Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes that would work well – the downside of this is that laws are there for a reason, so breaking a law because of SE would not stand up in court for example. So it is good on paper but not necessarily in practice 🙂
Hi Sarah,
Utilitarian’s look at the greatest happiness for the greatest number so that includes society as a whole. The HC is applied to individual situations (Act) and the rules can e broken in extreme situations (Rule) but it is society as a whole. And yes this can be a criticism as it is often hard to make those decisions and apply unbiasedly.
Yes Mill, applying his ‘harm principle’, would not agree with the use of sweatshops and Bentham is also not a supporter of them.
I guess it could be seen as a weak theory, it depends if you are arguing that Business is only to do with profit (Capitalism – Friedman), if you see Business ethics as touching upon a range of areas such as Whistle Blowing and Globalisation then this Utilitarian argument could also be argued to apply.Hope this helps 🙂
The Naturalistic fallacy is that you cannot move from an ‘ought’ to an ‘is’. So you cannot go from what you ‘ought’ to do, to what ‘is’ right and wrong. ‘Is’ are facts and ‘Ought’ is seen more as an opinion. So I guess in your question you cannot go from what is natural to what you ought to do regarding euthanasia. It’s not necessarily a link I would make so I guess that would be the best way to make it work.
Hi Sarah,
Preference Utilitarianism is from the old spec so the examiners are not expecting you to use it in an exam. To answer your questions though, I don’t know what you mean by stock holders but as far as preference Utilitarianism what it is saying (from what I can follow in your point above) is that if one person lies in business and that is their preference to do that, then it affects more preferences of those stake holders (some one that has something at stake in the correct running of that business e.g. a job). So you have to consider the preferences of the majority and if they are affected negatively then it is not ethical. And yes everyone’s pleasure and pain are equally considered. I hope this helps 🙂No that is not necessary. All essays have to have only two things: clearly answers and engages with the question and evaluates fully in connection with a clear line of argument. I think the three would help to plump out an answer and show potentially high level understanding if used critically to explore the Q but no not all are necessary in every answer 🙂
Not quite as you can have voluntary passive (individual deciding not to have treatment) and non voluntary active (giving lethal dose to someone in a coma but as far as I know this is not permitted anywhere).
So to clarify:
Vol: person makes a freewill decision to end their life
Non Vol: person cannot make freewill decision and another person e.g. family or doctor has to make it for them.
Passive: Removal of medicines/ life support etc or not taking of medicines etc
Active: lethal dose to end life. So Dignitas is Voluntary and active but the individual must be able to give themselves the lethal dose, no one else.They are a reflection of JF’s views but as he founded SE they can be viewed to be intertwined to an extent. You could certainly discuss JF’s agape views vs the 12 criteria to be classed as a person and how they might appear to conflict ect.
Often essays are more developed when you explore the application down multiple differing avenues and use this to formulate your line of argument. So having a strong viewpoint for or against the application of NL to euthanasia is very good and often you can do this by exploring how well it is applied to different issues and ideas. For example NL might work really well when dealing with sanctity of life but then not as good with personhood and this is where your evaluation and discussion would come in 🙂
Really good question! This is a good evaluation point due tot eh unclarity of the primary precepts in action. it says preserve life but then medication, organ transplants, pace makers etc can be seen as unnatural. So this could be a case for Doctrine of double effect. However when the Pope said that, the emphasis is on the word ‘excessive’ so treatment such as a third round of Chemotherapy cannot be forced upon a person. Medicine and treatment could be seen as a ‘natural’ progression f human reason but within itself is not always natural. This is the discussion you would have in an answer. Hope this helps 🙂
Hi,
Eudaimonia is Aristotle’s concept of human flourishing. This is linked to his Virtue Ethics and is just the aim/ purpose for humans. As Aristotle did not believe in an afterlife, this was achievable in this life. Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle, took this idea of human purpose and said our purpose is God Like Perfection. This is the ultimate goal and what we are always aiming to achieve. Therefore this is our final purpose and the reason for following conscience, hierarchy moral code etc. So we have other purposes through life e.g. reproduction (following the other primary precepts) and this is all inline with achieving our ultimate telos of GLP.
Everything has a telos and what the text book is criticising is where our feelings of purpose come from so e.g. the need to reproduce is this just a societal thing rather than the need to achieve our ultimate telos of GLP. I hope this helps clarify a few things 🙂Hi Sarah, weaknesses always help to develop evaluation by saying how the argument avoids them/ can be defended however this is not necessary in every paragraph. If you can only think of strengths make sure your really argue why it is a good thing, give examples and extend your reasoning. Every paragraph should lean more towards one view over the other – this is your line of argument. So you should have more strengths if you are arguing in support and your paragraph should clearly argue this angle. If you are going for the negative/ critical approach then every paragraph should have more weaknesses. Do not aim for equal, as this will mean your answer sits on the fence!
Hi, if it is a euthanasia question only compare between NL and Situation Ethics (if business only between Kant and Util). Never cross compare unless it is the Sex Ethics questions where all four can be applied.
The reason I recommend not necessarily linking to another topic is because you can achieve top marks by just focusing on the topic in question and really evaluating this fully. If however you do wish to compare then keep it for the latter part of each paragraph – never start a paragraph with another topic, keep it brief and critical. Only reference another topic if it adds to your line of argument. If it is just description or saying how it differs then this will score few extra marks. Used critically against topic in question then it can be very good. Hope this helps 🙂Hi Sarah, thanks so much for your comment 🙂 Yes the podcasts are designed to cover all the A01 material needed to do well in your exam. By answering the specific question asked very closely and adding in a clear line of argument, with lots of evaluation throughout (so applying the A01 to your line of argument) this will work very well.
