Act Consequentialism Essay
1. Act-consequentialists believe that the moral rightness of an act depends entirely on whether the act’s consequences are at least as good as that of any alternative act.
In contrast, Rule-consequentialists believe that the rightness of an act depends not on its own consequences , but rather on the consequences of a code of rules.
In favour of act consequentialism criterion of rightness and the dispositions it favours is important in many ways. It is important if we want to know what act-consequentialism want from us. It is also important if act consequentialism had better not conflict too sharply with our intuitive moral reactions.
Nevertheless, the distinction is powerless to protect act-consequentialism from other objections. True, act …show more content…
An act is supererogatory act if it meets some conditions such as morally optional, praiseworthy and it goes beyond the call of duty and its is different from ordinary act because in ordinary act there are some constitutional laws , which are same for everyone including rules by government.
For illustration : suppose there are two soldiers , one of them have to choose to save himself or other one. If he saves other one by the cost of his own life it will be morally praiseworthy and its also morally optional. Moreover it will also be said that soldier goes beyond call of duty and do sacrifice for others.
3. Assuming a referendum is happening to implement the survival lottery : Suppose that two dying patients, Y and Z are dying . They might argue that it is not strictly true that there are no organs which could be used to save them. Y needs a new heart and Z needs new lungs. Now, they want doctors to kill a healthy person to save both.
It will not be the doctor’s fault if he refuse to do so and both patients die .
In this referendum I am against this survival lottery because doctor is true on his side , if two sick patient die then it will be their natural death and to kill a healthy person to save both is not ethical because there is a moral difference between killing and letting
In contrast, Rule-consequentialists believe that the rightness of an act depends not on its own consequences , but rather on the consequences of a code of rules.
In favour of act consequentialism criterion of rightness and the dispositions it favours is important in many ways. It is important if we want to know what act-consequentialism want from us. It is also important if act consequentialism had better not conflict too sharply with our intuitive moral reactions.
Nevertheless, the distinction is powerless to protect act-consequentialism from other objections. True, act …show more content…
An act is supererogatory act if it meets some conditions such as morally optional, praiseworthy and it goes beyond the call of duty and its is different from ordinary act because in ordinary act there are some constitutional laws , which are same for everyone including rules by government.
For illustration : suppose there are two soldiers , one of them have to choose to save himself or other one. If he saves other one by the cost of his own life it will be morally praiseworthy and its also morally optional. Moreover it will also be said that soldier goes beyond call of duty and do sacrifice for others.
3. Assuming a referendum is happening to implement the survival lottery : Suppose that two dying patients, Y and Z are dying . They might argue that it is not strictly true that there are no organs which could be used to save them. Y needs a new heart and Z needs new lungs. Now, they want doctors to kill a healthy person to save both.
It will not be the doctor’s fault if he refuse to do so and both patients die .
In this referendum I am against this survival lottery because doctor is true on his side , if two sick patient die then it will be their natural death and to kill a healthy person to save both is not ethical because there is a moral difference between killing and letting