Utilitarianism

If you feel examplely stimulate to participate, you will need to ask yourself certain questions.

Utilitarianism and, more generally, consequentialism exert that the put to work-omission distinction is goodly irrelevant. N unmatchedtheless, these theories do place a honourable obligation upon you to act. However, I believe you will see that beyond that they are very skewed in their treatment of morality. But, if you agree a moral obligation to participate, the issues before you are (1) Should you meet the responsibility of mavin person's demolition; (2) If you do not act, essential you accept the responsibility for twenty dollar bill people's death; and (3) If you shoot one person, do you offset either moral responsibility for that death offset saving(a) the lives of 19 others; and (4) Should you leave into consideration the fact that all twenty locals would prefer you to act as contrasted to any inclinations you may have not to act?

Generally, act utilitarianism states an action is right if its returns are equal to or disclose than the consequences of any alternative actions open to the actor. If you assume the best consequence is that the least amount of people should die, you should shoot the one local. However, this would only(prenominal) be the best consequence if you do not take into consideration that after acting you will be morally responsible for the death of a person.

One of the critiques of utilitarianism is that while it places a moral obligation upon you t

Paine, Lynda Sharp. "Utilitarianism and the good of Persons." Foundations of Ethics (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983): 101-14.

Williams, Bernard. "A Critique of Utilitarianism." lesson Doctrines and Moral Theories. (Publication information unavailable): 123-32.

In other words, you must first determine what the right conduct would be without regard to your birth personal moral position. If you conduct yourself in that manner, you are a good person. You may say to yourself that a social guess that requires you to ignore your fundamental moral beliefs does not seem to be a very good social surmisal. You would then have come to the issue that plagues most critics of utilitarianism.

Paine, for example, believes that attitudes, motives, emotions, and other qualities of agents must rent a fundamental position in an acceptable moral supposition and that the moral values we attribute to persons and their characteristics cannot be adequately explained by reference to maximizing action. She would reject any theory of utilitarianism that required you to deny your moral dilemma.

So, first, should you accept the responsibility of one person's death? Utilitarianism says you should because it is a lesser cost to you than the benefit of saving nineteen lives. Nonetheless, you may feel this theory does not adequately address your moral responsibility for your actions. Second, if you do not act, must you accept the responsibility for twenty people's death? Consequentialism says you must, but this theory abdicates the captain of all responsibility and places on you a moral obligation for his actions. Third, if you shoot one person, have you offset any moral responsibility for that death by saving the lives of nineteen others? Utilitarianism says you have because you have performed a right action and are, therefore, a good person. And finally, should you take into consideration the fact that all twenty locals would prefer you act as o
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!