Philosophy Essay 1
The origin of morality has been a topic of interest among philosophers around the world for what seems like generations. Along with morality come different forms of interpretation, two, in particular, are utilitarianism and absolutism (also known as deontology). Morality can be defined as, “What makes right acts right, and as an extension of that, what makes wrong acts wrong” (Green, 67). What seems like such a simple and straightforward definition has been interpreted a number of different ways by different people with various backgrounds and beliefs. The utilitarian moral theory states, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness” (Mill, …show more content…
This causes one’s happiness to count for no more or less than the happiness of another person. However, the way life works in a way that different people find happiness in different things, for example, some find happiness in the molestation of children while others find happiness in torturing animals. However, utilitarianism is about making the most people the most happy and clearly, people that enjoy distorted activities such as these are a minority so when it comes to the grand scheme of happiness, these select individuals may be neglected. There is also an addition to the trolley example in which the one person tied to the track was the CEO of a large company, his death results in the loss of employment of 200,000 people as well as the five tied to the other track. This scenario exemplifies the fact that some lives should be considered more high priority than others and is cause for the deontological or absolutist belief. However, a historical application of moral theory can be expressed from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The utilitarian perspective on the bombing would justify the action because you are allowed to read into the context of the situation rather than disregard any known information as in an absolutist approach. The bombing is justified because …show more content…
This is because people come from various backgrounds both cultural and religious. Some may believe what they are doing is right, however, others have different views. In particular, the Al Qaeda terrorist organization believes in killing all that refuse to conform to their religion by any means necessary. Meanwhile, the deontological view holds that there are certain restrictions on the conduct of war that cannot be overridden no matter the consequences of doing so. Absolutists do not believe that they should make their decisions with any consideration of context or based off of the outcome or consequences of their decision but rather if the decision they make is morally right or wrong. For example, flamethrowers were banned after World War II under protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While it may be more effective to use a flamethrower to defeat your enemies, moral judgement deems it wrong to burn another man or woman alive. Deontologists believe this because this is a cruel way to die, it goes against moral judgement, thus it should not be done. However, these rules are flawed due to their ambiguity and various
The origin of morality has been a topic of interest among philosophers around the world for what seems like generations. Along with morality come different forms of interpretation, two, in particular, are utilitarianism and absolutism (also known as deontology). Morality can be defined as, “What makes right acts right, and as an extension of that, what makes wrong acts wrong” (Green, 67). What seems like such a simple and straightforward definition has been interpreted a number of different ways by different people with various backgrounds and beliefs. The utilitarian moral theory states, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness” (Mill, …show more content…
This causes one’s happiness to count for no more or less than the happiness of another person. However, the way life works in a way that different people find happiness in different things, for example, some find happiness in the molestation of children while others find happiness in torturing animals. However, utilitarianism is about making the most people the most happy and clearly, people that enjoy distorted activities such as these are a minority so when it comes to the grand scheme of happiness, these select individuals may be neglected. There is also an addition to the trolley example in which the one person tied to the track was the CEO of a large company, his death results in the loss of employment of 200,000 people as well as the five tied to the other track. This scenario exemplifies the fact that some lives should be considered more high priority than others and is cause for the deontological or absolutist belief. However, a historical application of moral theory can be expressed from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The utilitarian perspective on the bombing would justify the action because you are allowed to read into the context of the situation rather than disregard any known information as in an absolutist approach. The bombing is justified because …show more content…
This is because people come from various backgrounds both cultural and religious. Some may believe what they are doing is right, however, others have different views. In particular, the Al Qaeda terrorist organization believes in killing all that refuse to conform to their religion by any means necessary. Meanwhile, the deontological view holds that there are certain restrictions on the conduct of war that cannot be overridden no matter the consequences of doing so. Absolutists do not believe that they should make their decisions with any consideration of context or based off of the outcome or consequences of their decision but rather if the decision they make is morally right or wrong. For example, flamethrowers were banned after World War II under protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While it may be more effective to use a flamethrower to defeat your enemies, moral judgement deems it wrong to burn another man or woman alive. Deontologists believe this because this is a cruel way to die, it goes against moral judgement, thus it should not be done. However, these rules are flawed due to their ambiguity and various