Under a consequential perspective, Commissioner Walker opines that as an official of the city he is ethically obligated to make decisions that promote good consequences for the greatest number. As he begins to deliberate on the case he starts to reflect on the two schools of thought. He first starts to ponder the meaning of consequentialism. He knows that consequentialism is the view that morality produces the right kinds of overall consequences.
Dawn Riley at American True Student: Professor: Course title: Date: Dawn Riley at America True This paper analyzes the story of Dawn Riley at America True from an ethical perspective. In particular, the ethics in the story is analyzed from the utilitarian ethics perspective. Utilitarianism is a well-known moral theory. Its main concept, just like other types of consequentialism, is that whether the action of a person is morally wrong or right depends on the effects of that action.
In the movie “Do the Right Thing” it seems to me that utilitarianism is not a standard practice. Throughout the movie viewers follow Mookie, a pizza delivery boy with many connections and a family just trying to make ends meet. He is faced with several dilemmas of trying to make his boss happy or the people in his neighborhood happy, which in the end he seems to succeed neither. Utilitarianism is the ethical conduct of maximizing happiness, in “Do the Right Thing” it seems that there is no group with maximum happiness.
Euthanasia- Gay Williams Gay-Williams presents an opposing argument against euthanasia. This reading made me really think about my stance on euthanasia. I personally have mixed feelings on this topic. Gay-Williams states that euthanasia is “inherently wrong” and is starting to become more accepted. One comment I have is that as science is advancing and new remedies are created, this thinking might be changing for some people.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
To have Integrity a person must adhere to certain morals and standards that they can build themselves off of. Say a vegetarian who finds themselves in a restaurant with no vegetarian options, they would have the integrity to refuse to eat at this establishment and not give up there morals. Integrity however plays a large role in Bernard Williams’ article Against Utilitarianism, he elaborates on the idea that Utilitarianism is in direct violation with one’s integrity. It is violated by something called “negative responsibility” which is the notion that the outcome of an event is on the hands of anyone who could have participated. To display this fault in Utilitarianism Williams brings two examples to the table, one involving George and another
The policy objectives created for homelessness change the beliefs of the suitable and fair housing. The homeless expectations presented depicts a view of the policy; Housing first. Consequently, the model is a public policy it is an alternative to a system of emergency shelter/transitional housing progressions. It focuses on homeless families with the opportunity of moving toward stable housing. Rather than providing temporary or transitional shelter; it is critical to acquire a home providing counseling as soon as possible as it focuses on interventions providing services after gaining lodging.
Additionally, the stringency of the application of Singer’s utilitarian principle requires that 100% of information about 100% of possible outcomes of an action be a known in order for his methodology to be effective. When contemplating issues as large as world hunger, it seems impossible to anticipate every possible outcome before acting. Related to this, I pose a more precise set of questions to Singers methodology of consequentialism. If one is not able to make the most beneficent decision, what decision are they to make? Are they required to make a choice anyway, and if so, what are the criteria for that process inside the consequentialist viewpoint?
A main objection to act utilitarianism is that it can be impossible to determine the scope, intensity, and/or the duration of the action. People cannot possibly predict every single outcome that will come from an action and the affect it will have for sure. Another objection to act utilitarianism is that it makes people rely to heavily on morals when making their decision. This turns even the simplest decision into some complicated process that is not needed. For example, people do not need to look at the intensity when they are deciding what chips to buy at the grocery store, they can simply just choose the one they like best.
He presents an example where a certain society might be better off banning a racial minority because, since the racists outnumber the minority, the best way to maximize happiness is to conform to the racist’s demands. Williams goes on to say that a utilitarian might be ashamed of this conclusion. However, if a utilitarian tries to change his views because he feels uncomfortable supporting racism, he might start going against his own utilitarian beliefs. This is where I find that basic human compassion clashes strongly with utilitarianism. In this particular case, utilitarianism seems to support a conclusion that goes against a fight humanity already fought during the civil rights movement.
When a person is going to make a moral decision based on consequentialism, he or she first look at the good and bad possible consequences of the action, then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad.
A number of problems surround the second question; the most obvious of which are limited time, the limited capacity of human foresight to calculate the maximum number of happiness, and the inability of the theory to advise on the time frame utilitarianism is to be applied to; how do you know the maximum number of happiness for the next 10 years doesn’t mean greater overall unhappiness in the next 50 years, so what time period should one keep in mind when considering an issue from a utilitarian stand point, 1 year, 5 years, 10, 20? This lack of clarity further adds to the impractical nature of the ideology. There are a myriad number of situations which seem very difficult to resolve without employing utilitarian principles and a very good example is the widespread use of utilitarian principles in bioethics. The best example here would obviously be the famous case of the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie. The facts in front of the court indicated that Mary was the parasitic twin who shared a heart with Jodie.
Commonly, ethical systems are categorized into two major systems. The deontological approaches or normative ethical position which judges an action based on the adherence of the action to certain rules and the teleological approaches which judges primarily based on the consequences of an action (Hare, 1964). The Utilitarianism is assigned to the teleological approaches, as it does not evaluate an action by itself but by it’s
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that is credited to being created by Jeremey Bentham. Bentham believed that all humans make choices based on two feelings, pain and pleasure. Because of this, Bentham believed that motives are not good or bad in nature but instead on what feeling a human might feel more.
As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law. Utilitarianism:- this is the concept used by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and the John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The core idea of this theory is the results comes from the action taken by the group of people or the individual. According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong.
