Deontological ethics essay kantian ethics essay model essay kant s ethical theory by How To Write Paper.
Consequentialism Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist ones, a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate its deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological theories themselves.
Some consequentialists are monists about the Good. Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good.
None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology.
For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree that the morally right choices are those that increase either directly or indirectly the Good.
Consequentialism is frequently criticized on a number of grounds. Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology.
The two criticisms pertinent here are that consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on the other hand, that it is not demanding enough. The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like this: All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden. On the other hand, consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits.
It seemingly demands and thus, of course, permits that in certain circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater benefits for Developing deontology new essays in ethical theory.
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - . The essays in Developing Deontology are of high quality, and their richness and diversity means that a wide range of readers will find their pages much interesting. The title of the book suggests that the essays are focused on different aspects of deontology, but they can also be important for consequentialists. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) each of the branches of deontological ethics—the agent-centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian. “A Defence of Weighted Lotteries in Life Saving Cases,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(3.
Consequences—and only consequences—can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others.
A well-worn example of this over-permissiveness of consequentialism is that of a case standardly called, Transplant.
A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient whose organs can save the five. In the right circumstances, surgeon will be permitted and indeed required by consequentialism to kill the healthy patient to obtain his organs, assuming there are no relevant consequences other than the saving of the five and the death of the one.
Likewise, consequentialism will permit in a case that we shall call, Fat Man that a fat man be pushed in front of a runaway trolley if his being crushed by the trolley will halt its advance towards five workers trapped on the track.
We shall return to these examples later on.
Consequentialists are of course not bereft of replies to these two criticisms. This move opens up some space for personal projects and relationships, as well as a realm of the morally permissible. It is not clear, however, that satisficing is adequately motivated, except to avoid the problems of maximizing.
Nor is it clear that the level of mandatory satisficing can be nonarbitrarily specified, or that satisficing will not require deontological constraints to protect satisficers from maximizers.
On this view, our negative duty is not to make the world worse by actions having bad consequences; lacking is a corresponding positive duty to make the world better by actions having good consequences Bentham ; Quinton We thus have a consequentialist duty not to kill the one in Transplant or in Fat Man; and there is no counterbalancing duty to save five that overrides this.
Yet as with the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this restriction on all-out optimization of the Good. Yet another idea popular with consequentialists is to move from consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses acts to consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses rules—or character-trait inculcation—and assesses acts only indirectly by reference to such rules or character-traits Alexander Its proponents contend that indirect consequentialism can avoid the criticisms of direct act consequentialism because it will not legitimate egregious violations of ordinary moral standards—e.
The relevance here of these defensive maneuvers by consequentialists is their common attempt to mimic the intuitively plausible aspects of a non-consequentialist, deontological approach to ethics.
For as we shall now explore, the strengths of deontological approaches lie: In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about.
The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden.
On such familiar deontological accounts of morality, agents cannot make certain wrongful choices even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be minimized because other agents will be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful choices. For such deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm.Developing Deontology consists of six new essays in ethical theory by leading contemporary moral philosophers.
Each essay considers concepts prominent in the development of deontological approaches to ethics, and these essays offer an invaluable contribution to that regardbouddhiste.comcturer: Wiley-Blackwell.
He is the author of Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality () and the editor of Rationality, Rules, and Utility (), and Truth in Ethics (). Professor Hooker is an associate editor of Ratio and the editor-in-chief of Utilitas. The essays in Developing Deontology are of high quality, and their richness and diversity means that a wide range of readers will find their pages much interesting.
The title of the book suggests that the essays are focused on different aspects of deontology, but they can also be important for consequentialists. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) each of the branches of deontological ethics—the agent-centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian.
“A Defence of Weighted Lotteries in Life Saving Cases,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(3. Developing Deontology consists of six new essays in ethicaltheory by leading contemporary moral philosophers.
Each essayconsiders concepts prominent in the development of deontologicalapproaches to ethics, and these essays offer an invaluablecontribution to that regardbouddhiste.com: Brad Hooker. Lees „Developing Deontology New Essays in Ethical Theory“ door met Rakuten Kobo. Developing Deontology consists of six new essays in ethical theory by .