The doing and allowing principle was presented by Foot in 1967 and can be summed up with: ‘doing’ as actions that are usually intended, whereas ‘allowing’ is refraining from preventing; also referred to as enabling. Now given a hypothetical case where a bystander is standing beside a lever which can be pulled to deviate a trolley onto a different track, then a runaway trolley begins heading down this track. If the trolley is to stay on the same track it will hit and kill five workers, however if the bystander pulls the lever so that the trolley now heads down a different track, it will be on a track where one person is working. According to the doing and allowing principle, the bystander for this scenario would be expected to not pull the lever, allowing the trolley to hit the five, as by pulling the lever they would be actively ‘doing’ the …show more content…
An opposing proposition to this is consequences, or; the principle of Consequentialism. This principle proposes that we each have a moral obligation to do the best we can do and act in attempt to the bring about the best result, potentially ignoring information about what we do or allow in the process (Feldman 1986). This suggests that for this scenario, moral choices should not play a factor in our decision, rather, that the end does justify the means. Asserting that it is obligatory for the bystander to flip the lever onto the other track and kill the one to save the five, as this implies the best result or consequence, because saving five lives is quantifiably greater than only saving one life.
A proposal for the flaws in consequentialism is that it does not factor in any moral interpretations, or whether an individual should even be considered as implicated in the potential outcome or consequence of an action simply due to their proximity to the event. An example to further explain this is the case of The
A consequentialist compares the good and the bad to see what is morally correct. Considering this topic has many pros and cons, a consequentialist can side with whichever side they believe is a lesser evil. A consequential abolitionist claims that the death penalty is not a better deterrent than a life without parole, therefore the death penalty should be abolished. However, a consequentialist retentionist says that capital punishment benefits our society because it prevents future crimes. They believe that potential criminals will not commit the crime because they are afraid of their
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
Ethical theories are ways of telling right from wrong and include guidelines of how to live and act in an ethical way. For example when faced with a difficult situation in your life, you can use ethical theories to assist you in making the right decision. One key theory is consequentialism, which says that an individual’s correct moral response is related to the outcome/ consequence of the act and not its intentions/ motives. Early writers on this theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a modern writer is Peter Singer. For example Brenda Grey has asked for the asthma specialist to visit her weekly, and to decide if this is necessary the professionals involved have to look at how it would affect her wellbeing.
In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
Consequentialist believe that morality is about producing the right overall consequences, and that the action brings about either happiness, freedom or survival of species. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialism that maximizes utility (happiness). The difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that a utilitarian overlooks justice, as long as an utilitarian can maximize pleasure they would do whatever it takes. Consequentialist enjoy maximizing pleasure like a utilitarian, but they also take into account autonomy and justice. 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.
When a person is going to make a moral decision based on consequentialism, he or she first look at the good and bad possible consequences of the action, then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad.
As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
Philippa Foot presented a series of moral dilemmas when she discussed abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. One famous problem of her was the trolley dilemma: “..he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track onto another; five men are working on one track and one on the other; anyone the tack he enters is bound to be killed.” (Foot, 1967, p. 2) What should the driver do? Despite what he does, he will harm someone!1
Williams has an issue with the need to look at actions’ consequences to find any value in them. He believes that some actions have innate value regardless of their consequences. He compares the consequentialist’s position to that of a traveler who focuses only on the destination he is seeking to arrive at. Williams states that travelers don’t travel to arrive somewhere, they travel because they find value in the journey itself. There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality.
Example A skincare salesman who gets to know that the product of Company X that he is selling is actually good for skin at initial stage but causes burns after using it for a few weeks. As a consequentialist he will think about all the pros and cons of selling that product further but will eventually think that I get profit in selling these what happens to the skin of customers is none of my concern all I should do is sell as many products I can and that my role and my duty towards the company. He will think about all the consequences and then take a decision which will give him happiness at the end. Non Consequential Ethical theory
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
These issues are really serious problems which are against ethically methods. For example, according to the textbook, “Transcendental” leads people to think about basic rules of human experience, what good life is, what good behavior is and how we do tell right from wrong. I think consequentialism is always happened in the world. It means how good or bad on action is depends on its results. In the Sierra Leone situation, there were long civil war, and after this, some bad things happened.
The consequentialist theorist can be taken as an example. Consequentialist theories are a theory in which it is based on the consequences of an action. Based on the movie assignment, The Island, there are some major views that the consequentialist theories have on the movie. One of the major
Consequentialist theory followers. Consequentialist theory followers focus mostly on the consequences of the decision and the action. The most famous consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism. This theory follows the principle of utility which assumes that the decision is ethical if it maximizes benefits to the society and minimizes harms.