Consequentiality Views of Morality - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Question 1 Consequentiality views of morality holds the view that human beings should conduct themselves in ways that result in good consequences. The two major consequentiality views of morality; ethical egoism and utilitarianism, both concur that human beings are supposed to act in ways that result in good consequences. They however differ on who is supposed to gain from the consequences, with ethical egoists basically contending that human beings are supposed to act within their own self-interest while utilitarians basically argue that human beings are supposed to act within the interests of all the concerned. On the other hand, non-consequentiality views of morality hold the view that the consequences of individuals’ behaviours are not relevant as far as making moral judgments is concerned. This is based on the fact that it is essentially difficult and at times impossible to have power over the outcomes of our actions. As a result, it is upon everyone to act in the right manner as set by the moral standards. The main differences between consequentiality and non-consequentiality views of morality is that consequentiality views of morality is mainly concerned with the end results of human being actions whereas non-consequentiality views of morality is mainly concerned with something else rather than the outcomes of an individual’s actions. Another difference between consequentiality and non-consequentiality views of morality is that with consequentiality views of morality, the goodness of an individual’s action is determined by how well it serves the interests of the others whereas with non-consequentiality views of morality, the goodness of an individual’s action is determined by the extent to which he or she has performed the action that eventually leads to good consequences. For instance, suppose a student has an intention of stealing a pen from his or her colleague. If he/she is a consequentialist, he may be wary of the consequences of stealing and not stealing. If he/she is an egoistic consequentialist, he/she will attempt to visualize what will be in his/her own best interest; if he/she is utilitarian consequentialist, he/she will attempt to visualize what will be in the interest of everybody concerned. In both cases, the student is mainly wary of the consequences of his/her actions he/she is contemplating. On the other hand, an example of an example of a non-consequentialist view of morality can be seen from a situation where an individual lies. A non-consequentialist might argue that lying will always be wrong irrespective of any potential good that might come from saying a lie. A consequentialist would however focus less on lying; instead he/she will consider what the decision to tell a lie or not to tell a lie as this tells more about an individual’s character and morals. Question 2 Absolutism can be defined as a view that states that ultimate ethical principles do not show discrepancies from one culture to another. It does not, however, imply that various cultures have similar moral rules and standards since this would seemingly be empirically false. It however implies that that the ultimate principles basic to the varying rules and standards are similar. On the other hand, relativism can be described as a view that states that there are no absolute values by any means and that all values are relative to place, people, situations and time. In a nutshell, it means that there are no values that are similar between various cultures and people; all correspond to particular places in which they are held. The main difference between absolutism and relativism is that relativism holds the view that a great variation exist between religions, customs, taboos, manners etc from one culture to another whereas absolutism holds the view that there is great resemblance in situations as well as relationships between all cultures. Another difference is that relativism holds the view that individuals from various cultures tend to believe that their morality is the only true one whereas absolutism holds the view that there exist extreme resemblance in sentiments, attitudes as well as emotions. An example of an absolutist’s point of view might, for instance, critic female genital disfigurement to be absolutely and inarguably immoral in spite of the beliefs as well as the goals of a particular culture carrying out the practice. On the other hand, one example of relativist’s point of view can be seen from a culture that believes that dogs can only be pets and cannot therefore be used for meat, yet in a country like China, a dog is also food. An individual who believes in cultural relativism wouldn’t judge dog-eating as either right or wrong since there is not a right or wrong. They consider that each culture has to be understood with neutrality. Question 3 Determinism can be described as a view that holds that for every outcome, effect and happening that occurs in reality, there is always a reason for its occurrence. On the other hand, freedom can be referred to as a view that holds that moral consideration and decision making can be found in the area of human deliberation and choice such that human beings are able to exercise their ability of choice as well as creativity. The main difference between freedom and determinism is that in determinism, there is a view that human actions to do good or bad are fully predetermined whereas with freedom, human actions to do good or bad are not fully predetermined. An example of a determinist point of view can be seen from an example of boy who later on in life turns out to be a drug addict after being introduced to drugs by his peer group. Determinists would therefore argue that this boy was not responsible for the way he turned out to be. This implies that the boy cannot at all be held responsible for the course the life he took. On the other hand, an example of a free will point of view can be observed for instance, a rugby fan living in Auckland, Australia and he/she can choose whether to support their rugby team or not. Question 4 Virtue ethics can be described as the classification within norminative ethics that tries to determine as well as classify what might be considered of moral character, and to put the moral character into application as a base for an individual’s choices and actions. For instance, the case of a boss making love with a junior staff would be termed as bad since the concept of virtue is that which makes its possessor good. A virteous individual is morally good, admirable and one who acts, rightly as he/she should. Read More