The dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell warns its readers of the possible future that can reflect the novel’s premise of a controlled and dehumanized society. Throughout the novel‚ it is evident of the numerous techniques that the leading party‚ that is referred to as “The Party”‚ uses to have control over its citizens as a whole and individually. One of the more prevalent one’s in the book is the idea of a common enemy. Throughout time‚ many revolutions have went underway because of the shared
Premium George W. Bush
Extreme utilitarianism has a common-sense approach to moral dilemmas. As is the case when confronting the moral dilemma of euthanasia. The extreme utilitarian looks at euthanasia on a case by case basis. They will use reason to determine whether euthanasia is the right decision to make‚ and under what circumstances. For example‚ if the person is clearly suffering‚ with certain death fast approaching‚ euthanasia would be the most humane choice‚ and therefore the right action to take. Moral rules
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Hedonism
or that what someone does with their life is of “no concern to me”. So in the wake of this discussion I decided to compare and contrast how a utilitarian and a Kantian might approach or type of moral conclusion they may have of prostitution. Utilitarianism as most know view that in order to determining what we should do‚ we must consider what specific act would produce the best overall consequences. They view the ethical goal is to lead is a life rich in pleasure or happiness both in point of quantity
Premium
Killing one to save five others is supported by act utilitarianism as it allows for more happiness. The happiness of five people outweighs‚ and creates more happiness‚ than the happiness of only one; as opposed to those same five dying‚ thus making them unable to promote/create happiness. If maximizing utility is the goal‚ there is no doubt that condemning one to save five is permissible under utilitarian principles. The loop variant of the case follows exactly as the original case of the trolley
Premium Ethics Morality Utilitarianism
On this topic of gay marriage I’ve chosen the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and the Kantian ethics theory. On the pro side the utilitarianism theory plays a huge role when referring to this topic. Some may argue that it is constitutional and some may say that it just isn’t the right thing to do in this country. With this theory the actions are said to be judged in terms of promotion of human happiness. If someone is happy why it should matter what the law or government thinks. It’s important
Premium Marriage Family
different theorist‚ Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant‚ with regards to their views on moral worth of an action. The idea of good and bad creates heated debates among many‚ but this essay will successfully unravel the layers of Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism and his belief that all our motives are driven by pleasure and pain. While arguing Kant’s opposing argument that moral worth of an act revolves around democratic attitudes‚ and that moral truths are founded on reasons that is logical to all people
Premium Ethics Morality Immanuel Kant
and a meaningful exercise in self-expression. Others contend that we should vote in pursuit of a democratic ideal‚ and still others argue that we should vote out of respect for those who have defended our rights. As a consequentialist theory‚ utilitarianism is utterly unconcerned with these principle-oriented arguments. Utilitarians are concerned only with maximizing total social utility‚ or the overall well-being of society. Thus‚ utilitarians would assert
Premium Election Ethics Morality
above case‚ we are going to face a dilemma between risking our life to save our colleague or to abandon them in order to save ourselves. This essay will argue that we should abandon our injured colleague and save ourselves base on the concept of utilitarianism‚ which is always choose whatever action or social policy would have the best consequence for everyone concerned‚ self-interest in Mohism and also the uncertainty about consequences in Kantianism. This will be asserted by explaining two main reasons
Premium Death Life Euthanasia
Utilitarianism assumes that it would be morally correct for me to employ the water boarding technique on this possibly innocent man if it meant obtaining possible anti-terrorist information that could possibly save thousands of innocent Americans. The ‘greatest good for the greatest number’‚ so they say‚ but is torture really the best way to obtain the best consequence? I will use my take on the Just War model and J.J.C Smarts’ suggestion to focus on all consequences of a situation to argue against
Premium Morality Torture Laws of war
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that aims to maximize total societal utility. Consequently‚ in determining whether or not there is a moral duty to vote‚ utilitarians would factor in everyone interests — this includes those ineligible to vote‚ noncitizens‚ and future people — to arrive at the total utility calculation. Two types of utilitarians exist. 1) Act utilitarians‚ who act to maximize total social utility‚ and 2) Rule utilitarians‚ who advocate acting according to rules that
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Peter Singer