Summary
Summary ethics
- Course
- Institution
Summary of Ethics in the MSc Transport and Supply Chain Management
[Show more]
Seller
FollowPepijnPaans
Reviews received
Content preview
Summary EthicsBy Pepijn Paans
Student 2016 – 2017
MSc Transport & Supply Chain Management
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/pepijn.paans
LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pepijn-paans-6b828a80
EMAIL: Pepijn_paans@live.nl
,Paper consequentialism
Consequentialism is the theory that the way to tell whether a particular choice is the right
choice fora n agent to have made is to look at the relevant consequences of the decision, to
look at the relevant effects of the decision on the world.
The theory is teleological in focus telos = end / goal.
1 - Why should one be a consequentialist rather than a deontologist?
1. Consequentialists tend to assume that, if one is to be rational about the enterprise
of moral assessment, then there is no alternative to looking at the consequences of
the choices assessed.
2. Consequentialists are a mixed bunch, they differ among themselves on the question
of which substantive sorts of consequences are the ones by reference to which
choices ought to be passed.
If consequentialists have not done much by way of arguing for their position, what have
been the issues debated between them and deontologists?
These have mainly had to do with how far consequentialism can support firm commonsense
intuitions about what is morally right.
The issues between consequentialists and deontologists are often explicated by reference
to a distinction between agent-neutrally justified and agent-relatively justified choices.
The consequentialist counts only neutrally or impersonally characterized consequences as
relevant to whether a choice is right. Such consequences will be characterized without
reference to particular individuals, and therefore without reference back to the person
making the choice.
The deontologist opposes this claim. He sticks by commonsense intuitions that some
promises should be kept/ some rights respected, no matter what the results.
2 – should consequentialism be seen as a theory of the right or a theory of the good?
To say something is good is to hold that it has a certain value.
To say something is right is to hold that, in some relevant choice, it is what ought to be
chosen.
Something is agent-neutrally valued just in case the basis on which it is valued can be
articulated without reference back to the valuer.
Something is agent-relatively valued just in case this is not so.
,3 – is consequentialism just a theory for determining which choice is the right one for an
agent or agency to have made or is it also meant to be a theory whereby the decision maker
reaches a conclusion?
4 – is consequentialism a theory for evaluating any option that an agent or agency faces, or
just a theory for evaluating abstract rules with which options may comply or fail to comply?
Rule-consequentialists hold that it is appropriate only to assess abstract rules by reference
to consequences
Act-consequentialists argue that there is no reason to restrict the range of consequentialism
in this way. they hold that, if one is a consequentialist, one should in consistency be a
consequentialist about assessing, not just abstract rules, but also any option that an agent
or agency is likely to face.
Consequentialism is a theory of right, not a theory of good.
Equally, it is a theory of evaluation, not a theory of deliberation, and it is a theory of
assessing all options that can face an agent or agency, not just a theory of assessing abstract
rules of choice.
5 – is consequentialism a collectively satisfactory theory?
A collectively satisfactory theory is a theory such that it is not forced to evaluate the choices
of individuals positively in any case where those choices collectively lead to a result that is
worse by the relevant theory of the good than other possible collective outcomes.
6 – how should we identify the alternatives to be evaluated in any decisions?
7 – do we consider the actual consequences of the option chosen or the expected
consequences at the time of choice?
8 – should consequentialism hold that the right option is that which does best by relevant
consequences or is it sufficient for an option to be right that it does well enough by the
relevant consequences?
, Paper contemporary Kantian ethics
There are three versions of the categorical imperative (CI) of Kant.
One version of the CI tells us to determine what sorts of actions are permissible or required
in various situations by asking whether a principle of action is rationally willed as universal
law for agents with autonomy.
A second version of the CI derives the content of morality from the principle that we are to
respect humanity or rationale nature as and end in itself and never merely as a means.
Humanity Is the capacity for autonomous rational choice. It includes the capacity to act from
one’s own judgement of what one has reason to do, to set ends for oneself, and to guide
one’s actions by values one finds it reasonable to accept.
Kantian moral psychology
Humeans believe that motivation is based on desire. The desire to make a trip to Tahiti can
give me a reason to begin saving money.
Moral motivation is explained in terms of some natural desire or psychological mechanism,
such as sympathy or natural concern for others, or a tendency to identify with the well-
being of others.
Contemporary Kantians reject the Humean view of reasons and motivation because they
believe that moral principles are requirements of reason that apply to agents independently
of desire. They are committed to holding that human beings can be moved to act by reason
alone.
In moral cases, Kantians hold that moral requirements apply to us simply as rational beings,
independently of our desires, and that the judgement that we ought to perform some
action can motivate us to do so, without the stimulus of any further desire.
Kantian approaches to the content of morality
Kantian autonomy is a capacity for self-determination and self-governance that includes the
capacity to form one’s own judgements about good and bad reasons.
Moral constructivism
Theories that derive the content of morality from an idealized process of rational
deliberation.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller PepijnPaans. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.81. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now