Applying ethics Flashcards
What would utilitarianism say about crime and punishment?
For any utilitarian, punishment is wrong because it brings about displeasure. All pain is bad so its use must be carefully justified, in terms of overall happiness, not just the prisoners. However, Bentham thought that crime and punishment could only be justified if it prevented more bad, as it is general happiness which needs to be examined, not the happiness of the individual. Crime and punishment is only justified if it prevents more bad, and so it cannot be administered as retribution, as this simply adds more pain into the world. Punishment must be forward looking.
What would Kantian deontology say about crime and punishment?
Again, for Kant retribution is the only purpose for punishment. Any other form is counter intuitive. The ancient form of an eye for an eye is the just system for punishment. Punishment has to be proportionate to the crime which has been committed.
What would Aristotle’s virtue ethics say about crime and punishment?
Aristotle states that for some actions, there is never an appropriate performance of them. Aristotle’s position on crime and punishment is relatively straight forward: crime and punishment is morally acceptable if the character dictates it
What would utilitarianism say about simulated killing?
Utilitarianism’s position on this is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, there is the pleasure gained from experiencing simulated killing, and on the other hand, there is the portrayal of pain and death. For a utilitarian, there is no question that such entertainment is intrinsically wrong, as wrong is defined entirely by the end and not the means. The positive side would suggest that simulated killing is very popular so causes lots of pleasure, they are part of a successful industry and they often create secondary pleasures as well. On the other side, they could transfer into the real world which would be real pain. Also, time spent experiencing it could be detrimental on health and waste time away from getting real happiness. Finally, for some people they cause pain (+secondary pain).
What would Kantian deontology say about simulated killing?
Firstly, everyone has a right to freedom—do what they want. Simulated killing doesn’t contain real pain so no one is actually harmed. Other people may be offended but they don’t have to see it. However, it may be the case that I have a duty to myself to not be entertained by simulated killing. Kant thinks we have a duty to show our humanity towards mankind, stemming from our duty to perfect our own moral nature. It could be suggested that watching simulated killing makes us less compassionate to other humans in the real world.
What would Aristotle’s virtue ethics say about Simulated killing?
Aristotle would suggest that simulated killing at best fails to develop virtues and at worst encourages vices; neither of these encourage flourishing or help to lead a good life. He states that engaging in simulated immoral acts erodes one’s character and makes it more difficult for one to live a fulfilled eudaemonic life.
What would utilitarianism say about animal rights?
The moral value of an action is determined by the happiness or pain caused; why should this be restricted to humans? Singer argued that the equality of moral interest can only be argued on sentience, which is also shared with animals. He sees our treatment of animals as the equivalent to racism. He is not against the eating of animals, he is simply against their needless suffering. Such suffering is wrong if there is an alternative (eat vegetables…)
What would Kantian deontology say about animal rights?
For Kant humans are different to animals. Humans can escape their animal instincts because of their ability to reason. Animals don’t pursue ends so we do not need to treat them as beings with moral status. We should avoid being deliberately cruel to animals because we have an imperfect duty, but it would not be morally wrong to consume meat.
What would Aristotle’s virtue ethics say about animal rights?
Aristotle believed that there was a natural hierarchy of living things, and one of the functions of things lower down the hierarchy was to serve those of the needs of those beings higher up the hierarchy. Therefore, Aristotle thought that one of the animals functions was to act as food for humans
What would utilitarianism say war?
In general, war is likely to be a bad thing as it will lead to suffering. Bentham said that ‘War is mischief upon the largest scale’. An act utilitarian would say that a just war is one that is likely to lead to more overall happiness than if it were not fought. The problem is that it is often difficult to measure the long term effects of a war. A rule utilitarian would suggest that a set of rules should outlined, and any subsequent decision to go to war should be based on these rules.
What would Kantian deontology say about war?
Kant saw actions of war as moving us away from a rightful condition. A just war would be acting out of self-defence or with the purpose of returning to peace. The maxim ‘I would fight a just war in a way that cannot lead to peace’ simply does not make sense.
What would Aristotle’s virtue ethics say about war?
There are two opposing sides to warfare for Aristotle. Firstly, a soldier is not only expected to be courageous and truthful but is also expected to develop military virtues (killing etc). However, warfare is dehumanising and soldiers may be tempted or encouraged to develop dispositions which are clearly vices.
What would utilitarianism say about lying?
For an act utilitarian, the end of an action justifies the means of achieving it. Lying is completely morally acceptable if it maximises happiness and minimises harm. In fact, it is the right thing to do in such situations when it can achieve these two things. The rule ‘tell the truth’ is one that will maximise utility. So, for a strong rule utilitarian, it is always wrong to tell a lie, even if the action would lead to greater happiness.
What would Kantian deontology say about lying?
It would seem that you cannot universalise a maxim of telling lies. The whole concept of lying relies upon the concept of truth telling. For a maxim to pass, it must be able to be universalised. If everyone lied, then lies would not deceive, and by definition this is the purpose of a lie. In telling the truth we allow people to pursue their own ends, make up their own minds. In lying we prevent this. In summary, Kant believed any type of lying was wrong, even to protect a loved one.
What would Aristotle’s virtue ethics say about lying?
Virtue ethics requires us to develop an honest character. It is by being honest together that we as a society will also be able to flourish. Honesty, like all virtues is developed through habituation, and dishonesty is also a habit. Lying is not a permanent solution to anything. However, in a one off situation, if you are generally honest then a one-off situation will not undermine your tendency and inclination to be honest.
