In this essay, I will be able to give an overall insight on the ideas given from three philosophical theories, Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Relativism. To give a brief explanation of each theory, Egoism encompasses
This theory states that the actions that always create maximum utility, thereby founded on experienced situations, should be formed into rules. Therefore, actions are judged in relation to the conformity of these prescribed rules. However, even if a rule is created as to ‘never kill another human being’, utilitarianism would only pursue to exist if and only if each situation was responded to with the consequence of always maximizing utility. In the situation that the rule was always followed, the existence of utilitarianism would be extinguished as there would always be exceptional situations that need the rule to be adjusted and thus, the utilitarian would be obliged to forgo the rule in order for the doctrine to survive. Therefore, rule utilitarianism is used as a faulty appeal to
Developing from the reasoning of (Russ Shafer-Landau, p.p 13), it is clear that there is a difference between normative ethics and metaethics. Normative ethics are those values that develop from within a personality and are always employed whenever ethics are breached. On the other hand the metaethics is basically the diverse elements that are considered crucial for building positive ethical believes. (Shafer-Landau, p.p 29), also brings forward other moral ethical elements such as the moral error theory, the desire-satisfaction theory, ethical particularism and the doctrine of double effects. All the above elements are crucial for shaping ones ethical perspectives and inclinations leave alone resolving ethical issues within a society. Shafer-Landau is also keen on applying the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative and the Greatest Happiness Principle in resolving issues jeopardizing conflicts as explained by (Shafer-Landau, p.p 56-57)
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable.
The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences. While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
Neil Postman dives into a deeper understanding of technology and how he perceives certain technological developments. He considers the outcome that technology has on societies and cultures and then evaluates them to see if they are beneficial or detrimental. He also examines what people, who base their lives around technology, do to keep technology in power. His ideas about technology are in a perspective that numerous people would not consider because he is willing to contemplate all the angles of technology. Driverless cars have become a recent design that most people would consider a huge step for mankind in technological advancement but after reading Postman and getting some insight of his views on technology, driverless cars could end
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.
Driverless cars will probably be one of the main and most common transportation vehicles in the future that will become a big part of our lives. Currently our thoughts about driverless cars have positive aspects to offer us rather than negative. These cars will shape our social lives and change the way we live. But how?
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory based on the idea that an action is moral if it causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The theory is concerned with predicted consequences or outcomes of a situation rather than focusing on what is done to get to the outcome. There are many forms of utilitarianism, having been introduced by Jeremy Bentham (act utilitarianism), and later being updated by scholars such as J.S. Mill (rule utilitarianism) and Peter Singer (preference utilitarianism). When referring to issues of business ethics, utilitarianism can allow companies to decide what to do in a given situation based on a simple calculation. Many people would agree that this idea of promoting goodness
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
In this essay, I compared Utilitarianism and Deontology, and argued that Deontology is a better ethics system than Utilitarianism because, while Utilitarianism focuses solely on results, Deontology considers humans as more than just a means to an end and provides for a system of generally accepted
As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law.
Commonly, ethical systems are categorized into two major systems. The deontological approaches or normative ethical position which judges an action based on the adherence of the action to certain rules and the teleological approaches which judges primarily based on the consequences of an action (Hare, 1964). The Utilitarianism is assigned to the teleological approaches, as it does not evaluate an action by itself but by it’s