DSST Business Ethics Study Guide sm

Though a consequentialist may allow that certain

Info iconThis preview shows pages 13–15. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
— though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. The term "consequentialism" was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay " Modern Moral Philosophy " in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick . [1] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory. The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions. [2] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address: What sort of consequences count as good consequences? Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
Background image of page 13

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
[ edit ] Kinds of consequences One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to hedonistic utilitarianism , a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure , and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated. Teleological ethics Teleological ethics (Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”) is an ethical theory that holds that the ends or consequences of an act determines whether an act is good or evil. Teleological theories are often discussed in opposition to deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts themselves are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of acts. Teleological theories differ on the nature of the end that actions ought to promote. Eudaemonist theories
Background image of page 14
Image of page 15
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page13 / 28

though a consequentialist may allow that certain...

This preview shows document pages 13 - 15. Sign up to view the full document.

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