Either way, a means to an end proved positive. In thinking about the ethical dilemma that you present in your blog, I think that I would most likely approach the situation with a utilitarian perspective. As a parent I have an obligation to protect my child, and I would say that there is no ethical framework that would disagree with this.
I understand that the means that one would take to protect their child should not be unethical, such as the means chosen in this case lying. Nonetheless, in this scenario the means of lying to get the loan, would justify the ends. After all, a life my daughter in this case would be saved, I will benefit because I will not only fulfill my duty as a parent, but I would also keep a person that is dear to me alive.
Most importantly, the bank will also benefit assuming that I will pay the bank loan back without any delays—the bank will receive their money back with the additional accrued interest. Therefore, the benefits are maximized and the pain is minimized for all in this case. Reference: Guzman, C. You must be logged in to post a comment. If the game of push-pin furnished more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.
Bentham is saying that, if the utility you get from games is greater than what you get from music or science or art, then you should play those games.
This is where we introduce our second character. John Stuart Mill was a generation younger than Bentham, but the two knew each other well. He tutored John Jr. By the time he was three years old, he could read ancient Greek.
When he turned eight, he had read most of the ancient Greek literature and started on Latin. Around the same time he composed a poetic continuation of the Iliad, the oldest Western book. He was studying University courses at the age of fourteen, and learned about science in his spare time.
Definitely a clever guy. The higher pleasures were such things as good theatre, museums, Mozart, classical learning, ballet and so on — you get what I mean. The lower pleasures were often more associated with the rest of the body than the head. They were things like alcohol, sex outside of wedlock , simple games, and winning an unnecessary fight.
John drew a sharp distinction here. In fact, he went all the way: no amount , he said, of the lower pleasures, can ever equal even the smallest bit of the higher pleasures. The opera, even if it is a rather mediocre one, will always be better than any amount of fun with your mates at the bar or at bowling. Whereas Bentham had counted every creature as relevant to his utility calculations, John thought that the utility of some creatures counted for less than others.
John would disagree. As humans, we can savour the taste better and remember it for longer. Besides, as humans, we need the sustenance more, because we can many more helpful things in the world than your dog can no offence.
So, to sum up: Bentham and John Stuart Mill are credited with inventing and developing utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory which states that only one thing—utility—is relevant to ethical decisions. The option that produces the greatest utility is the only ethical option. Nevertheless, it is a simple theory: find out what the option is that produces the maximum utility, then act on it. The difficulty lies in figuring out what utility is and which option has the most of it. Deontology is also a normative theory.
That means, if you remember, that it is a theory about what is or should be the norm, in other words, what kind of actions should be taken, and why. Like utilitarianism, it is also a monistic theory — it relies, ultimately, on only one criterion. But unlike utilitarianism, this criterion is not pleasure, pain, or well-being, but rather duty.
They are both competing whether it is right or wrong, while they only believe that consequences can solve the problem of an act. It would be producing of how great good for the greatest number of people.
Happiness, in utilitarianism, comes from pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness comes from the deprivation of pleasure which then would equal pain. The utilitarian approach to morality insinuates that no moral act or rule is essentially right or wrong. Instead, the rightness or wrongness of either an act or rule, is entirely a matter of the overall nonmoral good pleasure, happiness, satisfaction of individual desire produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule.
In a nutshell, morality is a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself. Also, it focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Furthermore, it relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment.
Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the greatest good of the greatest number.
It takes the view that an action is right if it is likely to produce the best consequences compared to all the other possible actions. The best consequences are those which involve the maximization of what is good and the minimization of what is bad. The worst consequences are which involve the maximization of what is bad and the minimization of what is good.
The basic premise is the idea that the greatest good comes from creating happiness for the greatest number of people. He goes as far as to say that actions will posses moral worth only if they are a result of our good will, similar to that which we intend to achieve Shafer-Landau, pg. Good will is a must-have virtue according to Kant, which then ties us into categorical imperatives.
If we are to be driven by a good will, or a will to do what is right, then we must conjecture You state that during childbirth, a doctor that follows deontology would attempt to save both the mother and child due to his belief that an action is right if it is morally ethical and the consequence of the result will not affect the decision.
Now, what if the doctor was an utilitarianist? He would then have to make a decision that would result in the best outcome. What would that outcome have to be? It would mean that he would have to save as many lives as he can, similar to the concept of deontology; thus, your example for deontology does not differentiate it from utilitarianism. All I have to say is you need to get your facts straight before you go out and tell people what you think you know.
A man with mental health problems with many pets living with disable friend who could not cope with care. What would be the the ethical position of Utilitariansm and deontology. No need to be a jerk about it. I agree that a person should be more well-informed before explaining a topic, but still. Also, I find your criticism about utilitarianism not being a branch of ethics to be a bit trivial.
It is still a branch per se, just a sub branch that, as you said, falls under consequentialism. Name required. Email required.
0コメント