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. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that
Torture is therefore always wrong” (687). However, even though someone may think torture is wrong, most have an exception to their belief. Some are even “convinced that the use of torture is inevitable” (688). A Kantian would say that the respect of the human rights of the kidnapper is still important, and that by threatening to torture him, it is saying that his rights are invalid. Though, he may have not have respected the life of Jakob von Metzler, that is
On the off chance that the impression of the supervision model runs counter to profoundly held sentiments or convictions, it might be dismisses regardless of the amount of target confirmation is marshaled for its sake. Direct supervision requires extremely impressive change for a framework which is working by aberrant supervision and this change might be seen as pointless danger taking by governing
Consequentialism asserts that the ends justify the means or that if the results are good then the actions taken to obtain the result is irrelevant. In contrast, Deontology states that actions that are based on a moral code are moral even if their results are detrimental. The worst examples of ambition fall to closely to these two categories. The South Sea Bubble aligns with Consequentialism. Mccarthys direct actions against communism were based on a moral code however the entire situation was immoral.
that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time.
Knowledge and a complete understandning of an action that is evil allows the prevention of harm. You cannot learn evil, because if you learn, it is automatically good for this reason. He then states that understanding is good, and you must understand to have learned. That is true, because if you do not understand the information presented to you, then you do not have knowledge of it, and if you do not have knowledge of it, it has not been learned. Augustine builds off of this by stating that not having an understanding is not good because understanding is good.
Humans don’t have an objective perspective and could end up justifying unloving actions on the basis of loving results that will never emerge. This also ties in what I said before that we can’t predict the future. So applying this to the stimulus as said before the Arrow is only looking at the situation from his perception and his consequences cause innocent people to suffer and maybe even die which is not the most loving thing to do. The second disadvantage of Situation ethics is that situation ethics seems to be prepared to accept any action if it fits into the required criteria. After a century of some of
The virtue ethics theory focuses on what actions or choices an individual should choose based on their own personal inward character. Therefore, if an individual’s character is good then his or her actions or choices should also be good. The virtue ethics theory places responsibility on the individual for their actions or choices when confronted with a moral dilemma. Whereas, “a utilitarian or a Kantian theorist asks, what should I do?, a virtue ethicist asks, in effect, what should I be?” (Vaughn, 2010, pg. 134).
money, courage etc) can be used for good or evil. But the will to do good is always good and the good will must be good in itself. Thus, what Kant is saying that acting from the good will is the only way to really be moral. This leads us into what Kant
The author will usually rely on his examples to prove is arguments. He does not explain the claims he makes, which decrease the strength of his arguments. For example, he mentions that a high-five is “not the mutual appreciation of achievement, but the feeling we get upon the achievement of mutual appreciation”. This statement is arguable, some people perform the high-five to actually show appreciation of achievement rather than of trying. The author does not signify whatsoever why the high-five does not mean “job well-done”.
This also makes me ask if the difference between right and wrong is that right is moral, and wrong is what 's establish as right. Both side resulted with consequences from doing what was right, and both risked those consequences. This leads me to not disagree with Perry’s quote, but a hankering to revise it to “We must risk right, and accept the