It is unclear, then, whether the standard to which we should hold theories of morality is that they must explain why morality is easy to know about or why morality is terribly hard to know about! consequentialism holds that a moral act should be judged by its outcomes rather than by any inherent moral value encapsulated in the act itself (p. 43). Your intentional action was to toss the coin, not to toss the coin in the precise manner and position in which you ended up tossing it. An example could be taking away someones freedom due to suspected terrorist activities. The concept of consequentialism has been widely discussed in philosophical circles for centuries, and its implications are far-reaching. It requires much time and knowledge, which many people do not possess. Why would two-level consequentialists punish only the guilty? Perhaps these points are the basis of our sense of the importance of equality. See Rawls (1955). It's hard to measure and compare the 'goodness' of those consequences. No intentional action escapes its scope. Utilitarianism judges consequences by a greatest good for the greatest number standard. And what moves you to spend an hour with your friend or spouse or child should not be impartial calculations about the overall impact on the world at large. Other forms of consequentialism take a more subtle approach; for example stating that people should maximise the satisfaction of their fully informed and rational preferences. This form of consequentialism suggests that following established rules, even when they may lead to negative outcomes, will produce more desirable results in the long run than acting without any rules at all (Hooker, 2002). Some examples of nonconsequentialist decisions - Cambridge Core This moral theory deals with the rightness and wrongness of actions, which . Redistribution of Wealth It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening as time passes. Teleological ethics is further subdivided into 1) Ethical Egoism, 2) Utilitarianism, and 3) Eudalmonism. it's hard to predict the future consequences of an act, in almost every case the most we can do is predict the probability of certain consequences following an act. But whatever a person does, she does in order to produce some sort of benefit. If that is right, then consequentialism itself must be wrong because consequentialism is at root the idea that we ought to bring about good consequences. Criminal Justice Ethics,36(2), 183204. (Premise), An all-knowing impartial being would, overall, wish for the greatest possible balance of satisfaction of the desires of all people. It was reasonable for him to rely on her imperfect judgment, even though neither of them knew quite what gold is. Foot (1967). One worry about the above argument is that it is not clear why we should think Premise 1 is true. On this theory, an action is not right or wrong because of its own consequences; rather, it is right or wrong depending on whether it violates the collective rules that would have the best consequences.
Account Nintendo Com Login Device,
Elvis Spectrum Philadelphia,
Hohokam Religious Beliefs,
Darnell Rodgers Dr Phil,
Tim Conway Jr On Mama's Family,
Articles C
