Examen
APPLIED ETHICS (EXAM BUNDLE)
- Cours
- Établissement
Refer to the first page of the document.
[Montrer plus]
1 vérifier
Par: wongyyy • 1 année de cela
Par: MasterPhilosopherAlevel • 1 année de cela
Thanks for your review :)
Vendeur
S'abonner
MasterPhilosopherAlevel
Avis reçus
Aperçu du contenu
APPLIED ETHICS (AQA)Question bundle (ONLY 12 MARKERS)
*HIGHLY REQUESTED* - at the end has a grid fully summarised of
each aswell.
The reason I’ve only put 12 markers as it’s more likely to come up as
a 12 than a 5 marker, and you can condense the 12 marker into 5
markers if need be
This document covers: Aristotle, Kant and Util on each of the 4 issues
stated on the spec.
META-ETHICS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BUNDLE: This is because the
most it can come up as is 5 marker, my meta-ethics documement
covers all you need to know for this.
The 12 markers are all in the top band.
,Outline the Utilitarian response to simulated killing (12marker)
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist, normative ethical theory which claims that the right action in any given
situation is the one that will bring about ‘the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ (the utility
principle). When it comes to identifying the good to be maximised both hedonists and preference utilitarian’s
claim that it is happiness, but the former defines happiness as pleasure minus pain, while the latter defines it
as preference satisfaction. When it comes to applying the utility principle, act utilitarian insist we should apply
it directly on a case-by-case basis, while rule utilitarian claim we should apply it indirectly via secondary
principles. It is also worth noting that amongst hedonistic utilitarians there is a disagreement about the
commensurability of pleasures and whether some pleasures are superior to others.
Therefore, in order to consider how a utilitarian would address an ethical issue such as simulated killing we
would need to consider the different areas of utilitarianism (such as act and rule) and the application of the
central principles such as the hedonic calculus and utility principle. Simulated killing is defined as fictional
murder thus no one is harmed in reality.
Act utilitarians apply the utility principle directly, meaning all moral decisions are made with the sole intentions
of maximising pleasure and minimising pain for the greatest number of people. Thus, looking at the issue of
simulated killing, an act utilitarian would argue that on the surface harm is minimal as there is no physical
violence, however it could be argued that simulated killing inspires actual violence causing real and tangible
harm, additional to this simulated killing upsets people which is also a force of harm. Therefore, it could be
argued that simulated killing is not moral as it can bring about a lot of harm, although it must be decided
whether this outweighs the pleasure it brings. It could be argued that the rates of violence and participation in
simulated killing do not have a positive correlation and therefore we cannot attribute physical violence to
simulated killing. Additionally, the number of people that are upset by simulated killing does not equal to
exceed those who enjoy and receive pleasure from it via catharsis, social playing and general enjoyment.
Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that an act utilitarian would permit simulated killing and identify it
as a morally correct action.
Rule utilitarian’s are concerned with the consequences of the rule or secondary principle put in place regarding
an action. In the case of simulated killings, a rule utilitarian would allow the participation of simulated killings
since there is no given evidence to show that simulated killing results in actual immoral behaviour in the real
world. Much like act utilitarian, rule utilitarianism weighs the decrease in happiness that is the result of such
behaviour in the real world against the pleasure derived from playing a game. In addition to the rule utilitarian
belief, one could apply Mill’s higher and lower pleasures arguing that partaking in simulated killings is more of
a bodily pleasure due to the adrenaline and other such endorphins rather than a pleasure of the mind. Mill
would argue that instead of simulated killing games, activities such as reading studying philosophy are better
and are more beneficial. Therefore, it could be argued that simulated killing is not moral since it is regarded as
bodily pleasure, and Mill advises not to engage in these types of pleasures.
In conclusion the Utilitarian response to simulated killing first face says that simulated killing does not actually
cause any physical pain or suffering but may influence us to commit real violence and bring about a lot harm.
Rule utilitarian say that the participation of simulated killing is okay as there is no real evidence to show the
correlation between simulated killing and immoral behaviour.
, Outline the Utilitarian response to eating animals (12marker)
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist, normative ethical theory which claims that the right action in any given
situation is the one that will bring about ‘the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ (the utility
principle). When it comes to identifying the good to be maximised both the hedonistic and preference
utilitarian’s claim that it is happiness, but the former defines happiness as pleasure minus pain, while the latter
defines it as preference satisfaction. When it comes to applying the utility principle, act utilitarians insist that
we should apply it directly on case-by-case basis, while rule utilitarian claim that we should apply it indirectly
via secondary principles. It is also worth noting down that amongst hedonistic utilitarian’s there is a
disagreement about the commensurability of pleasures, and whether some pleasures are superior to others.
On the face of it, we may believe that, because eating animals provides many people with more pleasure than
pain, a utilitarian would agree with eating animals. For example, we can be sure that eating chicken in our
roast dinner every Sunday brings us more pleasure than pain. However, for Bentham there was a problem, he
was not concerned with whether animals could not reason or rationalise, instead he was concerned with
whether they felt pain and pleasure. Since animals can in fact experience pain and pleasure, we should extend
the utility principle to them as well, the question is not can they reason but is more so can they suffer, ‘why
should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being’ – Bentham. Another utilitarian peter singer which
added to this by stating to put human pain and pleasure before animals’ is speciesism in a similar way that
putting the pain and pleasure of a man before a woman is sexist. However, this does not have to suggest that
eating animals is wrong.
Firstly, it must be considered whether stopping the practice of farming, slaughtering and eating animals would
reduce the amount of suffering for animals more than it would increase the amount of human suffering.
Secondly, the utilitarian is only concerned with suffering and not killing. This means that if we were to painfully
kill an animal this is not necessarily increasing the pain that animals feel. Singer argues that to make eating
animals morally permissible we need to ensure that when they are alive, they are living a happy life and that at
the end of their life they are slaughtered painlessly. This would make meat morally acceptable to a utilitarian
because by eating them we are not causing more pain in the world.
Overall, a utilitarian would believe that eating animals is wrong if the animal were treated badly and endured
suffering during its slaughtering. As we do not live in an ideal world where animals are treated ethically, a
utilitarian would take the stance that eating animals is not morally correct
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur MasterPhilosopherAlevel. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €16,63. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?
4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)
84669 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours
Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans