Posted at 12.28.2018
The consequentialist moral decision making theory areas an action is considered morally right provided that the consequences which result will be more positive than negative. An excellent aphorism for talking about the backbone of consequentialism is that "the ends justify the means. " So long as a good result results from an work, that act is considered morally just. Consequentialism can be agent-neutral or agent-focused and the two approaches are worthwhile discussing to better understand the moral decision making model. Agent-Neutral consequentialism ignores the precise affect an action has for any certain person and instead focuses on the results benefitting all. Agent-Focused consequentialism, on the other palm, is when the results of the moral decision are concentrated on the needs of your choice maker. This means that the moral acting professional makes their decision so that implications resulting better themselves and the welfare of those they value and not only the overall welfare of population.
The deontological moral decision making theory is an alternative form of moral reasoning than consequentialism for a number of reasons. Instead of consequentialism, deontological moral theory state governments that the rightness of any action or decision is not exclusively dependent upon maximizing the nice of modern culture. Instead, deontological theory identifies the morally rightness or wrongness of any action from the behavior of the action itself, not the tendencies of the results. Deontological moral decision making provides distinctive suggestions for morally right and incorrect behavior for folks to use when coming up with daily alternatives. This deontological moral guide places an increased value on the individual than on increasing the good for society. In fact, deontology actually has constraints to avoid an individual from maximizing the good if it hinders following a moral expectations of the guideline. Deontology is more available to interpretation than consequentialism, however, because it remains flexible for self-interpretation.
Consequentialism possesses talents as a moral model that deontology does not. One of the strongest points in favor of consequentialism is in fact another theory which resulted from it known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was founded by Jeremy Bentham, an British philosopher, who presumed that the best moral action would cause the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Following it allows for comfortable tensions in population ensuring that the most people feel pleasure, alternatively than a big amount of people on edge or in pain. However, consequentialism possesses weaknesses in its moral decision making too. Consequentialism triggers irresolvable morality dilemmas as it needs correlating ideas which cannot be compared against each other on a single scale. A ensuing weakness of utilitarianism is that it's so centered on the interest of most it overlooks the privileges of the individual which can lead to injustice. The best inevitable weakness of consequentialism is the fact that is does not provide any route to its fans for which actions are right or incorrect, morally. The wrongness of the action can only just be determined by its repercussions and by that point it's too past due to change the decision.
Deontological moral theory also possesses its unique strengths and weaknesses. Among the benefits of deontological morality is the fact that it allows the individual to take into account their families, friends, and personalized plans when coming up with ethical decisions, instead of consequentialism which tends to be alienating in its decision making module. By adding more pressure on the self-worth and personal capital of the average person deontology leads to a less flawed moral theory. Immanuel Kant, a well-known deontological philosopher, and his Kantian ethics are a power of deontology as well because he stated that it is not the consequences of the activities that are right or incorrect but rather the motives of the person doing the action. This makes the agent to use responsibility for all those elements of their moral decision making, not only the results. However, the biggest weakness of deontology is the fact that it categorizes actions as right or incorrect, dark-colored or white, departing no room for just about any gray area regardless of the obvious existence of several moral grey areas. Deontology is also hard to follow because its stringency leaves its followers being unguided by their morals which lack prioritizing, ultimately causing misunderstandings.
These are just two moral decision making models in philosophy and neither are always the ideal. It really is my perception that the perfect moral decision making process must incorporate the talents of consequentialism and deontology while attempting to compensate because of their errors. The very best decision making process must require an individual's own moral beliefs combined with knowledge that may be gained from learning a large amount of moral theories and opinions. Morals are subjective, meaning that each individual or group of individuals may possess their own place which is different from those of others. This is why the perfect process must be customized to meet up with the needs of the average person following it. This compensates for deontology's inadequate say of unchanging concepts known as widespread law. However, it will include the facet of deontology that makes a person to be morally in charge of their own actions as this is its best idea. By forcing a person to take into account how their decision will have an impact on them and their own somewhat than population, leads, I believe, to raised moral decisions being made. This combo decision making theory will also utilize the principle of electricity, the best idea of Jeremy Bentham, which demonstrates to individuals to do the best amount of best for the best amount of people. This combined with deontology's give attention to the individual's rights dissipates the threat of consequentialism justifying genocide, torture or violence as necessary means to a morally right end.
The ideal moral decision making process is difficult to determine, as morals fluctuate by individual and are subjective to different thoughts from one person to the next. However, there are aspects of modern philosophical ideas, consequentialism and deontology, which can be researched and used to help create an ideal guideline. Consequentialism is important because it targets the results associated with an action for the nice of humanity, something cannot be forgotten in an ever more globalized world. Deontology makes the moral agent to adopt responsibility for his or her own actions instead of relying on another person to care, just as important to keeping moral societal benchmarks. Together both create investigations and amounts, which, when coupled with an individual's beliefs, allow for moral decision making to occur with limited room for error.