The Fundamentals of Ethics - Assignment Example

Fundamentals of Ethics Part I Hedonism is a given school of thought whose belief is that pleasure is the unique attributethat is intrinsically good. They hold to the notion that, in its whole definition, the ability to achieve a sense of pleasure out of carrying out an activity is the only way the description of something being intrinsically good can be achieved. With that, they strive in all their efforts to achieve net pleasure, which is the total pleasure that enjoyed after eradicating the possible pain felt in the process. Hedonists believe that that an activity is intrinsically good because the thing is good in its own sake. The subject, therefore, is at the state of natural happiness considering there is a cost incurred at achieving the pleasure (Landau, 2010). For this reason, the pleasure achieved is not instrumental to the feeling rather it is naturally created with respect to the subject under consideration. On the analysis, the pain or cost suffered is little, compared to the maximum pleasure that is attained. In essence, Hedonists believe that a thing qualifies to be intrinsically good only if results in pleasure without being completed by any other thing. 2) Life’s trajectory can be described as the envisioned blueprint in which an individual’s passions are meant to flow. These pathways define the manner in which the individual’s goals will be achieved with respect to the little targets that are supposed to be attained. Shafer-Landau introduces us to that concept of life’s trajectory and he points out that prescribing such trajectories is extremely difficult. Only estimations are possible given the volatile nature associated with life events. However, the main intention of the concept is having a desired goal or rather shaping the flow in which certain accomplishments are acquired. Now, recalling the description of Hedonism, this new description of life’s trajectory contradicts with the former ideology as about the singularity of the event. While hedonism is clear on the existence of a single purely intrinsic good, life’s trajectory suggests of a pattern of improving the aspect of goodness. This conflict greatly risks undermining the notion that the optimum pleasure achieved from the event is solely possible without the chance of any other taking place concurrently or even, as a result. On careful analysis of life’s trajectory, it is apparent that the goodness achieved is having instrumental attributes rather than intrinsic ones. The implication is that the pleasure achieved out a life’s trajectory is built out of a careful combination of several characters in a certain trend and not on a solo good. Use of Hedonist’s theory on life’s trajectory would greatly threaten the belief in Hedonism with special reference to the intrinsic qualities associated with achieving pleasure. 3) Consequentialism is a normative ethical theory that holds to the convention that the result of the activity is the only grounds for judging the entire process. Therefore, as long as the condition of the outcome being good, any means used are totally justified. In layman’s language, the concept can be illustrated through the English notion that, the end justifies the means’. Ethical laws are used to criticize the goodness or badness of the outcome with ignorance of any means used to achieve them. This theory, therefore, seeks to identify the optimific result of a certain series of events. An analysis of the optimality of the outcome is, therefore, crucial to the criticizing of the event. Such an analysis seeks to find the ratio of benefits of the outcome in relation to the drawbacks that are suffered. With that, optimisfism qualifies as the attribute that is related to something being of optimal effect. By these, it implies that, on further analysis, no better choice would be achieved. In our specific context, the result will be optimific if and only if there is no chance of any better outcome on manipulation using different variables. Therefore, the optimific characteristic of an outcome justifies the use of Consequentialism as it is proven that no better yield is attainable, considering the benefits and drawbacks. Since Consequentialists justify their actions through the optimific trait associated with their outcome, it is important to understand how they arrive at that conclusion. In fact, it would have been less persuasive if they employed never employed a procedure for analyzing the optimific attribute of the event. Therefore, this acts as a logical point of argument on their part in a debate for instance. The series of steps used to investigate if some event is optimific include the following: 1. Determination of what is the worth having in its own sake. In essence, it refers to trying to understand the intrinsic goodness of the outcome. Here the side effects that accrue from the event are ignored, and the main result given full consideration. 2. The next thing that is identified is the intrinsic bad, which is associated with the result. However, it does not include the regrettable outcomes it might cause. 3. Afterwards, the identification of all the possible options follows. The list is usually detailed with no assumption of any option whatsoever. 4. Following closely is the in-depth analysis of the intrinsic value associated with the listed options. The value is attained on consideration of the goodness of the result about the badness. 5. Lastly, the option yielding the best possible ratio qualifies as a moral duty. As that, doing any other would be in contravention of the ethics of morality. Furthermore, that option is the optimific considering the other options (Landau, 2010). Such an analysis will determine the course to be taken, depending on the output. Part II 1) The doctrine of double effect is a notion used to justify the committing of a serious action that may even involve the death of an individual as a side effect of promoting some good end. The achievement of the consequential good is given preference in committing the action, and any other result is considered a side effect. The side effect can be thought of as being a cost suffered at the expense of the greater good. However, it is important noting that the above doctrine is not always correct as supported by the school of thought of Consequentialism. Such a case illustrates an event where Consequentialism is not totally justified. A good example as indicated by Phillipa Foot of a case where the notion of optimific calculation fails is the induction of a pregnant mother into C-section with the live baby being way far from delivery and enables to survive outside the womb. Such a scenario poses a predicament, as the death of the child may not completely be termed as a side effect of the action performed by a doctor. In some respect, the action may even be regarded as the apparent killing of a child given the specific circumstances. It would even stand as a string argument given the risk posed in conducting such a dangerous procedure. While Consequentialism is justified by the characteristic of optimisfism, such an experiment provides a challenge to the whole ideology. Calculations on the optimality of the outcome of conducting the C-section may show possibility of greater benefits accruing to the process, but the death of an innocent child challenges the notion as it surpasses the quantification of a mere side effect. The risk of death of the child may even equal the reason justifying the conducting of the procedure in the first place. 2) Morality is a system of ideas that categorize certain events as being bad or good (Landau, 2010). The system is assumed as the weighing gauge with which the society criticizes certain human behavior. Social behavior of other creatures is ignored as the society assumes the superiority of their practices over those of other creatures. However, emerging revelations on matters such as sociobiology indicate that although human behavior is complex, some elements can be traced in the behaviors of other social animals. Scientists argue that despite human behavior being controversial and unpredictable, humans with those of some animals can establish some relationship among practices. They insinuate that morality has been evolving over time. More to that, another section of scientists adds that the human behavior is relative to the culture in which it is nurtured thus making it a construct. Human nature is termed as the unique attributes characterized in the way that humans act, think or feel. This behavior is usually considered independent of other factors that may influence them such as culture, politics and the like. With the knowledge, we have on human nature it is possible to identify human nature on a certain set of traits that are common in all human behaviors. Usually, this set of characteristics makes humans stand out. For instance, human nature is characterized by cognition which allows humans, to think logically and associate given occurrences to a given meaning. Using that trait, humans have been able to recognize seasons, explaining the knowledge on the four seasons in a year. The cognition ability is both inductive and deductive. Another attribute common in human nature is emotion. Humans have the ability to perceive feelings and react in accordance to emotion. Most human behaviors are characterized by an element of emotion to some degree (Landau, 2010). 3) Morality can be related to religion and lead to the explanation of the mix as the association of morals to views, which are religious in nature. It is important, however, that distinctions between the two be made. While religion entails the belief in a supernatural force which is accorded dignity and adoration, morality refers to the honoring of the assumed rules that the society dictates. The rules may vary from one culture to another, and they tend to be flexible over time. Thus, they are very dynamic in nature. The same cannot be said about religion given the rigid nature of the commandments, which are adhered strictly by the Christians. Despite the differences, nevertheless, the two beliefs can be linked on the basis that they govern the behaviors of society. In order for the two to be associated a set of ground assumptions have to hold. The reason being that both use different orientations although being used similarly. The misconception is that the religion is a form of morality; that is never the case. Furthermore, the two approaches have different structures through which authority is conferred. For the religion to be used as the basis of assessing morality, a number of assumptions have to hold: 1. That morality depends on religion fully: this implies that there is no other condition through which allowance may be dictated. 2. That the morality is judged by already set rules, therefore, the statistic. 3. That morality is directed at a supernatural force regarded as supreme. Of the above attributes, the assumption that morality is static and, therefore, does not evolve, makes it less thorough and, therefore, may seem less constraining on the part of the subject. However, presence of a supreme being who dictates the obligations directed to them makes religion seem necessary. Part III 1) Social contract is a concept in which a group of individuals surrenders explicitly some of their freedoms to a given being, possibly a magistrate who seems to be at authority of safeguarding the other interests of the given citizens. It is this consenting to be ruled that mandates the supreme individual to protect the other right of the same individuals, otherwise the individual would not be liable. Thus, all social contracts contain that attribute of conferring some authority to some force with the aim of having that being protect other interests of the same group of people. In a given state of nature, the human life would be characterized by being short, nasty, solitary and even poor. The Prisoner’s dilemma presents a case of human nature in that wants depend on not only what they do but also what those associated with them in a given context do (Landau, 2010). The same scenario presents a paradox in that everyone, in a specific situation would end up at a far worse situation in the case that they pursued their own selfish interests. The mere reason that morality entails the judging of a given behavior about the society makes it a purely social phenomenon. Morally incorrect behavior would not be wrong in the case that there was no society in the first place. Furthermore, it is known to us that morality regulates the relationship between one individual to another within the context of a society, thus outside of these jurisdictions there would be no case of morality. Given the fact a social contract has obligations on both ends of the agreement, makes it binding to both parties. The scenario would benefit the contractor in the case that they were not charged with any responsibility even after being conferred the right to rule. Thus, for selfish interests contractors would rather prefer excluding others from the social contract as it leaves them at a better position for reaping maximum benefits from the entire set up. Works Cited Landau, Shafer. The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Read More