Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The purpose of criminal law in America
Ethical dilemma analysis
Ethical dilemma analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The purpose of criminal law in America
Consequentialist Theory. INTRODUCTION. This essay is a brief discussion on one of the types of Ethics which is referred to as Consequentialist Theory. The theory considered an action to be morally right if the end results is more favorable than unfavorable. An example of an ethical dilemma is also cited in which the discussed theory is applicable. CONTENT The word consequentialism is defined according to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as, “taking an action is said to be morally right when the consequences of such an action taken is more favorable than unfavorable”. Consequentialist Theory is base on this perception of the school of thought, in which consideration is given to the end results of any action to be taken in a given situation …show more content…
Consequentialism believes an action is morally right if the answers to the above questions are yes. EXAMPLE OF AN ETHICAL DILEMMA. Taking a scenario of a notorious criminal that was killed by the mob after been caught during one of their gangs operation in a bank. Using a named criminal known as “Killer” who has been so popular for his notorious killings during robbery. “Killer” has been convicted and jailed for more than twice, yet he always returned back to his evil acts after serving his jailed term. Many people have been killed by reason of his action around the community. But it was unfortunate for him during one of their operations that the people jointly apprehended him and two of his gangs. The angry mob killed him and his gangs at the scene point by taking judgment into their own hands and not handling them over to police. Using the Consequentialist Theory, I support the action taking by the mob as illustrated above because the interest of the masses is protected by getting rid of “Killer” and his gangs, since the several conviction to jail by law has not been able to stop their notorious
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of...
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 ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).
Final Exam Kristina McLaughlin Saint Joseph’s University CRJ 565 Question 1: Word Count The judicial system is based on the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982).
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...
Consequentialism is the view that, according to FoE, the morality of actions, policies, motives, or rules depends on their producing the best actual or expected results. In other words, do as much good as you can. Act utilitarianism, a sub-group of consequentialism, claims that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. Basically, Act utilitarianism agrees completely with consequentialism, but ensure that those actual or expected results end up improving well-being. Consequentialism, as a whole, while extremely similar to other moral theories, such as hedonism and the desire theory, are, in fact, slightly different. Hedonism claims that a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and free from pain, and consequentialists, while not disagreeing with hedonism, would say that the pleasure and freedom from pain depends entirely on the actual or expected results. The desire theory claims that something is good for you if, and only if, it satisfies your desires and because it satisfies your desires, while consequentialists would say that those desires should improve overall well-being, and not to be selfish about it.
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.
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism 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). This method along with egoist consequentialism was probably the one that w...
...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.
Consequentialism Framework is the adecuate to study the etchic dilemma that Mylan Pharmaceutical is facing, due to the fact that we can analyze the internal and external impact of the increase in their medications price for convenience of their board members. Their decision is not right or wrong just the result of it might be negative to the society.
Retribution is a justification for punishment and not a theory about substantive criminal law. But what justifies also limits. Retribution offers solid moral bases for opposing overcriminalization. Retribution is the type of punishment that indicating the vengeance or revenge. It is the idea of an ‘eye for an eye’ or ‘tooth for a tooth’ basis. The punishments given are for the response to the offender to the crime that he had done. For example, the death penalty to the crime of murder. It is a form of ‘striking back’ . Basically, there are two rationales in this theory of punishment are first, for the victims or their relatives in the case of death, that the state represent for their dissatisfaction towards the offender. Besides, this also protect from they having private retaliation to the offender. Second, is for the public at large that the public has a need for revenge. Punishment is considered an expression of justified anger by the victim due to the violation of trust demanded by society .
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.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action
Definition: normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. consequentialist theories focus on actions. However, this need not be the case.