Compare the organ donation argument p. Two problems with consequentialism are: it can lead to the conclusion that some quite dreadful acts are good predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very difficult Non-consequentialism or deontological ethics Non-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the consequences.
Ethical claim examples
Singer's famine relief argument p. In this view, the role of ethics is limited to clarifying 'what's at stake' in particular ethical problems. Therefore it makes sense to say that "good" refers to the things that a particular group of people approve of. We can show some of the different things I might be doing when I say 'murder is bad' by rewriting that statement to show what I really mean: I might be making a statement about an ethical fact "It is wrong to murder" This is moral realism I might be making a statement about my own feelings "I disapprove of murder" I might be expressing my feelings "Down with murder" I might be giving an instruction or a prohibition "Don't murder people" This is prescriptivism Moral realism Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts or truths in the universe. Using snare traps to kill the feral pigs will hurt them. Despite its obvious common-sense appeal, consequentialism turns out to be a complicated theory, and doesn't provide a complete solution to all ethical problems. There is almost always a prescriptive element in any real-world ethical statement: any ethical statement can be reworked with a bit of effort into a statement with an 'ought' in it. Do ethical statements provide information about anything other than human opinions and attitudes? Top Are there universal moral rules? Two problems with consequentialism are: it can lead to the conclusion that some quite dreadful acts are good predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very difficult Non-consequentialism or deontological ethics Non-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the consequences. That's the sort of question that only a philosopher would ask, but it's actually a very useful way of getting a clear idea of what's going on when people talk about moral issues. Modern thinkers often teach that ethics leads people not to conclusions but to 'decisions'. There are no moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution.
If a person says something is good or bad they are telling us about the positive or negative feelings that they have about that something.
That's the sort of question that only a philosopher would ask, but it's actually a very useful way of getting a clear idea of what's going on when people talk about moral issues.
One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging moral rules that apply in all cultures and at all times. They are false if the person doesn't. The problem for ethical realists is that people follow many different ethical codes and moral beliefs.
If we can prevent something very bad from happening by doing X, and if we can do X without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, then we have a moral duty to do X.
Using snare traps to kill the feral pigs will cause them suffering. These statements are true if the person does hold the appropriate attitude or have the appropriate feelings. Death by starvation is a very bad thing.
Construct an ethical argument
Singer's famine relief argument p. Consequentialism This is the ethical theory that most non-religious people think they use every day. For example: "lying is wrong" can be rewritten as "people ought not to tell lies". So it is wrong to use snare traps to kill the feral pigs. Emotivism Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more than expressions of approval or disapproval. It's the theory that people are using when they refer to "the principle of the thing". The different 'isms' regard the person uttering the statement as doing different things.
based on 96 review