Utilitarianism is a good ethical theory. Why and why not?
"Utilitarianism is a good ethical theory" - Why and Why Not? Utilitarianism declares there are no moral absolutes, therefore "x" action is always right, or "x" action is always wrong. Instead, an action is "right" if it secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This allows the theory to be applied to more complex moral dilemmas, for instance, whether or not to torture a suspected terrorist in order to find the location of a bomb that could kill many more people. Somebody who believes in moral absolutes would possibly say that to torture is always intrinsically, inherently wrong - however this belief would mean that possibly many people would die, when they could have been saved. Some people would see moral absolutes as being impractical and even harmful to others in this case, and therefore a theory where the end justifies the means is preferable. Utilitarian theory could be applied to any situation, taking into account the difficulties, positives and negatives of the decision you need to make, and some may argue that rigidly following moral absolutes may do more harm than good. However, how does a person measure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? There is no "currency" in happiness, there are different types of happiness; there is contentment, intense happiness and mild happiness. To the individual, happiness will be of a
There is no point in marriage when you can live together in any case
"There is no point in marriage when you can live together in any case" Some people would agree with the statement because they don't like to get into a big relationship without really knowing how it would feel like to live with them first. They may not want to make vows before God, family and friends knowing that in the next few years they won't like each other and they will have to break these vows (promise). They may be living together just for lust (desirable purposes) and not because they are in love or want to spend there lives with each other. Marriage is a big commitment and they might not want to get in a commitment as it may have not been part of their plans for future. Some couples are engaged to be married, and decide to move in together before the wedding. Sometimes they are saving money for a wedding, and decided that they'll live together in the meantime. They maybe don't want to nor can't married but still want to spend the rest of their life together. Others might disagree because getting married means you will have love, security and commitment which are some things you will not get completely if you do not get married; this can only come also from this stable relationship of marriage. Marriage is better because it is tradition; 98% of adults are married. Marriage provides a suitable relationship for two people to grow and love each other. You marry to have
Ethnic Groups and Discrimination
Ethnic Groups and Discrimination By: Michael P Boyer Axia College of University of Phoenix Italians immigrated to the United States for many reasons. In 1657 about 167 Italians immigrated to the United States from Holland due to religious persecution. Between 1850 and 1880 about 65,000 Italians had come to the United States. This set up the later immigrants with newspapers and "Little Italy's" popping up all over the United States. Between 1875 and 1930 over 5 million Italians immigrated to the United States from Italy. This was primarily due to the poor farming conditions in Southern Italy. Most Italians that came to the United States were illiterate and unskilled causing them to work as common laborers. But by 1910 many Italians showed that they could progress upward in the types of jobs that they were able to take. Italians faced prejudice, segregation, and racism in the United States. According to clevelandmemory.org "Italians were lynched in the South as were blacks, in some cases for permitting blacks equal status with whites in their shops."(P. 122) Even though statistics showed that Italians were responsible for a small amount of crimes and murders and that most murders committed by Italians in the United States were committed against other Italians they earned a bad reputation anyway. One of the reasons that most Americans thought this way was probably
Explain the difference between Meta ethics and Normative ethics.
Explain the difference between Meta ethics and Normative ethics Laura Barrett Ethics is concerned with ideas about moral judgements and the basis for rules of conduct, which apply to all humans, and therefore is a form of ethical absolutism. What is right i.e. about justice, how people should live. In addition it explores the choices people make and about the values and reasoning that lay behind them and about the meaning and use of moral terms. The study of Ethics is split into two branches. There is normative ethics. Normative ethics is based on natural law theory which states that what is good can be determined from an analysis of human nature. This considers what kinds of things are good and bad and how we are to decide what kinds of action are right and wrong. This is the main tradition of ethical thinking, as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle used it. Many moral arguments is concerned with the rights or wrongs of specific matters. "It is always wrong to steal." The sentence above is a normative statement as using another normative statement such as "No I think it is right to steal on some occasions," can challenge it. However you can't challenge a normative statement by using a descriptive one "But everyone around here steals if they get a chance." It is not saying that it is wrong to steal it is implying that everyone may do something, but it doesn't
Outline The Criticisms Of Action Based Ethical Systems
Outline The Criticisms Of Action Based Ethical Systems One criticism would be that Action- Based Ethics lack a motivational component. Critics claim that action based ethics are uninspiring and very negative. They would say that it fails to inspire someone to action. Most of the commandments and rules in such systems are innately negative "Thou shalt not..." There is something unfit about a morality which is so unevenly defined in terms of "Thou shalt nots", emphasising innocence instead of an "energetic pursuit of the Good". The only sure principle is a reciprocal duty to do no harm. This kind of theory places a very low value on morality, judging it mainly as a necessary evil. The aretaist rejects this judgement, they see morality as an intrinsically worthwhile activity. Another criticism is that action based ethics are founded on a theological- legal model that isn't really appropriate. Moral language in traditional schemes usually has a structure that resembles that of law. Traditional, natural law ethics used this model with integrity, for it saw moral principles as terminology to law and God as alike to the sovereign. Now, however, ethics has become autonomous activity, so that it is now an inarticulate metaphor. The virtue ethicists reject this model. Ethics should help us develop admirable characters that will generate the kind of insights needed for the
Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism.
Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism (33) Utilitarianism is a teleological (relativist) ethical theory, which follows the concept that the 'end justifies the means' (the value of a moral action is judged according to the end it produces) on the understanding of providing the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number', and is therefore contrary to deontological theories such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. In addition, it is important to declare that the concept of Utilitarianism was devised by Jeremy Bentham, in which he divided his theory into the following three categories: the motivation of human beings; the principle of utility (usefulness); and the hedonic calculus (which takes into account seven elements when deciding the preferable course of action). It is also significant to make reference to John Stuart Mill, who developed Bentham's theory with the intention of altering the emphasis from 'quantity to quality', and distinguished between higher (mind) and lower (body) pleasures, in which he declared: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". Utilitarianism can also be defined into act (associated with Bentham) and rule (associated with Mill) form, whereby act utilitarians maintain that, wherever possible, the principle of utility must be directly
Explanation of criminal thinking paterns.
Explanation of Criminal Thinking paterns * Morality and crime:- Point 1: Kohlberg; stages of Moral Reasoning Kohlberg believed that people progressed in their moral reasoning thorugh three stages: The first stage: the pronounced harshness of a transgression is at first related to the amount of visible damge, meaning that people behave according to socially acceptable norms and then later the view that right behaviour means acting in one's own best interests. The second stage: justice is seen as a universal occurance and that punishment should reflect the amount of harm done. Later, justice is seen as realated to the consequences that transgression creates for others and that punishment should take account of intention. The third sgate: is the understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of people and situations. According to Kohlberg everyone goes through these stages sequentially without skipping any stage. However, movement through these stages are not natural, that is people do not automatically move from one stage to the next as they mature. But according to stage theory, people cannot understand moral reasoning more than one stage ahead of their own. In various control group experiments Arbuthnot et al concluded that there are obvious distinctions in moral attitudes toward the acceptability of various offences. And that most studies
I have raised myself to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world."
"Having emerg'd from the Poverty and Obscurity in which I was born and bred, I have raised myself to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world." -Benjamin Franklin It has always been a common belief in this country that there is nothing that cannot be obtained through hard work and diligence. This is a belief that America was founded on and leaned against during its hardest times-this is the American Dream. On the surface level, Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography reflects upon the life of an extraordinary man who was able to come from the meager beginning of youngest son to a position of financial well being and social status. Nevertheless, Franklin's autobiography contains a plethora of contradictions and flaws and one comes to doubt just how much appraisal he actually deserves. Franklin has noble aspirations; but, because they are directed by his relentless effort to achieve prosperity and great industry, his autobiography ultimately portrays him as a model of tyranny and arrogance. Franklin has noble aspirations; but, because they are directed by his industrious nature and relentless effort to achieve prosperity, his autobiography portrays him as a man who contradicts the very ideals he advocates. Throughout Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography, we observe actions and decisions that credit him as America's prime example of a self made man.
How Plausible is Cultural Relativism
How Plausible is Cultural Relativism? Cultural relativism associates any ethical truth to the moral precedence of a particular culture: there can be no right or wrong actions or behaviour; rather actions that either do or do not correlate with the moral code relative to a specified society. For instance, polygamy is morally acceptable in some Islamic societies but not in Christian culture. According to William Sumner, morality is simply 'socially approved habits'1 that are subjective in their nature but form moral guidelines for the relevant culture. Therefore, cultural relativism denies the existence of objective and universal moral truths in favour of an acceptance that nothing can be intrinsically wrong or right, and that any feelings of moral obligation are caused by our upbringing and cultural influences. As a result though, there are many criticisms of this meta-ethical attitude because it does appear that human morality is considerably more complex than simply a product of social precedents. A main supporter of cultural relativism is James Rachels in 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy.' He agreed with the idea that all different societies have different moral codes and each of these individual codes determines what is morally acceptable within that particular society: the Cultural Difference Argument. Because there is no objective standard by which to judge which code
Moral disengagement in the Perpetration of InhumanitiesSummary
Moral disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities Summary This essay begins by talking about moral conduct and the different varieties of sanctions and self regulatory mechanisms that control human behavior. One way moral conduct is controlled is through social sanctions, which outlines the moral standards of society. Moral agency is said to have two aspects: inhibitive and proactive. The inhibitive factor expresses the will not to behave inhumanely whilst the proactive factor conveys the will to behave in a humane manner. People do not ordinarily engage in harmful conduct unless they somehow justify their actions to themselves. In this case, the only was immoral conduct becomes morally acceptable is through the process of moral justification. An example of this could be the many decent people in history who have perpetrated destructive conduct in the name of righteous ideologies and religions. Euphemistic labeling is one method in which inhumane acts are made to seem less hideous. An example of this would be when civilians are killed by a bomb it is known as collateral damage which is in essence, a weak attempt to sanitize the action and make it seem less repugnant. Advantageous comparison is another way of making harmful conduct look good. In essence, how an act is perceived can be explained by what it is compared to. By using this tool, guilty actions can be made to