Cambridge University Press, pp. For example, my love for my wife does not seem to become less valuable when I get less pleasure from her because she contracts some horrible disease. The criterion of a good stock investment is its total return, but the best decision procedure still might be to reduce risk by buying an index fund or blue-chip stocks.
In this view, the doctor is not required to promote life or decrease death or even decrease killing by other people. Utility and Rights, Oxford: Others object that this move takes the force out of consequentialism, because it leads agents to ignore consequentialism when they make real decisions.
And even if act consequentialists cannot argue in this way, it still might work for rule consequentialists such as Hooker One problem for preference utilitarianism concerns how to make interpersonal comparisons though this problem also arises for some other theories of value.
Moreover, the argument assumes that the original list is complete. If overall utility is the criterion of moral rightness, then it might seem that nobody could know what is morally right.
Of course, there are many more cases like this. Debates about this problem still rage. Common moral intuition is thereby preserved. Similarly, when two promises conflict, it often seems clear which one we should keep, and that intuition can often be explained by the amount of harm that would be caused by breaking each promise.
For criticisms, see Bradley Sinnott-Armstrong b or built into public institutions Rawls For such reasons, some rule utilitarians conclude that it would not maximize utility for people generally to accept a rule that allows doctors to transplant organs from unwilling donors.
Suppose I give a set of steak knives to a friend. Unfortunately, negative utilitarianism also seems to imply that the government should painlessly kill everyone it can, since dead people feel no pain and have no false beliefs, diseases, or disabilities — though killing them does cause loss of ability cf.
That fact makes classic utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight. In response, utilitarians can remind critics that the principle of utility is intended as only a criterion of right and not as a decision procedure, so utilitarianism does not imply that people ought to calculate utilities before acting Railton If so, then it means little to label a theory as consequentialist.
Another way to incorporate relations among values is to consider distribution. Such acceptance rule consequentialists then claim that an act is morally wrong if and only if it violates a rule whose acceptance has better consequences than the acceptance of any incompatible rule.
Thus, on this view, it is not always morally wrong to fail to do what one morally ought to do.
British Moralists, New York: It does not always maximize utility to punish people for failing to maximize utility cf. Causation in the Law, Second Edition. Utilitarianism and Cooperation, Oxford: Preference utilitarianism is also often criticized on the grounds that some preferences are misinformed, crazy, horrendous, or trivial.
Consequentialists can also allow the special perspective of a friend or spouse to be reflected in agent-relative value assessments SenBroomePortmoreor probability assessments Jackson This position, which might be called proximate consequentialism, makes it much easier for agents and observers to justify moral judgments of acts because it obviates the need to predict non-proximate consequences in distant times and places.
Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims of classic utilitarianism.
So consequentialists need more than just new values if they want to avoid endorsing this transplant. Pluralism about values also enables consequentialists to handle many of the problems that plague hedonistic utilitarianism. In this way, agent-relative consequentialists can explain why agents morally ought not to break their promises in just the kind of case that Ross raised.law research paper about social media addiction pdf sports research paper about bullying pdf international relations dissertation lectures pdf up creative writing.
The difference between teleological and deontological ethical systems, are teleological ethical system is based on the outcome of an act.
If you do something that is bad as long as the outcome of that act is good then it is considered to be a good act. Port Manteaux churns out silly new words when you feed it an idea or two. Enter a word (or two) above and you'll get back a bunch of portmanteaux created by jamming together words that are conceptually related to your inputs.
For example, enter "giraffe" and you'll get back words like "gazellephant" and "gorilldebeest". Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an.
I [jump to top].
Ibn Arabi (William Chittick) ; Ibn Bâjja [Avempace] (Josép Puig Montada) Ibn Daud, Abraham (Resianne Fontaine) ; Ibn Ezra, Abraham (Tzvi Langermann) ; Ibn Falaquera, Shem Tov — see Falaquera, Shem Tov Ibn; Ibn Gabirol, Solomon [Avicebron] (Sarah Pessin) Ibn Kammuna (Tzvi Langermann) ; Ibn Rushd [Averroes].
Is Ethics Rational? Teleological, Deontological and Virtue Ethics Theories Reconciled in the Context of Traditional Economic Decision Making ☆.Download