Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action.
1) Conflicting Duties 1) Preservation of life is on top of the hierarchy of duties list. When duties conflict, then the lesser evil duty should be chosen. According to this book, Hill says that lying is acceptable in a life-and-death situation because you are trying to protect innocent people. 2) Mutual Deceits 2)
This means that in a sense, the human population has similar morals. For example, we know that killing and harming people in morally wrong. If we know that harming children is wrong then as a society, we know that placing children in conditions where “some of them had developed skin rashes, while for some, layers of skin were "falling off"”(Hickman). should be considered immoral. For reasons previously presented, child labor should be considered immoral on an objective
Crime is caused by the individual’s free will. Humans are rational and make the decision as to whether they commit a crime or not, and have the knowledge of understanding what consequences are. Humans choose to perform the rational thought actions of which they believe would bring them pleasure. Classical theory believes that crime is the immoral form of behaviour.
Sarai Gonzalez Merrill Ethics Sept.19,2016 Plato’s Ring of Gyges I would have to say the point of Plato’s Ring of Gyges, in my opinion, is that we are the same in a logical reason. This story is to layout that a ring would corrupt a moral person and the reason why they are acting morally is that are scared of being caught. For reasons that will justify that to do injustice is good, and to suffer injustice is evil. We have done both, experienced both, and cannot avoid it even if we try.
Consequentialism is based on two principles: ¥ Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act ¥ The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: ¥ A person should choose the action that maximizes good consequences And it gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live so as to maximize good consequences ¥ for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences.
Evil is the deterioration of innocence and the engagement in activities that are morally incorrect. The proper response to evil is to avoid it or to gain strength through your suffering to overcome it. In my opinion, morals are the right thing. My definition of doing the right thing is to avoid arrogant actions (being conceited, feeling like your problems are superior to others), dehumanizing others and to treat others with the respect that you expect for yourself. In the texts’, the authors’ have similar views on this as well.
Glaucon supposes that humans are natural acquisitive and competitive beings and that acting just is contrary to the human function and virtue. Additionally, Glaucon believes that people suffer from both justice and injustice. Moreover, people would rather suffer justice than injustice from society and that is the reason we form a ‘social contract theory’, that is later developed and elevated under Thomas Hobbes. Nevertheless, Glaucon uses a thought experiment known as the Ring of Gyges to demonstrate that humans are not naturally just souls. The Ring of Gyges gives the wearer the ability to be invisible, which allows the person to act with impunity.
Torture, though it may never have a solid answer, is at times justified through morals or thought to be necessary. As a form of capital punishment, persecution is wrong because each human being not only has rights, but is unique and precious. In the perspective that cruelty happening to save the lives of other human beings, the question of whether torture is acceptable then is raised. The topic of torture can be seen in many various perspectives, but four of those include utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.
In order to grasp the philosophy of luck in our existence we must analyze the philosophy of Thomas Nagle’s article, “Moral Luck”. Nagle dispute the Kantianism ideology in which states that we must submit our actions to certain universal moral laws, such as "do not kill". At the same time is important to analyze the concept that they are other factors to take in consideration. This philosophy can be applied in a specific case such as the judicial system or as an opportunity to analyze our behaviors. At the end it can be concluded that the major issue with the analysis of Moral Luck is the ethical aspect.