Normative ethics utilitarianism and deontological

Where there is no direct intention to violate a moral rule then, there is also no moral blame - even where the consequences cause foreseeable harm. Moore, Causation and Responsibility: One finds this notion expressed, albeit in different ways, in the work of the so-called Right Libertarians e.

That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not.

Ohlin, and Al Altman, eds. They are a continuously evolving code of conduct dependent upon circumstances and the life experiences of the individual. This narrowness of patient-centered deontology makes it counterintuitive to agent-centered deontologists, who regard prohibitions on killing of the innocent, etc.

But basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act e. The right is prior to the good. On the Christian worldview God puts most attention on our holiness, which is often a result enduring pain, and refining our character to put to death fleshly desires.

According to the deontologist it is morally wrong to murder a child because such an act would end the life of the innocent child. But like the preceding strategy, this one seems desperate. In such cases, while the action is correct, the individual is either immoral or non-moral, i.

Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology. There are several varieties of utilitarianism.

At the extreme there are relativistic theories that more-or-less argue that moral behavior is impossible. However, that this act could impact a family with sorrow, or deprive a distant future spouse joy is not considered by the deontologist.

The realization here is that is possible to define these concepts in relation to each other, i. It is not clear, however, that satisficing is adequately motivated, except to avoid the problems of maximizing. Nor is it clear that the level of mandatory satisficing can be nonarbitrarily specified, or that satisficing will not require deontological constraints to protect satisficers from maximizers.

What distinguishes normative moral theories then are their moral standards. Consider the moral judgments: Nonetheless, like the other normative ethical theories, deontological ethics also has its strengths and weaknesses.

This remains a major criticism of virtue-based ethics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Deontological theories use the concept of their inherent rightness in establishing such standards, while teleological theories consider the goodness or value brought into being by actions as the principal criterion of their ethical value.

All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden. Take the core right against being used without one's consent hypothesized earlier.

The second kind of agent-centered deontology is one focused on actions, not mental states. Likewise, consequentialism will permit in a case that we shall call, Fat Man that a fat man be pushed in front of a runaway trolley if his being crushed by the trolley will halt its advance towards five workers trapped on the track.

Judgment 2in contrast considers good to be the more fundamental concept and alleges that whatever is right, is right because it is or produces some good. We shall return to these examples later on. Basic Readings in Philosophy: Space does not allow for a detailed critique of utilitarianism here. It is good in the sense that it ascribes value to human life in terms of dignity, respect, and therefore provides a foundation for basic human rights.

The principal difference between them is that deontological theories do not appeal to value considerations in establishing ethical standards, while teleological theories do. The application of normative theories and standards to practical moral problems is the concern of applied ethics.

It further argues that specific actions are always immoral and ought to be prohibited independent of what the consequences may be. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts.

Introduction on Utilitarianism Utilitarianism theory also called the greatest happiness principle can be identified as the normative ethics for the actions to maximize utility in a purpose in order to achieve the maximizing of happiness and minimizing the suffering (Iancu, Popescu and Popescu, ).

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).

Normative ethics seeks to set norms or standards for conduct. The term is commonly used in reference to the discussion of general theories about what one ought to do, a central part of Western ethics since ancient times. Normative The application of normative theories and standards to practical.

Utilitarianism and Deontology. Running head: Normative Ethics: Utilitarianism and Deontology Normative Ethics: Utilitarianism Deontology Ethics are a personal set of values used by an individual to guide their actions, and to recognize any obligation.

They are a continuously evolving code of conduct dependent upon circumstances and the life experiences of the individual. hen examining various normative theories, a distinction is often made between deontological and teleological perspectives.

Deontology (from the Greek deon, meaning "duty") refers to an ethical theory or perspective based on duty or obligation.

A deontological, or duty-based, theory is one in which specific moral duties or obligations .

Normative ethics utilitarianism and deontological