When given a choice between consequentialism and virtue ethics, which is the better theory when dealing with moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem? To make this determination we must first decide which theory produces the best answer, and how that answer is better. Using only moral dilemma based scenarios, much like the trolley problem case, consequentialism especially in its utilitarian form, always results in a better outcome then virtue ethics, in that the outcomes will always better the most people, regardless of who makes the decision. To prove this, we will look at several scenarios, we will look at the similarities and differences of how the problems are addressed in both theories, then use that information to show why the utilitarian …show more content…
All of the possible decisions end in loss of life, so to find the answer the bystander must use his morals to make the decision. First using the virtue ethics theory, the morality of the answer would be based in the character of the individual making the decision. Therefore, if the person making the decision is of good character, the decision regardless of the outcome is the correct answer. In comparison, a utilitarian approach would consider the consequences of all the options available, then chose the outcome which results in the most happiness of all the parties affected by the decision. The main difference in these two approaches being the way, when using virtue ethics, the outcome can change based on who is making the decision, versus the consistent outcome of the …show more content…
We analyzed several cases of different forms to include, a case with a positive and negative outcome, a case with all negative outcomes, and a case where all the participants were of poor character; to show practical examples of these two theories. We also looked at the outcomes from those cases to determine which system produces the better outcomes and why. After studying all of these findings we have determined that when it comes to a better moral theory, between virtue ethics and consequentialism, consequentialism is the better system for consistently making moral decisions, especially in its utilitarian
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
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.
In general, we are morally permitted to turn the trolley in order to save five, but kill one. On the other hand, we are not permitted to transplant the organs of one healthy person in order to save five who will otherwise die. According to consequentialists, there is no moral difference between “Trolley” and “Transplant.” Consequentialists believe that “consequences are the only things of moral relevance” (Quinn 287). Actually, the consequences of both cases are either saving the lives of five or the life of one. However, our moral judgement leads that the case of “Trolley” is morally permitted, but “Transplant” isn’t permitted. Why do we think that they are different? I think that the difference between the two cases come from the doctrine
By looking further into this dilemma using various ethical standpoints allows for a broad understanding of principles and complexity in a specific situation with these paradigms. The focuses are three prominent ethical paradigms such as: teleological utilitarianism, deontological duty theories and virtue based ethics. Each of these three paradigms will be applied to the aforementioned dilemma, each will be evaluated and the best option will be revealed.
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
In this week video discussion, the main subject is it ok for the trolley to kill five or one individual that are tied to the trolley track. The back ground of the scenario, remains a person is on a footbridge looking down on the unfolding disaster. However, a fat man, a stranger, is standing next to you: if you push him off the bridge, he will topple onto the line and, although he will die, his chunky body will stop the train, saving five lives. The question is, is it permissible to kill one or the five individuals.
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
In the 1950s, Rule Consequentialism was developed, and served as an alternative to Classical Act Utilitarianism. Rule Consequentialism seemed to avoid the seemingly incorrect moral conclusions that Classical Act Utilitarianism brought in difficult moral situations. I will evaluate this idea by applying both Rule Consequentialism and Classical Utilitarianism to a difficult moral dilemma. Then I will determine the validity of the conclusions, and see if either theory gives the intuitively appealing conclusion.
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...
The Bystander at the Switch case is a fundamental part of Thomson’s argument in “Trolley Problem.” The basis of her paper is to explain the moral difference between this case, which she deems morally permissible (1398), and the Transplant case, which she deems morally impermissible (1396). In the Bystander at the Switch case, a bystander sees a trolley hurtling towards five workers on the track and has the option of throwing a switch to divert the trolley’s path towards only one worker. Thomson finds the Bystander at the Switch case permissible under two conditions:
According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
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.
Trolley Investigation Choosing a Variable Before I begin the investigation, I must first decide which variable I should investigate. Variables can be divided into 2 major groups: dependant variables and independent variables. In measuring the behaviour of a trolley the dependant variable is speed. This is because the speed will change when other variables are changed. An independent variable is a variable which cannot be affected by other variables.
This theory involves evaluating the individual making the decision rather than the actions or consequences themselves. Aristotle defined “virtue as a character trait that manifests itself in habitual actions.” (Boatright, 2012) This means that you are not considered virtuous because you did the right thing one time, you must be consistent. Virtue character traits include: compassion, courage, courtesy, etc. these traits not only allow for ethical decision making but they also provide happiness to the individual possessing the traits. When a person has virtue as a part of their character their actions will be moral and ethical without having to choose between what they want to do and what they should do – the decision would be the same. Their actions and feelings would coincide with the moral rationale of the virtue theory. Advantages of the virtue theory are instilling good moral character traits into individuals allowing for more ethical decision making based on personal character. Also, the virtue theory promotes happiness through good moral character which encourages people to make ethical business decisions but also ethical personal decisions – leading to a more fulfilling life. A disadvantage is virtue ethics is trying to determine a list of virtues that people should possess, each trait needs to be carefully