Pre-Socratic philosophy Ioniasource of early Greek philosophy, in western Asia Minor In the pre-Socratic periodancient philosophers first articulated questions about the "arche" the cause or first principle of the universe. Western philosophy is generally said to begin in the Greek cities of western Asia Minor Ionia with Thales of Miletuswho was active c.
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.
Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons or all sentient beings is itself partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person's share of the Good to achieve the Good's maximization.
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.
That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not.
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. And there also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory Williams 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 others.
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.utilitarian calculations when deciding medical procedures, or deciding whether or not to exercise, etc.
However, some people are bothered by many answers that utilitarianism gives. I In addition to this \comfortableness" test, there are a couple other arguments against utilitarianism that have been given.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking..
Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of. Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism.
Since the beginning of recorded human history, people have been obsessed with personal fulfillment. Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics.
It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).
Ethics Theories- Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles: utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral [ ]. Ethical Theories Summarized & Explained: Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, and Objectivist Ethical Egoism Deontology names a type of ethical theory that judges human practices based on whether they are consistent with certain duties that the theory holds as intrinsically moral.
So OEE can’t be considered a virtue ethical.