Utility Ratios And Moral Decision

This chapter surveys the components of ethical behavior—moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character—and introduces systematic approaches to ethical problem solving. We’ll take a look at four decision-making formats: Kidder’s ethical checkpoints, the SAD formula, Nash’s 12 questions, and the case study method. After presenting each approach, I’ll discuss its relative advantages and disadvantages.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

Therefore, by incorporating activities that promote class discussion, my students can potentially advance to higher levels of moral reasoning. When I first meet my students, I will introduce them to the Heinz Dilemma. Additionally, I will give them specific instructions stating that they are not to discuss the dilemma with anyone. Next, I will provide them with a survey of multiple choice and open-ended questions based on the Heinz Dilemma. Once again, the students will not be allowed to discuss their answers to the survey with their classmates. The results from this survey will provide me with my students’ initial level of moral reasoning. I will keep these initial surveys to reflect back on at the end of the

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.

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

Making decisions can go against human morals, a best friend, or personal values. First, one’s choices can go against human morals. In the “Titanic vs. Lusitania: How People Behave in a Disaster”, a team of behavioral economists explained the behavioral differences aboard the two ships and the likelihood of each individual class and gender surviving compared to the reference group, 35-year-old or older male or female in 3rd class. The passengers from both the Titanic and the Lusitania had to make a decision, try to evacuate the sinking boat in an orderly fashion or put all selflessness aside and only think for yourself. On the Titanic, some human morals were applied since the boat was sinking slowly, so children and mothers got onto the lifeboats first.

In the article, “Morality and Moral Philosophy,” the author, William K. Frankena, gives the reader an overview and definition of ethics. Frankena uses Plato’s dialogue as an example to illustrate “the sort of thinking” we ought to do when faced with a moral dilemma. The purpose of this article is to describe the nature of ethics or moral philosophy and to demonstrate the different approaches to thinking ethically in decision making. There are those who oppose the idea of thinking ethically about moral issues. One could argue that taking an ethical approach is not always the best answer to a particular problem. Ethics doesn’t always show the right answer to the problem. Others might say, however, that applying moral principles when making moral

Some individual are concerned that their concepts do not allow for moral dilemmas to have more than stability in mind. It is known to be somewhat concerning, that theories that allow for dilemmas failure to be uniquely action-guiding. “A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in two different ways, by suggesting incompatible actions in a situation or by not suggesting any action at all.” (McConnell2014)

Singer has presented a significant argument about the value of morality in human behavior. He states that human beings have a responsibility to ensure that they prevent bad things from happening when they do not have to sacrifice a comparable moral obligation. In addition, he points out the fact that children die from starvation to be an indication of the lack of morality in the world. In addition, he proceeds to state that the society can prevent the death of a lot of people by causing a significant drop in the consumption of luxurious items.

A spectre is haunting human civilization – the spectre of universal utilitarian ethics. At the quintessence of Peter Singer’s treatise lies a universal moral imperative, by which “one judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences.” In accordance with utilitarian thought, the nature of the “consequence” is gauged against a unit of utility; any action which contributes to an egalitarian distribution of the utility is thus moral. As Singer repeatedly calls on those in a position to donate money to do so for the sole purpose of saving children’s lives, the logical unity of utility which follows would be survival; any action which contributes to a more egalitarian distribution of human life would

The trolley issue features a central pressure between two schools of good idea. The utilitarian point of view manages that most fitting activity is the one that accomplishes the best useful for the best number. In the meantime, the deontological point of view affirms that specific activities – like killing a blameless individual – are quite recently wrong, regardless of the possibility that they have great outcomes. In the two forms of the trolley issue over, utilitarian's say you should give up one to spare five, while deontologists say you ought not.

During many years that question is being formulated and many scholars had a very difficult time to decide if it was possible to follow God’s will and the principle of utility maximization. The principle of utility maximization was a theory created by John Stuart Mill and presented in his book Utilitarianism (1863). Societies throughout the years have argued that those theories are hard to combine, since Utilitarianism seeks for self-development and God’s teachings seek for community growth. This paper will start with a context on actuality of society, then it will try to clarify what is the Bible view of Utilitarianism by explaining the principle of Utilitarianism, what society has to change

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.

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

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.