Choose one of the discussion questions from chapter 9 and respond to it in a carefully constructed short paragraph. You have until Wednesday next week at 10 pm to complete this assignment.
Utilitarians think that some humans are morally equal to some animals. Marginal humans and animals are morals equals. The reason that they are morally equal is, because that they can both suffer the same amount. Each can suffer, so that makes them moral equals. And if something is wrong to do to one of them is wrong to do to the other one. Some animals are even smarter than some humans. Pigs and primates are good examples of intelligent creatures. They feel that the way you should test if animals and marginal humans are moral equals then they should see how much they suffer. Yes, I feel that animals and some marginal humans are moral equals. If they can both suffer then, yes they are equal. If a animal is smarter than a human than, yes it is equal to a human or even better than one.
People shouldn't always be blamed for performing actions that were wrong. Someone could have had the intention of doing the right thing and tried to, but something happened and intercepted that cause the result to be wrong or bad. The result wasn't directly their fault, they had expected a better outcome. For example, you were cleaning a table and carefully placing the glass vase elsewhere, but your brother scared you, causing you to drop the vase, which smashes as it hit the floor. It was not your fault, you were just trying to clean up the table.
On the other hand, not all people who doe the right thing should be rewarded or praised. Sometimes a person could have intended to do something bad, but the result was good and beneficial to others. That person shouldn't be praised because they were trying to do someting bad, they didn't intend for something good to result from their action. Examples of this scene often occurs in kids movies, where the bad guy tries to capture the villian, but only gets himself trapped and everyone else is happy!
I agree with both of these views. Just because someones action is intended for some reason, does not mean that expected result will occur. I think that actions should be based on intentions, not expected results. We can not always rely on previous occurances to assume that an action based on them will have the same results.
I agree with utilitarianism to a certain extent. According to act utilitarianism, well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. Thus this view states that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well being than any other action you could have possibly have done in the circumstances. I personally agree with the idea of improving overall well being. However, I do not agree with the idea of the unimportance of intentions behind the action. In the utilitarian view, it is believed that the righteousness of an action depends on its actual results. I do not agree with this. How can we see the future? We have not seen what is going to happen in the future. I think that the intentions behind the actions are important to differentiate between morally right and wrong actions. For example, if we see an elderly man trying to cross the street, wouldn't we want to help the poor man cross the street? Well, i definitely would help that man. So what if I help him, and all of a sudden, a crazy drunk driver fails to stop and kills the elderly man on the spot? According to the Utilitarian view, that act is considered to be immoral. I believe that this is wrong. I think if we had benevolent intentions, we should not be grieving for something we had not control over. Here is another example. What if there was an assassin like the one in the movie wanted. What if that assassin was hired to kill the President of the United States of America? Now, if he hit his target, then that act would be considered immoral. However, if the assassin failed to kill the president, and instead, the bullet ricochets and kills the assassin instead, that act is considered to be morally right, according to utilitarianism. This is not right, from my perspective. The assassin is not doing the morally right thing either way, even if the bullet hits the assassin instead. This part of Utilitarianism is the part I do not agree with at all.
Utilitarians believe that animals are members of the moral community, they are owed respect ,and their needs are to be taken seriously. They justify this by asking the question, "can animals suffer?" Yes, if someone were to cause an animal pain, they would be called out for an immoral act. In The Argument from Marginal Cases, utilitarians argue that it is (almost) always immoral to kill and eat "marginal" human beings, so therefore it is (almost) always immoral to kill and eat animals, and to painfully experiment on them. To utilitarians, animals are of equal importance to human beings because the only difference between human and animals is species. I agree with utilitarians that animals are as equally important as humans, but not just marginal humans, all humans. The idea that animals can suffer sits very strongly with me, and almost even more than human suffering because animals can be more helpless than humans. For instance, the situation of the two boys from Ohio who tortured a cat to its death is absolutely sickening to me. In that situation, there was no one to help the cat, nor could the cat help itself. The boys were much bigger and stronger to overpower the cat and cause it pointless suffering. Animals feel pain, suffering, and emotions just like humans, so why treat them like dirt?
Utilitarianism is good as it takes everyone's interests under consideration and focuses on maximizing the best consequences However, Utilitarianism is bad in so far as it's primary concern isn't in honoring rights or in obeying the moral law, so much as in promoting the best consequences. Thus, Utilitarians will sometimes suupport solutions that many will find unmoral. For example, if one can make 100 people extremely happy by making one person miserable, than, in many Utilitarian ways, this will be the right thing to do.
Whether Utilitarianism is the "right" moral theory comes down to what your first moral principles are. If you think pleasure is "the good" (hedonism) and that everyone's pleasure is equally valuable, then you will most likely agree with many things Utilitarians say. If, on the other hand, you think all individuals have rights, and that these rights are inviolable, then you will most likely think that Utilitarianism has it all wrong.
Discussion question: Whatever policy is optimific will yield the greastes balance of benefits over drawbacks. This means, an action can be considered morally right even if it requires the pain or suffering of an innocent person. In the gladiator example, two gladiators fighting to the death is morally okay because the crowd watching gains a happiness and thrill. If the only options require a greater number of drawbacks than benefits there is no chance of it being optimific.
That we are the same amount as an animal. That if we kill an animal it is as bad as killing a human. i disagree with this claim because humans happen to have a higher claim.I believe that animals were meant to serve man, not to be equals because we have morals about what we do. They go on pure instinct too.
To be an optimific action, it must yield a greater balance of benefits over drawbacks. A great example from the textbook is the idea of a gladiator battle vs. an athletic competition, such as a basketball game. People would be very happy to view a gladiator battle, but those who suffered in the fighting would cancel this out. However, with a basketball game, people would be as happy as watching the gladiator battle, but no one would be sad or upset from the basketball game. Overall, the basketball game yields more positive results when compared to the gladitaor battles.
Utilitarianism does a decent job of lining up with my most basic convictions, at least, those so basic I can't put them into words. I agree particularly with the utilitarian view on how to gain moral knowledge. My main reservation is where the morality of an action is concerned: most utilitarians believe that an action's morality is determined by its result. This seems harsh and even irrational, as in plenty of cases it is possible to do something with the very best of intentions, only to come to a catastrophic result.
In order for an action to be optimific, it has to yield the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. An action can bring about more happiness than any other alternative but fail to be optimific if there is another alternative that will cause less happiness but also less misery. An example of this is if a Roman emperor could choose between having gladiator contests or athletic competitions. The gladiator contests might create more happiness for the crowd, but it will also create a huge amount of misery for the gladiators. This would make the athletic competitions the optimific choice, even if it would make the audience less happy than gladiator contests. This is because the athletic games have the greatest net balance of happiness over misery over the gladiator contests.
It means for an action to be optimific if it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. An action could put out more happiness then any other alternative but still fail to be optimific because like most decisions we make there is always someone hurt, someone one who is helped or happy in the end. The action we make that produces the greatest amount of happiness over drawbacks might still cause a great amount of pain. For example if we needed to tell someone something important and did not have the courage to do it then that would make us suffer while still keeping the other person happy making this not neccessarily the right action to do. As time goes on both would slowly get hurt. Now if we told them then they would not be happy but it would be the right thing to do, and as time went on they would realize it was the right thing and be happy again.
In order for an action to be optimific, it must give the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. This means that when making a decision, one must take into account the positives and negatives of each option and choose whichever one has the fewest negative effects. For example, imagine a Roman emperor having the choice of using either gladiator contests or athletic games as a form of entertainment. While the gladiator contests may make more spectators pleased than the athletic games, it would cause more harm than the athletic games would. This would make the athletic games the optimific choice because, even though the gladiator events would bring about more "good" (happiness), the athletic games would bring fewer negative effects on society.
For an action to be called optimific, it needs to have the best balance of benefits over drawbacks. What this means is that when you have to choose what to do in a situation, you must note the positive/negative balance of each and every choice. Using this method, it is wise to choose the one with the least drawbacks. One common example is the Gladiatorial scenario; The emperor has the choice of Roman entertainment: Gladiator battles or Athletic games. Given, the battles are all blood and gore and guts which keeps the spectators entertained more, but the athletic games are not as negatively sided. Therefore the athletic games would be the greater good, a.k.a. optimific, choice.
An action in being optimific it needs to have some of the greatest balances of benefits on drawbacks. This means that when making a decision, one has to take into being positive and the other negative of each option. Also choose the option that has the FEWEST negatives listed. An example if we had to tell someone something important and it was not good news and we did not have the guts to tell them it and kept it to our selves that would making us be in pain while we are seeing the person happy while the badness is just getting worse towards them. Keeping the other person happy does not make this not the best thing to do. In time both of us would eventually get hurt and something would get or someone would get lost. If we told them from the beginning they hopefully would realize it is the right thing to have been done and in the long run we all would be happy! Also no one or nothing would be lost, and hurt, and everything would be okay!
For action to be optimific it has to yield greatest number of benefits over drawbacks. Over the course of history there are some examples of an action being not optimific but bringing the greatest amount of benefits over drawbacks. One is the Holocaust, the Nazi party were a huge majority of the German population but so were the Jews. This had very little benefits to it at all, but it promote the greatest amount of happiness of the Nazi's.
Utilitarians think that some humans are morally equal to some animals. Marginal humans and animals are morals equals. The reason that they are morally equal is, because that they can both suffer the same amount. Each can suffer, so that makes them moral equals. And if something is wrong to do to one of them is wrong to do to the other one. Some animals are even smarter than some humans. Pigs and primates are good examples of intelligent creatures. They feel that the way you should test if animals and marginal humans are moral equals then they should see how much they suffer. Yes, I feel that animals and some marginal humans are moral equals. If they can both suffer then, yes they are equal. If a animal is smarter than a human than, yes it is equal to a human or even better than one.
ReplyDeletePeople shouldn't always be blamed for performing actions that were wrong. Someone could have had the intention of doing the right thing and tried to, but something happened and intercepted that cause the result to be wrong or bad. The result wasn't directly their fault, they had expected a better outcome. For example, you were cleaning a table and carefully placing the glass vase elsewhere, but your brother scared you, causing you to drop the vase, which smashes as it hit the floor. It was not your fault, you were just trying to clean up the table.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, not all people who doe the right thing should be rewarded or praised. Sometimes a person could have intended to do something bad, but the result was good and beneficial to others. That person shouldn't be praised because they were trying to do someting bad, they didn't intend for something good to result from their action. Examples of this scene often occurs in kids movies, where the bad guy tries to capture the villian, but only gets himself trapped and everyone else is happy!
I agree with both of these views. Just because someones action is intended for some reason, does not mean that expected result will occur. I think that actions should be based on intentions, not expected results. We can not always rely on previous occurances to assume that an action based on them will have the same results.
I agree with utilitarianism to a certain extent. According to act utilitarianism, well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. Thus this view states that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well being than any other action you could have possibly have done in the circumstances. I personally agree with the idea of improving overall well being. However, I do not agree with the idea of the unimportance of intentions behind the action. In the utilitarian view, it is believed that the righteousness of an action depends on its actual results. I do not agree with this. How can we see the future? We have not seen what is going to happen in the future. I think that the intentions behind the actions are important to differentiate between morally right and wrong actions. For example, if we see an elderly man trying to cross the street, wouldn't we want to help the poor man cross the street? Well, i definitely would help that man. So what if I help him, and all of a sudden, a crazy drunk driver fails to stop and kills the elderly man on the spot? According to the Utilitarian view, that act is considered to be immoral. I believe that this is wrong. I think if we had benevolent intentions, we should not be grieving for something we had not control over. Here is another example. What if there was an assassin like the one in the movie wanted. What if that assassin was hired to kill the President of the United States of America? Now, if he hit his target, then that act would be considered immoral. However, if the assassin failed to kill the president, and instead, the bullet ricochets and kills the assassin instead, that act is considered to be morally right, according to utilitarianism. This is not right, from my perspective. The assassin is not doing the morally right thing either way, even if the bullet hits the assassin instead. This part of Utilitarianism is the part I do not agree with at all.
ReplyDeleteUtilitarians believe that animals are members of the moral community, they are owed respect ,and their needs are to be taken seriously. They justify this by asking the question, "can animals suffer?" Yes, if someone were to cause an animal pain, they would be called out for an immoral act. In The Argument from Marginal Cases, utilitarians argue that it is (almost) always immoral to kill and eat "marginal" human beings, so therefore it is (almost) always immoral to kill and eat animals, and to painfully experiment on them. To utilitarians, animals are of equal importance to human beings because the only difference between human and animals is species. I agree with utilitarians that animals are as equally important as humans, but not just marginal humans, all humans. The idea that animals can suffer sits very strongly with me, and almost even more than human suffering because animals can be more helpless than humans. For instance, the situation of the two boys from Ohio who tortured a cat to its death is absolutely sickening to me. In that situation, there was no one to help the cat, nor could the cat help itself. The boys were much bigger and stronger to overpower the cat and cause it pointless suffering. Animals feel pain, suffering, and emotions just like humans, so why treat them like dirt?
ReplyDeleteUtilitarianism is good as it takes everyone's interests under consideration and focuses on maximizing the best consequences However, Utilitarianism is bad in so far as it's primary concern isn't in honoring rights or in obeying the moral law, so much as in promoting the best consequences. Thus, Utilitarians will sometimes suupport solutions that many will find unmoral. For example, if one can make 100 people extremely happy by making one person miserable, than, in many Utilitarian ways, this will be the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteWhether Utilitarianism is the "right" moral theory comes down to what your first moral principles are. If you think pleasure is "the good" (hedonism) and that everyone's pleasure is equally valuable, then you will most likely agree with many things Utilitarians say. If, on the other hand, you think all individuals have rights, and that these rights are inviolable, then you will most likely think that Utilitarianism has it all wrong.
Discussion question:
ReplyDeleteWhatever policy is optimific will yield the greastes balance of benefits over drawbacks. This means, an action can be considered morally right even if it requires the pain or suffering of an innocent person. In the gladiator example, two gladiators fighting to the death is morally okay because the crowd watching gains a happiness and thrill. If the only options require a greater number of drawbacks than benefits there is no chance of it being optimific.
That we are the same amount as an animal. That if we kill an animal it is as bad as killing a human. i disagree with this claim because humans happen to have a higher claim.I believe that animals were meant to serve man, not to be equals because we have morals about what we do. They go on pure instinct too.
ReplyDeleteTo be an optimific action, it must yield a greater balance of benefits over drawbacks. A great example from the textbook is the idea of a gladiator battle vs. an athletic competition, such as a basketball game. People would be very happy to view a gladiator battle, but those who suffered in the fighting would cancel this out. However, with a basketball game, people would be as happy as watching the gladiator battle, but no one would be sad or upset from the basketball game. Overall, the basketball game yields more positive results when compared to the gladitaor battles.
ReplyDeleteI chose #5.
ReplyDeleteUtilitarianism does a decent job of lining up with my most basic convictions, at least, those so basic I can't put them into words. I agree particularly with the utilitarian view on how to gain moral knowledge. My main reservation is where the morality of an action is concerned: most utilitarians believe that an action's morality is determined by its result. This seems harsh and even irrational, as in plenty of cases it is possible to do something with the very best of intentions, only to come to a catastrophic result.
In order for an action to be optimific, it has to yield the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. An action can bring about more happiness than any other alternative but fail to be optimific if there is another alternative that will cause less happiness but also less misery. An example of this is if a Roman emperor could choose between having gladiator contests or athletic competitions. The gladiator contests might create more happiness for the crowd, but it will also create a huge amount of misery for the gladiators. This would make the athletic competitions the optimific choice, even if it would make the audience less happy than gladiator contests. This is because the athletic games have the greatest net balance of happiness over misery over the gladiator contests.
ReplyDeleteI chose number 2.
ReplyDeleteIt means for an action to be optimific if it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. An action could put out more happiness then any other alternative but still fail to be optimific because like most decisions we make there is always someone hurt, someone one who is helped or happy in the end. The action we make that produces the greatest amount of happiness over drawbacks might still cause a great amount of pain. For example if we needed to tell someone something important and did not have the courage to do it then that would make us suffer while still keeping the other person happy making this not neccessarily the right action to do. As time goes on both would slowly get hurt. Now if we told them then they would not be happy but it would be the right thing to do, and as time went on they would realize it was the right thing and be happy again.
Question Number 2
ReplyDeleteIn order for an action to be optimific, it must give the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. This means that when making a decision, one must take into account the positives and negatives of each option and choose whichever one has the fewest negative effects. For example, imagine a Roman emperor having the choice of using either gladiator contests or athletic games as a form of entertainment. While the gladiator contests may make more spectators pleased than the athletic games, it would cause more harm than the athletic games would. This would make the athletic games the optimific choice because, even though the gladiator events would bring about more "good" (happiness), the athletic games would bring fewer negative effects on society.
Chapter 9, Question #2
ReplyDeleteFor an action to be called optimific, it needs to have the best balance of benefits over drawbacks. What this means is that when you have to choose what to do in a situation, you must note the positive/negative balance of each and every choice. Using this method, it is wise to choose the one with the least drawbacks. One common example is the Gladiatorial scenario; The emperor has the choice of Roman entertainment: Gladiator battles or Athletic games. Given, the battles are all blood and gore and guts which keeps the spectators entertained more, but the athletic games are not as negatively sided. Therefore the athletic games would be the greater good, a.k.a. optimific, choice.
An action in being optimific it needs to have some of the greatest balances of benefits on drawbacks. This means that when making a decision, one has to take into being positive and the other negative of each option. Also choose the option that has the FEWEST negatives listed. An example if we had to tell someone something important and it was not good news and we did not have the guts to tell them it and kept it to our selves that would making us be in pain while we are seeing the person happy while the badness is just getting worse towards them. Keeping the other person happy does not make this not the best thing to do. In time both of us would eventually get hurt and something would get or someone would get lost. If we told them from the beginning they hopefully would realize it is the right thing to have been done and in the long run we all would be happy! Also no one or nothing would be lost, and hurt, and everything would be okay!
ReplyDeleteFor action to be optimific it has to yield greatest number of benefits over drawbacks. Over the course of history there are some examples of an action being not optimific but bringing the greatest amount of benefits over drawbacks. One is the Holocaust, the Nazi party were a huge majority of the German population but so were the Jews. This had very little benefits to it at all, but it promote the greatest amount of happiness of the Nazi's.
ReplyDelete