Utilitarianism. Identify the main problems of Utilitarianism. To what extent do these make Utilitarianism unacceptable?
Utilitarianism Question 7 A) What are the advantages of Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is principle of making decisions on the basis of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of those who may be affected by the decision. There are many advantages to the principle of utilitarianism. These many evolve around the fact that this idea takes into account many different aspects of the action and decision which helps to make the decision, in a sense, fairer. One main advantage is that the principle appears to make sense to people. The principle is very simple and straight forward and can be easily followed. There is only one criterion to follow - 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. It explains how pleasure if for the greatest number, which to most people seams like a good outcome of a decision. Many people would find it a good goal to work towards and a good basis to make their decisions in life no matter how big the decision may actually be. As the principle is so simple and almost obvious when making some decisions Richard Jones makes the statement: "There has usually been a strong element of Utilitarianism in English moral thinking" Linked with this idea there is the idea of morality. To many people, it seams morally right that we should base our decisions on how much happiness comes out from the decision and to how many people it
"Moral absolutes are unhelpful when making decisions about medical ethics."
"Moral absolutes are unhelpful when making decisions about medical ethics." Some doctors would reject this claim, arguing that moral absolutes help decision making in medical ethics. For example, the rule 'Do not kill' is part of the oath taken by doctors. Some doctors would agonise over a decision whether to kill a terminally ill patient who has asked to die. These doctors might then feel guilty if the family turned out to have different wishes, or if a cure was later found for the illness. Having absolute moral rules helps doctors, because they don't have to think about the individual circumstances or worry about possible consequences that are impossible to calculate or predict. Others claim that this oversimplifies modern medicine. It is not clear, they may say, what would count as killing someone. Doctors disagree about the definition of death as 'brain-stem death'. Some doctors would consider withholding food as killing a patient, while others would disagree. Doctors may say that, rather than trying to apply inflexible moral absolutes, it is better to focus on the well-being of the patient. If giving a high dose of painkillers prevented a patient from dying in agony, doctors might say it doesn't matter what rules were or weren't broken. Others would disagree, saying that clear rules are essential to protect patients and doctors. Doctors who had to kill Mary
To what extent is god's omnipotence a logically coherant concept
To what extent is the omnipotence god a logically coherent concept? The attributes of our god state that he as the creator is omnipotent so that should assume that he can do anything that is logically possible but can he do something that is logical like we can. By our definition he should be able to do anything and everything. But is there anything that god can't do such as: Can god run? As human we have 2 arms and two legs to enable us to run but the other attributes of god contradict each other because if he is all powerful yes he can do anything but by also saying that god has always existed suggest a god like Aristotle a prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore can't have any matter and so can't run does this mean that we are better than god by being able to do something that he can't and therefore he isn't omnipotent. The omnipotence of god and the paradoxes it creates were attempted to be solved by Rene Descartes he theorised that god is completely omnipotent and there is nothing that cannot do e.g. create a stone too big for him to lift. Descartes would then go on the say that although he has created a so called object that he cannot lift he would be able to lift because of his omnipotence no matter how logically impossible the instance. This form of omnipotence is similar to the first version of Peter Geach's theory of omnipotence of the
Abosolute and Relative morality
Absolute & Relative Morality In order to discuss the differences between the two and their strengths and weaknesses in conjunction with cultural relativism, we first must determine what they are. An absolutist would say that a rule, prohibition or command is the same for all time, no matter the situation or time. They have the belief that if it is wrong from an objective point of view; and not from yours or mine. They say that immoral acts or intrinsically wrong, which means they are wrong within themselves, the situation and outcome of said situation is irrelevant; an act is wrong if it breaks a moral rule. A relativist approach is that no two situations are the same, and that a persons choice is related the unique set of circumstances set out in their lives; and it makes no sense to generalise or to say that one act or thought is always wrong and another is always right. There is no objective morality, or if there is it cannot be discovered; decisions are not related to anything that is absolute so there is not point trying to establish moral rules. A perfect example of the two beliefs being combined is the countries judicial system; in simple the judicial system does not treat every case of murder for example as the same, they weigh up the circumstances of the unique situation and judge weather their actions where carried out with malice intent or just cause. From this
Virtue Ethics
Explain Virtue Ethics Unlike most ethical theories, virtue ethics cannot simply be classified as either deontological or teleological. This is because they are not primarily interested in duty or results. Virtue ethics however, deals with character. This ethical theory dates back to Aristotle, and there are even sources in ancient China. When we think of virtuosity, we think of virtuous acts, such as generosity or honesty. However it is a little more than that because it concerns other actions such as interest, reactions and wants. These feelings are all in the mind and therefore there must be a mindset to being virtuous. This mindset is part of what makes duty and consequence irrelevant. If we take the example of an honest person, they would not tell the truth because if they don't someone could get hurt. They tell the truth because not telling the truth would be a lie. As Aristotle believed that character was the most important thing, he also understood this mindset, so he came up with virtue and vice. Virtues are not just good acts, but good qualities or a good mindset but vices are not. There are also two types of vice - vice of deficiency and vice of excess. If virtues are good acts, you can obviously have too much virtue or too little virtue and these are the vices. For Aristotle there were twelve virtuous acts. For example, courage - Aristotle would say that you
Examine the major features of the Ontological argument for the existence of God.
Examine the major features of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument has a few key features, for example it is an a-priori argument, which means that it is based on logic alone and does not rely on us having experience of the concepts to relate to it. One feature of the ontological argument is that it is a deductive argument, this means that the conclusion automatically follows the premises. If the premises are true then you cannot deny the conclusion. The premises of the argument are that God is the greatest conceivable being and that existence is a property that one can have. If we accept these premises then it makes it really difficult to deny the conclusion of the argument due to its deductive form. A feature of the Ontological argument is that it is an a-priori argument, that is, it does not rely on our experience, only logic. It only relies on our knowledge of Anslem's definition of God as being the Greatest Conceivable Being. Another key feature of the argument is that it is in analytic form. This means an analytical statement that is true by its own definition, for example, "All bachelors are unmarried men." In the same way the ontological argument says that the idea of God itself contains the idea of his existence. If this is true then God's existence should be self evident to everyone. Anselm's ontological argument purports to
Explain Plato's theory of forms.
Philosophy essay 1 - Plato Explain Plato's theory of forms Plato's theory of forms is strongly based on what is real and what is not. What is real is thought to be perfect, but something cannot be real or perfect if it is always changing. He explains that the "World of forms" is very different to the "World of appearances". The "World of forms" can only be properly understood by philosophers and those who seek knowledge, not by the ignorant or those who do not wish to learn the truth. The theory of forms makes a distinction between those objects that are real and those that are only real in our minds. His dialogues (e.g. Parable of the cave) portray knowledge as the process of leaving the cave and going into the sunlight. The people in the cave find their reality in the shadows cast in the cave and assume there can never be anything beyond these shadows. These shadows symbolise how the world that we see is just a shadow or reflection of what is real. For Plato, the real world is not what we see around us, it is only the "World of forms" that is real and unchanging. This is also known as the " One and many". The "One" being the perfect "World of forms" and the "Many" being the imperfect "World of appearances" Plato approach to the two different/ alternate world is know as dualism. The idea of dualism has had a major effect and has strongly influenced the development of
Is Global Scepticism Possible?
Is Global Scepticism Possible? Natasha Baddeley Global scepticism puts all of our attempts at seeking true knowledge into doubt; it makes all traditional ways of finding out about the world unreliable. One of the most famous sceptics is the philosopher Rene Descartes. In his first meditation, Descartes regards the 'many false things' that he had once believed as a child and acknowledges that all his beliefs were built on things that can be doubted. Descartes believed that he would have to start again on more solid foundations than those more doubtful ones his knowledge was previously built on. It is through Descartes' acceptance that all his current knowledge is doubtful that makes him a sceptic, however even Descartes hold the view that he will still be able to rebuild his knowledge once he gains more solid foundations. Descartes put forward three waves of doubt, the argument from illusion, the evil demon argument and the argument from dreaming. Descartes believed that each of these 'waves of doubt' forced him to question all the beliefs that he held. Descartes believes, in his argument from illusion, that our senses sometimes deceive us; for instance, when I look at a drinking straw in a glass it appears bent, yet when I remove the straw from the glass it is straight. Descartes argues that if our senses have been proven to mislead us in the past, then we cannot be certain
How are the moral beliefs of one community and one time related to the views of other contemporary communities and to those of people of other times?
Arastoo Tavakoli TOK 2/16/03 Ward How are the moral beliefs of one community and one time related to the views of other contemporary communities and to those of people of other times? Any community one looks at, he/she will see a set of moral beliefs that are carried out by society. Within those moral beliefs, people are able to decide what is ethical and what is nonethical. They can differentiate between right and wrong. Even those that are mainly isolated from the rest of the world, still contain a set of moral beliefs. Different communities share many of the same moral beliefs, showing that communities are able to differentiate between right and wrong. This similarity that exists between communities shows that moral beliefs are innate. Humans have a natural tendency towards certain beliefs. The fact that communities share many of the same moral beliefs that distinguish what is right and wrong, demonstrates that this is a natural tendency by humans. Many of the characteristics of what is considered right deals with volunteering or going out of one's way in order to help someone else. The opposite is true for a moral belief for what is considered wrong. Anything that harms another person in any way or society as a whole would be considered a wrongdoing. These base outline of what constitutes right and wrong are shared amongst communities, demonstrating that the basic
How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless?
How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless? (35) How do Christians decide what is meaningless and what statements in Religion have meaning? Different beliefs think that different things are classed as meaningful and meaningless, so how is it possible to make statements classed fairly as meaningless or meaningful? To answer these questions four different scholars came up with theory's to prove when something is meaningful and when it is not. These theories are called the Via Negativa, the Verification Principle, the Falsification Principle and Ludwig's Language Games and they all have different ways to decide when a statement has meaning and should be used in Religious Language. The Via Negativa, also known as the apophatic way, says it is impossible to speak about what God is, so instead says Religion should describe God as what he is not. It involves speaking in negative terms when describing God, instead of using positive terms such as 'God is father' and imagining him to be human, rather than something greater than everything. Pseudo-Dionysius argued that the Via Negativa is the only way to talk truthfully and meaningfully about God. He believed saying what God is not is the only way to prove statements are meaningful, because God is beyond all human imagination and understanding. The main arguments against the Via Negativa relate to believers thoughts
