Ethics and Politics
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| − | * The virtuous performs the virtuous action. Aristole believes you can be born with the potential, for example, benevolent but you have to work on the disposition to become benevolent. You have to execise and practice the benevolence and do it not because you have to, or be seen to be benevolent but because it is virtuous | + | * The virtuous performs the virtuous action. [[author::Aristole]] believes you can be born with the potential, for example, benevolent but you have to work on the disposition to become benevolent. You have to execise and practice the benevolence and do it not because you have to, or be seen to be benevolent but because it is virtuous |
* A virtuous person performs the right acton for the right reason | * A virtuous person performs the right acton for the right reason | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| − | Aristole believes all the virtues come together. They are temperence, justice | + | Aristole believes all the virtues come together. They are prudence, temperence, justice and courage....... |
| − | ==[[Kant]]== | + | ==[[author::Kant]]== |
| − | For Kant a action is right if it is done out of reverence for the law or through duty. The difference is the person is acting out of intention not inclinaton. David [[Hume]] believes that everything that is done is out of self interest. There is no [[Altrusim|altruism]]. If you do the action because it makes you feel good then it is ''not'' a moral action says Kant. He defines a [[term::Categorical Imperative]] as a moral law that is not dependent on any other ulterior motive or end. e.g. Do not steal. Kant gives 6 accounts of the categorical imperative. Treat all people as an ''end'' not a ''means''. | + | For Kant a action is right if it is done out of reverence for the law or through duty. The difference is the person is acting out of intention not inclinaton. David [[author::Hume]] believes that everything that is done is out of self interest. There is no [[Altrusim|altruism]]. If you do the action because it makes you feel good then it is ''not'' a moral action says Kant. He defines a [[term::Categorical Imperative]] as a moral law that is not dependent on any other ulterior motive or end. e.g. Do not steal. Kant gives 6 accounts of the categorical imperative. Treat all people as an ''end'' not a ''means''. |
==[[Utilitarianism]]== | ==[[Utilitarianism]]== | ||
| − | The right action is the one that does the most good for the greatest number of people. This is a consequentialist doctrine not one based on intenton or will. It is the | + | The right action is the one that does the most good for the greatest number of people. This is a consequentialist doctrine not one based on intenton or will. It is the consequences of your actions not your intent that is important. This tends to be how the judicial system works. Utilitiarianism would ''argue'' that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima would lead to the greatest happiness to the majority. However when we act we do not necessarily know what the outcome will be. So it should be the ''intended'' consequences not the actual. It's the moral action of the agent that is important. Turning it around if you did something wrong yet turned out for the good. Utilitarianism would say that if the intended consequences were bad the moral agent is bad. |
| + | |||
| + | Problems with Utilitarianism can be seen with genocide. The right to life might be denied if the majority would be happier if you were dead. More of a dilemma would be the allocation of resources in healthcare. Do we prioritize the old or the young, productive individual or feckless or one drug that saves one from a dreadful illness or many from a mild illness. However, it is a descriptive not a prescriptive theory | ||
Revision as of 11:53, 17 September 2012
- First (Order) Actions Ethics
Looks at the world - Actions types like Murder, cloning etc are morally acceptable. i.e My belief that this chair is blue
- Second (Order) Actions
What is it that makes an action right and wrong
i.e. What makes me believe that this chair is blue.
You can only test your second order ethics with reference to the first. If your belief that murder is OK is tested against the worldly acceptance of murder and find that murder
Aristotle and Ethics
The right action is the action that would be chosen by a virtuous person. A virtuous person as three characteristics
- The person knows what is virtuous. Aristotle does nor accept there are rules. Their general claims have to be applied in specific situations and break down. How do you be kind and honest when giving an opinion. You have broken the rules. This is moral dilemma and you end up making up a rule or prioritize rules. Aristotle says you should maintain both truth and honesty by not making a rule but acting virtuously in the specific circumstances and acting accordingly.
- The virtuous performs the virtuous action. Aristole believes you can be born with the potential, for example, benevolent but you have to work on the disposition to become benevolent. You have to execise and practice the benevolence and do it not because you have to, or be seen to be benevolent but because it is virtuous
- A virtuous person performs the right acton for the right reason
If throughout your lifetime you act as above then you become virtuous.
Aristole believes all the virtues come together. They are prudence, temperence, justice and courage.......
Kant
For Kant a action is right if it is done out of reverence for the law or through duty. The difference is the person is acting out of intention not inclinaton. David Hume believes that everything that is done is out of self interest. There is no altruism. If you do the action because it makes you feel good then it is not a moral action says Kant. He defines a Categorical Imperative as a moral law that is not dependent on any other ulterior motive or end. e.g. Do not steal. Kant gives 6 accounts of the categorical imperative. Treat all people as an end not a means.
Utilitarianism
The right action is the one that does the most good for the greatest number of people. This is a consequentialist doctrine not one based on intenton or will. It is the consequences of your actions not your intent that is important. This tends to be how the judicial system works. Utilitiarianism would argue that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima would lead to the greatest happiness to the majority. However when we act we do not necessarily know what the outcome will be. So it should be the intended consequences not the actual. It's the moral action of the agent that is important. Turning it around if you did something wrong yet turned out for the good. Utilitarianism would say that if the intended consequences were bad the moral agent is bad.
Problems with Utilitarianism can be seen with genocide. The right to life might be denied if the majority would be happier if you were dead. More of a dilemma would be the allocation of resources in healthcare. Do we prioritize the old or the young, productive individual or feckless or one drug that saves one from a dreadful illness or many from a mild illness. However, it is a descriptive not a prescriptive theory
