Philippa Foot Arguments Against Utilitarianism

She assumes that because The Misfit is “good” he will not kill her, which is incorrect because he never told her that he would not. Through her promiscuous use of the word, we are shown just how flimsy her ethical conviction is. When calling others “good,” she does not necessarily mean kind or virtuous, but whosever’s beliefs coincide with her

She had bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that came within her reach” (para. 15). Ordinarily, by virtue Mrs. Auld is a compassionate human being who genuinely wanted to provide nourishment basically improving the quality of his life. Later on he writes, “ The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon “(para. 25). Consequently, this quote shows that even a person with high virtue can regress into a savage.

This quote shows that she can't save everyone even though she wants to. Compared to the start of the book, she is accepting help to survive. Later in the story, she is offering help to others, trying to save

Virtue, compassion, and benevolence are all qualities in our society that are considered good. In history, there are figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. that have displayed these characteristics, but then again, demonstrations of goodness are shown by people every day. Goodness or righteousness from people has always thrived, even in the worst periods of humanity. Therefore, mankind is inherently good as shown in Elie Wiesel’s novel Night, where this notion is illustrated through kind acts during his difficult times and through charities which give people hope.

Philippa Foot presented a series of moral dilemmas when she discussed abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. One famous problem of her was the trolley dilemma: “..he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track onto another; five men are working on one track and one on the other; anyone the tack he enters is bound to be killed.” (Foot, 1967, p. 2) What should the driver do? Despite what he does, he will harm someone!1

Baier also touches on the justice perspective and discusses the “inadequate” as a moral theory. This shows inequalities between people, it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and it ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. However, she also says that the best moral theory, she claims, is one that harmonizes justice and care. She goes on to also explain the theory of moral development which has two dimensions. First is to aim at achieving satisfying community with others and the second is to aim at autonomy or equality of power.

He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b).   This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control.   The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that

Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.

Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?

An ethical dilemma today in society is that of abortion, which one would define as a deliberate end to a pregnancy. Various arguments exist questioning if an abortion is morally justifiable. Some say the state should decide on the legality of an abortion, some politicians say the federal government should decide, and many believe it should be up to the women since it pertains to their body. In this paper, I will analyze what a utilitarian’s perspective on abortion would be. First, let’s get a clear understanding of utilitarianism.

The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.

Utilitarian suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator. Rather than thinking about

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

The point is that moral approvals and disapprovals done by our moral sense are specific in nature and only operate when there is an action that can be appropriately judged of by our moral sense. Reasoning and information can change the evaluation of the moral sense, but no amount of reasoning can or does precede the moral sense in regard to its approval of what is for the public good. The moral sense approves of the good for others. This concern for others by the moral sense is what is natural to humankind, Hutcheson contended. Reason gives content to the moral sense, informing it of what is good for others and the public good