I think that Singers conclusion with the famine in India differs from the conclusion that a Utilitarian might reach with regards to the “The Truth about Torture” in several ways. The difference between torturing a terrorist to protect the masses is consistent with Utilitarian Theory. Although Singer’s conclusion does appear to deviate from Utilitarian Theory‚ it actually follows some utilitarian moral principles in the fact that human greed in the western world‚ which is immoral‚ appears to
Premium Morality Famine Starvation
Nevertheless‚ there are significant differences between utilitarian and deontology. Utilitarians and deontology sometimes might arrive at variant answers to the question that whether it is ethical to implement a placebo-controlled trial for the purpose of testing whether the new drugs are efficient. Holding all other things constant‚ utilitarians might conclude that it is correct to conduct the placebo-controlled trial if the benefits outweigh the costs‚ while a deontologist would argue that it is
Premium Ethics Patient Health care
706694 Utilitarian and retributive theory of punishment Utilitarian Theorists believe that punishment should be developed based on what is best for the public as a whole. Utilitarian theorists are forward looking as opposed to retribution theorists. The goal of utilitarian theorists is to prevent a crime from happening again. In a general sense this means that the punishment for a certain crime needs to be great than the possible reward for committing the crime. A utilitarian theorist believes
Premium Utilitarianism Punishment Crime
There are two general theories of punishment: utilitarian and retributive. In the utilitarian theory of punishment‚ punishment is sought to discourage future occurrences of crime‚ while in the retributive theory‚ punishment is handed out because the offender deserves to be punished. Laws are used under the utilitarian philosophy specifically to maximize the overall peace of society. Because crimes and the punishment that follows are both adversaries to that peace‚ they should be kept to a minimum
Premium Criminal justice Criminology Crime
deals with the fundamental idea of the utilitarian theory formulated by Jeremy Bentham and several problems associated with its application. Chapter 4 covers John S. Mill’s enhancement of Bentham’s theory. Based on this background information‚ chapter 5 illustrates the how utilitarianism can be applied to decision making in business and thus impacting the economy by presenting three distribution formulations that can be derived from the classical utilitarian
Premium Utilitarianism
extent‚ are seen as second class. Gender inequalities are also interwoven with class‚ race and religious structures. Gender inequalities range from reactionary notions of women’s abilities and their sexual availability to cultural and traditional views of femininity and women’s proper roles. From wolf whistles to rape‚ lack of education to unequal pay‚ women
Premium Gender Gender role Man
This paper was written during the final exam for an ethics class‚ from memory. As such‚ there are no referances‚ but it still makes for a pretty good outline for a paper on utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories. With so many varying views on morals and ethics‚ trying to use reason in ethics without resorting to emotional judgments is difficult. The first stop to overcoming this obstacle is to begin by studying ethical theories. Once a good grasp of the theories has been established
Premium Ethics Immanuel Kant Utilitarianism
A Utilitarian Defense for Veganism All around the world‚ the consumption of animal products‚ such as meat and milk‚ are common and accepted practices. The extreme diet of veganism is considered rare and outside of the social norm. To live a vegan lifestyle means refraining from eating meat‚ fish‚ dairy‚ honey‚ gelatin‚ and eggs. Those who take up this diet live in a world where they are considered outcasts and their diet is rarely accommodated for at restaurants‚ family gatherings‚ and so on. With
Free Veganism Meat Livestock
The lottery is an example of the utilitarian monster because‚ in a lottery game‚ there are many losers‚ but only one winner. The happiness of the winner of a lottery ticket is very high‚ and when compared to the unhappiness of the losers‚ there is still‚ in theory‚ a net happiness gain. So in essence‚ the happiness of many (the losers) is sacrificed for the disproportionate happiness of one individual (the winner). A case could be made for and against the lottery in terms of monetized utilitarianism
Premium
147). As opposed to the utilitarian’s view‚ the morality of the action is not relevant if there is a good outcome‚ meaning what gives moral worth to an action are the consequences. There are some disadvantages and advantages to both Kant’s view and utilitarians’ views. Nonetheless‚ I think Kant’s views are preferable and more reasonable. One of the reasons I consider Kant’s view more reasonable is because actions are things we can control‚ we can decide to either do something good or bad‚ moral or immoral
Premium Morality Ethics Immanuel Kant