I have two thoughts regarding your narrative about duty. The first is that I see your point with respect to people having different ideas about what their duty might be towards others. Holly and yourself are described as having different ideas about what her duty towards Chelsea should be. That's a valid point – if we are to use a deontological framework then that assumes that we all have roughly the same framework with which we're working. The roots of deontological ethics derive from a European culture that was fairly homogenous and from a time when a lot of the ethical framework was religious in nature. In the modern world, in a county where there are so many cultures, there cannot be the same high level of agreement about the underlying deontological ethics of many situations in everyday life.
The second point I would add is that even if yourself and Holly both completely agreed on what her duty was, there is also the issue of carrying out one's duty. Clearly in this situation Holly did not execute the duty she thought she had well. As you said, it's not her duty to spread rumors or anything unsubstantiated. She might have a duty to inform her friend if the boyfriend is cheating, but until that cheating is proven Holly is not in a position where her duty is activated – she only has a duty if she knows that the cheating is happening, but does not have a duty if she merely suspects it. The question about acting out of a sense of duty being right or wrong leaves out an important part – what action? Because as your anecdote describes, the action itself matters in making that judgement.
Your...
This exposes another weakness of the deontological approach: it provides no guidance for determining which of two contradictory rules must be respected. If the supervisor respects the company rule prohibiting disclosing the information to the employee, he must violate the general moral rule prohibiting lying. Conversely, if the supervisor respects the general moral rule about lying, he must violate the company policy about non-disclosure. In this particular scenario, the supervisor
Ethics and morality feature strongly in Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Set against a backdrop of antebellum social stratification, the novel shows how individuals like the title character make their moral choices. Moreover, Huckleberry Finn is a coming-of-age story showing how the title character discovers his own moral voice. His deepening friendship with Jim, and the conflicts that friendship cause him due to race relations in the antebellum south, help Huckleberry Finn
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework. The consequences of an action are more important than the motivations behind the action or the action itself. An action has "utility" if it serves the greatest good. The basic principle of utilitarianism is creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The ethics of utilitarianism differ from ethical egoism in that
KANT Deontological ethics suggests that there are certain moral principles which are so important that one should follow them as if setting a moral law for all time. Kant formulated his categorical imperative to suggest that there are some transcendent moral laws that are applicable to all situations, and cannot be waived no matter how dire the consequences (Kant and business ethics, 2013, RS). Anticipated positive consequences, according to deontological ethicists,
ethics, teleology refers to consequentialist ethics, in which the morality of an action is based on its consequences rather than on the nature of the act itself. Utilitarianism is a type of teleological ethics, because utilitarianism is based on creating the maximum amount of happiness (or some other predetermined desirable outcome such as prosperity or health) for the most people possible. Ethical egoism, the view that benefitting the self
Ross thought that all people should be benevolent and so if lying affects one's benevolence, one needs to decide if lying is better for the sake of benevolence. Ross' non-absolutist take to ethics is preferred because is considers what is morally right in certain situations. In the instance of a Poker game, it is a game that relies upon lying or "bluffing" so it actually does pass Kant's universal law
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now