The first ethical theory is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on actions that show right from wrong. In the story the Utilitarianism, is choosing which would benefit the most to the most people. This theory would conclude that it was the best choice to take Henrietta Lack’s cells and distribute them all over like they did in the story. The utilitarianism would benefit much more on the decision that the doctor made then a negative decision, which is based on consequences.
By using utilitarian moral principles we can argue the case from a different perspective. Utilitarianism holds that an action that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. As long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone. Utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion when holds a greater outcome for many. This theory creates controversy in business ethics in case of this corporation’s obligations to society.
My insight into the BACP ethical framework is that it aggravates the qualities, standards and individual good characteristics of advising and of the guides that practice close by it. Basically it arrives to guarantee that all customers get the most elevated standard of directing conceivable in a way that advances their prosperity (McLeod
This is discussed by Shafer-Landau in The Fundamentals of Ethics; he says that ethical egoism “arbitrarily makes my interests all-important” (114). If a person is required to do whatever is necessary to increase their well-being, then they must only act in their interests. Ethical egoism allows individuals to think that there is no one more important or as important as them. It supports the belief that egoists should only care for themselves, ignoring everyone else’s needs and wants. An ethical egoist will only do the things that are pleasurable for them and that increase their welfare.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the idea people should act in a way that produces the greatest optimal utility. In other words, people’s choices should achieve the greatest amount or benefits for the greatest amount of people and oneself. In this paper, I will argue the Hedonistic view point John Stuart Mill presents is a more refined branch of utilitarianism because of Mill’s concept of higher and lower pleasures . This paper is broken into two main sections. I will begin by outlining Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism.
According to Mill, “acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded, and exhorted, to act in a preferred matter. A moralist can sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action” (West). The moral value of an action can be based on what is called hedonism. This says the only thing can be good is pleasure or happiness. Utilitarianism shows how moral questions can have objectively true answers.
His action dealing with the important client mentioned by his company will lead to further contracts which will eventually not only benefit company, this will bring ‘greatest good’ towards his manager and career performance. This demonstrate him adopting consequentialist theory of utilitarianism which drives to act in a way resulting in the greatest possible amount of well-being for most number of people instead of an individual (Eggleston, 2012). Initially, Boris adopted Stage 1 of Kohlberg’s (1971) where there is no reluctance in him to decline the request from his manager. If he declines, this would lead his downturn relationship with his manager and unreliable employee status in the company as a punishment.
Consequentialism is defined as the actions that should be more evaluated on the basis of the consequences. However, it’s the results from that particular consequence that actually strikes a nerve. In the mindset of utilitarian’s consequences focus on the happiness and pleasure of that particular end result. The understanding that the consequences are so good that it outweighs the negativity; maximizing happiness for all. However, for people such as Bernard Williams we shouldn’t regard consequences as happiness or pleasure for the multitude of people, but rather the happiness within ourselves.
Ethical theories are ways of telling right from wrong and include guidelines of how to live and act in an ethical way. For example when faced with a difficult situation in your life, you can use ethical theories to assist you in making the right decision. One key theory is consequentialism, which says that an individual’s correct moral response is related to the outcome/ consequence of the act and not its intentions/ motives. Early writers on this theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a modern writer is Peter Singer. For example Brenda Grey has asked for the asthma specialist to visit her weekly, and to decide if this is necessary the professionals involved have to look at how it would affect her wellbeing.
The morality of the death penalty is a huge debate in philosophy, and even the political system. This serious topic is controversial and has two main sides; there are abolitionists, which are “those who want to do away with capital punishment,” and there are also retentionists, that want to “retain the death penalty as a part of a system of legal punishment” (Vaughn 348). Both retentionists and abolitionists have strong believes on whether or not capital punishment is just. In the book, Contemporary Moral Arguments by Lewis Vaughn, there are readings by Kant, Cassell, and Stevenson that further describe the differences and sides to the death penalty. In addition, many ethical theories such as deontological and consequential ethics can side