Kantianism utilitarianism contractarianism

A Quick History of Philosophy

For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong. When consequentialists incorporate a variety of values, they need to rank or weigh each value against the others.

What this formulation adds, compared to the formula of humanity, is that some actions may not look like they use anyone as a means to some end of yours but nevertheless an action may ultimately affect how others are able to pursue their ends.

Universalizability kind of plows through some of those objections like a giant steamroller.

You Kant Dismiss Universalizability

He further argued that existence was inextricably linked with time, and that being is really just an ongoing process of becoming contrary to the Aristotelian idea of a fixed essence.

It is hard to see how that assumption could be justified. This position is often described as satisficing consequentialism Slote Rule utilitarianism faces several potential counterexamples such as whether public rules allowing slavery could sometimes maximize utility and needs to be formulated more precisely particularly in order to avoid collapsing into act-utilitarianism; cf.

Many people will not find this intuition as clear as in the other cases, but those who do find it immoral for the doctor to perform the transplant even in this case will want to modify consequentialism in some other way in order to yield the desired judgment.

According to contractualism, morality consists in what would result if we were to make binding agreements from a point of view that respects our equal moral importance as rational autonomous agents.

Yet another argument for a kind of consequentialism is contractarian. Does everyone have to prefer torture to dust specks. This move is supposed to make consequentialism self-refuting, according to some opponents.

If I went up to every person on campus and ripped the cigarette out of his or her mouth, I would probably get into many fights and arguments, and will likely cause suffering for the people I violated.

Moderate deontologists, for example, often judge that it is morally wrong to kill one person to save five but not morally wrong to kill one person to save a million.

Therefore, I believe that both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are flawed in that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Another route follows an agent-relative theory of value.

But when you try to make it more formal it gets really sketchy real quick. Pleasure is distinct from the absence of pain, and pain is distinct from the absence of pleasure, since people sometimes feel neither pleasure nor pain, and sometimes they feel both at once.

It probably prevents a couple of little incidents where you could steal something or kill someone to gain a little extra utility, but it more than makes up for it in vastly increasing social trust and ability for positive-sum deals. Lo and behold, here comes Jesus, telling everyone how nice it would be to be nice to people for a change.

Here I just want to point out that direct consequentialists find it weird to judge a particular act by the consequences of something else Smart Although they have no real friends or lovers and actually accomplish nothing, people on the experience machine get just as much pleasure as if their beliefs were true.

In this view, the doctor is not required to promote life or decrease death or even decrease killing by other people. The most common indirect consequentialism is rule consequentialism, which makes the moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule.

Kantian Ethics

Essays toward a Morality of Consequence, Cambridge: Although he was careful to claim not to have all the answers himself, his constant questioning made him many enemies among the authorities of Athens who eventually had him put to death. However, classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts: Jamesin addition to his psychological work, extended Pragmatismboth as a method for analyzing philosophic problems but also as a theory of truth, as well as developing his own versions of Fideism that beliefs are arrived at by an individual process that lies beyond reason and evidence and Voluntarism that the will is superior to the intellect and to emotion among others.

In addition, it discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action.

According to Sartregenuine human dignity can only be achieved by our active acceptance of this angst and despair. Even if none of these arguments proves consequentialism, there still might be no adequate reason to deny consequentialism.

Consequentialism could then remain a live option even if it is not proven. Everyone should fire people who are politically on the right 3. Then they hold what can be called public acceptance rule consequentialism: I think most people understand his argument as follows: That leaves both of us better off.

Under contractualism, I seek to pursue my interests in a way that I can justify to others who have their own interests to pursue. Lastly, you seem to invoke a utilitarian argument for your smoking example. He also introduced the concept of the "tabula rasa" the idea that humans are born with no innate or built-in mental contentwhich strongly influenced later Empiricists like John Locke.

One attempt claims that a killing is worse than a death. He counseled that coercion in society is only justifiable either to defend ourselves, or to defend others from harm the "harm principle". Everyone should arrest robbers 3.

You lie and tell the murderer your friend is in the next town over. Normative ethics is the study of ethical action.

Kantianism > Utilitarianism

It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the.

Contractualism vs. Contractarianism. Contractualism, a term used to describe Kantian style social contract theory, shares a set of features with contractarianism, or Hobbesian style social contract theory, which often leads them both to be classified as different types.

Atheists often lose public debates with theists, especially when going up against heavyweights like William Lane Craig. I don’t know of an atheist losing a debate to someone who denies evolution. That’s safe ground because the atheist can stick to.

Kantian Ethics and Contractualism Kantian ethics is one tradition of ethical theory within the broader contractualist tradition, although for much of the past several hundred years it has been the main representative of contractualism. 1. Classic Utilitarianism. The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy Bentham (), John Stuart Mill (), and Henry Sidgwick ().

A Series Of Unprincipled Exceptions

I [jump to top]. Ibn Arabi (William Chittick) ; Ibn Bâjja [Avempace] (Josép Puig Montada) Ibn Daud, Abraham (Resianne Fontaine) ; Ibn Ezra, Abraham (Tzvi Langermann) ; Ibn Falaquera, Shem Tov — see Falaquera, Shem Tov Ibn; Ibn Gabirol, Solomon [Avicebron] (Sarah Pessin) Ibn Kammuna (Tzvi Langermann) ; Ibn Rushd [Averroes].

Why Atheists Lose Debates Kantianism utilitarianism contractarianism
Rated 5/5 based on 85 review
Why Atheists Lose Debates