In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
Assess Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics, meaning the consequences of an act are what matters. The utilitarian answer as to what to do in any situation is that we should always act to maximise utility. There are two different interpretations of utilitarianism; the positive being that we ought to do that which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number and the negative being that we ought to do that which minimises pain or suffering. Utilitarianism is teleological, or goal orienteered, meaning that the end matters more than the means used to achieve the end. The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action.
In other words does the decision you are making go against your own morals, principles, or standards. If it goes against them it is easy to know that it is a wrong decision. Does it leave you with a clear conscience? If it is not clear it is a wrong decision. These seem like fairly easy rules to follow however, facing prison time, the loss of a driver’s license, and a large fine can make it more difficult to make the right
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
A firm structure is provided by there being an absolute theory,which does create less confusion when part-taking in decision making although the natural law does depended on a hierarchy, a greater power that is, a posteriori as no one is actually sure of its existence as there is not proof, only probability of the existence. A final criticism of why Natural law is not the best approach to Decision making is natural law removes the ability to make decisions freely, you are forced to think of whether you decision will be moral or approved of by the higherarchy, which does not appear to be the best way to chose how to deal with situations not matter how important the decision you make is. In conclusion, it is clear that natural moral law is not the best approach to Decision Making- a process through which the individual ‘seeks a solution’ to a problem or a
This is a legal but unethical issue. From this we can conclude that compliance ethics expects only the bare minimum, and to be a more ethical organisation, value ethics should be emphasized. Weaver and Trevino (1999) also believe that value ethics would have more of an impact and last longer in the organisation. Next is how formal culture systems promote ethics. Formal ethical systems consist of factors such as leadership, code of ethics, reward systems, orientation, and training programs.
), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes). Constructivism is a bit harder to define. Obviously if rationalism sees action as purposeful, then the most major difference is that in constructivism this is not necessarily the case. However, constructivism doesn't want to say that people just bump
Applying these techniques and understanding that the best decision is one based on what we choose to perceive as the best choice given the information and circumstances. Decision-making is a process that starts with exploration of the possibilities and then concluding on a solution. Virtually all decisions are made in an environment with at least some uncertainty. However, the degree will vary from relative certainty to great uncertainty. There are certain risks involved in making decisions.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.