Types[ edit ] In contemporary philosophy a distinction is made between critical philosophy of history also known as analytic and speculative philosophy of history. The names of these types are derived from C. Broad 's distinction between critical philosophy and speculative philosophy. Sometimes critical philosophy of history is included under historiography.
Basic Issues and Simple Versions a. Introduction to Plain Consequentialism There is disagreement about how consequentialism can best be formulated as a precise theory, and so there are various versions of consequentialism. Almost all lack standard names, so the names used here are mostly invented here.
Perhaps the most standard precise version of consequentialism is Plain Consequentialism.
Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. If there is no one best action because several actions are tied for best consequences, then of course any of those several actions would be right.
Other versions of consequentialism may be generated by making small changes in this theory, as we shall see, so long as the new theory stays faithful to the broad idea that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences.
Consequentialism does not itself say what kinds of consequences are good. Hence people can agree on consequentialism while disagreeing about what kind of outcome is good or bad.
If you happen to be in charge of setting speed limits, you might be thinking that a bad result is a death: But the people who die in accidents were all going to die eventually anyway, so a fatal accident does not mean there are more deaths than there otherwise would have been.
Perhaps, then, what counts as a good result is the amount of life that the action adds or subtracts in the world?
That would explain why fatal accidents are bad, since an early death means less life. But if quantity of life were the only kind of good result, then a long happy life would be no better than a long unhappy life.
The most traditional view among Consequentialists is that the only kind of result that is good in itself is happiness.
The picture is roughly as follows. Suppose you are on average just as happy as I am, but you live twice as long. Then you will have had twice as much happiness as I had. So the total happiness we had is three times the happiness I had. Or suppose you are on average twice as happy as I am, and we live equally long.
Here too you end up having had twice as much happiness as I had, so the total happiness we had is three times the happiness I had. Or suppose you are unhappy instead: Unhappiness can be thought of as negative happiness, so that the total happiness we two have in this third case is zero.
Now, to find the goodness of the consequences of an action, simply take the total amount of happiness in those consequences. The more happiness there is, the better. Note that if what matters is the total amount, then it does not matter whether the happiness belongs to you or your friend or a stranger—or even a dog, if dogs can have happiness.
And it does not matter whether the happiness will happen today or next year. If we take the above view that the good is happiness, and plug it into Plain Consequentialism, we get the view that the right action is the one that causes the most happiness—more than would have been caused by any of the available alternative actions.
On this view, a problem with setting a very high speed limit is that it causes early deaths, which reduce the amount of life and thus reduce the amount of happiness there will be. But a problem with setting a very low speed limit is that driving very slowly takes up time.
If people can get where they are going more quickly, they will probably use the time they saved to do things that will add happiness to their lives or the lives of others.
Consequentialism suggests that to set a speed limit rightly, you must balance such considerations accurately. What is a "Consequence"?
If there is an answer, perhaps it is something like this: Before explaining this point, we should note that consequentialism on most versions is a theory about the moral quality of actions.
And it is commonly thought that the main kinds of actions that can be morally right or wrong are intentional actions—things we do deliberately, not things like hiccups or small twitches.
Eventually you decide to toss the coin, you win, and I bake the cake. Was the cake a consequence of your action of tossing the coin?May 17, · The fourth and final framework for thinking about suicide is the Kantian framework.
This is a non-consequentialist approach, focusing on our duties towards ourselves and others, and appealing to the concept of dignity. Right, my point was that the advice should be not, “become hedge fund manager” or “become a doctor”, but rather, “become whatever it is that you have a good chance of being great at, then donate your money to whatever cause you want to support”.
“Kantian and utilitarian ethics both lead to difficulties when considering the rights and wrongs of warfare. ” Discuss. War is an armed conflict between two or more groups, commonly nations.
Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics - Introduction This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. What matters for non-consequential based approach is the nature of intention, not the consequences.
For the non-consequential based approach, there are the Kantianism and Justice Ethics. Kantianism. Kantianism expresses that morality is based on the intention behind the decision instead of the consequences.
terms consequentialist and non-consequentialist are sometimes used. Some rights-based theories and theories of justice are consequentialist in their concern for outcomes while also claiming the inherent rightness of obligations related to human rights and justice.
Likewise, virtue ethics and formulations of natural law.