Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Deontology
Critical defects of the general U theory- maximize utility and therefore
people argue that individual good can easily become sacrificed by the forts
you have to make to produce greater utility for everyone else
...
Too demanding
...
CU has this
idea that utility is additive
...
Doesn’t take into
account the fundamentals of the moral lives we all lead
...
Some people say the U doesn’t allow enough room to
have special relationships
...
The problem is that their conception of rules are
rules of thumb
...
And thus RU ultimately collapses into
AU and there may not be a significant distinction in C as C wants us to
believe
...

Deontology
Talks about Emanual Kont
...
Only need to know
about Kont
...
Think Rights
...
There is an end state of affairs
that they are working to achieve like in U
...
Think this “the
right takes priority over the good” whereas C/U “takes good over right”
...

Notion of side constraints- set limits on how you can treat persons and moral
permissible actions that can be directed to moral permissible ends
...
You will be limited to how you’ll achieve it- there are side
constraints to how you treat people
...

Side constraints prohibit many ways of using persons as means
...

Deontologists emphasize prioritizing the right over the good
and emphasizing the separateness of persons
...

Contemporary D argue that what is right takes priority over what is good
...
For U, the
right doesn’t maximize the good
...
D are not into maximization
...
For Example achieve maximum utility with slavery than w/o slavery- your rights are or can
be expendable in our efforts to reach maximum utility for the greater good
...

Justice and rights for D are ends in themselves
...
Civil rights etc
are independent in the production of good consequences
...

Critical Thoughts on Kont
Remember- Kont was an absolutist when it came to duties
and obligations Example “you never lie”
...
For Kont the sole motive for morally worthiness was acting out of
irrational comprehension out of respect for duty
...
Physicians have duties towards their

patients and are obliged to treat them in certain ways
...
For Kont it was all
about rationality
...

VE would say we are evaluating the consequences and not the qualities of the
person
...
Example for Kont- a
homeless person would require as much care and respect in an emergency
room as someone with greater social status
...

A moral person is one that is capable of making judgements between right
and wrong actions and can be considered moral in nature
...
Moral - prudence and
individual as opposed to moral can be moral or immoral
...
For a D, only a kind of general universal perspective is
appropriate
...
Not manipulating people to serve your purpose
...
No deception here
...
D
...

Argued that If you consult most moral persons you’ll see that there is
a plurality of moral consequences that many people live by
...
Realized that making exceptions is often crucial
in making moral decision and doing the right thing
...
was also very upfront on the idea that moral
conceptions and duties can often conflict
...
Therefore no absoluteness
...
Its a balancing act
...

Ross feels we have Prima facie Duties not to harm others
...
We each one of us have a duty of
self improvement
...
Ross conceives that this catalogue is unsystematic and rests on
no significant principle
...
U claim to
fall back on the principle of utility and falls back on the opinion of which
consequence is better
...

Summary
D allows the things that many people argue like C and U do not allow
...
Never treat people solely as means to an end
...
Clinical trial- need human research subjects
...
I’m going to use you
...
In D there
is a focus on individual as opposed to overall impersonal good
...
Each concerned with each others good
...
Make sure you don’t interfere with
your autonomy to perceive a good life
...


D think rights and side constraints- on how to treat people
...
McNaughton and Rollings
...
Argue that constrains forbid their own violation even to
minimize such violation**
Why shouldn’t you prevent the other shootings? If as D
argue persons deserve respect as their uniqueness of rational moral agents
then should it prevent you form harming others rather than requiring you to
minimize harm?



---