Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The arguments of utilitarianism
The case of utilitarianism
Reflection about virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The arguments of utilitarianism
In Intro to Ethics, we have discussed each moral theory in the context of how the theories dealt with the theory of right conduct and with the deontic status the action had. When we looked at how each theory we talked about dealt with deontic status, we looked at how the actions were right or wrong. The main theories we looked at this semester that dealt with right conduct were utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory, and virtue ethics. Although each of these moral theories has its own flaws, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the strongest and most superior out of all the moral theories. The first moral theory studied in the course this semester was classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism at its base argument is the attempt to maximize utility. When a person uses the moral theory of utilitarianism, they are looking at that action that benefits the most people or that has the higher good for the most people. Utilitarianism say that a person does a certain action that helps or benefits a higher number of people then that action is moral good. Before discussing Utilitarianism further, there is a need to explain what it has to do with consequentialism. Consequentialism is when a person looks at actions or something that someone does and judges that action based of the criteria that of consequences that action brings. To a consequentialist the only way for an action to be moral good the action itself and what the outcome it brings must be good. Let’s say that person is talking a final on Tuesday and decides to bring a bag of candy to the whole class during their final to have something to keep them up. If this action was to benefit the whole class and that action brings good consequence than that action is morally right to a consequ... ... middle of paper ... ... to apply this to everyone. Since there is no one way of knowing what makes a person virtuous it cannot be applied to everyone in a group. An example of this is when a person is asked what Jesus would do. We all assume that Jesus was a virtuous man and that he always did the right thing. Some people try to use this as a guide to rather or not they are a virtuous person. But since we were not their when Jesus was alive we don’t know what exactly he did. Since there is no one definition on what makes something morally right or wrong then this cannot be used on everyone. Kant’s morally theory is the most superior because it universally applies its self to everyone. Kant has multiple moral maxims that can be applied to any given situation on any given day. If a person ever need to know what they were doing was morally right or wrong they and look at this moral theory.
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.
that it all depends on the situation or incident of for example, stealing is right or wrong.
This means that there will be exceptions with universal rules. Let's take the universal rule “Don’t Kill” as an example. What if a person is thrust in a situation where somebody breaks into their house to rob, harm, or do something even worse? Would killing this person be immoral if it is in self defense? Or what about the universal rule: never steal. What if a family is starving and is just trying to feed their kids, but they have no other option but to steal? Would that be immoral as well? There will often be exceptions with trying to make absolute universal rules because there are so many situations and variables to account for.
What is utilitarianism? Through philosophy, John Stuart Mill aims to answer this question. He asserts that one’s actions must be right if the greatest number of individuals are pleased with the greatest good. The theory of utilitarianism is straightforward. One must always chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good. In any instance, one must chose the action that will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle allows one to decipher any action that may be considered right or wrong. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant and Kwame Appiah challenge the method of utilitarianism as a means to determine which rights countries should enforce. Kant asserts that human rights are individual and universal, whereas Appiah focuses on cosmopolitanism.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Ethics is the study of human values, actions and life decisions, also known as morality. By using moral principles, claims which guide individuals by telling them what they ought and ought not to do, ethics attempts to determine if something is good or bad. However at times different moral principles conflict with another, making it difficult to see what the best course of action is. A good moral theory solves that dilemma by attempts to explain why a person or action is right or wrong, or why a person’s character is good or bad by stating which moral principles are more important than others. Two infamous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
In conclusion, a satisfactory moral theory may develop from many different views. For Rachels’ view it was a matter of modesty, reason, desert, motives, consequences, community and justice and fairness. Although I agreed partially with Rachels view, overall I believe a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best
1. Kants theory says something about what makes a good person. his theory evaluates people, not their actions. if a persons actions are right or wrong, morally worthy or lacks
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
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
According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles: utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism, while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed.
(Vaughn, 70) In other words, the rightness of an action depends solely on its consequences, on what results the action produces for the individuals involved. Each individual should get some respect and that leads me into my pro’s for this theory. Everyone should be given respect and given rights with the highest priority. We should treat someone differently because they have a different view on something.
Classical utilitarianism belongs to the family of moral theories called consequentialism. Consequentialism summarizes actions as being morally obligatory because it yields the best results. Classical (act) utilitarian’s believe that the total well-being is the only
1. What are the ethical issues and concerns raised? Sort them by Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives. State the defining characteristics of each theory and briefly apply to the concerns you noted.