1
Don Marquis: the argument in this case can be determined to standard consequentialism. It is consequentialists because Marquis argues that what makes abortion wrong is stripping the victim of its future, because it has a future like ours (Marquis 85-87). It is standard because he clarifies that these morally permissible cases will be “rare” (Marquis 90), thus establishing that in general he does not allow moral options.
Michael Sandel: In the case of Sandel, the most appropriate framework within which we can interpret his work is virtue ethics. Sandel proposes that genetic enhancement is wrong because it represents the triumph of willfulness over giftedness (Sandel 127) and the loss of the virtue traits of humility, responsibility and solidarity …show more content…
A concrete example of this is presented in the following situation: you are very gifted in math, but your best friend is not. He asks you for help on what you consider to be a very easy problem, and says he is having a very hard time with it. You explain that it is actually a very complicated problem, and that you too couldn’t get the right answer that easily. This can be considered a good lie because it exemplifies the virtues of humility and patience, amongst others. Despite this, a consequentialist might argue that this may not be the optimal way to ensure he receives the maximum benefit, and that he may have been better off in the end if you had told him to study more so he didn’t fail his test (this is a debatable detail, but let’s assume it’s true). A deontologist would posit that lying is fundamentally wrong, and thus is never acceptable. For the virtue ethicists, this is how a virtuous agent (that exemplifies the virtues that are specific to our society and culture) might act, and thus this is acceptable and encouraged, despite the other ethicist’s …show more content…
From an impartial consequentialist view, such as the Mohist principles Rachels introduces (Rachels 171), the Badeaus are on the right path. They are increasing the overall happiness and promoting universality. Yet, they seem to be failing spectacularly at being parents, at least in terms of what many of us would define as being a good parent: most of their children end up either in jail, dead, raping each other or pregnant (Macfarquhar 162-168). From a deontologist point of view, the Badeaus could be violating rules such as providing time for their children, or ensuring their basic needs are met (pending a definition of what these needs are). For virtue ethicists (although it was already argued that Sue and Hector present traits characteristic of this group), the lack of virtue that their children present may be a serious concern, and may identify the couple as
Don Marquis: the argument in this case can be determined to standard consequentialism. It is consequentialists because Marquis argues that what makes abortion wrong is stripping the victim of its future, because it has a future like ours (Marquis 85-87). It is standard because he clarifies that these morally permissible cases will be “rare” (Marquis 90), thus establishing that in general he does not allow moral options.
Michael Sandel: In the case of Sandel, the most appropriate framework within which we can interpret his work is virtue ethics. Sandel proposes that genetic enhancement is wrong because it represents the triumph of willfulness over giftedness (Sandel 127) and the loss of the virtue traits of humility, responsibility and solidarity …show more content…
A concrete example of this is presented in the following situation: you are very gifted in math, but your best friend is not. He asks you for help on what you consider to be a very easy problem, and says he is having a very hard time with it. You explain that it is actually a very complicated problem, and that you too couldn’t get the right answer that easily. This can be considered a good lie because it exemplifies the virtues of humility and patience, amongst others. Despite this, a consequentialist might argue that this may not be the optimal way to ensure he receives the maximum benefit, and that he may have been better off in the end if you had told him to study more so he didn’t fail his test (this is a debatable detail, but let’s assume it’s true). A deontologist would posit that lying is fundamentally wrong, and thus is never acceptable. For the virtue ethicists, this is how a virtuous agent (that exemplifies the virtues that are specific to our society and culture) might act, and thus this is acceptable and encouraged, despite the other ethicist’s …show more content…
From an impartial consequentialist view, such as the Mohist principles Rachels introduces (Rachels 171), the Badeaus are on the right path. They are increasing the overall happiness and promoting universality. Yet, they seem to be failing spectacularly at being parents, at least in terms of what many of us would define as being a good parent: most of their children end up either in jail, dead, raping each other or pregnant (Macfarquhar 162-168). From a deontologist point of view, the Badeaus could be violating rules such as providing time for their children, or ensuring their basic needs are met (pending a definition of what these needs are). For virtue ethicists (although it was already argued that Sue and Hector present traits characteristic of this group), the lack of virtue that their children present may be a serious concern, and may identify the couple as