OCR Evaluation of Ethical Theories
Made by year 12, Miss Clarke and carrot sticks
- Created by: AHAPhilosophy
- Created on: 18-04-13 16:06
View mindmap
- Evaluation of Ethical Theories
- Utilitarianism
- STRENGTHS
- Easy to follow
- PREFERENCE
- Considers people individually
- More caring
- Flexible
- Selfless
- Places more value over human life
- RULE
- Universal
- Promotes Fairness
- Clear set of rules to abide by
- Places an emphasis on the quality of happiness rather than how much happiness is produced by an act.
- Universal
- ACT
- Straightforward
- Democratic
- Promotes maximisation of happiness
- Considers each in situation seperately
- WEAKNESSES
- ACT
- No defense for the minority (obama)
- No intrinsic value for human life
- Can't always predict the consequences
- Justifies immoral actions
- Oversimplistic
- Treats human life as a number/object
- Can justify abhorrent acts
- RULE
- Sometimes rules should be broken
- Conflicting duties (Kant
- Different definitions of happiness
- Happiness is subjective
- Vague
- Moral compass?
- Whilst the concept works, may not work in practice.
- Different definitions of happiness
- Happiness is subjective
- Different definitions of happiness
- Is it really teleological? (removed the greatest strength)
- Sometimes rules should be broken
- ACT
- STRENGTHS
- Natural Law
- STRENGTHS
- Precepts are straightforward
- Secondary precepts are society dependent therefore reasonable
- Easy to put into practice
- Reasonable (Primary too)
- Self-Evident truths (through reason)
- Highlights importance of human reason in decision making
- Precepts are straightforward
- WEAKNESSES
- "Worship God" - if you are not religious it does not apply to you
- Aquinas places no emphasis on a hierarchy on the precepts
- IVF - for and against??
- Should you do some precepts or all?
- No guidance on dealing with conflicting rules
- Doctrine of double effect
- IVF - for and against??
- What if you dont know your purpose?
- Or how to find it?
- Sometimes there is genuine mis-match between interior and exterior acts
- cannot predict consequences
- Real and apparent goods
- apparent goods can be unclear
- cannot predict consequences
- Ad hoc
- DUTY - what if you dont want to do your duty
- Father and son
- A possible hierarchy to duties??
- Not specific enough
- Can justify abhorrent acts through secondary precepts
- What if you dont believe in God?
- You can be moral and not believe in God
- STRENGTHS
- KANTIAN ETHICS
- STRENGTHS
- Intrinsic value of human life
- Respect
- Dignity
- Respect
- straight forward
- emphasis on duty, not feelings
- makes you do your duty
- eg. Parents
- makes you do your duty
- Fair (universal)
- Categorical imperative
- If everyone did it, no evil...?
- But you cant force people!
- followable
- Intrinsic value of human life
- WEAKNESSES
- Not allowed to use your emotions (too duty focused)
- Lacks compassion
- Inflexible (no consequences considered)
- Conflicting duties
- How do you deal with conflicting duties?
- ROSS
- Prima facie duties
- "deepest moral convictions"
- Contradiction from Kant
- Reduces it down to just another ethical theory that considers own feelings/situation
- Contradiction from Kant
- ROSS
- STRENGTHS
- Utilitarianism
- Eudiamonistic
- PREFERENCE
- Considers people individually
- More caring
- Flexible
- Selfless
- Places more value over human life
- focusses on happiness
- PREFERENCE
- Or to the situation
- Not specific enough
Comments
No comments have yet been made