Launch
To be able to response this query I must talk about what is supposed by ‘the good’ within this context, because ‘the good’ is the meant qualifying antecedent of the morally right actions, in other words ‘goodness’ reports meaning rightness of your action. This way this problem has teleological conations as we are judging actions based upon whether they improve goodness or perhaps not, this kind of takes into account the particular outcomes of the action, ignoring the objective or inbuilt moral really worth of the work itself. Therefore we must keep in mind what definition of ‘the good’ we are speaking about, as in this particular question it is the qualifying consequence of the morally right action.
Within this essay I will purport that although the term ‘goodness’ is used to report meaning rightness of an action, this kind of term is contingent on the moral theory the action will be judged within just. This is because each moral theory has a diverse definition of what ‘goodness’ entails.
Aristotle provides a definition intended for human great as “activity of the heart and soul in accordance with virtue(1), he goes on to claim that it truly is “that from which all things aim(2). This kind of benefits is relative to the kind of subject or point which is staying discussed, it is therefore essential once discussing ‘goodness’ within Aristotelian ethics that people are particular to ‘human good’, because humans are the only organisms able to have got rational capability, and therefore capable of being virtuous, “the good and the ‘well’ can be thought to live in the function¦the function of man is usually an activity of soul which usually follows or perhaps implies reason (3)(4). The reason is , moral benefits is intertwined with what it is to be a very good human being, because practical cause or ‘phronesis’ is required to select virtuous activities, “practical intelligence issues commands¦what ought to be performed or to not be done(5). The Aristotelian term goodness is translated from the expression ‘eudaimonia’, which can be often linked to happiness and flourishing (6). Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia is a way of life, and therefore can not be pinned to one particular action, the whole life of a person has to be considered as to whether they have achieved eudaimonia, “for 1 swallow would not make a summer¦ a short while does not help to make a man blessed and happy(7). Therefore within Aristotle’s perspective just because an action has maximized goodness when, does not deem it morally correct, the smoothness of the person performing the action is very important as to whether the act is morally appropriate, as it is contingent on whether that person lives a eudaimon life.
Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is similar to Aristotle’s watch as it as well deems ‘the good’ while happiness, his ‘Greatest Pleasure Principle’ claims “actions happen to be right equal in porportion as they tend to promote pleasure, wrong because they tend to produce the change of happiness(8)(9). He intended that his notion of happiness is a way of being aware of what constituted man good, in chapter one of ‘Utilitarianism’ he introduces the concept we must strive towards the ‘summon bonum’ which can be our ‘greatest good’. However his theory contrasts with Aristotle’s when he then procedes describe pleasure as satisfaction and the absence of pain, “pleasure, and liberty from pain, are the only things desired as ends(10). This species of happiness, and therefore ‘the good’, differs to Aristotle’s since it is equated with mental declares at the time, although Aristotle’s thought of eudaimonia is usually not as fleeting.
Having demonstrated how the term ‘good’ may vary within different theories, I will now discuss Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism in more interesting depth, this is because it is just a consequentialist theory and the problem I was discussing features teleological conations. As a consequentialist theory, Utilitarianism determines the morality of your action via its effects, the ends justify the means. In this manner, the morally right action maximizes total happiness, also referred to as ‘utility’ within Utilitarianism, “Utility would enjoin¦ the happiness¦ of every individual (11). Utilitarianism deems actions morally correct or incorrect by attractive to the essentially intuitive principle of maximizing good, for that reason Utilitarianism, in the most basic form (Act Utilitarianism), would agree that the morally right action can be discussed as that action which usually maximizes great. This is because this can be a consequentialist theory, and therefore it can be primarily concerned with whether a great act has produced one of the most happiness or not as to whether it is morally right or wrong.
Explaining an action because morally proper with reference to it maximizing goodness for the most amount of people stimulates Egalitarianism, this kind of deems everyone as just as important as another, as everyone adds to producing the most persons happy. In this way Utilitarianism can be seen as a democratic theory, hence making it more preferable to explain morally correct actions with reference to whether they increase goodness for the most amount of individuals. This is also pointed out by the fact that Utilitarianism is concerned with man happiness, which in turn causes it to be common sense program. Therefore it is accessible for all for it does not need capacities of rationality once deciding what is moral and immoral, while Aristotelian integrity does need some degree of rational capability.
Despite this when solely referring to the consequences associated with an action, because Utilitarianism really does, this can permit us to perform unintuitive and immoral actions to promote higher goodness for amount of folks. Rawls states that because of this problem Utilitarianism is unable to protect inalienable privileges of people, the reason is , the overriding goal for Utilitarians is definitely the happiness from the greatest quantity. (12) Consequently in contrast to the Egalitarian benefits posited prior to, it can be asserted that individuals have only rights in that they do not interfere with the greatest very good of the the greater part. This is illustrated in Williams’ example of John and the captured Indians, Sean is given the ultimatum that if this individual kills one of the Indians different ones will be able to live, otherwise most nine from the Indians will be killed. (13) Not only does this example demonstrate that a consequentialist theory goodies the individual Indian who might be shot in the interest of the lives of the other folks as a means towards the other’s joy, and in this case infringing after their individual rights, additionally, it highlights which the agent’s ethics is also infringed upon. Therefore by merely taking into consideration if an action maximizes goodness as to whether it is ethical or certainly not does not take into account the potential breach of the individual goals and jobs of the agent performing the action, when it is immoral. (14). Therefore it may be argued the fact that morally proper action may not be explained by means of merely its consequences, a few attention needs to be given to just how and how come the work occurred.
In contrast to Mill, Margen argues that our goal should not be happiness, but the essence of morality is striving to goodness simplicter. (16) Hence the ultimate end for human beings is to stick to the categorical imperative which says “only act on a maxim that you could can should get a universal law(15), these maxims cause a impression of moral responsibility within all of us which establishes an action’s moral really worth, regardless of the effects. Although Kant’s theory does not explain actions as morally right with respect to whether they take full advantage of goodness, it might be argued that actions of your deontological nature can still work towards many advantages, without that being the fundamental principle with the theory. It is because by following the categorical very important, and performing acts away of a impression of responsibility to values, this would the natural way lead to moral goodness within Kant’s perspective, hence most acts performed under the particular imperative improve good.
With regards to the above it is usually argued that whether the morally right action can be discussed as that action which in turn maximizes good is contingent upon what notion of good we are discussing. It seems like plausible that moral rightness can be followed back to maximizing goodness in the moral theories I have presented above, as a result leading me personally to conclude the fact that morally correct action can be explained while that action which maximizes good, while the term ‘goodness’ can be defined in a variety of ways to fit the criteria of every moral theory.
References
Aristotle. ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’. Book I. 1098a16
Ibid. 1094a3
Aristotle. ‘De Anima’. Book 2 . Ch. 1
Aristotle. ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’. Publication I. 1097b25-1098a7
Ibid. Publication VI. 1143a8
Warburton. D ‘Philosophy: The Classics’. Ch. 2
Aristotle. ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’. Book I. 1098a17
Mill. T. S ‘Utilitarianism’. Ch. a couple of
Ibid. Ch. 2
Ibid. Ch. 2
Ibid. Ch. 2 .
Rawls. J. ‘A Theory of Justice’.
Williams. B , Smart. J. J. ‘Utilitarianism: For , Against’
Ibid
Kant. ‘Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals’, Ch. 2
Ibid Ch. two
