Ethics/Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism states that one should act in such a way that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. The essential difference between act and rule utilitarianism is in what determines whether or not an action is the right action. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it maximises utility; rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that maximises utility.
Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism?
Hello to all! I am a last year law student (International and European Law). This quarter, we have "Law and Ethics" course... and I have a lot, A LOT of troubles with this particular course. Unfortunately I find it quite difficult and complicated. Today we have the following assignment: "Amazon paying Employees to Quit – Please write an essay addressing the following question: Is paying employees to quit a right practice that should be widely adopted?" I suppose that I need to use some of the ethical theories that we already examined : Kantian ethics, utilitarianism etc. I would like to apply exactly these two. I know the theory pretty well, but I am not sure how to apply the theory in practice. Could somebody please, please help me, to analyse this ethical question? I will be extremely grateful!
Utilitarianism ethics?
You are the elected District Attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list of 3,000 people who will die if they don't get into her nursing home facility within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian's (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, to assistance in helping them to die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the Nursing Home Administrator) wants to know if you would agree to "look the other way" if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list in. 1. How would we use Utilitarianism to "solve" this dilemma? 2. What ethics did your friend the Nursing Home Administrator use in deciding to call you? 3. What ethics are you using if you just "look the other way" and let it happen?
Ethics question? kant and utilitarianism? nel noddings and peter singer?
You might find this useful: http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/kant... To very briefly summarize Kantian ethics: Kant thought that morality should stem from a knowledge of duty rather than utilitarian compassion, that is, one should act in a moral way out of the knowledge that one is required to act in this way, and to act in a moral way seeking gratification is valueless, not moral. Thus morality is governed by reason, and not by emotion. If it is governed by emotion, then it is not morality. EDIT: Amusingly, the first poster recommended you read Ayn Rand. This is funny because Rand called Kant "the most evil man in history", claiming that he was completely wrong on every fundamental point in metaphysics. Rand rejected altruism, while Kant did not. And, outside of morals, in metaphysics, a far more interesting field, Rand was a strong proponent of so-called "philosophical realism" and objectivism, while Kant initiated, several hundred years earlier it's polar opposite "transcendental idealism", or phenomenalism. I think it is Kant's transcendental idealism that makes him one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
Ethics question?
Suppose your friend is an animal rights advocate for the same reasons that Singer is (utilitarian calculations). She thinks our system of meat production should be abolished, but by her own lights, her utilitarianism could sanction: A. a cruel but quick form of meat production. B. meat production in foreign countries. C. meat production that was even more cruel than the system we have now. D. a humane form of meat production.
Philosophy, ethics, utilitarianism?
i need to write paper on act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and ethical egoism.... can anyone help suggest any philosophers that speak specifically on these topics
Do you espouse Kant's or the utilitarianism opinions of ethics?
I’d say I espouse both — that’s why W.D. Ross’s prima facie duty ethics appeals to me. Ross held that we have certain moral obligations or prima facie duties (that is, conditional duties or provisional duties) that are binding on us. For example, in his non-exhaustive list there is the duty to honor promises or commitments (fidelity), and there is the duty to make reparations for wrongdoing, etc. To a Kantian this is all familiar territory, but Ross also includes duties to beneficence and non-maleficence — duties that seem to command an adherence to utilitarian ethics. Of course, these duties may conflict with one another, so Ross says we must rely on a sort of moral intuition — what he calls intuitionism — to sort out which duty is more binding on us in a given situation. The duty which we find to be most binding on us in a particular situation he referred to as our “all-things-considered duty.” (Note: on my own brand of conditional duty ethics I propose a calculus for deciding what our all-things-considered duty is in any given situation. This calculus would seem to solve the problem of indeterminacy, which is often raised by opponents of conditional duty ethics.)A famous example he uses involves a person who has made a promise to meet a friend for lunch. On the way to the lunch meeting, the person comes across a car accident where the occupants of the cars are severely injured and need help. In this situation there are two prima facie duties binding on the individual — the duty of fidelity (to honor the promise made to the friend they are on their way to meet), and also the duty to beneficence (to ensure the well-being of the accident victims by tending to them). In this situation it is very clear that the duty of beneficence overrides the duty to fidelity, so the person’s all-things-considered duty is to tend to the victims of the crash. In this way, Ross offers a moral theory that incorporates consequentialist and non-consequentialist (or deontological) thought.
Utilitarianism: What are the ways in which we can compare ethical systems?
As one who has dabbled in philosophy since high school, I would suggest potentially 19 criteria:Views of human naturePurpose of lifeIts core values (does it protect what we believe to be important)Types of scenarios in which it applies (flexibility & usefulness)Effectiveness (Flexibility/Usefulness/Resolving Conflicts)Intrinsic versus extrinsic value Individual versus societalHistorical understandingScenario based comparisonsThought experimentHow it interfaces with our ideas of responsibility, duty, and ought-ness.How it balances concerns for Human dignity & rights...fairness & justice.....with survival.Assumptions about reality (on multiple levels)How it squares with reality (and other disciplines)How it deals with the emotional & rational components of humanityHow it integrates objections & the issues around postmodernismHow it integrates multiple insights about ethics from the history of philosophy (ie the ancients around virtue)How it deals with non-humansRational & Logical consistency (doesn't require major cognitive dissonance). This is a modernist & rationalist criteria. Its probably one of the more optional--but still generally helpful.