Two are duties to ourselves - namely that of cultivating our intellectual talents and preserving ourselves (hence forbidding suicide), and two are duties to others, namely honesty in promises and helping them to achieve their own ends (G 4:29-30). I will discuss the plausibility (and implausibility) of two of these examples. First, to discuss the most plausible of these examples, I will assess our duty toward others to contribute to the fulfillment of their ends. This example encourages that we not only refrain from taking away from other’s happiness but that we actively and positively work to contribute to others’ happiness (G 4:430). I think that this is plausible and effective because, as Kant argued, if this standard was universalized - in other words, if everyone worked to contribute to their own, and to each other’s happiness and wellbeing - we can potentially actualize the virtues of harmonious and respectful coexistence.
Philip Manning 12504697 Q) Evaluate Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. There can be no doubt that Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ is unrealistic, unfair and not sustainable. Singer’s arguments are valid arguments but not sound. In order to get a clear and balanced view of my arguments which disprove the Singer article, it is first necessary to examine and lay out the main aspects of Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. My arguments against Singer’s claims shall then be detailed and examined in depth.
In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life. As it has been shown, the utilitarian view has its strengths and is certainly logical in some cases, however, Kantian ethics offer a more stable set of moral
Some people may answer this question by saying keep them alive by using artificial means. I say no. I firmly believe that this is wrong and you are only prolonging their suffering. Euthanasia is what I believe is the right thing to do in these cases if the sick person would rather go that route. People may ask “Why is it the right thing to do?” In order for people to have an answer to that question they must first know what Euthanasia is and how that if you have the mind set of all life is precious like Kant’s exert in the article of euthanasia chapter three of contemporary moral issues you are being selfish.
So advertising is justified, since good products will be communicated to the right people, which would therefore increase the overall happiness for those targeted individuals and for society overall. But utilitarianism questions the degree to which the transaction actually provided a benefit as opposed to merely an apparent benefit. So if the product claims that a certain benefit will be achieved by consuming it, but then doesn’t deliver, therefore that is the case where advertising can be considered
Conversely those who believe that euthanasia will bring relief to those whose unbearable pain and suffering has rendered their quality of life not worth preserving. Euthanasia however has no place in our society, as it is a blatant violation of the fundamental human right to life, from a moral and ethical standpoint. The legalization of euthanasia could be the initiation of a “slippery slope”, which promulgates that the acceptance of voluntary euthanasia might ultimately lead to involuntary euthanasia and other untenable practices (Lewis 2007). A study conducted in the
Whilst utilitarianism supports democracy and encourages people to act selflessly, it is due to the intuitive dislike that utilitarianism prompts in the minds of many, that it has been subject to several criticisms. In this essay, I will use both moral intuitions and examples to outline three of the strongest objections to utilitarianism. I will furthermore illustrate how such objections ultimately show utilitarianism to be unsuccessful. To achieve this it is, however, necessary that I discuss the concept of utilitarianism, as well as how such a theory influences the decisions and actions of moral agents. Utilitarianism is a moral, consequentialist theory that holds that the right action to perform is that which produces the best consequences,
In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism. Deontology only focuses on an action that is right or wrong without regarding the consequences On the other hand, consequentialism consists on having the most positive outcome on every situation. (“Deontological Ethics”). The patient and doctor relationship should be based around trust and honesty.