We can prove this, because Republicans consistently give more to charity than Democrats — and because if Democrats really cared about the poor they would stop supporting a welfare system that discourages lifting yourself out of poverty.
Basic Issues and Simple Versions a. Introduction to Plain Consequentialism There is disagreement about how consequentialism can best be formulated as a precise theory, and so there are various versions of consequentialism. Almost all lack standard names, so the names used here are mostly invented here.
Perhaps the most standard precise version of consequentialism is Plain Consequentialism. Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.
If there is no one best action because several actions are tied for best consequences, then of course any of those several actions would be right. Other versions of consequentialism may be generated by making small changes in this theory, as we shall see, so long as the new theory stays faithful to the broad idea that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences.
Consequentialism does not itself say what kinds of consequences are good. Hence people can agree on consequentialism while disagreeing about what kind of outcome is good or bad.
If you happen to be in charge of setting speed limits, you might be thinking that a bad result is a death: But the people who die in accidents were all going to die eventually anyway, so a fatal accident does not mean there are more deaths than there otherwise would have been.
Perhaps, then, what counts as a good result is the amount of life that the action adds or subtracts in the world? That would explain why fatal accidents are bad, since an early death means less life.
But if quantity of life were the only kind of good result, then a long happy life would be no better than a long unhappy life. The most traditional view among Consequentialists is that the only kind of result that is good in itself is happiness. The picture is roughly as follows.
Suppose you are on average just as happy as I am, but you live twice as long. Then you will have had twice as much happiness as I had. So the total happiness we had is three times the happiness I had. Or suppose you are on average twice as happy as I am, and we live equally long.
Here too you end up having had twice as much happiness as I had, so the total happiness we had is three times the happiness I had. Or suppose you are unhappy instead: Unhappiness can be thought of as negative happiness, so that the total happiness we two have in this third case is zero.
Now, to find the goodness of the consequences of an action, simply take the total amount of happiness in those consequences. The more happiness there is, the better. Note that if what matters is the total amount, then it does not matter whether the happiness belongs to you or your friend or a stranger—or even a dog, if dogs can have happiness.
And it does not matter whether the happiness will happen today or next year. If we take the above view that the good is happiness, and plug it into Plain Consequentialism, we get the view that the right action is the one that causes the most happiness—more than would have been caused by any of the available alternative actions.
On this view, a problem with setting a very high speed limit is that it causes early deaths, which reduce the amount of life and thus reduce the amount of happiness there will be. But a problem with setting a very low speed limit is that driving very slowly takes up time.
If people can get where they are going more quickly, they will probably use the time they saved to do things that will add happiness to their lives or the lives of others.
Consequentialism suggests that to set a speed limit rightly, you must balance such considerations accurately. What is a "Consequence"?Arguments against abortion from the perspective of deontological ethics The horizon of deontological ethics is based on a different understanding of the essence of humanity, or what we call "human nature".
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 act is morally right depends only on the consequences.
Abortion A) Explain how a Utilitarian might respond to the issue of abortion Utilitarianism is a teleological theory basing the goodness of an action by its presumed consequences. The aim is ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’ and Utilitarian’s base the ‘goodness’ of an action on human experience.
Deontological and Utilitarian arguments for Abortion Essay The issue of abortion is one that has been at the recent forefront of many political discussions in the United States and around the world.
Below are samples of my writing, preceded by a list. Most of the pieces are taken from a philosophy club's now-defunct website, where members posted comments and arguments on various topics. In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.