A Non-consequentialist Ethical Theory is a general normative theory of morality that is not Consequentialist – that is, a theory according to which the rightness or erroneousness of an act, system of rules. That depends on something other than the goodness or lamentableness of the consequences. Conspicuously, Anti-Consequentialism implicatively insinuates Non-Consequentialism, but not vice versa. It is possible for a Non-Consequentialist to claim that the goodness or deplorability of the consequences of an act pertains to moral rightness or erroneousness. A Non-Consequentialist simply claims that goodness or lamentableness of the consequences is not the only thing that determines moral rightness or erroneousness. In my opinion it basically …show more content…
The theory asserts that what is moral is tenacious by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands. This theory is attributed to most religions and is use in alcohol innominate. They utilize it in their rehab program. By posing a question: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? Whichever way they answer this question; quandaries are thought to follow. Divine command theory is by no betokens the only ethical theory in the Christian …show more content…
Utilitarian’s value jubilance and the absence or reduction of misery. As a utilitarian one ought to devote one's life to achieving the best possible balance of ecstasy over misery. But whenever the causal proclivity of acts is pellucid, utilitarian’s will be able to discern the acts they should successively do in order to amend the world's balance of jubilance over unhappiness.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral requisites are predicated on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative”. Immorality thus involves a breach of the CI and is thereby irrational. Kant did not distinguish between the concrete, intuitive, perceptual erudition of objects and the abstract, discursive, conceptual, cognizance of cerebrations.
Kant commenced his investigation into erudition of perceived objects by considering indirect, reflective cognizance of concepts in lieu of direct, intuitive cognizance of
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.
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
In the case of Cassandra C, she is faced with a curable cancer, Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Without treatment this cancer is deadly, surely killing her if she does not seek said treatment. This is where the dilemma of the Cassandra C case begins, she deems the treatment, chemotherapy, as poisonous to the body and refuses to do the treatment. The court overrules her negligence and she is forced to undergo chemotherapy. With that said, I am going to give the correct course of action regarding the perspective of utilitarianism and how non-consequentialism fails in this specific case.
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.).
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
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.
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.
In the Pure Concepts of Understanding, Kant claims that our intuitions are dependent on sensibility; everything we sense accumulates into our brain and our understanding of the information we sensed relies on organizing that data so that we can recognize the object. Thus, he asserts that understanding is not a faculty of intuition but sensibility. Furthermore, the act of organizing the data into one representation is defined as function and these functions serve as a bridge between the object and its concepts because concepts are not directly related to an object but just some representations of it. This, when function and concepts are put together, Kant concludes is defined as judgment, knowledge of the fact that there is an object, as he uses the term “representation of a representation of it” (42).... ...
5. Explain how virtue ethics is distinct from both consequentialist ethics and from deontological ethics. Also, explain how virtue ethics avoids the problems presented by cultural relativism. Virtue ethics is distinct from both consequentialist ethics, ethics based on consequences and from deontological ethics, ethics based on duty and obligation.
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.
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action