Essay #1

Question:

Compare and contrast consequentialism and deontology. What are the main principles of each of these

ethical theories? Where do they agree and disagree? Pick an immoral act and explain why it is immoral

according to both of these theories.

Main Principles

Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): Right and

wrong are determined by the actual or

likely consequences of our actions. We

should act according to principles that

promote the best possible world; one in

which suffering is minimized and happiness

is maximized.

1. Only consequences (or likely

consequences) determine right

and wrong.

2. Only happiness or unhappiness

matters for analyzing the

consequences.

3. All people are equally important.

Greatest Happiness Principle : The

best act is that which promotes the

greatest good (happiness) for the

greatest number of people.

Consequentialism and deontology both

measure right and wrong and how we

should apply them to our moral

conscience. While Consequentialism

states that something is wrong only by

looking at its consequences and effects.

If no one is harmed and all is well, then

the action is not considered immoral.

Deontology focuses on instinctively

knowing what is right and wrong as a

rational person and acting as a moral

person is the ultimate goal. Use

example of file sharing or slavery.

Deontology (Duty Ethics) : Right and wrong

are based on principles that rational people

would choose as laws for all human beings.

—

Universal Maxim : Act so that the maxim

(rule) of your action can be willed as a

universal law for all rational beings.

Examples: lying, stealing

music

Respect for Persons : Rational beings are to

be treated as ends in themselves, never as a

means to the end of your own satisfaction.

Examples: paying your

debts, sexual assault

Universal Lawgiver : What would be the laws

for an ideally just society?

Rawls bases his idea of the Veil of

Ignorance on this: what laws would

everyone agree are fair to

everyone in society.

Example of File Sharing:

This is immoral in the consequentialist way

because the effects of file sharing cause bad

consequences. If people refuse to pay artists or

actors for their work, then fewer products will

come out due to lack of funds, or profit.

This is immoral in the deontological way

because we know that file sharing is stealing

profit from the makers of the product. Under

the Veil of Ignorance where we could be

anyone, either the person stealing it or the

person creating the entertainment being stolen.

Not knowing who we would be, and having to

establish a universal law, we would choose not

to share files because we would choose the

most ethically sound way to act.

Partial preview of the text

Download Essay 1 Question on Introduction to Ethics 1 | and more Study notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Question: Compare and contrast consequentialism and deontology. What are the main principles of each of these ethical theories? Where do they agree and disagree? Pick an immoral act and explain why it is immoral according to both of these theories. Main Principles Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): Right and wrong are determined by the actual or likely consequences of our actions. We should act according to principles that promote the best possible world; one in which suffering is minimized and happiness is maximized.

Only consequences (or likely consequences) determine right and wrong.
Only happiness or unhappiness matters for analyzing the consequences.
All people are equally important.  Greatest Happiness Principle: The best act is that which promotes the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number of people. Consequentialism and deontology both measure right and wrong and how we should apply them to our moral conscience. While Consequentialism states that something is wrong only by looking at its consequences and effects. If no one is harmed and all is well, then the action is not considered immoral. Deontology focuses on instinctively knowing what is right and wrong as a rational person and acting as a moral person is the ultimate goal. Use example of file sharing or slavery.  Deontology (Duty Ethics): Right and wrong are based on principles that rational people would choose as laws for all human beings. —  Universal Maxim: Act so that the maxim (rule) of your action can be willed as a universal law for all rational beings.  Examples: lying, stealing music  Respect for Persons: Rational beings are to be treated as ends in themselves, never as a means to the end of your own satisfaction.  Examples: paying your debts, sexual assault  Universal Lawgiver: What would be the laws for an ideally just society?  Rawls bases his idea of the Veil of Ignorance on this: what laws would everyone agree are fair to everyone in society. Example of File Sharing: This is immoral in the consequentialist way because the effects of file sharing cause bad consequences. If people refuse to pay artists or actors for their work, then fewer products will come out due to lack of funds, or profit. This is immoral in the deontological way because we know that file sharing is stealing profit from the makers of the product. Under the Veil of Ignorance where we could be anyone, either the person stealing it or the person creating the entertainment being stolen. Not knowing who we would be, and having to establish a universal law, we would choose not to share files because we would choose the most ethically sound way to act.

Question: Jackson’s Good Thinker’s Toolkit

tools to dissect A: Assumption What assumptions are you making? Are they justified? Are they consistent? Is the argument unsound?
It is always wise to explore the idea of a statement being false or inaccurate, this allows you to better understand every side of the argument and make sure that all the information you have and are receiving is reliable. C: Counter-Example Is there a piece of evidence to refute that universal claim? Key words; always/never ; all/no
Using counter examples opens the door for different views or views that you might not think of yourself, proves that information is either accurate or inaccurate. E: Example Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Clarify meaning with an illustration. Does this support an existential or universal claim?
You are just making sure that the evidence you are presented with is accurate, and is the evidence relevant to the topic. I: Inference, Implication, If...Then What does this entail? What are three likely consequences of this? Reductio ad absurdum -Relying strictly on someone else's word could result in false or misleading information therefore it is best to always question and draw your own conclusion. R: Reason Do you have a reason for saying that? Avoid mere assertion Is the argument Deductive, Inductive, of Analogical? Is the argument valid? -Understand the reasoning behind the person’s facts or opinions, dont come off too forceful and keep an open mind to what other people’s views are. T: Truth Is that true? How do you know? What is your source and is it reliable? Is that source a legitimate authority? -You always want to make sure that the information that someone is using to argue against you is accurate and creditable, also if you are getting your information from someone you want to make sure that it is correct for your own purposes. W: What do you mean by that? Define your terms in detail. Give specific criteria. Is a term ambiguous?
Make sure that the information is clear and that you are fully understanding all aspects of what is being said.

Question: Explain the reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision regarding abortion. Is this ruling ethically justified? Why or why not? Appeal to some of the arguments discussed in class to justify your answer (i.e., please present an informed opinion based on the theories we covered, not an emotivist or religious argument). Roe v. Wade (1973): legalizes abortion in the USA There is no agreement about the personhood of the fetus. Thus, the decision will be weighed in terms of…State’s interest in promoting the health and well being of its children (who are future rights-bearers). And Mother’s interest in personal privacy (right to do with her own body as she wishes). Roe v. Wade was a case in which a 21 year old woman was pregnant for the second time and she decided it was too much to handle. She wanted to abort the baby but because of state laws she could not because the baby was not affecting her immediate health. Jane Roe, therefore sued the state and the court ruled that during first trimester it is legal to perform an abortion because the baby is not viable in any way, the second trimester it’s debatable depending on the viability of the baby and the mother’s health, and in the third it is not permissible to perform an abortion due to the viability of the child is certainly attainable and the mother’s health is generally not at stake. This is ethically justified by the famous violinist analogy by Judith Jarvis Thompson. Her analogy is set up like so: In case A, proposition P is true. Case A and B are importantly similar, and therefore, P is true in case B. To put this analogy into effect with the famous violinist say, In Case A: There is a world renowned violinist who has gotten into a horrible disease and you are the only match to lend the blood he needs. The government or whoever automatically locks you into a hospital bed and forces you to supply the violinist with your blood until he is better. Proposition P: In this case no one would say you are obligated to stay and help him. In Case B: A woman has gotten pregnant and does not wish to keep the baby but is held against her will to keep the baby and provide its care. Therefore Proposition B is true in Case B: Abortions are morally permissible, even if the fetus is a person.

Question: Examine the Terri Schiavo case on pages 225-226 of your text. Was the decision to withdraw her life support ethical acccording to AMA policy, even though she had no living will? Was this active or passive euthanasia? Would it have been ethical, once the decision to remove the feeding tube was deemed appropriate, to give Schiavo a lethal injection to help her die more quickly? Use theories discussed in class to support your answer. AMA Policy on Withholding/ Withdrawing Life Support

If the patient is dead (futility: no life left to support)
If the treatment is harmful to the patient (principle of nonmaleficence)
If the treatment does not benefit the patient (principle of beneficence)
If the patient does not consent to further life-support (respect for autonomy)
In a situation of scarce resources (principle of justice) The decision to withdraw Terri’s life support was ethical under AMA policy because she was dead, her treatment did not benefit her condition, and she didn’t consent to further life support. Even though she had no living will, her husband had the right to take her off life support because he would’ve known what she would want him to do in this case. This is passive euthanasia because Terri was not given a lethal dose, she was just taken off of life support and the brain complications killed her. There was no agent. I think it would be unethical and wasteful to give Terri Schiavo because she felt no physical pain, had no idea what she was even going through, and if she was given a lethal injection it would change from passive euthanasia to active euthanasia with an agent involved. If Terri would have been able to feel pain and was under extreme suffering, it would be ethical to give her a lethal injection. Under the needless suffering argument, if a patient is going to die anyway and the process will be long and grueling, then why not just give them the lethal dose and end their needles suffering? Why keep them in pain against their wishes?

Essay 1 Question on Introduction to Ethics 1 |, Study notes of Ethics

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Essay 1 Question on Introduction to Ethics 1 | and more Study notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!