Well being was evaluated through consequences and for this the consequentialist approach was utilised. The utilitarian approach used the consequentialist view as its basis while trying to comprehend what is well-being. Consequentialist approach only takes into account the end result and not how it was achieved, the way it was achieved or what kind of means were chosen in order to reach the end.This is where deontological theory comes in . For them, the way in which the end result is achieved should also be taken into account to judge or assess well-being.Contemporary welfare economists added this particular facet (deontological aspect) to understand well-being in a better way.
According to me , I would prefer deontological view over consequentialist …show more content…
Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham also criticized Deontology. John Stuart Mill argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priorities when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance.We can say that consequentialism has been strongly criticised by Nozick and utilitarians like Bentham and …show more content…
The answer to the question, what contribution would some act (that the agent might do) make to overall rights fulfillment, sometimes affects whether it is right or wrong to do the act in question. Sen’s argument against Nozick does not commit Sen to taking a stand for or against consequentialism. Sen notes that his argument is narrowly targeted at an absolutist construal of the constraint-based deontological approach. According to this construal, one must respect people’s rights and never under any circumstances violate anyone’s rights, whatever the consequences. Sen remarks, “Compromises of this kind raise other problems, which I do not pursue here; but I should emphasize that I do not include such consequentialist analysis in the category of ‘constraint based deontological approach,’ against which my criticism here is directed.” (Sen, “Rights and
According to me , I would prefer deontological view over consequentialist …show more content…
Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham also criticized Deontology. John Stuart Mill argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priorities when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance.We can say that consequentialism has been strongly criticised by Nozick and utilitarians like Bentham and …show more content…
The answer to the question, what contribution would some act (that the agent might do) make to overall rights fulfillment, sometimes affects whether it is right or wrong to do the act in question. Sen’s argument against Nozick does not commit Sen to taking a stand for or against consequentialism. Sen notes that his argument is narrowly targeted at an absolutist construal of the constraint-based deontological approach. According to this construal, one must respect people’s rights and never under any circumstances violate anyone’s rights, whatever the consequences. Sen remarks, “Compromises of this kind raise other problems, which I do not pursue here; but I should emphasize that I do not include such consequentialist analysis in the category of ‘constraint based deontological approach,’ against which my criticism here is directed.” (Sen, “Rights and