德行论-长庚科技大学网路学习平台e-campus.PPT

* How do we come to know our duties? Through moral reflection (intuition) on particular cases that we encounter – it is evident to us, in particular cases, what our duties are. We simply have to consider, on a case by case basis, what our duty is. As Ross states, “when I ask what it is that makes me in certain cases sure that I have a prima facie duty to do so and so, I find that it lies in the fact that I have made a promise; when I ask the same question in another case, I find the answer lies in the fact that I have done a wrong.” Such propositions underpin Kantian duty-based ethics (deontology - from the Greek). Morality is judged on the actions and motives/will of agents and their application of inputs/principled maxims rather than outcomes/goals achieved (consequences). There is no explicit, direct appeal to consequences in differentiating what is right/ wrong. The motive for action is the central tenet compared with utilitarianism where motives are incidental (only matter where helpful in securing the greatest happiness of the greatest number). A Kantian view would recognises that despite best efforts, uncontrollables do happen. Nevertheless Kantians would not allow individuals or groups to be sacrificed for collective self-interest. A utilitarian would evaluate consequences and maximise utility. But the Kantian would be accused of rigidity in making no allowances for extreme circumstances. * Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that focuses on the outcomes or results of actions. In fact, its name comes from the Greek word telos, which means “end.” The two most influential developers of the utilitarian viewpoint were Englishmen Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Under this framework, acting ethically means making decisions and taking actions that benefit people by maximizing “good” and minimizing “bad.” Outcomes, results, or goals are the focus—not the action taken to achieve them. Utilitarians facing an ethical dilemma ask, “Wh