ethics9 (consequentialism vs. deontology)

ethics9 (consequentialism vs. deontology) - PHIL 4:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PHIL 4: Introduction to Ethics Out of t e crooked T mber of humani no s aight t ing was ever made . Immanuel Kan 1 Consequentialism, Deontology, & Doing Harm Compare Ch. 3, Normative Ethics , Shelley Kagan 2 Consequentialism When considering the moral status of an act, one and only one factor has moral signiFcance: the goodness of its consequences Ultimately, an act is right if and only if it will have the best results; morally speaking nothing else matters ( Kagan ) A amily of Moral Theories 3 The consequentialist will say that these are convenient guides for picking out acts which acts have good or bad consequences. But the rules themselves have no intrinsic moral signiFcance Only the goodness or badness of consequences matters Consequentialism Consider the following rules of morality: 1.Do not lie 2.Do not steal 3.Do not cheat 4 Nearly everyone agrees that an acts consequences are morally signifcant....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/26/2010 for the course PHIL PHIL 4 taught by Professor Huizenga during the Fall '09 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 11

ethics9 (consequentialism vs. deontology) - PHIL 4:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online