Right, wrong and okay: With ethical dilemmas there are several options that can be ethically accepted with no specific one being ethically required. You can't really break these into categories of right or wrong, it is best to think of situations as ethically obligatory, ethically prohibited or ethically acceptable.
Distinguish wrong and harm: Causing harm is wrong, but harm alone is not enough to judge whether something is ethical or not.
Separating goals from constraints: Ethics teach us what actions are acceptable or not acceptable in our attempts to reach our goals. Working hard, investing our money wisely and being an interesting and decent person can achieve goals. Lying and cheating to reach your goal is ethically wrong.
Personal preference and ethics: A personal preference lets say you work for an animal shelter that believes in euthanizing, but you think it is ethically wrong, it is your personal preference to not work there.
Law and Ethics: Ethics precedes law in the sense that ethical principle help to determine whether or not we should pass specific laws. We are ethically obligated to obey laws that enforce ethical rules.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Which kind of ethical theory, deontologist or consequentialist, works better for arguing that it is wrong to drive one's car on the left side of the..
Which kind of ethical theory, deontologist or consequentialist works better for arguing that it is wrong to drive one's car on the left side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the right?
Deontologists argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any good that may come from the act of lying. They believe in duty an absolute rules. Consequentialists argue that lying is wrong because of the negative impacts, the difference between the two is that the consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable.
I would have to say that the consequentialist theory would work better for arguing the side of the road dilemma, because the negative impacts that driving on the left side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the right. Allowing the certain forseeable sequences will make this acceptable. But I also think that Deontologist could also make a good argurment since it is a law and they believe in absolute rules.
Deontologists argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any good that may come from the act of lying. They believe in duty an absolute rules. Consequentialists argue that lying is wrong because of the negative impacts, the difference between the two is that the consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable.
I would have to say that the consequentialist theory would work better for arguing the side of the road dilemma, because the negative impacts that driving on the left side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the right. Allowing the certain forseeable sequences will make this acceptable. But I also think that Deontologist could also make a good argurment since it is a law and they believe in absolute rules.
Give an example of a law that implements an ethical principle & more
Unfortunately many laws fall into a category that is not intended to implement ethical rules or as the book states... even be consistent with them. Laws against murder and theft because we are obligated to obey these laws, not because they are laws, but because the laws implement obligations and prohibitions of ethical rules.
Give an example of a law that enforces a particular groups idea of how people should behave. Many political, religious, or ideological organizations try to promote laws that require a person to act or behave a certain way. Laws such as Prohibitions on gambling and alcohol, requirements for recycling, and there are some that require stores to be closed on Sundays.
Give an example of a law that enforces a particular groups idea of how people should behave. Many political, religious, or ideological organizations try to promote laws that require a person to act or behave a certain way. Laws such as Prohibitions on gambling and alcohol, requirements for recycling, and there are some that require stores to be closed on Sundays.
Explain the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?
The difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism's guiding principle is to increase happiness or 'utility' as explained by John Stuart Mill. Act utilitarianism - for each action, we consider the impact on utility or happiness and judge the action by its 'net impact'. With Act the choice is made based on the best possible consequence. For example telling someone a non truth because the real truth might cause them to be unhappy and that could have a domino effect. Rule utilitarianism follows 'moral rules' where there are no exceptions. The only rule is 'Utility'. Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or does it or doesn't it produce Happiness?
Both ACT and RULE utilitarians must assume nothing.
ACT Utilitarian measures the consequences of one single ACT.
RULE Utilitarian measures the consequences of the act repeated over and over again through time as if it were to be followed as an actual RULE whenever similar circumstances arise.
Utilitarianism's guiding principle is to increase happiness or 'utility' as explained by John Stuart Mill. Act utilitarianism - for each action, we consider the impact on utility or happiness and judge the action by its 'net impact'. With Act the choice is made based on the best possible consequence. For example telling someone a non truth because the real truth might cause them to be unhappy and that could have a domino effect. Rule utilitarianism follows 'moral rules' where there are no exceptions. The only rule is 'Utility'. Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or does it or doesn't it produce Happiness?
Both ACT and RULE utilitarians must assume nothing.
ACT Utilitarian measures the consequences of one single ACT.
RULE Utilitarian measures the consequences of the act repeated over and over again through time as if it were to be followed as an actual RULE whenever similar circumstances arise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)