Libertarianism--People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.
Contractarianism--No policy that causes uncompensated harm on anyone is permitted Pareto safety. Consider these Definitions:. Teleology, Consequentialism, and Utility. Teleology Telos is a Greek word for "end", or goal. Not end as in the "end of the road", but as in "the end which we seek.
In other words, if you want to find out what you ought to do, it is essential to understand what the ultimate goal of ethics is. One religious, teleological theory suggests that the final goal of humanity is to love God, and to live a life of service to others.
A different take on the nature of our moral "end" is that the fundamental goal of human behavior is to be happy -- the task then, of course, is to spell out exactly what human happiness consists in. Consequentialism Consequentialism is a type of teleological theory -- consequentialist theories suggest that the moral value, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act, is entirely a function of the consequences, or the results of that act.
Like above, what sorts of consequences are morally good and what sorts are morally bad need to be spelled out. Both teleological and consequentialist theories are types of theories. They are not themselves theories for one very important reason -- they don't specify what goals or consequences ought to guide moral judgments and actions. In other words, they are simply a couple of ways of categorizing ethical theories. Utility In Chapter Six, we examine utilitarianism. Rule Consequentialist Theories To a first approximation, rule consequentialist theories claim that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the non-moral value of the consequences of certain rules being generally accepted: moral rules that require or prohibit that act.
Rule consequentialist theories claim that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined indirectly by the non-moral value of the consequences of our accepting a moral code that requires or prohibits that act. Most claim that morally appropriate or ethical actions, policies, practices, institutions, etc.
Note that the relevant code is not the one that is, in fact, generally accepted, but rather the one whose general acceptance would have the best consequences whether or not it is, in fact, generally accepted. Rule consequentialist theories are often criticized for elevating a means of promoting optimal consequences—namely, compliance with moral rules—to the status of an end in itself, because they claim that we ought to comply with the moral code whose general acceptance would have the best consequences even when we know that doing so will have suboptimal consequences.
Non-Consequentialist incl. Deontological Theories To a first approximation, non-consequentialist theories claim that whether an act is right or wrong depends on factors other than or in addition to the non-moral value of relevant consequences.
Non-consequentialist theories accept constraints, options, or both. Non-consequentialist theories that accept constraints are often referred to as deontological theories. Constraints are limits or restrictions on what we may do to promote good ends or optimal outcomes—limits on what it is permissible to do, even to achieve noble ends or the greater good.
Thus, theories that accept constraints deny that it is always permissible to do whatever would have the best consequences. Both general obligations, such as duties not to harm or lie to others, and universal human rights would be constraints. So would special obligations, including duties of care and other role obligations. Moreover, constraints would include not only duties of and rights to non-interference negative duties and rights , but also duties to provide and rights to goods or services positive duties and rights , such as assistance, an education, or health care.
Options are limits on what we must do to promote good ends or optimal outcomes—including, most prominently, permissions to pursue our own interests or projects even when doing so would have suboptimal consequences. Thus, theories that accept options deny that it is always obligatory to do whatever would have the best consequences.
Moreover, non-consequentialist theories accept constraints or options on non-consequentialist grounds. In contrast, act-consequentialist theories reject both constraints and options. They may accept rules that specify constraints or options, but only as guidelines or heuristics, and only on the basis of consequentialist reasoning see above.
And while rule-consequentialist theories may accept constraints or options, they may do so only on consequentialist grounds. Thus, most rule-consequentialist theories may and do accept them only insofar as the code of rules whose general acceptance would have the best consequences provides for them see above. Neither non-consequentialism nor deontology should be confused with moral absolutism, the view that some or all moral prohibitions or rules hold without exception.
Absolutism in this sense most often takes the form of the view that certain actions are morally impermissible simply in virtue of being members of certain identifiable kinds of action, such as lies, acts of adultery, and deliberate killings of the innocent. It may also take the form of the view that there are absolute moral rights, that is, moral rights that may never be permissibly infringed. Although some non-consequentialist ethical theories are absolutist in this sense, many non-consequentialists —including many deontologists—reject such absolutism.
Contractarian Theories To a first approximation, contractarian theories claim that whether an act is right or wrong depends on whether or not it conforms to norms of mutually beneficial cooperation that are, or would be, agreed to by self-interested agents. Contractarian theories generally view people as primarily motivated by self-interest and morality as a conventional response to a collective action problem, a situation in which each can benefit only by securing the cooperation of others.
Contractarian theories claim that morally appropriate or ethical actions, policies, practices, institutions, etc. Contemporary contractarians do not claim that morality is a contract or agreement. Rather, they regard the fact that self-interested agents would agree to a given norm as indicative of the self-interested reasons they have and, in particular, of what conventional norms they have self-interested reasons to accept provided that others reciprocate.
For example, the fact that such agents would agree to a norm prohibiting wanton violence shows or evinces that self-interested agents have self-interested reasons to accept conventional norms that prohibit such violence provided that others also accept them. Libertarian theories claim that the primary motive for agreement is a fear of depredations by others.
Self-interested agents concerned to protect themselves from such depredations would, they claim, agree to norms that prohibit them from using force or threats of force to achieve their own ends provided that others reciprocate.
Liberal theories claim that the primary motive for agreement is a desire for the positive benefits that mutual cooperation makes possible. Self-interested agents concerned to benefit from mutual cooperation would, they claim, agree to norms requiring that they aid others in need and contribute to mutually advantageous social insurance schemes provided that others reciprocate. Contractarian theories are often criticized for being unable to account for our obligations to and the rights of those who cannot reciprocate, including children, the disabled, and non-human animals.
Contractualist Theories To a first approximation, contractualist theories claim that whether an act is right or wrong depends on whether or not it conforms to principles or rules that could or would be accepted by all rational beings or that could not be reasonably rejected by any rational being. Contractualist theories generally view people as motivated, not only or even primarily by self-interest, but also to act in ways that they can justify to others as free and equal beings.
For instance, T. Thus, speaking very roughly, whereas contractarian theories see moral principles as rules that self-interested individuals would agree to from their own, diverse perspectives, contractualist theories see moral principles as rules that individuals could or would agree to or could not reject from a common perspective, the perspective of one free and equal person among others.
Contemporary contractualists do not claim that morality is a contract or agreement. Rather, they regard the fact that reasonable persons could or would agree to or could not reject a given principle as indicative of the reasons they have.
For example, the fact that such persons would agree to a rule prohibiting wanton violence shows or evinces that reasonable persons have reasons to accept principles that prohibit such violence. Neither of the two most prominent contractualist theories—those of John Rawls and T. Scanlon—is a complete moral theory. Thus, neither claims to offer a complete account of which features of acts determine whether they are right or wrong, and neither claims to offer a complete specification of which actions are morally appropriate or ethical.
It claims that, within the scope of narrow morality, morally appropriate or ethical actions are those that conform to principles that no one could reasonably reject. Scanlon see above.
Kantian theories generally claim that our obligation to respect rational nature limits what we may do to promote our own well-being or the greater good. Thus, they accept constraints. Consequentialism and Deontological theories are two of the main theories in ethics. However, consequentialism focuses on judging the moral worth of the results of the actions and deontological ethics focuses on judging the actions themselves.
Consequentialism focuses on the consequences or results of an action. One of the most well known forms of consequentialism is utilitarianism which was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and his mentee J. This is about comparing the utility of the consequences of an action. Mill proposes this as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" as the guiding principle within utilitarianism.
Some have argued that this is flawed as it does not allow for one to be able to follow certain moral rules and it concentrates too much on the ends rather than the means.
0コメント