Utilitarianism only considers one normative factor, the maximization of overall happiness, consequently, it often conflicts with our common-sense morality and permits immoral actions as well as great individual deviation from social norms. For instance, utilitarianism permits immoral practices such as sadism by implying that sadistic acts are the right acts to perform if the sadist derives more pleasure from this practice than their victims derive pain. This is because they would be maximizing the overall amount of happiness/well-being. This belief conflicts with the existing moral intuitions of many who believe that the torturing of innocent people for pleasure is by no means acceptable, let alone the right action to perform. An example that demonstrates instances where utilitarianism can give us the morally wrong answer as to which act we ought to perform, involves a surgeon who is faced with the decision of killing one healthy patient, harvesting their organs and transplanting them into five patients who are dying in order to save their lives or doing nothing and allowing the five sick patients to die.
The utilitarian model focuses on provides greatest benefits to the greater number of the stakeholder of the company. Moral rights model emphasize on protecting the basic right of the people would be affected, which is the stakeholder of the company. Stakeholders’ benefits and the employees’ right should be protected by the manager. The justice approach focuses on equally benefits and harms of the stakeholders involved. The manager should purchases expensive gift to the manager from Asian because it is not harm to company and stakeholders.
In his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer defends a pro-animal argument. The goal of the argument is not to lower the status of humans, but to elevate the status of animals. He compares the belief that humans should always take precedence over issues about animals to the prejudice of slave owners against their slaves. He states that it is easy to look back and criticize the prejudices of the people who lived back then, but it is much harder to criticize ourselves, our beliefs, and whatever prejudices we may hold and actually try to change them. In his argument for animal rights, he first talks about equal consideration for the suffering of animals.
Many perspectives of ethical theory do not take this mix into consideration and state that morals are either completely subjective or objective. One of the biggest strength of the virtue ethics arguments is the fact that it allows for morals to be both objective and subjective. Aristotle spent a lot of time thinking about virtue ethics and observing the traits that he valued in others. Through this he saw common traits that he admired in everyone from which he derived four traits he determined to be absolutes: courage, loyalty, generosity, and honesty (Rachels 176). Yet he still recognized that many other
There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism. Rawls analogy has a few basic parts. He first talks about what I know as a “Rational Self Interest Maximizer.” He states a person quite properly acts, at least when others are not affected, to achieve his own greatest god, to advance his rational ends as far as possible. This shows a rational self interest maximizer looks at all options and chooses most happiness over the longest period of time. This person will look at all his choices and pick the one where his rational desires are maximized.
When using the utilitarian approach, suffering is always involved even if it is to a small degree. When acting along Kant’s categorical imperative, it is simpler and fairer. When acting you would only have to ask “If someone else did this would it be okay for them too?” If the utilitarian approach was used the person would have to ask more questions regarding the situation. Using categorical imperative is fairer because suffering, even to a slight amount, wouldn’t be an option. In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, in my opinion, is the most appropriate approach to ethics and morals.
Ethical Theory of Objectivism When attempting to be objective towards a situation one must be as impartial as possible, and not allow one’s own thoughts or feelings to influence his/her conclusions that he/she may draw from facts. Another possible way to phrase this would be that to be objective one must exercise rationality in his/her decision-making process. This idea is the ground work upon which Rand laid her ethical theory of Objectivism. Objectivism is closely tied to modern American economics and politics. Rand’s works and philosophy have found an audience in the American right-wing party both economically and politically.
A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good. A consequentialist looks at the pros and cons of a situation and then takes action. Although consequentialists and utilitarian’s have some differences, when talking about savior siblings their ethics line up, and can be used interchangeably. They would agree that a savior sibling would be morally permissible because it maximizes utility, the family and child are both happy because their child now has better chance at survival. No matter the metal/physical wellbeing of the child, as long as the act generates maximum pleasure.
This is where we will discuss the first negative of situation ethics. Situation ethics is individualistic, because decisions must be made within the situation as it’s perceived to be. It isn’t easy to be certain that ones perception of the situation is correct. How can a specific individual, such as the Arrow, safely decide whats the most loving action? Humans don’t have an objective perspective and could end up justifying unloving actions on the basis of loving results that will never emerge.
This is because it imposes on us the expectation that people have to proactively seek out and absolve others of their suffering should we have the resources to do so. The fact that Singer wants to impose suffrage-reducing acts as a moral obligation instead of simply promoting their occurrence makes it counter-intuitive to pragmatics. This leads me to my second