Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad.
Mill address that the morality of utilitarianism does not lie within the realms of merely individual satisfaction. On the contrary, it puts high morality on that action which reaps greater utility (usefulness) for the surrounding community or world at large, within the given context. Furthermore, the theory hold provision of differentiation between pleasures regarded to be of higher faculty and lower faculty. A distinguishing feature that the higher faculty of pleasure would gain to that on the latter is the desire which one would commit to regardless of the presence of discomfort. (‘Utilitarianism’ Sparknotes chapter2, part1, John Stuart Mill) Practical examples to this may include those of developing and/ or the practice of noble character.
When we act, whether or not we reach our ends that we intend to pursue, what we control is the reason behind those actions not the consequences of those actions. Kant presents the categorical imperative to pursue and establish the meaning of morality. Of the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, the second formulation is perhaps the most instinctively persuasive. However, in spite of its intuitive appeal, even the most basic elements of the second formulation are surprisingly unclear and even controversial. The objective of this paper is to offer a consistent account of these issues, while recognizing alternative interpretations that Kant talks about.
With optimism, it can fill in for respect in most ways, like looking at the positive at something or supporting something or someone. Optimism is better than respect not being respect, but better and helps in different ways of mental and social outcomes. Optimism still depends on a person’s opinions but doesn’t prioritize them as much as respect would. So, it still acts like a fill in for respect. So, on the bright side not all is lost without respect with optimism it can be better, and can help more than respect, having a better outlook on things can be good or with negativity it can balance it all out without respect.
While some are more alike than others, if any one of them was missing, the whole would feel incomplete. Together, the Great Round transcends simply the sum of its parts, it provides a visual framework for awareness to developmental universal experiences throughout our lives. Though the stages are, by definition, neutral, the color palate in each seems to tip one way or another in many of them. Stage one seems tainted negative, but withdrawing inward into one’s self to find and consider existential questions, is still neutral. Perhaps the negative feel reflects my own difficulty with uncertainty rather than a feeling of safety.
For non-formal notion of impartiality, humans may well hold to the supreme moral value which motivates us to regard others as ends in themselves not merely means. We do not steal the grain because such action would demean our humanity, we help others because never treat others merely means but ends, C2 is not merely a negative assertion, as the narrow formalists charge. The supreme value espoused in C2, is, then, not too formal to guide our action; it possesses concreteness or substantive matter that informs an impartial approach to
Definition: Intrinsic value is defined as a certain good that is worthwhile, not because it leads to the good of something else but for its own sake. The good in itself is recognised. Money for example can be a means to pleasure and some happiness but this is not evident in intrinsic value or good. Only states of consciousness can be intrinsically regarded as good. It also considers that certain beliefs or values are what they are.
To Schopenhauer, happiness cannot be understood if the elements of its ' absence are not understood. Many comprehend life to be a balancing act, that these elements equalize the fulfillment of want and desire with suffering and misfortune. The same individuals would then assume that life because it carries these harmonizing features, is positively good. Because many believe life is presented as "good", suffering bestows itself as an exception or aberration to the general rule of life whereas, Schopenhauer believes it to be the other way around. He believes that life is defined by pain, drudgery, calamity, desire and that the moments of pleasure and joy are the exception to life.
Being able to trust people is extremely important to our well-being and by committing to an act-utilitarian case by case evaluation method, people become less reliable and trustworthy. Rule-utilitarianism avoids this issue as they are are committed to rules which generate positive expectation effects which tells us how people are likely to behave. While rule-utilitarians do not deny that there are people who are not trustworty, it is clear that their moral code condemns violations of trust as wrongful rather than the act-utilitarian approach which supports the moral view that has the effect of undermining trust. We should, 'therefore accept rules against…breaking promises and violating people's rights because following them as a regular practice promotes general welfare' (Rachels,
Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable. However, if value realism is correct, then our epistemic access to value is much more puzzling. In Hill’s view, Kant does find moral knowledge puzzling and holds that epistemology is compatible with realism. Kant appears to claim that
Sometimes a friend has views that either do not agree with our own, or appear to not even be consistent with each other. In the case of Sarah and Jamie, utilitarian ethical standpoints are brought into question. Utilitarianism is “the doctrine that the rightness of actions is to be judged by their consequences” (Shafer-Landau 78, 2015). It is a form of consequentialism that examines the consequences of actions, and if those actions produce happiness and pleasure (overall, not just for one person) and minimizes the amount of suffering, then that action is correct and morally right. Typically to determine this, one would perform the Happiness Calculus for actions A and B, and whichever one produced the greatest amount of pleasure is the action