If helping a person would prevent your own self-interest, this would seem to make it morally permissible for a person to perform harm to others in situations where their self-interest would benefit from the action. But, an egoistic must act with one’s own eternal self-interest, therefore they are not just individuals who believe that they should always do what they like when they like because acting in accordance with this would not necessarily benefit the person in the long term. When we say that a person should do something, we are also implying is that they are capable of doing the action, but we cannot expect people to do things that they cannot do. Ethical egoism comes in two forms and they are act-egoism and rule-egoism. Act-egoism is the
Hence, a police officer’s duty then is to do the right act as approved by moral standards. Therefore, deontological ethics are duty based. Non-consequentialist ethics are divided into two standpoints; act non-consequentialism and rule non-consequentialism. Act non-consequentialism or intuitionism is described as the act of following one’s intuition in order to determine the morality in a particular situation. However, rule non-consequentialism explains that people should follow the rules that are the basis of morality where the consequences are given less importance.
Consequential ethics does not focus on individuals and their values, but on trying to work together and compromise in a world where there is much uncertainty and differing views to achieve the greatest good possible. There is a major emphasis on working together as a whole, results, effects, and the future in Consequentialist ethics. In this school of ethics, it is important to understand that most other people have definitions of what it means to work towards a common good, even though it may differ from our view. Instead of using “right” and “wrong”., the words “good” and “bad” are used in Consequentialist ethics. The text then goes on to examine the school of Deontological or duty-based ethics.
Also, people shouldn’t take things for granted and know their actions will have consequences. The way F. Scott Fitzgerald uses the green light and Dr. T.J. Eckleburg’s eyes in The Great Gatsby helps the themes of hope and morality become understandable. Like Jim Yong Kim said “Hope is a moral choice,” and if individuals grow up with being taught to be hopeful, they might not be driven for success because they are just waiting around hoping on their own behalf. People need to start realizing their actions have fateable outcomes. Otherwise, all they have unfulfilled hopes and
[concluding sentence] Because of these behaviors in certain situations, how exactly would this law be enforced? It would be a waste of time. First of all, as with other laws, numerous people can’t recall or some wouldn’t know that a bystander law was legislated. Furthermore, since people may not think of the law as their initial response, they might not even help victims at all. In fact, the authorities would have to find and prove that a specific person was a bystander in any given situation.
There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.
Guilt and innocence only matter if someone has the ability to stop themselves from carrying out their desires. If life has determined a person to make that choice no matter what, then how can anyone blame another person or find them guilty of that act? Society can disagree with their actions, but society cannot blame them for it. Basically, a criminal justice system in a society with no free will would be redundant. It would be an illusion of justice.
So, if people were not subordinate, there’d be no need to seek rewards or avoid punishment. This would allow people to break the law, not follow simple instructions, and break any rules set upon them. Further, this would stop them from doing their job or behaving correctly if there were no rewards or punishments. However, complete obedience may not be beneficial for society either. If every person in society did everything they were told to do by a superior, the results would most likely turn out not as expected.
Accidental knowledge also carries an ethical responsibly even the person has no intention to want to know about it. Accidental knowledge can happen anywhere and anytime and it will constantly test our ethical responsibility. There are many arguments about not helping the person that has a relationship with the accidental knowledge. The ethical responsibility of accidental knowledge can be differed by different perspectives. People who believe accidental knowledge carries an ethical responsibility says it is not moral if we don 't help others that is directly related to the accidental knowledge.
This course of action cannot simply be justified through consequentialist views such as the DDE, where the overall outcome is the only important decision factor. Non-consequentialist factors are of equal importance in the morality of an action. When viewing MacAskill’s cases and his response to the harm-based objection, it is important to consider the non-consequentialist, right-based theory of Libertarianism that maintains if an act violates a right, then it is morally wrong; individual rights are a fundamental element in deeming an action morally permissible. Libertarians do not focus on consequences when evaluating actions, instead believing that rights are so important that they must not be violated even to produce better consequences. This belief goes directly against the DDE, which evaluates an action solely based on the consequences produced.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
177, par 2). De George also claims that there must be strong evidence that making the case public will prevent the threatened serious harm (cite). He says this so that the harm that the engineer might be exposed to will not be greater than the benefits of coming forward with the information. This is a consequentialist way to approach things because it focuses only on harm that can be prevented (mentioned in class). It overlooks the good that can be done for victims and their families by bringing the injustice to light.