Essays Flashcards
Meta ethics
A1
Naturalism -> meaning through Aquinas telos -> we can observe -> Mill-> we see pleasure we can therefore say what is good and bad -> significant agreement on moral values The fact we can agree suggest it is a factual matter -> reducing morality to a matter of opinion, preserves ethical debates->Moore’s -> Good is good, and that is the end of the matter. -> Hume naturalistic fallacy -> saying that just because something makes us feel happy, we can’t therefore define it as ‘good’. -> bad for utilitarianism, which argues that something is good if more people experience pleasure from it. -> can be dangerous-> logical jump
A2
Intuitionism is a cognitive non-naturalistic theory -> we know what good is, we cannot define it -> the colour yellow,-> H.A Pritchard reason fact of situ and intuition establishes what to do-> moral obligation differ due to development of moral thinking-> HOWEVER -> intuitionism reliant on upbringing? Is it different from opinion (emotivism) impossible to prove-> intuit differently (genocide) W.D Ross prima facie duties 7 rules should be followed -> when conflict use intuition
A3
Reason isn’t the best -> emotivism recognises disputes and ethics are driven by feelings over reason - SUPPORT - Daniel Goleman argues the emotional part of our brain reacts before the reasoning part kicks in -> boo hurrah -> isn’t intuition Stevenson people just saying what they want -> Critics suggest a debate, then become a ‘boo-hurray’ shouting match as both sides are merely expressing feelings and attitude -> Philippa foot cites, the example of concentration camps should not be reduced to a matter of opinion -> Rachel’s moral statements need reason -> arbitrary -> free for all
Due to lack of agreement-> preference -> It is more logical to say that ethical language is meaningless-> good and bad do not exist other than in a personal sense.
Euthanasia
SE -> quality of life -> euthanasia -> principles -> NL worse SE best
Flexibility -> agapep principles> fixed rules (secondary precepts proximate conclusions of reason) -> better in complex varying situations which euthanasia is> relativism HOWEVER vague-> what is most loving-> suffering person may have no voice
SE-> autonomy-> personalism-> people first-> pragmatism -> no ideal situation-> most loving first with respect for choice HOWEVER NL -> most loving would be to ensure survival -> SE -> more respect for ending a life, not worth living and keeping one going
Modern -> 50% non-believers -> technology medicine now know who is worth treating -> secular ideas too legalistic need more liberal HOWEVER -> too liberal the Lord has given and taken -> bodies, temples of God -> God shall decide -> when not slippery slope HOWEVER -> slippery slope fallacy -> double effect, Dr Moore is a weaker self defeating version of SE’s take
Business ethics
Utilitarianism the principle of doing the greatest good for the greatest number seems good on the surface However, the questionable implications lead to bad things
Utilitarianism disregards an individuals autonomy greatest good for the greatest number is quantifiable of pain and pleasure. Exploitation can become justifiable, as the tyranny of the majority. Slave, labour, or production of unsafe goods, for example, the Ford pinto. I can have the greatest good for the greatest number by generating profit. Milton Friedman believed this is the only social responsibility a business should obtain. The argument at first seems rational, but any clicks individuals rights and liberties in the cases such as Nike promotes sweatshop work as businesses are profit driven. Argument for trickle down effect then dismiss it.
A greater option to utilitarianism is Kantian ethics. It provides a strong alternative. This is through the categorical imperative where we can look at the first formulation of universalism. This is the word treating others as you want to be treated as stressed and you can bring upRawls veil of ignorance. If we didn’t know we would end up in that factory we would like to make sweatshop work illegal or at least promote safer healthier better pay. Milton Friedman would argue that businesses objectives is to make profit in order to survive to keep the economy functioning. And utilitarianism would promote that or Benthams would. You may argue hedonic calculus can lead to best outcome however time consuming and hard to calculate in fast paced business.
Kants second formulation of the categorical imperative is that individuals must be treated as an ends in themselves rather than means to an end this on like utilitarianism prevents exploitation that’s justified through it such as slave labour. This further demonstrated how utilitarianism is not an effective way of dealing with business especially as Bentham famously referred to belief in human rights as “nonsense on stilts “. Turn on believe everyone in business should act in the kingdom of ends this embodies superiority to utilitarianism.
To conclude, the argument explored in the essay shows that the view presented in the question is true, that utilitarianism does not help with ethical judgement in the context of business ethics
