0
Consequentialism is a moral theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their outcomes or consequences. In other words, the moral value of an action is determined by the results it produces, rather than its inherent nature or the intentions behind it.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are 2 types of ethical standards?
Two types of ethical standards are deontological ethics, which focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, and consequentialist ethics, which considers the outcomes or consequences of actions to determine their moral worth.
What is the definition of consequentalism?
Consequentialism is a moral theory that states the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its consequences. This means that an action is considered morally right if it leads to good outcomes, regardless of the intentions behind it. Examples of consequentialist ethical theories include utilitarianism and ethical egoism.
What do you mean by shunaka?
"Shunaka" is a term that can be translated to mean "dog" in Sanskrit.
What does aroha mai mean?
aroha maiAroha mai mean I'm sorry in my language (Maori)
What does concetious mean?
It seems like there might be a typo in your question. Did you mean to ask about the meaning of "conceited"?
In what does a consequentialist believe?
A consequentialist believes in the idea that an action is either right or wrong depending on the consequences that result from it. The best action is the one that produces the best, or most favourable, results.
What is a non-consequentialist moral theory?
Non-consequentialist moral theories, such as deontology or virtue ethics, argue that the morality of an action is not solely determined by its consequences. Instead, these theories hold that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. This contrasts with consequentialist theories, like utilitarianism, which prioritize the consequences of an action in determining its moral worth.
Does Consequentialist ethics matter in conservation and is it an essential components in the conservation biodiversity?
Consequentialist is an/a individual/group that put human happiness first before anything else. These group also is an objective base thinker. Their actions are based on "goal" determined. So, we do need the consequentialist spirit in order to gain our goal. They also important as they will keep reminding the rest of the world the importance of human comfort, conservation and happiness to the world. My conclusion would be, as a whole for the community to function, the consequentialist are much importance as the other two(virtue & deontological). The End. Azmeer
What is the Theory based on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number?
both utilitarian and consequentialist
True or false To say that Sue has a right to know the truth is to give a consequentialist reason for being honest?
false
What has the author Joram Graf Haber written?
Joram Graf Haber has written: 'Doing and Being' 'Absolutism and Its Consequentialist Critics'
Pointing to the liability to abuse of laws permitting active euthanasia is relying on consequentialist considerations about not taking a human life?
true
What are some factual matters that would be relevant for consequentialist arguments regarding sexual behavior?
Some factual matters relevant for consequentialist arguments regarding sexual behavior could include the potential physical and emotional consequences of certain sexual behaviors, the impact on individuals involved and society as a whole, the risk of harm or pleasure derived from the behavior, and the overall well-being of those affected by the actions.
Is the deterrence argument based on consequentialist considerations?
special programs could become available to get individuals who commit crimes to become involved in meaningful activities in society, so this would prevent future criminal activities from occurring.
What are the 3 main ethical theories?
its a form of ethics that manage moral and immoral values ..The different forms of ethics are:(1) Utilitarianism (that things should be done to improve the happiness of the greater majority) e.g. torture to one person will increase the happiness of many is a Utilitarianism way of thinking.(2) Consequentialist (that the consequences of an action defines whether it was an ethical action or not, though this is not absolute) e.g. 2 of the same situations handled in different ways but with the same consequences, both are most likely to be right. However in extreme cases the means in which the result is achieved can effect its ethical standing (see non-consequentialist)(3) Non-Consequentialist (that the consequences do not always dictate whether an action was ethically and morally correct, though this is not absolute) e.g. torture of a person is never ethically correct even if the consequences are good. However in extreme cases the result could dictate its ethical standing (see consequentialist)(4) Kantian Theory, born from Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, the notion that actions are considered ethically wrong / right depending on their intrinsic values and principles according to society and forms of creation. So everyone believes that breaking a promise is morally wrong, so Kantian Theory sees this a being ethically wrong!(5) Deontological Theory, This is what the Kantian Theory is based on, the notion of socially and economically created principles of morals and right or wrong, e.g., breaking a promise, punishing the innocent, murder and many forms of lying.
What is the political viewpoint of the United Nations?
Generally, the United Nations desires peace, but is willing to fight for it. There are large blocs within the UN, such as America and her allies, and the Non-Alligned movement, but there is no general consensus of opinion. They are probably more consequentialist than deontological in philosophical terms, as they are willing to kill to save lives, being concerned with the consequences of their actions, rather than solely believing that any murder is immoral.
What will you do if the solution of all problems has evil consequences and what ethical principles you will use to solve the problem?
Unfortunately, many decisions and problems have solutions that border on 'evil' or make the person feel guilty and 'evil' (even when they made the best decision overall).As examples:Two friends, one with a disability, were walking home from school when a gang jumped the two. The one without a disability got free--but there were 25 gang members. So the friend ran so he could call for help. While he was gone, his disabled friend got beaten badly. Some people called the boy a hero for calling police, because the other boy could have been killed. Other people called the boy a coward for running away and leaving his disabled friend. Who is to say he was wrong? (No one.) Would it change opinions to learn the boy who ran away was just 7 years old? Would he be judged as more moral, or less moral, if he was 16 years old rather than 7 years old? Answer: The line between "good" and "evil" is often hard to know. People do the best they can in the moment.A woman had a child at age 20 and another at age 22. A high school drop out, she was poor, homeless, without a job, without skills, and without childcare. She decided to give up her children, get her GED, go to a 2-year tech school, and then, try to get her children back. Again, some people judged her as "unloving" and "selfish". Other people said she was "selfless" and trying to do right for her children. Who is "right"? What if the mother was 14 with her first child, and 16 with her second child? Does age automatically bring a moral "price tag"? Are people allowed to make mistakes? If someone judges their first action as "wrong", is there never anything they can do to redeem themselves?In one of the most difficult decisions, a US President decided to drop 2 nuclear bombs on Japan. His reasoning-- to save American lives. But in the bombing, Japanese were killed or severely burned and maimed. Was this president "right" or "wrong"? Was it a "moral" or "immoral" act? If moral, what about Japanese children who were burned and lost their parents too? If immoral, how many Americans should the president have allowed to be killed before that action would be declared foolish or evil? Are tough choices that have bad consequences always mean those choices are evil? Whose lives "mattered"? Does the fact that the bombings ended the war reduce some people's judgement that it was an "evil act"? Or would he have been more moral to let the war go on for a decade and kill tens of thousands on both sides?Morality and Moral Choices often fall on a continuum from "really evil" to "very bad" to "sorta bad" to "acceptable" to "very righteous", but every factor in a situation can constantly "move" the continuum. I can choose "very righteous".. but if it means hurting many people, my decision becomes at least "very bad". So a person must struggle over choices and decide what morality truly means.
