Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments that are for utilitarianism
Social norms and their consequences on society
Psychological egoism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.
Altruism is when the actions of a person promote the best consequences for others, yet do not benefit the person who performed the act. Abruzzi and McGandy (2006) explain that Auguste Comte developed the term to support his ethical stance that humans are morally obliged to serve the interests of others, even at their own expense. From an altruism perspective the teacher should take her need to be employed out of the equation. The consequences for Del and his family would be that they are free to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution and feel included and safe in the community. The other class members and the community would understand that their values are not threatened by the family.
Utilitarianism is when the actions of the person would provide the best possible outcomes for the greatest number of people that are affected by that decision including the decision maker (Mill, n.d). From a utilitarianism perspective the teacher needs to create an action plan that considers the needs of all people. The consequences of this would be that the class, teacher and community would become familiar with other cultural beliefs and embrace diversity which in turn should create a safe and inclusive environment.
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...
... middle of paper ...
...s this is her personal connection with Del through engaging conversations on the playground, her spatial proximity to Del during the school day and his problems are presently occurring (temporal) and he is most at risk. The teacher would also need to consider her relationship with her class, the community and her colleagues.
Making a decision based in care ethics would focus on the relationship between the teacher and Del. The focus would be on Del’s best interest; one possibility is that the teacher may conference one-on-one with Del to find out how he feels and to develop an action plan that suits his needs. Alternatively she may make decisions based on what she believes is best or invite other stakeholders to assist in the development of an action plan. This is justified in care ethics because she wants to uphold and strengthen the relationship between them.
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 is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
...verall, this could result in the behavior worsening, or a lack of trust and a break of teacher-student bond, which to me is an essential part of making an impact in a student’s lifestyle decision.
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
The idea of each person ought to pursue his or her own self -interest exclusively to do in his life time for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
It has been shown that the topic is and still remains to be controversial. In one instance, and from the view of the retributivists, the death penalty is seen as the appropriate course of action. In another it is seen as immorally wrong and a complete disregard for human life and human rights, with the latter forming the key basis of this argument, which will now be further discussed and analysed using the ethical theory of utilitarianism.
Egoism considers the best outcome for the decision maker. From an egoist perspective the most favourable outcome for the teacher to do is minimise the stress and conflict of possible outcomes in his/her life. It is therefore in the teachers’ best interest to not upset the principle, to align a similar view to her and not accept the offer of further promotion of funding.
The facts presented by the Larry Bailey dilemma are concerning, as there are risks to teacher, and student, safety that must be addressed. Mr. Bailey is the father of one of the students in Alicia Breen 's third grade class. It is not clear from the scenario, the state of Mr. Bailey 's marital status, however, he was calling Miss Breen at home, in the evening, to discuss "matters of a personal nature, which have nothing to do with his daughter 's progress at school." (Schuttloffel, 2003, p. 24) Understandably upset, Ms. Breen reported this behavior to her principal, and supportively, Annie reassures the teacher that she will handle Mr. Bailey. In fact, Annie calls Mr. Bailey at his workplace, only to be told he is not available. While Annie
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequencialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists, the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3).
...ts. The consequential approach focuses on utilitarian, pragmatic outcomes of negative nature; non-consequentialism rejects stealing as something contrary to the inherent norms of morality. Both approaches should be used to fight stealing; however, certain principles seem more controversial when the consequential approach is applied. Non-consequential principles, although less pragmatic, help to make the right choice when non-consequential ones are less potent.
I also believe that since consequentialism is not being used as a decision procedure, it is not very helpful in allowing us to make decisions. Railton did briefly discuss an argument against this belief in which he provides the question, “Which modes of decision making should be employed and when.” This question to me is just as vague of guidance as objective consequentialism is. Also, you must know all the types of decision making and know when they are best used. Through Railton’s objective consequentialism, you would learn these things through experience, but that could take years, which could mean years of undesired and unwanted consequences for years before truly figuring it
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
In the philosophical argument on punishment, moral theories aim to articulate how offenders should be punished for their actions, and on what basis these punishments find justification. Two prominent models of this type are retributivism and consequentialism, which take dramatically different routes in the defense or disparagement of certain punishment theory topics. Retributivism, or retributive theory, centers on a view of society that creates laws citizens must abide by, and ascertains that violators of the law deserve to be disadvantaged due to the unfair advantage they took of others. So, when evaluating the punishment to be inflicted, the retributivist society looks into the past at the nature of the violation—called the backward-looking