Jeremy Brett

The narrator “stared hard at the shot of the cathedral on the TV. How could I even begin to describe it? But say my life depended on it. Say my life was being threatened by an insane guy who said I had to do it or else” (Carver 36). The narrator describes the event before just fine, with the skeletons and people dressed as the devil, but he struggles with the cathedral. It was unobtainable for him to do it, he was speechless. This is key because the narrator says he couldn't even do it if his life

The complexity of the Trolley problem is one that can be resolved by unravelling the concept itself and considering the multipe possible analogies, the use of which is very important in the understanding and answering of ethical questions such as the Trolley problem . The trolley problem mainly deals with the law in relation in to morality, how public policy dictates or influences legality. Finding the most ethical solution to the problem is what is required of those who dare undertaking solving

These pleasures do not last and are not worth pursuing to the extent in which we are pursuing them currently. The idea of Utilitarianism, and the greatest happiness principle were developed by philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, and even has lineage back to Epictetus, utilitarianism coincides with the greatest happiness principle. The idea is that you should act in a way that would generate the majority of overall happiness, and focus on the

The moral framework I tend to personally abide by is act utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical concept that the actions that lead to the most pleasure are moral and good, whereas those that lead to pain are an immoral evil (Boss 23). When making decisions, I contemplate the advantages and disadvantages of each option presented before acting upon it. In addition, I consider those who would possibly be affected by my decision both positively and negatively. Like utilitarianism, I choose the

Traditional Utilitarianism: Based on the traditional utilitarianism, founded by philosophers and political radical, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, they declare that an action is ethical if it maximizes utility/benefits, pleasure, and happiness over harms. In order to take a decision, they assume that decisions are quantifiable where we can add the quantities of benefits produced, then subtract from the quantities of harms the action will produce. Based on their philosophy of utilitarianism

Animal Rights: A Case for Animal Intelligence Starting in the 17th century, enlightenment philosophers contemplated animal consciousness and its subsequent implications on animal rights. Descartes viewed animals as a modern-day machine: organic beings that only act instinctually. Thus, Descartes critically distinguished humans and animals based on their respective capacity for reason: since animals supposedly lack the ability to learn, they forego fundamental human rights. However, animal mind philosophy

Chapman Evans Dr. Jarrod Brown Law, Morality, and Philosophy 9.22.17 The Ethical Dilemma of the Death Penalty as Viewed From a Utilitarianist and a Deontologist Viewpoint There are many ethical issues that beset our society in this day and age. This paper will discuss the ethological dilemma of the death penalty from the perspective of the philosophical outlooks of Utilitarianism and Deontology, present arguments in light of both, and proceed to show why Deontology offers the best insights into the

the fact was illustrated through “Panopticism” that surveillance, discipline, and power are the requirement for a society to survive. In his essay Panopticism in Discipline & Punish, Michel Foucault introduces the Panopticon structure, the idea of Jeremy Bentham that is no communication between prisoners to each other to demonstrate a disciplinary mechanism, power, and surveillance which society uses to tend toward by the first example with a description of measures of control people when the plague

What would you do if given the opportunity to take one unwilling person’s life to save five other people’s lives? Would you do it? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would give you strongly contrasting opinions. A person should not kill another to benefit five others. It would be a wrong thing to do, but Mill would disagree. Kant believed that good intentions count and that the morality of an action is determined by the intentions behind it rather than its consequences. Kant says that the consequences

INSERT HOOK The topic of animal liberation is not typically an object of discussion. Most likely because people don’t understand what animals need to be liberated from. Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher. Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” offers a fascinating view on how humans perceive themselves in comparison to animals. The article examines the tyranny of humans over animals (non-humans). Singer believes humans need to expand their moral horizons so that the mistreatment of animals is