Utilitarianism And Deontology Essay

According to Aristotle triangle, he advocates for the ability to persuade the audience and speaker with employing pathos, ethos, and logos. The ethical appeals are the ethos; emotional appeal is pathos, while the logical appeals are logos. Abortion is a hotly debated issue across the world. In the USA, the current political climate alongside the economic recession is affecting factors precipitating abortion, and this is warranting investigation on the reasons for the same (Lawrence, et al. 2005). The abortion in America is a big issue, and therefore the paper examines the ethical, moral and logical arguments behind seeking, statistics, and justifying the acts.

Rosalind Hursthouse in her paper Virtue Theory and Abortion, handles with the moral standpoint of abortion from a virtue ethics perspective. Her research is directed towards investigating whether or not an abortion is something a virtuous person would do. Hursthouse examines the morally relevant considerations and in so doing, she rejects the standard questions used to determine the morality of an abortion such as the status of the fetus, and the rights of a women. The morally relevant considerations she sees fit to assess the moral legitimacy of an abortion are concerns with family relationship, personal circumstance, and basic biological facts. Through her considerations, Hurthouses account of virtue ethics gives us adequate moral advice in regards to the question of abortion.

If human have their own experience, they must think the experience which they have is valuable, so that the feeling of continuing their life exists. Other reason is human have their fundamental and strong desire of being alive. (Marquis,1987), therefore Fe thtus are not strongly connected with these two arguments of immorally killing. This two rivals accounts also have problem. The desirability is not necessary condition for the side that abortion is moral. The victims are not only the people who suffer a “real” disaster, or crimes, fetus can also be a victim. Though victim is not a sentience being, and they apparently fail to the requirement of mentation. Empathy faces the risk of ending of life, they directly do harm on them. For more, contraception is an attempt to question future-like-ours theory. The essay does not analysis the contraception as immoral and wrong. Contraception is still a problem of preventing a potential future of a value of life. If consider the process of contraception. There are for stages of subjects (sperm, ovum, sperm ovum separately, and sperm ovum together), so there are a lot possible that harm too many futures that may occur. The question on contraception seems to challenge the future-like-ours arguments given by the essay. This is a misleading question, because the amount of sperm is quite large, and contraception does not create a combination. There is no obvious losing of

In this essay, will explain how a moral relativist might approach the issues raised by abortion. Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards and morality are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. Examples of teleological approaches are situation ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and emotivism.

1) Consequentialism, it says that an action can be judged as ethical or unethical based on the consequences it creates, practices which bring in a person cannot predict consequences beforehand, an art which could be gained with experience.

This paper is written because abortion: kills children, because people do not want to be responsible for their own actions, and the effects it has on the mothers themselves. Using the terms defined for consequentialism stated by John Stuart Mill in his speech “Utilitarianism.” By using the Abortion kills children before they are born because it is something that is already living inside of the mother. People are not taking responsibility for their actions and, in the long run, it will catch up to them. It has an effect on the mother's psychologically by making them depressed about the what had happened. Abortion destroys what is already living and makes it seem as if it is meaningless.

Utilitarism and deontology are two opposing ethical theories. On the one hand, J. J. C. Smart represents the utilitarian view of ethics, while on the other hand Charles Fried represents the deontological. Both point to fundamental features of their interpretations as well as some criticism of the other party. Like other ethical theories, both Smart and Fried have different views of ethics and definition of right and wrong. Utilitarianism has its basis in consequentialism, where actions are judged by the results or consequences

nature are hedonistic, this means that people given the opportunity would avoid painful situations at all costs, while vigorously reaching out for pleasurable moments. An example of reasoning in act Utilitarianism can be found in the biomedical ethics book (Mapes&Gaize pg. 10). A severely ill infant who has zero chances of survival has contracted a deadly virus, the physician and parents now must make the decision to treat the virus with antibiotics or allow the infant to simply die. In this case it is clear that those involved would be best served by allowing the child to simply die, since the infant has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a painful prolonged life. The anguish and distress of the parents cannot be eliminated regardless

The debate around abortion is one that has led political headlines for decades. Many people view abortion as immoral because it is the destruction of an individual. Others argue that an unborn child is not yet an individual, so abortion is acceptable during the early stages of pregnancy. Compromises on this thought often revolve around the point at which an embryo or fetus becomes a human person. If an unborn child is not yet a person, then it has no moral status, and abortion would be acceptable. Though many arguments on abortion base their position on the moral bearing of the fetus, others instead consider the value of the mother 's rights versus those of the fetus.

Also Rule Utilitarianism believes that everyone should follow rules and laws that would bring about the greatest happiness to the majority of people if that means one has to perform these acts, committing murder, breaking promises, lying and even slavery if it promotes overall utility, however, Deontological believes that no such acts should be done under any given situation and we have a moral duty not to do these things regardless of the outcome. However, virtue ethics believe that if you are guided by the virtue of your actions it would produce good outcome. Deontological theory believes that there can be rules that can be followed when making ethical decisions, in contrast, virtue ethics make right or wrong decisions based on the individual they are, without any general rule guiding their

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory because it maintains that morally right actions, the actions we are obligated to do, are selected by considering the consequences that those actions tend to produce. In short, utilitarianism requires that we look to nonmoral consequences of actions as the only proper way to make moral decisions. A utilitarian approach would make the decision based on what would bring the greatest overall good, considering everyone involved. In this scenario, act-utilitarianism is more fitting on the fact that the individuals must choose whether or not to act in the absence of a generally accepted rule for this type of situation. “Act-utilitarianism says that right actions are those that directly produce the overall

First element is happiness and second is consequentialism. Usually defined as maximizing total advantages and reducing suffering or the negatives. Most of the governments in the world follow this theory. Generally in democracy like India government consider this theory because they are elected by majority of the people and hence they strip to see after the benefits of the majority of the population. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is fine. It is based on principle of utility. The purpose of morality is to develop the society. In the consequentialism an action is morally rights or wrong depends perfectly on its consequence. Utilitarianism considers that everyone is pleasure, not single person. People who are displaced from their land get compensation but does that compensate the value of job, life health etc. Even they get land at same other place, will they get same kind of living environment, employment opportunity as before? Majority of the people get the benefits of electricity from large dams or nuclear power plants but at the cost of displacing inhabitants from their land. Fundamental problem theory with this theory is that it assumes everyone is tradable. The right of freedom of choice of some people is being violated for the benefits of the larger population. People who do not wanted to leave their land were forced to sacrifice their freedom of choice. The aim of the morality is to make the world a better region. Morality is about creating good consequence, not having good target. We should do whatever will bring the most advantage all of humanity. The aim of morality is to tell other people’s works in such a way as to create a better world. Utilitarianism is on consequences, not target. Utilitarianism is a morally demanding position for two reasons, First reason is it theory asks us to do the most to maximize utility not to do the minimum and second reason is to set aside

Deontological Ethical Theory states that a person has duties to god, oneself, and duties to others. We all know that we have this duty, and we know this intuitively without deriving it from any more basic moral principles. A duty theorist would also agree that abortion is morally wrong. They believe that it is our duty to others and ourselves to care for other human beings. Abortion is taking away a human life and would be wrong. By taking life away from a human, you would be treating that life as a means to an end for yourself, not as an end in itself. Next, it is our duty to protect and care for the child. If you do not fulfill your duty to care for the child, you would be morally wrong. Finally, many may agree that duties take over privileges.

Throughout this essay I will be discussing how we should handle moral disagreements. Specifically I will focus on the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, it benefits but also its disadvantages which shows it is a theory which should not be used to handle moral disagreements.

According to White (2014), Powers (2005), Schwickert (2005), Gaus (2001b) and Kuniyop (2008), deontological theories are duty-based theories or non-consequentialist theories, which define morality as the fulfilment of moral duties based on obeying moral rules, principles and maxims, regardless of the consequences. Thus, for deontologists the Right has priority over the Good, which means that even if an act will produce the Good, it may not be undertaken, if it is not in agreement with the Right. There are a variety of deontological approaches to morality, but only a few will be discussed: agent-centred theory, patient-centred theory, contractarian theory, Kantian theory, divine command theory and Rossian deontology.