Ethical Egoism would say the correct moral decision would be to lie to David so he will borrow you the money. Ethical egoism views one’s duty to themselves as the highest of priorities. It’s ok for the consequences of your actions to be positive for you and negative for others because your value is greater than theirs. Ethical egoism looks at the personal outcome and only the personal outcome matters. I would say that your child’s best interest would also be your best interest. If your child has a negative outcome from an action, that negative outcome also affects you. Therefore, the decision John would make to lie out of the best interest for child and ultimately him, would be considered morally right to an ethical egoist. By getting the
…show more content…
The ends would justify the means. David may suffer but the majority, the child and ultimately John, would benefit in a positive way. David may never get his money back but the child would get their medicine and not suffer. The lack of suffering to the child would benefit John. You can look at utilitarian ethics from David’s standpoint as well. If John didn’t lie to David and told him that he couldn’t promise he could pay him back in that time period or possibly ever, utilitarianism would take the stance that David has the moral obligation to give John the money anyway. If David has enough extra money to be able to borrow it in the first place, he has the duty to do so and prevent the child from suffering. The fact that David may not get his money back would be a sacrifice he is obligated to make. Utilitarianism views giving as a way of fulfilling your moral duty, not as charity. Peter Singer is a philosopher that has very strong views and opinions on utilitarianism. He has two versions to his argument, both versions include the fact that suffering from lack of medical care is bad. Based on all of this, David has an obligation to give John the money, even if John never pays him …show more content…
I also believe that the morally correct thing for David to do is to borrow John the money anyway because of what he needs it for. I guess I see things from the utilitarianism perspective on this situation. The possible suffering of a child is involved and if David has the extra money to prevent that, I feel as though he should. I can understand how John may falsely promise the return of the money out of the prevention of suffering to his child. I am not one to usually agree that lying is ok but would have to agree that this situation would justify doing so. The utilitarian theory is focused on the overall outcome of the group vs the ethical theory being focused on the outcome of the individual so I would have to stand behind utilitarianism on this situation.
The Utilitarian ethic seems more compelling and correct, in my opinion. I see utilitarianism as more of the maximize happiness and minimize suffering but don’t do so in a way that negatively affects someone else if you can prevent it, theory. Utilitarianism looks at everyone, not just yourself. Morally right decisions are based on the consequences those actions have but are not individualistic. The consequence may be negative or bad for you personally but if the outcome is positive or good for a greater number of people than it is bad for, it is morally right. It isn’t a selfish
The ends would justify the means. David may suffer but the majority, the child and ultimately John, would benefit in a positive way. David may never get his money back but the child would get their medicine and not suffer. The lack of suffering to the child would benefit John. You can look at utilitarian ethics from David’s standpoint as well. If John didn’t lie to David and told him that he couldn’t promise he could pay him back in that time period or possibly ever, utilitarianism would take the stance that David has the moral obligation to give John the money anyway. If David has enough extra money to be able to borrow it in the first place, he has the duty to do so and prevent the child from suffering. The fact that David may not get his money back would be a sacrifice he is obligated to make. Utilitarianism views giving as a way of fulfilling your moral duty, not as charity. Peter Singer is a philosopher that has very strong views and opinions on utilitarianism. He has two versions to his argument, both versions include the fact that suffering from lack of medical care is bad. Based on all of this, David has an obligation to give John the money, even if John never pays him …show more content…
I also believe that the morally correct thing for David to do is to borrow John the money anyway because of what he needs it for. I guess I see things from the utilitarianism perspective on this situation. The possible suffering of a child is involved and if David has the extra money to prevent that, I feel as though he should. I can understand how John may falsely promise the return of the money out of the prevention of suffering to his child. I am not one to usually agree that lying is ok but would have to agree that this situation would justify doing so. The utilitarian theory is focused on the overall outcome of the group vs the ethical theory being focused on the outcome of the individual so I would have to stand behind utilitarianism on this situation.
The Utilitarian ethic seems more compelling and correct, in my opinion. I see utilitarianism as more of the maximize happiness and minimize suffering but don’t do so in a way that negatively affects someone else if you can prevent it, theory. Utilitarianism looks at everyone, not just yourself. Morally right decisions are based on the consequences those actions have but are not individualistic. The consequence may be negative or bad for you personally but if the outcome is positive or good for a greater number of people than it is bad for, it is morally right. It isn’t a selfish