Phil Essay

270 WordsJun 24, 20142 Pages
In this essay, I will choose question 5 as the topic. The essay is mainly based on discussing the different responses that consequentialists and non-consequentialists would give upon the same issue and giving my own thought. There are two given cases, which are “Jim and the Indians” provided by philosopher Bernard Williams (1973, p.98) and the transplant case. The Jim’s case is controversial, so I will emphasise more on it. In philosophical definition, consequentialism is the normative ethical theory believing that the right action is which maximises good consequences while non-consequentialists argue that some actions are wrong even if those actions maximise good consequences. The thesis of this essay is that when facing a dilemma, the choice we make, the theory we use, should all depends on different situation. We should be flexible and patient enough to find the best course of action to take. Because the two cases distinguish from each other in terms of the way they take people’s lives, my preference is different when judging them, that is to say, I will advocate consequentialism in the first case, but I will favour non-consequentialism in the second one. In the main discussion, firstly I will briefly introduce the example. After that, I will show what the two sides would suggest in that situation. The strongest arguments from both sides will be considered, following by some expected objections. I will give my considerations that which one is preferable and try to give sufficient reasons to support my claim. In the end there are some relevant ideas around the topic and finally comes the

More about Phil Essay

Open Document