...principles of the two normative ethical theories of deontology and utilitarianism. Compare and contrast the two theories, bringing out any problems or limitations you see in each. Bioethics Essay • Intro: Define ethics and define and introduce the two theories. (philosophical theories…) • Utilitarianism- example • Deontology- example- compare • comparing- evaluating and critically analyzing*- similarities and differences. • Limitations and positives* • Conclusion- summary of essay and own opinion, remember to justify your own views with reasons – don’t just state your opinions without arguing for them in terms of moral values. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoTheKan http://www.slideshare.net/kljonz/individual-ethics-essay-1 There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles; these are utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism (also known as consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).(1) Deontology is a ??? theory developed from the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The theory utilitarianism is the morality of an act that is judged by it’s utility. The greatest utility that is has for the most people; the greatest usefulness an act has for...
Words: 1646 - Pages: 7
...curtain rules and guidelines for us to live by. Many would object to these morality views but some of these views have stood the test of time and are still being used today. One philosophers views in particular, Immanuel Kant. He’s known to be one of the greatest philosophers known to man. Kant had his own set of ethical and morality theories that many people still follow today. Which brings us to this case and point, is it ever morally permissible to do a morally wrong action in order for the greater good? I will be discussing Kant’s and my moral views on this particular issue. Immanuel Kant was known for his critique of judgment. Kant said that “human beings have “an intrinsic worth” or dignity” that make the valuable “above all price” Rachel’s (page136). Kant believed that “all of our duties can be derived from one ultimate principle, which he called the Categorical Imperative” Rachel’s (Page137). Categorical Imperative is a moral theory that “ones behavior should accord with universalizable maxims which respect persons as end in themselves; the obligation to do ones duty for its own sake” Collins (Page252) .Is the doctrine that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively” this theory express the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its...
Words: 1029 - Pages: 5
...First of all, Kant would say that you should never tell a lie in any instance, ever. The reason for this is that he would say that everyone is responsible for their own actions. One of the ways to tell if you should do something or not, based on Kant’s ideas is to see if I as a person would like to live in a world where everyone was doing that action. So, in the case of lying, I would never be able to lie, because I would not want to live in a world where everyone lied always in every instance. Furthermore, Kant would say that, if I do lie, then I would be responsible for the consequences. However, one of my biggest problems, raised by the book, is that Kant never really seemed to explain whether someone would be responsible for the consequences of telling the truth....
Words: 609 - Pages: 3
...with a good intention. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of act may be moral in different circumstances. But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent moral meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) is inherently unjust. Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of...
Words: 2755 - Pages: 12
...the least harm for all who are affected that is the customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences, it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done. Strengths Secular. Utilitarianism does not rely on specific beliefs about God. In the modern, multicultural society with a range of religious beliefs and a growing number of atheists, a secular approach is most useful. The utilitarianism approach is universal, which means it is acceptable to all the different types of cultures that are available globally. In every religion the utilitarianism approach is useful as it only considers the practises that do not harm the society but those that are acceptable to the society. The belief about what is right or wrong is the one that the society approves, not considering what other societies believe in. Happiness. It is absolutely right that happiness is given intrinsic value. There cannot be any situation where we can say happiness is wrong or bad. It is usually important to give high value to happiness as it...
Words: 1568 - Pages: 7
...TELEOLOGY and DEONTOLOGY You ever heard the saying “the ends justify the means”? What exactly does this mean? Well it means just because you do something bad as long as the result is good the action can be forgiven. If one man kills another man he is a murderer. But what if the man he killed, killed others? Or done worse crimes? Was he a rapist? Possibly, and if he is then was his actions justified? The saying does say if the result is good the action is justified but how good of a result does it have to be? If you rob a bank and give the money to the less fortunate is that justified? How about killing one to save the lives of many? Let’s use teleology and deontology to help us figure this out. First let’s define what deontology and teleology mean. The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty, and logos, which means science. Which means deontology is the "science of duty." Deontology focuses on independent moral rules or duties. In order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules help us regulate those duties. The word teleology comes from the Greek roots telos, which means end, and logos, which means science. Which means teleology is the "science of ends." Teleology focuses on the consequences which our actions might have. When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally. When we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then...
Words: 672 - Pages: 3
... ► The ethics of respect for persons, however, uses two principles, which might cause problems. ▪ Kant thinks both principles are just versions of the same idea, the categorical imperative, but we’ve seen it’s not that easy. ► But it doesn’t seem like these two principles will ever conflict with one another, so consistency isn’t an issue. ▪ And since the basic idea is the same for both, all people are equal and deserve to be treated as such, coherence isn’t much of an issue either. 2. Justification Justification Description: Calculation of reasons for believing a moral standard. What certifies or justifies our belief in one moral standard over another? ► The universalization principle can be seen as an extension of the basic requirement of equality that lies at the very heart of morality. ▪ If morality means anything it means that everyone has to play by the same rules. This is what universalization is all about. ► The means-end principle relies on the idea that morality is all about making free choices. ▪ Our moral autonomy is what makes ethics possible in the first place. ▪ By treating others as a means to our ends, we undermine ethics itself. 3. Plausibility Plausibility Description: Assessment as to whether our moral judgments make sense given our moral principles and...
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
...Principle of Terrorism Terrorists always justify the means by the end 1) No matter how horrific the act it is justifiable to the terrorists as a means to achieve their goals. 2) Common concepts of law, ethics, morality, logic or religion do not apply to terrorists. 3) The creation of terror, mass hysteria and to demonstrate the powerlessness of government are all designed to force submission to the terrorist goals. 4) Terrorists do not view themselves as terrorists. 21 July 1972 - "Bloody Friday" An IRA bomb killed 11 and injured 130 people in Belfast, Northern Ireland. 10 days later 3 car bomb attacks in the village of Claudy left 6 dead. 5 September 1972 - "Munich Olympic Massacre" 8 Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized 11 Israeli athletes in the Olympic games being held at Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities 9 of the hostages and 5 terrorists are killed. Terrorists may or may not have the ability to carry out their act. 1) If the terrorist does not have to have the ability to carry out the act they only need to convince you that they have the ability (hoax). 2) May result in backlash against the terrorist group if the attack is too horrific. 3) Sometimes by forcing the government to take protective measures the terrorist can gain publicity and effect the public without actually launching an attack. Effects of September 11th 1) ARNG guards the airports...
Words: 911 - Pages: 4
...(i)Examine the view that it may be possible to justify involvement in war on some occasions. The Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be theoretical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with justifying war ethically. The role of ethics is used to examine whether war is justified and if so can the aspects be changed. The just war tradition also considers the thoughts of various philosophers through the ages and examine their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the justification of war. The just war theory was firstly developed by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Looking back at the Bible he realised that although older generations sided with the more peaceful aspects of the Bible (New Testament) the aspects which included violence (Old Testament) could not be ignored. In Mathew 5 it Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” however he did not oppose those who crucified him. This links to how war can be justified because Jesus Gods only son did not punish those who purposely killed him without reason. So to punish those with to an extent have a valid reason could be seen as hypocritical. Augustine believed that justified wars were commanded by God in the bible and split his theory into two parts they are; jus ad bellum-just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello-just practice in war. This was then further developed by Aquinas. Jus ad bellum contains seven key points...
Words: 1501 - Pages: 7
...kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case is. In American society we do have a high morality on life and how we should be treated. Torture is something that may not be written down in every countries laws, but is listed in different provisions of the law. In the American Society we all believe that we all shall be free from torture even if we are accused of a crime and do not want to talk about the crime that we are accused of committing. “International norms in this array of treaties and customary international law impose ranges of obligations on states. For instance, states must not only refrain from using torture, they must also take strong positive measures to prevent and punish torture” (McKay, 2005, pg.1037). If we have the right to be free from torture in here in America we believe that we as Americans shall not be tortured by anyone else in any other country even if it is in a time of war. We believe that people that are in the custody of the American’s shall have the same basic rights that we give our citizens. This means that someone that is a person of high interest or value they shall not be tortured for the simple fact that they may have information...
Words: 1462 - Pages: 6
...Holmes Nicholas Holmes 912416549 Environmental Ethics Rationally Persuasive Paper 1 12/10/2013 The Inaction that repetitively plagues the Environmental Movement can be brought to an end by doing something new. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. --Albert Einstein. Since there is doubt to the severity of or even the existence of the environmental crisis, this paper will operate under the presupposition that the environment is indeed in dire straits, and that the ultimate solution should produce a utopian society where man and environment are judged equally. This paper is written from the contentious perspective. Through this perspective it is implicit; by the environment's current state, coupled with the assumption of human responsibility, and the obligation human morality, the notion that something must be done by humans in regards of addressing the environment's plight. That something; must be different from what is currently, and has historically been done. The justification for this statement comes from Albert Einstein’s Epitaph. We need to strike out. Enacting positive drastic changes in the state in the environment will require drastic changes in our collective ethos. It is the task of the environmental movement to; not only figure out what these changes are, and which ones will work best, but to also integrate the changes in to the mainstream. Obviously there must be division of labor within the movement...
Words: 2055 - Pages: 9
...Ethics Kellie Jackson Arthur Murphy Ethics Utilitarianism - Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), though preference utilitarian’s like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. (David 2008) Deontology - Deontological ethics or deontology meaning 'obligation' or 'duty') is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" based ethics, because deontologists believe that ethical rules "bind you to your duty". (Kant 1785) Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted with consequentialist or teleological ethical theories, according to which the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences. Virtue Ethics - Virtue ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. In the West virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the ancient and medieval periods. The tradition suffered an eclipse during the early modern period...
Words: 797 - Pages: 4
...to make comparisons that help give insight to new problems. Many times, however past experiences cannot be related to present problems and can confuse and obscure possibilities. Even the opinions or actions of friends faced with similar dilemmas may not be helpful. Often you feel pressured by piers that say, "it's no big deal", or "you'll understand later". It's important that I understand why a particular action or resolution is correct or incorrect. If I can't or don't it's difficult to feel I've been honest with myself. That for me can be a good measure of ethical behavior, my conscience. The ideal way to deal with difficult questions is to have a foolproof formula. Find steps that will always lead to correct decisions. Unfortunately I do not yet have such a formula and often learn by hard experience right and wrong. Let me start by saying I firmly believe the formula exists,...
Words: 1495 - Pages: 6
...Saying that the Japanese were fighting the war unjustly so we could do it too cannot justify. Some like Fussell would argue that the atomic bombs were dropped just to end the war. Thousands of people died in mere minutes and two cities were virtually wiped off the face of the earth. The bombs that wiped off whole families and buildings. Just saying that war was bad and unbearable is a feeble justification. Total destruction is not the only way to end a war. The United States asking for unconditional surrender also lead to the dropping of the bomb. This unconditional surrender would have required extraordinary measures, as it did, but couldn't the United States negotiated something else? Was there not something less than unconditional surrender?...
Words: 480 - Pages: 2
...gripped, not by his wife, but by his father-in-law and who, with a passive aggressive attitude, tries to get away with it without ever facing problems. The purpose of the film is, in addition to the aforementioned, to criticize this devious attitude. Just as the characters of Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare go hand in hand with violence, I would venture that the same thing happens to the authors when they introduce a cruelty that does not come to mind. I do not mean that there is too much rawness or softening is necessary to avoid hurting sensitivities. What I am referring to is outlets of tone, to unlikely reactions. If we perceive everything within the comic tone that has been raised from the beginning to demonstrate the absurdity of the...
Words: 307 - Pages: 2
