What Makes Things Morally Right And Morally Wrong ✓ Solved

What makes things morally right and morally wrong?

1. What makes things morally right and morally wrong? Utilitarianism actions are morally permissible IF and ONLY IF they produce at least as much happiness as any other available option. Utilitarianism looks to make as many people as possible whatever it is that creates value.

For instance, growing food on a mass scale can cause water pollution and hurt the opportunity for fishermen to catch fish. Utilitarianism would say that is fine as long as the value of growing the food outweighs the negatives, particularly if protecting water reduces the valuable food production. Of course, there are likely ways to use a different perspective or theory to argue for protecting water.

3. Utilitarianism cares about net value to society. This approach makes sense in many cases. But, if the theory tells us to "maximize values" for society. If we are talking about distributing resources, certain groups of people (like the poor or disadvantaged) might always lose out. For example, utilitarianism may say we should not give any parking to handicap people at a grocery store if doing so costs too much for everyone else.

4. Kantism says a behavior is ethical if it fits universal laws and moral duty, and if the person acting is doing so with duty in mind. For instance, most people would agree that it is not morally right to have child slaves work to produce our clothes. So, acting in a way that avoids clothes made with child labor would be ethical in a Kant way of thinking.

Paper For Above Instructions

The question of what makes actions morally right or wrong has been a focal point of philosophical discourse for centuries. Among the most prominent ethical theories, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics provide contrasting perspectives that help deepen our understanding of moral judgment.

Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle

Utilitarianism, often associated with philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is a consequentialist theory that posits that the morality of an action depends on its outcomes. The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is that actions are deemed morally permissible if they lead to the greatest overall happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. This is sometimes distilled into the phrase "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

For example, consider agricultural practices that maximize food production. While the act of increasing food supply can address hunger, it might simultaneously harm the environment. Practices such as pesticide usage can lead to water pollution, negatively impacting local fisheries. A strict utilitarian might argue that as long as the benefits of food production outweigh the environmental costs, such practices are acceptable. However, this also raises critical questions about whose happiness is prioritized and whether the negative externalities, particularly those borne by marginalized groups, are justifiable (Mill, 1863).

This balance often leads to ethical dilemmas. In instances like resource allocation, utilitarianism may suggest that providing more parking spaces for the general public at the expense of disabled access is acceptable, as it serves the majority. Such scenarios reveal potential shortcomings in utilitarian logic, especially in terms of justice and equity (Miller, 2001).

Kantian Ethics: Duty and Universal Laws

In contrast, Kantian ethics, grounded in the ideas of Immanuel Kant, asserts that morality is rooted in duty and adherence to universal laws. According to Kant, an action is morally right if it can be universally applied and respects the autonomy and dignity of individuals. This means that one must act as they would want all other individuals to act in similar circumstances—thus, the importance of categorical imperatives (Kant, 1785).

For instance, consider the ethical implications of labor practices. Most people would agree that using child labor to produce clothing is intrinsically wrong, irrespective of the potential economic benefits. A Kantian framework demands that we avoid actions that could harm individuals, suggesting that ethical consumerism—choosing to avoid products made through exploitative practices—is a moral duty (O’Neill, 1996). This perspective emphasizes the importance of intent and moral law over mere outcomes.

Comparative Analysis of Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics

While utilitarianism emphasizes the outcomes of actions, often prioritizing the majority's happiness, Kantian ethics focuses on the intrinsic morality of actions based on duty and principles. These two frameworks can sometimes conflict. For instance, the decision to maximize overall happiness may lead to justifying harmful practices toward a minority, an idea that Kant would vehemently oppose. This dichotomy presents an ongoing moral tension in addressing contemporary ethical issues, from environmental concerns to social justice (Singer, 1979).

In real-world applications, evaluating actions through both lenses provides a more comprehensive moral understanding. For example, environmental policies could be assessed for their potential utility in maximizing societal health while also considering the moral duty to protect vulnerable communities disproportionately affected by pollution (Rawls, 1971).

Conclusion

Determining what makes actions morally right or wrong involves navigating complex ethical theories. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics offer valuable insights. Utilitarianism provides a pragmatic approach focused on outcomes, while Kantianism emphasizes adherence to moral duty and universal laws. Understanding these perspectives allows for a more nuanced approach to ethical dilemmas, promoting discussions surrounding justice and moral responsibility in society. Ultimately, integrating the strengths of both theories may lead to more equitable and just outcomes across varying contexts.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Miller, D. (2001). Principles of Social Justice. Harvard University Press.
• O’Neill, O. (1996). Towards Justice and Virtue. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Singer, P. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty, and Time. Blackwell.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
• Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Harsanyi, J. C. (1977). Rule Utilitarianism and Rawls's Theory of Justice. The Philosophical Review, 86(4), 365-387.