Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality and moral decisions
Morality and moral decisions
Morality and moral decisions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality and moral decisions
Consequential-ism becomes an important subject to approach due to the process of decision making. In this case, consequential-ism will put a person in a situation that establishes who that person defines themselves to be. Starting off with the trolley scenario, the consequential-ism is scene in all the cases of pulling the level on a train track to determine the direction the train will go. So if a train is coming and the railroad splits into two different track with a people on each one, then who would I save. It is interesting which to choose because I would have to choose the lesser of the risk. So let say the is one person on track A and more than one people on track B, then I would save more people by directing the train onto track A. But know if that was my soulmate, lover or family, I would have to rethink the consequences I would have to face. These different scenarios are not to be easy decisions, but show who the person of their true nature. Personally, if it was someone I knew verse a stranger, I would be automatically incline to pull the level to kill the stranger. But there is also decision of the wrong and right chooses that should be regulated appropriately. In the end, we must be accountable for the decisions we make in life because we will be judge for all of them. We need to understand that the power of …show more content…
Ford had a solution to fix the problem in the Pinto car, but it was cheaper for Ford to pay off the lawsuits then to pay to recall all the cars and fix them. Ford choose to keep the cars out for sale. This endangerment is morally wrong and needed to have consequences more severe than to allow payouts. Although the results, Ford though the payoff of the lawsuit was smarter to save them money, but the ethical codes we not being kept by not being honest in making the right
Many organizations have been destroyed or heavily damaged financially and took a hit in terms of reputation, for example, Enron. The word Ethics is derived from a Greek word called Ethos, meaning “The character or values particular to a specific person, people, culture or movement” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2007, p. 295). Ethics has always played and will continue to play a huge role within the corporate world. Ethics is one of the important topics that are debated at lengths without reaching a conclusion, since there isn’t a right or wrong answer. It’s basically depends on how each individual perceives a particular situation. Over the past few years we have seen very poor unethical business practices by companies like Enron, which has affected many stakeholders. Poor unethical practices affect the society in many ways; employees lose their job, investors lose their money, and the country’s economy gets affected. This leads to people start losing confidence in the economy and the organizations that are being run by the so-called “educated” top executives that had one goal in their minds, personal gain. When Enron entered the scene in the mid-1980s, it was little more than a stodgy energy distribution system. Ten years later, it was a multi-billion dollar corporation, considered the poster child of the “new economy” for its willingness to use technology and the Internet in managing energy. Fifteen years later, the company is filing for bankruptcy on the heels of a massive financial collapse, likely the largest in corporate America’s history. As this paper is being written, the scope of Enron collapse is still being researched, poked and prodded. It will take years to determine what, exactly; the impact of the demise of this energy giant will be both on the industry and the
In “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny the agent integrity. I will then consider an objection to Railton’s argument, and then evaluate a possible Railtonian response.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Consequentialism tells us not to look at the act, but to look at the outcome. The one thing that Jim should consider is how many lives are saved. To kill one of the Indians in order to save nineteen or to not kill and all 20 will die. Jim would Compare and weigh both outcomes. Therefore, Jim as a consequentialist chooses the better outcome and kills one in order to save the other nineteen Indians. Who does the act is morally irrelevant, when the outcome is for the good of the whole. This is what matters as the greatest happiness principle like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who gives importance to the consequences of the act for the good of the whole. The outcome is what matters and not the process that gave rise to the outcome. Therefore, a consequentialist sacrifices his morality in order to save 19 lives. In this case, Jim has to choose who of the Indians to kill in order to save the rest of the nineteen India...
As per request of the first assignment of this course, I watched the movie “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta (Jan Schlichtmann), as a plaintiff’s lawyer and Robert Duvall (Jerome Facher) and Bruce Norris (William Cheeseman) as the defendant’s lawyers of W.R. Grace and J Riley Leather companies. The movie depicted the court case fought in the 1980’s among the previously mentioned companies and the residents of Woburn a little town located in Massachusetts. After watching the movie, an analysis using the ethical tools reflected in the chapter 1 of the course textbook will be used to portray the ethical issues of the movie.
The Consequentialism framework suggests decision making is an action-based process, that is, one that determines the rightness or wrongness of an act according to the relevant outcomes or consequences. Within Consequentialism there consists a variety of perspectives including egoism, altruism and utilitarianism. Like Consequentialism, Non-Consequentialism is also an action-based perspective. This framework however, focuses on the rules and principles related to an act rather then the consequences that may follow. Decisions are made with consideration to written and unwritten rules that fall under the subcategories of Natural Rights, Social Contract, Divine Command and Deontology.
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
Per Callaway (2017), consequentialist “framework considers the consequences or outcome of actions to determine if an action was right or wrong” (p. 2). After gathering evidence to indicate that waiting for an ambulance to arrive would have been more harmful for Joe than driving him to the hospital myself, the decision I made to break company policy was justified under the consequentialism framework. Furthermore, the criteria for a good or bad consequence in this scenario is life or death (respectively). According to the consequentialist framework, “once criteria are established, the consequentialist weigh the morality of a choice by determining which actions create the most happiness for all moral beings involved” (Callaway, 2017, p.2). Joe cried out for help during the drive to the hospital, indicating that the good consequence would be that of health and life. The decision was made to pursue the option that had a higher probability of a good consequence for Joe. If we had waited on the ambulance or life-flight helicopter, then it would have created a larger probability of the bad
Consequentialism is described as the theory that states actions are morally right based only on the consequences. Many of my actions are based in terms of consequences. Before, I used to take whatever actions that made my happy, but now, I think more about the results of my actions. More specifically, I think about the negative results. This has made into a bit of pessimist. Whenever I hear ideas, I am quick to think about the negative consequences first before the positive. This usually means that I am not keen on taking risks if the amount of negative consequences outnumber the good. I remember when I was first planning to come to George Fox University. When the idea first hit me, I was quick to think negative consequence of how expensive it was to come to the mainland for college. I wasn’t thinking how the university could benefit my future. Eventually, I figured the positive consequences of coming to George Fox outweighed the bad. On the bright side, at least in my view, being a pessimist has allowed to think farther ahead when it comes to planning. Every action has consequences, and my consequentialism has taught me the importance of thinking before taking action. If I take any actions, it will be the ones that have the fewest negative consequences for me and the people around
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
Consequentialism is based on the principle of maximizing utility, focusing on the consequences of the action. As long as the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences, it is considered as ethical (Brooks & Dunn, 2011). The strength of consequentialism is that it can be applied systematically. Unfortunately, it is difficult to apply because it is difficult to determine and measure all the consequences bore by others. Moreover, there is no definite guideline to who are the stakeholders that should be considered when applying the model (Hart, n.d).
Ethical and illegal corporate misconduct is nothing new and the same issues surrounded Solyndra, the California based solar panel manufacturer in 2011. The legal, ethical, ramifications will be researched in detail through specific laws, general legal concepts, Milton Friedman’s philosophy, and Consequentialist framework. While DOE's main interest with the loan program was pushing nuclear power technology and improvements to the electricity grid the creditors did not evaluate the ethics of lending money, and debtors should not evaluate the ethics of filing bankruptcy. It is a business decision, white house ignored own experts warnings Solyndra rushed approval was for previously scheduled press event the DOE failed to monitor Solyndra’s financial
Toyota issues in automotive industry resulted from a lack of moral and ethical obligations to loyal customers. In fact, people encounter ethics at one time or another. A business expectation is to act in manner upholding society values. According to authors Trevino and Nelson, (2004) states, “a set of moral principals or values, or the principals, norm, and standards of conduct governing a group or individual.” On the other hand, three ethical criteria determined in this discussion like obligation, moral ideas, and consequences which this article highlights an ethical dilemma with automobiles makers.
In today’s fast paced business world many managers face tough decisions when walking the thin line between what’s legal and what’s socially unacceptable. It is becoming more and more important for organisations to consider many more factors, especially ethically, other than maximising profits in order to be more competitive or even survive in today’s business arena. The first part of this essay will discuss managerial ethics[1] and the relevant concepts and theories that affect ethical decision making, such as the Utilitarian, Individualism, Moral rights approach theories, the social responsibility of organisations to stakeholders and their responses to social demands, with specific reference to a case study presenting an ethical dilemma[2], where Mobil halts product sales to a garage, forcing the garage owner to stop selling solvents to young people. The second section of this essay will focus on advice that should be given to any manager in a similar position to the garage owner with relevance to the organisational strategic management, the corporate objective and the evaluation of corporate social performance by measuring economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. It will address whom to think of as stakeholders and why the different aspect could cost more than a manager or an organisation could have imagined.
The theories and ideals shared among consequentialists are by no means to be scrapped; philosophical theories are theories, not prescriptions. While they do all make an attempt to describe a solution to various moral conundrums, one can not forget that validity is shared among theories. Holes may seem larger in certain standards and ideals, but these holes are never refutable and should be used to create a larger discourse between philosophical theories. Consequentialism and all it’s sub-groups (direct, universal, hedonism, aggregative, evaluative, maximizing, etc.) are based around two dominant principles: For an act to be in the right or wrong one must look solely to the results of the act, and subsequently second, the more net-good produced