Essay #1 In the beginning of the semester, we were given the basic requirements for any good ethical theory. In this essay, I will discuss how well utilitarianism measures up against the 14 requirements. Utilitarianism is an action is morally right if it creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. The first requirement is utilitarianism must be capable of justifying the three major assumptions
1. There is an answer to the free will/determinism debate
2. The thesis of ethical relativism is false
3. The thesis of psychological egoism is either false or trivial
Utilitarianism can justify the last two of the major assumptions. Ethical relativism is a theory that states an action is only right or wrong relative …show more content…
In James Rachels essay Active and Passive Euthanasia, Rachels disagrees with a doctrine that does not allow doctors to actively kill a patient. This means a patient cannot request to be killed by a doctor. In his argument against the doctrine, Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing and letting someone die. We all understand that killing someone is immoral, however there are people who argue that letting someone die can be morally okay. However, Rachels argues otherwise. In his argument, he outlines the story of a man named Smith and a man named Jones. Both will gain a large inheritance from the death of their six-year-old cousin. Both had plans to sneak into the bathroom while the their cousin is taking a bath to kill him. The difference is that Smith actually drowns the child and makes it look like an accident, whereas in Jones situation, the child slips and falls and drowns on his own while Jones looks on. Both acts are reprehensible because both men had the same motive and wanted the same argument. From a moral point of view, both are equally as bad because of those reasons. In the case above, we now understand that letting someone die is morally just as bad as killing someone. In every aspect, John Rippo saved this mans life by doing the morally correct thing by not letting him die. If John had left the man alone, letting the depressed man die because he was going to commit suicide, he might as well just picked up the gun and shot the depressed man himself. There is no telling what Johns motive could have been to let him die, however it is important to focus on the fact the John did not let him
1. There is an answer to the free will/determinism debate
2. The thesis of ethical relativism is false
3. The thesis of psychological egoism is either false or trivial
Utilitarianism can justify the last two of the major assumptions. Ethical relativism is a theory that states an action is only right or wrong relative …show more content…
In James Rachels essay Active and Passive Euthanasia, Rachels disagrees with a doctrine that does not allow doctors to actively kill a patient. This means a patient cannot request to be killed by a doctor. In his argument against the doctrine, Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing and letting someone die. We all understand that killing someone is immoral, however there are people who argue that letting someone die can be morally okay. However, Rachels argues otherwise. In his argument, he outlines the story of a man named Smith and a man named Jones. Both will gain a large inheritance from the death of their six-year-old cousin. Both had plans to sneak into the bathroom while the their cousin is taking a bath to kill him. The difference is that Smith actually drowns the child and makes it look like an accident, whereas in Jones situation, the child slips and falls and drowns on his own while Jones looks on. Both acts are reprehensible because both men had the same motive and wanted the same argument. From a moral point of view, both are equally as bad because of those reasons. In the case above, we now understand that letting someone die is morally just as bad as killing someone. In every aspect, John Rippo saved this mans life by doing the morally correct thing by not letting him die. If John had left the man alone, letting the depressed man die because he was going to commit suicide, he might as well just picked up the gun and shot the depressed man himself. There is no telling what Johns motive could have been to let him die, however it is important to focus on the fact the John did not let him