During the weekend, you were asked to read some serious philosophical positions on ethics. Which ethical theory do you find most compelling? Why? Please explain in 7-10 thoughtful and focused sentences. Thank you and looking forward to reading.
The theory I agree with most is the Ethics of Consequences. Gearing one’s actions towards giving the greatest happiness for everyone involved is a universal approach to ethics that all cultures can use. One of the flaws that our reading points out is that we can’t always agree on what the costs and benefits are for our actions. Although this may lead to conflict, I think it is okay. It ties into the Ethics of Character. It is true we may not see all the possible scenarios available and often life will surprise us by not going the way we predicted, but we are human and we will inevitably make mistakes. The more we try and have our actions grant the greatest possible happiness for everyone involved, the more virtuous our character may become. The reason I like the Ethics of Consequences better than the ethics of Character is because I disagree with Aristotle’s claim. He stated “we can eventually choose to be virtuous and act ethically because acting ethically… makes us happy…” I do not think that everyone always is happier when others are happy. In an ideal world, we could all be that selfless, but that just is not realistic. If you tell that to a person who tends to act and think selfishly, I doubt they would understand it. But if that person is working towards being more virtuous, the Ethics of Consequences works much better because it gives them a specific way to look at situations while thinking of others.
Each ethical theory has a different perspective to offer. It is hard to agree completely with just one. I think it is important to have a mixture of many of these theories. The three theories that I try to base my decisions on include relativism, the ethics of consequences, and the ethics of religion. I think it is important to know where you are and have that influence your morals, but at the same time it is necessary to hold on to your core values. Religion for me plays a part in some of my decisions. I like to do things that would be looked at as good in the Jewish community. I try not to base my decisions completely on religion, but add my own interpretations in. The ethics of religion can cause some horrible things such as war because people use the excuse that "G-D told them to". The theory that I see myself use a lot in my decisions is the ethics of consequences. I think every situation is different and it needs to be thought out as what would occur based on your decision. For me there is not one theory that seems to be always the way to do things, but I try to use different parts of each. I think overall the one that works the most for me is the ethics of consequences, because it allows me to think things through.
I found the Ethical Theory of Character the most compelling. I agree with Anscombe that instead of just weighing the pros and cons of a situation to make decision, we should ask ourselves, “What kind of person do I want to be?” I find that often times I just consider the pros and cons of a situation to make ethical choices and I still feel uncertain about what to do. I believe that if I asked what Anscombe suggested when making ethical choices, I would be more resolute in my decision. I also agree that with the notion that an ethical life is not automatic, and have often learned that I have become more ethical as I grow older and deal with a variety of circumstances. I like how the Ethical Theory of Character is very versatile and can be applied in all circumstances, because we make decisions based on clear personal goals for virtuous and there is not absolutism for what is right and wrong. Overall, I believe that when I apply the Ethical Theory of Character, it forces me to think what I should do to become a more virtuous person, and therefore influences me the most when I try to make ethical choices.
find it hard to identify merely one ethical theory to base my decisions on. By separating morality into clear cut ethical theories I believe one must draw hard, irrefutable lines on methods of approaching life. This leaves no room for flexibility in decision making, and sets the stage for a serious moral conflict. Each ethical theory contains advantages and flaws, strengths and weaknesses. Ethics of rights tells us that every human being has certain inalienable rights, but no one can agree exactly what they are. If you follow the ethics of duty you might agree that “no person should ever lie.” however what if your girlfriend asked you if the horrendously mismatched dress she just put on made her look good? By telling the truth, you could really hurt her feelings. In the bible it states that God loves all people. Funnily enough, it doesn’t stop the persecution of gay people (Leviticus 20:13). Thus to use only one moral theory, I believe, is a serious mistake. The situations people face in life are fluid, ever-changing and complex. To follow only one hard cut ethical theory allows for the possibility of life’s fickle circumstances to compromise your moral infrastructure. Personally I enjoy deriving my code of ethics from many of these philosophies in order to maintain the flexibility necessary to deal with all the things life can throw at you. For example, I like the idea that by using the ethics of character, I can use the examples of others to learn what it means to be virtuous. However, what if I grew up in a less virtuous community? Learning from others could be a real problem and could perpetuate the immorality happening around me. Maybe to combat this problem, I could use the golden rule from ethics based on religion. If my community had taught me it was okay to steal, I could ask myself how I would feel if someone stole something from me. By concluding that it would feel bad, I would now be able to see that stealing is not good. In stormy weather, the wind will uproot an oak tree much easier than a pine tree. This is because the oak tree will stay rigid in the ground and with enough force it will crack and fall. A pine tree will sway in the wind, move with it and soften the force being put on it. The moral of this is. Be the pine tree
I find the ethics of character the most compelling. I don’t believe that there is a strict set of moral guidelines that says exactly what to do in each and every situation. Moralism is a quality that must be developed over time. You cannot simply memorize ethics. Our morals become more finely attuned as we learn more about the world. Eventually, moralism becomes intuitive. Ethics is something that cannot be taught on a conventional scale. I agree with Aristotle that intermediacy is a good thing. Although not always the case, generally is best to, in a situation, turn away from the two extremes and look to the middle for the answer.
Although I think a mixture of all of these theories is key, The Ethics of Character was most compelling. I've always believed that instead of changing myself, I should try and be the best "me" I could be. The Ethics of Character spoke to that belief. Although you might not know what is right or wrong, if you really try and find the answer over time, I think it can lead to a happy life. To live by this theory, you have to have an open mind. You should not base who you are off of previous personal experiences, but rather have an impartial mind when looking unto situations. I think this theory is mostly speaking to the basics; The basics of right and wrong. When you dig deeper into this theory, it becomes more complicated. But, if you develop your basic beliefs over a period of time, the more complex situations become easier to handle as well.
The Ethics of Consequences is the theory that corresponds with my personal beliefs. An act, situation or trait cannot be deemed ethical or otherwise in absolute terms. Certain junctions of the three evoke certain consequences which may be weighted in a negative or positive manor. I believe there is certain balance of "good" and "bad" consequences created by every decision and the most ethical is the one that creates a more positive and less negative outcome. Also, as long as you have considered these pros and cons of the outcome and chosen the path that you believe would benefit the highest number of people, then you are acting ethically, even if your calculations in reality turned out somewhat skewed. What matters are the intended consequences, ultimately. People make mistakes, but as long as there is effort and thought into making a decision beneficial to the highest degree, I believe on is acting ethically.
While reading through all the ethical theories, I realized that I usually try to apply each theory in my everyday routine. But if there is one that I use the most, it is the The Ethics of Character. When I make decisions, I base my decisions on mostly the question of What is the right thing for me? I try to make decisions on what will make me happy, along with what will make others happy. But I believe that if I am not happy with my own decision and what I choose to do, then what is the point of making the decision. I do try to make choices that are impartial, and help out others in some way possible. When I make these choices though, I want to make the decision that will make me a good and virtuous person as well.
After reading the Ethics of Consequences, I feel that I can relate the most with that theory. The main basis of this theory is that, one should make decisions based on the effect it'll have on the people involved. I try to make decisions that positively affect people involved. I also try to think of the consequences and potentially downfalls of my decisions before I act on them. Even if a decision mainly involves me, I try to think of who else my decision could potentially affect. I don't completely agree with the Ethics of Consequences, particularly the segment that discusses taking one's personal connection out of a group decision. I feel that this is something that is very difficult to follow, but overall, I agree with this particular subsection of ethics the most.
I think that the Ethics of consequences appealed the most to me. No matter what action is taken towards anything, you will always end up with a consequence. I disagree with Kant in that you must follow a certain set of clear and precise ethical rule. By following a clear rule, we cannot consider the outcome because even though a rule may seem ethical standing by itself, the end result of following that certain rule could hurt us or others. We should be able to take in consideration of the pros and cons before making the most ethical decision. So when thinking about the end results, we can make the most benefiting decision towards us and others.
I personally identify with the Ethics of Consequences the most. While I was reading these philosophical positions, I believed that they all had a large sense of truth to them in many ways. However, I found that there was always something missing. I think finiteness of Ethical Absolutionism and Ethics of Duty and Respect (or at least the examples) were too black and white. While reading them, I kept saying in my mind "well, yes, lying is definitely unethical, but what if you are protecting someone?" The consequences of telling a white lie to help out a friend in need of a confidence boost (ex. no you don't look that bad today!) or, say, destroying their self esteem are very different. Honesty can be brutal and unforgiving, and, in ways, unethical. Now, I think that too many white lies, simple cheating, etc. that can have mild or positive consequences will eventually take its toll on you as a person. One must always keep in mind how his or her decisions can effect the value they have for his or herself.
I agree with most people that consequentialism is the most ethical code to live by. Most people don't act in accordance to the consequences of their actions, unfortunately. Peoples emotions sway them from making decisions that ultimately have good consequences, and while that's understandable, it usually ends up hurting the people involved. For example, if I started beef with my friend because one of us was talking about the other behind their back, and I decided not to work things out with them because of my pride, then I would've ruined the friendship, and things would become bitter from then on. However, if I decided that I would forget about my pride for a few seconds, and worked things out, there would be closure on the entire matter, and maybe even the friendship would be saved. If people would throw away their goddam egos for a bit and do the right thing, then they wouldn't arguing over the most insignificant bs. People really ought to take from this idea of consequentialism, because the end result is happiness for everyone involved in whatever decision needs to be made. Admit that you're wrong for once, and don't give a damn who hates you for it, because being a decent human being is certainly better than being a lowlife coward.
I find it nearly impossible to live by only of those ethical theories. Somethings fall under the theory of absolutism, some under relativism, and there are cases where we think merely of the consequences and therefore fall under the Ethics of Consequences. The only one that really seems to be relevant in every situation is the Ethics of Character. We can't quite grasp the meaning of what is moral/ethical before recognizing what that means to us. The passage says you can't go about thinking "What you ought to do?" instead you must figure out what kind of person you want to be."The ability to act ethically requires us to develop our character." This theory seems to be the basis for every other one. Once we understand ourselves, what we think is right/wrong, then we make look at the rest of the world and try to figure out what the everyone else makes of morality.
I found that the ethical theory of Consequences got me thinking. Even before getting to the part where they explained some of the hesitations (difficulties), I was having some doubts. In the first sentence, the book says, “[…] you can determine weather an act is ethical or moral based solely on the consequences of the action.” This part of the sentence feels like the main point of this ethical theory but it feels unethical to me. Based on this definition, cheating is morally okay. Based on the consequences of the action, cheating is better then not if you haven’t studies because without cheating you get a bad grade but with cheating you have a positive consequence of passing or at least getting a better grade. We all know that cheating is bad but that doesn’t really fit in with this theory. This is really throwing me off because I feel that this is still a great thing to do. It is important to think through your actions before you do something and I am a very consequentialist thinker. On the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that consequential thinking is not the best way to determine if something is moral or ethical.
After reading over the different theories of ethics, I found that I most commonly act using the theory of the ethics of consequences. I think I agree with the ethics of character more than that of consequences, but I do not think that I act on that as much. In most situations I choose to act in the way that will be beneficial to the people involved. However, I strongly disagree to the part at the end of this passage that says that a utilitarian would choose to save the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of one's own mother. In this situation I would act more on the ethics of character. For most situations I think about the consequences that are going to come from my actions and then decide what to do based on that. I think that basing one's actions off of what will be best for everyone is a good way to live, because it forces people to take other's lives into account and not make a selfish decision.
I found The Ethics Of consequences to be the story that I could most relate to and understand. I found it compelling because it goes into why people make decisions and how we weigh the pros and cons. The article talked about how there has to be a balance of good and bad in a decision and how you make a decision to make the largest amount of people happy. I feel like when I make decisions I always measure the pros and cons so I can make the most people happy possible. They brought up a good point about how we really don’t know what maximizes happiness affected by our decisions. We really wont be ever able to tell what will make everyone happy so I put this as the pint where you make a decision that will make me happy and not negatively affect others, but sometimes it has to. Utilitarianism offers clarity by weighing the pros and cons and I enjoy having clarity.
Through reading these several ethics, I find that I resonate the most with "Ethics of Consequences." I find that I agree most with it's principle that you should make a decision based on who/ how many people it affects. Yes I do believe in that is how some decisions should be made, but if you were being forced to press a button to bomb country A or country B and country A had one less person that country B you should not jump to immediately bomb country A. Today I was very interested in how that many people decided they would rather have their mother die over Obama. While I love my mother very much this would be an easy decision for me, Obama. If my mom were to die, I and many others would mourn her death and cry for her, but she would soon be forgotten. Her story might make the newspaper and then people would only remember her when she was brought up. If Obama were to be killed millions upon millions would mourn his death. Martha Alexander told me a story that when JFK had been shot she came home to a mourning mother, crying and wishing her best to him. It was pointed out that at the time her mother was opposed and dislike JFK for his political views. Yet she still cried because America had lost its number one guy and the head figure of America. This shows how JFK's death reached people who hadn't even liked him, and the death of Obama would be mourned by most Americans, no matter their beliefs.
The theory I agree with most is the Ethics of Consequences. Gearing one’s actions towards giving the greatest happiness for everyone involved is a universal approach to ethics that all cultures can use. One of the flaws that our reading points out is that we can’t always agree on what the costs and benefits are for our actions. Although this may lead to conflict, I think it is okay. It ties into the Ethics of Character. It is true we may not see all the possible scenarios available and often life will surprise us by not going the way we predicted, but we are human and we will inevitably make mistakes. The more we try and have our actions grant the greatest possible happiness for everyone involved, the more virtuous our character may become. The reason I like the Ethics of Consequences better than the ethics of Character is because I disagree with Aristotle’s claim. He stated “we can eventually choose to be virtuous and act ethically because acting ethically… makes us happy…” I do not think that everyone always is happier when others are happy. In an ideal world, we could all be that selfless, but that just is not realistic. If you tell that to a person who tends to act and think selfishly, I doubt they would understand it. But if that person is working towards being more virtuous, the Ethics of Consequences works much better because it gives them a specific way to look at situations while thinking of others.
ReplyDeleteEach ethical theory has a different perspective to offer. It is hard to agree completely with just one. I think it is important to have a mixture of many of these theories. The three theories that I try to base my decisions on include relativism, the ethics of consequences, and the ethics of religion. I think it is important to know where you are and have that influence your morals, but at the same time it is necessary to hold on to your core values. Religion for me plays a part in some of my decisions. I like to do things that would be looked at as good in the Jewish community. I try not to base my decisions completely on religion, but add my own interpretations in. The ethics of religion can cause some horrible things such as war because people use the excuse that "G-D told them to". The theory that I see myself use a lot in my decisions is the ethics of consequences. I think every situation is different and it needs to be thought out as what would occur based on your decision. For me there is not one theory that seems to be always the way to do things, but I try to use different parts of each. I think overall the one that works the most for me is the ethics of consequences, because it allows me to think things through.
ReplyDeleteI found the Ethical Theory of Character the most compelling. I agree with Anscombe that instead of just weighing the pros and cons of a situation to make decision, we should ask ourselves, “What kind of person do I want to be?” I find that often times I just consider the pros and cons of a situation to make ethical choices and I still feel uncertain about what to do. I believe that if I asked what Anscombe suggested when making ethical choices, I would be more resolute in my decision. I also agree that with the notion that an ethical life is not automatic, and have often learned that I have become more ethical as I grow older and deal with a variety of circumstances. I like how the Ethical Theory of Character is very versatile and can be applied in all circumstances, because we make decisions based on clear personal goals for virtuous and there is not absolutism for what is right and wrong. Overall, I believe that when I apply the Ethical Theory of Character, it forces me to think what I should do to become a more virtuous person, and therefore influences me the most when I try to make ethical choices.
ReplyDeletefind it hard to identify merely one ethical theory to base my decisions on. By separating morality into clear cut ethical theories I believe one must draw hard, irrefutable lines on methods of approaching life. This leaves no room for flexibility in decision making, and sets the stage for a serious moral conflict.
ReplyDeleteEach ethical theory contains advantages and flaws, strengths and weaknesses. Ethics of rights tells us that every human being has certain inalienable rights, but no one can agree exactly what they are. If you follow the ethics of duty you might agree that “no person should ever lie.” however what if your girlfriend asked you if the horrendously mismatched dress she just put on made her look good? By telling the truth, you could really hurt her feelings. In the bible it states that God loves all people. Funnily enough, it doesn’t stop the persecution of gay people (Leviticus 20:13). Thus to use only one moral theory, I believe, is a serious mistake. The situations people face in life are fluid, ever-changing and complex. To follow only one hard cut ethical theory allows for the possibility of life’s fickle circumstances to compromise your moral infrastructure.
Personally I enjoy deriving my code of ethics from many of these philosophies in order to maintain the flexibility necessary to deal with all the things life can throw at you. For example, I like the idea that by using the ethics of character, I can use the examples of others to learn what it means to be virtuous. However, what if I grew up in a less virtuous community? Learning from others could be a real problem and could perpetuate the immorality happening around me. Maybe to combat this problem, I could use the golden rule from ethics based on religion. If my community had taught me it was okay to steal, I could ask myself how I would feel if someone stole something from me. By concluding that it would feel bad, I would now be able to see that stealing is not good.
In stormy weather, the wind will uproot an oak tree much easier than a pine tree. This is because the oak tree will stay rigid in the ground and with enough force it will crack and fall. A pine tree will sway in the wind, move with it and soften the force being put on it. The moral of this is. Be the pine tree
I find the ethics of character the most compelling. I don’t believe that there is a strict set of moral guidelines that says exactly what to do in each and every situation. Moralism is a quality that must be developed over time. You cannot simply memorize ethics. Our morals become more finely attuned as we learn more about the world. Eventually, moralism becomes intuitive. Ethics is something that cannot be taught on a conventional scale. I agree with Aristotle that intermediacy is a good thing. Although not always the case, generally is best to, in a situation, turn away from the two extremes and look to the middle for the answer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think a mixture of all of these theories is key, The Ethics of Character was most compelling. I've always believed that instead of changing myself, I should try and be the best "me" I could be. The Ethics of Character spoke to that belief. Although you might not know what is right or wrong, if you really try and find the answer over time, I think it can lead to a happy life. To live by this theory, you have to have an open mind. You should not base who you are off of previous personal experiences, but rather have an impartial mind when looking unto situations. I think this theory is mostly speaking to the basics; The basics of right and wrong. When you dig deeper into this theory, it becomes more complicated. But, if you develop your basic beliefs over a period of time, the more complex situations become easier to handle as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Ethics of Consequences is the theory that corresponds with my personal beliefs. An act, situation or trait cannot be deemed ethical or otherwise in absolute terms. Certain junctions of the three evoke certain consequences which may be weighted in a negative or positive manor. I believe there is certain balance of "good" and "bad" consequences created by every decision and the most ethical is the one that creates a more positive and less negative outcome. Also, as long as you have considered these pros and cons of the outcome and chosen the path that you believe would benefit the highest number of people, then you are acting ethically, even if your calculations in reality turned out somewhat skewed. What matters are the intended consequences, ultimately. People make mistakes, but as long as there is effort and thought into making a decision beneficial to the highest degree, I believe on is acting ethically.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through all the ethical theories, I realized that I usually try to apply each theory in my everyday routine. But if there is one that I use the most, it is the The Ethics of Character. When I make decisions, I base my decisions on mostly the question of What is the right thing for me? I try to make decisions on what will make me happy, along with what will make others happy. But I believe that if I am not happy with my own decision and what I choose to do, then what is the point of making the decision. I do try to make choices that are impartial, and help out others in some way possible. When I make these choices though, I want to make the decision that will make me a good and virtuous person as well.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Ethics of Consequences, I feel that I can relate the most with that theory. The main basis of this theory is that, one should make decisions based on the effect it'll have on the people involved. I try to make decisions that positively affect people involved. I also try to think of the consequences and potentially downfalls of my decisions before I act on them. Even if a decision mainly involves me, I try to think of who else my decision could potentially affect. I don't completely agree with the Ethics of Consequences, particularly the segment that discusses taking one's personal connection out of a group decision. I feel that this is something that is very difficult to follow, but overall, I agree with this particular subsection of ethics the most.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Ethics of consequences appealed the most to me. No matter what action is taken towards anything, you will always end up with a consequence. I disagree with Kant in that you must follow a certain set of clear and precise ethical rule. By following a clear rule, we cannot consider the outcome because even though a rule may seem ethical standing by itself, the end result of following that certain rule could hurt us or others. We should be able to take in consideration of the pros and cons before making the most ethical decision. So when thinking about the end results, we can make the most benefiting decision towards us and others.
ReplyDeleteI personally identify with the Ethics of Consequences the most. While I was reading these philosophical positions, I believed that they all had a large sense of truth to them in many ways. However, I found that there was always something missing. I think finiteness of Ethical Absolutionism and Ethics of Duty and Respect (or at least the examples) were too black and white. While reading them, I kept saying in my mind "well, yes, lying is definitely unethical, but what if you are protecting someone?" The consequences of telling a white lie to help out a friend in need of a confidence boost (ex. no you don't look that bad today!) or, say, destroying their self esteem are very different. Honesty can be brutal and unforgiving, and, in ways, unethical. Now, I think that too many white lies, simple cheating, etc. that can have mild or positive consequences will eventually take its toll on you as a person. One must always keep in mind how his or her decisions can effect the value they have for his or herself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most people that consequentialism is the most ethical code to live by. Most people don't act in accordance to the consequences of their actions, unfortunately. Peoples emotions sway them from making decisions that ultimately have good consequences, and while that's understandable, it usually ends up hurting the people involved. For example, if I started beef with my friend because one of us was talking about the other behind their back, and I decided not to work things out with them because of my pride, then I would've ruined the friendship, and things would become bitter from then on. However, if I decided that I would forget about my pride for a few seconds, and worked things out, there would be closure on the entire matter, and maybe even the friendship would be saved. If people would throw away their goddam egos for a bit and do the right thing, then they wouldn't arguing over the most insignificant bs. People really ought to take from this idea of consequentialism, because the end result is happiness for everyone involved in whatever decision needs to be made. Admit that you're wrong for once, and don't give a damn who hates you for it, because being a decent human being is certainly better than being a lowlife coward.
ReplyDeleteI find it nearly impossible to live by only of those ethical theories. Somethings fall under the theory of absolutism, some under relativism, and there are cases where we think merely of the consequences and therefore fall under the Ethics of Consequences. The only one that really seems to be relevant in every situation is the Ethics of Character. We can't quite grasp the meaning of what is moral/ethical before recognizing what that means to us. The passage says you can't go about thinking "What you ought to do?" instead you must figure out what kind of person you want to be."The ability to act ethically requires us to develop our character." This theory seems to be the basis for every other one. Once we understand ourselves, what we think is right/wrong, then we make look at the rest of the world and try to figure out what the everyone else makes of morality.
ReplyDeleteI found that the ethical theory of Consequences got me thinking. Even before getting to the part where they explained some of the hesitations (difficulties), I was having some doubts. In the first sentence, the book says, “[…] you can determine weather an act is ethical or moral based solely on the consequences of the action.” This part of the sentence feels like the main point of this ethical theory but it feels unethical to me. Based on this definition, cheating is morally okay. Based on the consequences of the action, cheating is better then not if you haven’t studies because without cheating you get a bad grade but with cheating you have a positive consequence of passing or at least getting a better grade. We all know that cheating is bad but that doesn’t really fit in with this theory. This is really throwing me off because I feel that this is still a great thing to do. It is important to think through your actions before you do something and I am a very consequentialist thinker. On the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that consequential thinking is not the best way to determine if something is moral or ethical.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading over the different theories of ethics, I found that I most commonly act using the theory of the ethics of consequences. I think I agree with the ethics of character more than that of consequences, but I do not think that I act on that as much. In most situations I choose to act in the way that will be beneficial to the people involved. However, I strongly disagree to the part at the end of this passage that says that a utilitarian would choose to save the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of one's own mother. In this situation I would act more on the ethics of character. For most situations I think about the consequences that are going to come from my actions and then decide what to do based on that. I think that basing one's actions off of what will be best for everyone is a good way to live, because it forces people to take other's lives into account and not make a selfish decision.
ReplyDeleteI found The Ethics Of consequences to be the story that I could most relate to and understand. I found it compelling because it goes into why people make decisions and how we weigh the pros and cons. The article talked about how there has to be a balance of good and bad in a decision and how you make a decision to make the largest amount of people happy. I feel like when I make decisions I always measure the pros and cons so I can make the most people happy possible. They brought up a good point about how we really don’t know what maximizes happiness affected by our decisions. We really wont be ever able to tell what will make everyone happy so I put this as the pint where you make a decision that will make me happy and not negatively affect others, but sometimes it has to. Utilitarianism offers clarity by weighing the pros and cons and I enjoy having clarity.
ReplyDeleteThrough reading these several ethics, I find that I resonate the most with "Ethics of Consequences." I find that I agree most with it's principle that you should make a decision based on who/ how many people it affects. Yes I do believe in that is how some decisions should be made, but if you were being forced to press a button to bomb country A or country B and country A had one less person that country B you should not jump to immediately bomb country A. Today I was very interested in how that many people decided they would rather have their mother die over Obama. While I love my mother very much this would be an easy decision for me, Obama. If my mom were to die, I and many others would mourn her death and cry for her, but she would soon be forgotten. Her story might make the newspaper and then people would only remember her when she was brought up. If Obama were to be killed millions upon millions would mourn his death. Martha Alexander told me a story that when JFK had been shot she came home to a mourning mother, crying and wishing her best to him. It was pointed out that at the time her mother was opposed and dislike JFK for his political views. Yet she still cried because America had lost its number one guy and the head figure of America.
ReplyDeleteThis shows how JFK's death reached people who hadn't even liked him, and the death of Obama would be mourned by most Americans, no matter their beliefs.