Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cottion on persuasive essay
Cottion on persuasive essay
Persuasive essay papers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There are two kinds of people in the world; the ones that believe that the consequences of an action outweigh the importance of intention, and those that feel that intentions are all that matter. Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person’s actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action. Intention comes before the action itself, and consequences are yielded once the action is complete. In general consequences are thought of as negative, while intentions are typically considered in a positive sense. However, this paper will explain why consequences are more important to consider than one’s …show more content…
Despite “doing the right thing,” there are things that can happen beyond our control that can alter the good results we were expecting. However, consequences are measurable and create lasting effects on people. Even though we may intend to do the right thing, a positive outcome is not guaranteed. Sometimes our actions do not just affect us personally, they can also have repercussions for other individuals, such as members of our families. Intentions, on the other hand, cannot always be determined. While someone might claim that they acted with good intentions, that is not always necessarily the …show more content…
“Utilitarianism proposes a clear and simple moral criterion…[It] is interested in the consequences of our actions: If they are good, the action is right; if they are bad, the action is wrong” (Rosenstand, 2009, p. 225). In other words, consequences should direct our actions and move of us to make the correct the choice. It’s an approach where you have more control over the outcomes, even though you cannot have complete control over them. In this approach, people are also held more accountable for their actions.
The basis of morality in utilitarianism is empirical, where shared experience helps determine what is the best way for society to act. The consequences of an action give you that experience. When faced with a decision, one should examine what the consequences of acting a certain way would be. In the case that the consequences benefit the greater good, than that is the course you should take. However, if the consequences of an action are bad, then you know that you should not take that route.
Often, a person is seen as the embodiment of the value of their action, thus a person can be seen as “good” or “bad,” and the consequences of justice that affect them are based on the general value of their general actions. The value given to actions is based on a soc...
Is intent alone grounds for the same level punishment? Should one be held just as liable even though their action wasn’t completely fulfilled? This dilemma is an interesting one to examine and can be approached from different perspectives. This isn’t a cut and dry matter.
In this paper, we will discuss both Gilbert Harman’s and J. David Velleman’s theories of intentions. The central dispute between their two theories of intention is that Harman holds that intention entails belief, while Velleman holds that intention consists of belief. Velleman constructs a model of intention in which intention consists of belief in order to explain the apparent spontaneity of an agent’s self-knowledge. Harman, on the other hand, rejects the thesis that intention consists of belief because of an example involving an insomniac. My goal in this paper is to show how Velleman’s theory of intention can avoid the problem posed by the case of the insomniac. The conclusion will then be that Velleman’s theory is more plausible than Harman’s, because it is able to successfully explain more about our commonsense observations of agents, namely, how an agent’s self-knowledge is spontaneous.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
... and also towards the wellness of all human being in general. There is not anyone watching over me or judging my moral code. However, I just feel responsible for my actions; a moral code should always be in my consciousness, and it tells me how to act in all situations. A thing to remember about these theories is that they are concerned with the greater good. Utilitarians do not care about a person personal life or whether a person actions happen to hurt some people. As long as the results of a person’s actions lead to more pleasure than pain, you are in the clear. For me, being a good person means doing good, and make good decisions. Human beings are not to be viewed as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism believes that humans are to be treated with respect, but respect must take into account the everyday situations in which a person live.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
A Utilitarian is a person that believes, if an action produces more good than harm, then that action is morally correct. Shkreli believes that if he raises the price Daraprim, Turing Pharmaceuticals will raise more profitable, and therefore is able to spend more money on research to help develop more drugs down the road. There are however, two types of Utilitarianism. There is Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism believes that any action that produces more good than harm, it is the moral thing to do. While Rule Utilitarianism believes that any action that does not breaking the law and produces more good than harm, is the moral thing to do.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong.
The distinction between doing and allowing can be made, but the moral applications of it vary based on the situation to which they are applied. It can be argued, though, that when doing and allowing both bring about the same consequence, there is no moral difference in which action is chosen. Even though many different distinctions can be made between how doing and allowing bring about different sequences, they both bring about the same means; therefore, logical reasoning and a level head must be used to evaluate the right course of action.
We all know there is right and wrong, and that we should focus on doing what is right. However, in many cases such as these two provided to us for this assignment, choosing good has some serious consequences. Unfortunately, life gives us difficult situations, and some cannot always avoid the negative outcomes or side effects that come with the positive action. As individuals, we should strive to avoid evil, and seek good. Although the situations had some negative consequences, in these cases, the good actions were taken according to the principle of double
Utilitarianism is defined to be “the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved” (Vaughn 64). In other words, for a utilitarian,