defined as “well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues [and] ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards” (Andre, Shanks, & Velasquez, 2010, para. 8-9). According to Psychology Today (2013) morality is, “ethics, evil, greed, sin, and conscience” (para. 1). “Morals can vary from person to person and culture
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.
Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.
There is an ethical epidemic that is plaguing this world and it is called Human Trafficking. Human trafficking is a serious crime that violates common human rights by trading humans and forcing them to complete acts of coerced labor, or sex slavery. It is the 2nd largest criminal operation in the world next to the drug cartel and it is done to make money off these innocent lives (Ottisova, 2016). The illegal trade and exploitation of human beings for forced labor, prostitution and reproductive favors is unethical and unacceptable by our society because many United States organizations are starting to work together to stop these intolerable acts to end the suffering and pain.
Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and
In this paper, I will argue that Kant’s discussion of the will is not always practical because it is the consequences that actually matter, especially in certain situations. The main reason in support of this claim is that everyone is eventually caught in a situation where they have to choose between the lesser of two evils, which means that people should carefully think about all possible outcomes before making decisions.
In South Park, South Park illustrates normative ethics in society and people. The characters and scenarios are well scripted to categorize the three main theories of normative ethics; utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics. The show constantly displays the universal mindsets of multiple people within various situations and how one effects the other and the world. Majority of these scenarios, virtue ethics brings about the best results for those within the South Park community and the main characters. In the following, I will argue why virtue ethics is the most effective theory to always follow of all theories and how always following a utilitarianism and deontology approach can cause conflict within oneself and society.
Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,
Kant believes that all people come to moral conclusions about right and wrong based on rational thought. Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty. Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy in which the ends justify the means, or in which the morality of an action is determined by the function that follows the action. Although Utilitarianism has many good principals that are both logical and appealing, the contradictions of the philosophy make it incompatible with Christian ethics. The moral standards that utilitarianism is supposedly based on only work when a person doesn't consider the personal emotions that might hinder or get in the way of what the end result of the action is. The function may not be changed or diverted according to the philosophy. It also cannot change when someone does not think about the bigger picture in perspective to the function.
Virtue ethics is a theory that focuses on character development and what virtues one should obtain to be who they are supposed to be, as oppose to actions. An example of virtue ethics would be someone who is patient, kind, loving, generous, temperance, courage and flourishing as oppose to a person who lies, cheats, and