1 / 15

ABSOLUTISM

ABSOLUTISM. Moral Absolutism . Moral Absolutism - Defined. It is the view that certain kinds of actions are ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS right. Typical candidates for such absolute principles are these: It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. One ought always to tell the truth

anise
Download Presentation

ABSOLUTISM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ABSOLUTISM Moral Absolutism

  2. Moral Absolutism - Defined • It is the view that certain kinds of actions are ALWAYS wrong • or ALWAYS right. • Typical candidates for such absolute principles are these: • It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. • One ought always to tell the truth • One ought to keep one’s promises

  3. Absolutism is contrasted with Consequentialism Consequentialism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined solely by the extent to which they lead to good or bad consequences

  4. Consequentialist Would maintain that… Killing is normally wrong because it Creates a great deal of grief and suffering and it deprives the person who is killed of future happiness which he or she would have experienced.

  5. Consequentialist But.. In some cases, a refusal to kill may Lead to even MORE suffering and loss Of happiness. It may sometimes be Right to kill the innocent.

  6. Deontological Ethics* Certain actions are “intrinsically right or wrong – right or wrong simply because of the kind of action they are – independent of the consequences. Killing the innocent, stealing, lying – these are viewed as wrong regardless of the consequences. Deontological positions contrast with a consequentialist one.

  7. Deontological Ethics A deontological position obviously contrasts with a consequentialist view, and may appear to be the same as absolutism but in fact, the two are distinct. Deontological view may state that killing the Innocent is intrinsically wrong, but also that in extreme circumstances the intrinsic wrongness of it may be overridden by the appalling consequences of what will occur if one refuses to kill.

  8. Absolutism vs Deontology Absolutism builds on a deontological position but adds a stronger claim… not only is the action intrinsically wrong (says the absolutist) its wrongness can never be overridden by any consideration of the consequences.

  9. Absolutism Moral Absolutism corresponds to common traditional views of morality, particularly of a religious kind – what might be called “The Ten Commandments” idea of morality. But, once detached from appeals to religious authority, Absolutism may appear vulnerable to rational criticism.

  10. Flaws of Absolutism Is it not perverse to maintain that a certain kind of action is simply ruled out, even when the refusal to perform it will lead to even worse consequences? Why insist on never killing the innocent, for instance, if in certain circumstances a refusal to do so will mean that more innocent people will die? To be plausible, absolutism needs to be supplemented.

  11. Distinctions The absolutist must make distinctions between ACTS and OMISSIONS or the Doctrine of Double Effect. The absolutist will not condone killing an innocent even if it means more innocents will die – because they will argue that letting them die is not the same as intentional killing. Whether this is a sufficient defense is a matter for debate.

  12. ACTS and OMISSIONS The moral distinction between Acts and Omissions amounts to the CLAIM that there is a moral distinction between a particular action and a corresponding failure to act even though they result in the same outcome. Thus it is said, there is a moral distinction between, for example, lying and not telling the truth; hindering and failing to help; and between “killing and letting die” even though, in each case the consequences of the action and the omission may be the same.

  13. OMISSION Omission is an untidy concept. An omission of mine is said to occur when I fail to do something which I might reasonably have been expected to do. Such an omission may or may not be subject to moral judgment depending upon my duties and expectations. It is the idea that we can be held accountable for what we do and for what we fail to do. Acts and Omission cannot be viewed by examining “intentions” because killing and letting die both come with intentions (as opposed to accident).

  14. Acts and Omissions Consequentialists and their proponents will say that killing is the same as the denial of ones duty to save a life. They will dismiss the idea that there is a distinction between Acts and Omissions.

  15. DOCTRINE of DOUBLE EFFECT This is a thesis in the philosophy of action which is put to use in moral choice and assessment. In many actions we may identify the intended goal for which the action is done. However, there will normally be side-effects that occur as a result of taking the action. The Doctrine of Double Effect maintains that it may be permissible to perform a good act with the knowledge that bad consequences might ensue… but it is always wrong to intentionally do a bad act for the sake of good consequences. (administering pain-relieving drugs which shorten life-span/killing in self-defense/saving a pregnant woman but it results in death of baby…)

More Related