Assignment Task:
100 words- response to each student- 1 citation
Student #1:
Ariel Torres
Consider two types of moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved).
Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why?
In my opinion, I find consequentialist theory is more reasonable. I think that what is morally right or wrong is not clear-cut. The theory of consequentialism is Hedonism I find the most reasonable. "Hedonism maximizes the pleasure and happiness and minimizes the pain and unpleasant" (n.d. 1:22). To me this is like saying "If you respect me, I'll respect you" to prevent arguments or even fights.
Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking.
In the consequentialist theory, is "the view that the consequences of a decision, deed, or policy determine its moral value" (Moore & Parker pg. 427). One of the specific theories I would like to emphasize is Hedonism. Again, the video states, "Hedonism maximizes the pleasure and happiness and minimizes the pain and unpleasant" (n.d. 1:22). I take this theory to mean to respect and be kind to everyone regardless of gender, religion, race, and culture. Maximize the happiness and pleasure of being united instead of being judgmental or voicing unwanted opinions to people different than us. This is why I think the consequentialist theory, hedonism is more reasonable. This is just thinking peacefully rather than getting tied up in what other people around us are doing.
References
Moore, B.N., & Parker, R. (2020). Critical thinking (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Burrell, T. (n.d.-a). Introduction to Moral Reasoning. [Video]. Canvas@WCU.
Burrell, T. (n.d.-b). Week 6: Moral Reasoning - Presentation. [Video]. Canvas@WCU.
Student #2:
Jasie Tran
Generally, consequentialist approach focuses on the outcome of events. Therefore, the consequences are justified if the overall utility is greater. This approach maximizes overall happiness or well-being rather than its cost (Bentham, 1781). On the other hand, the non-consequentialist approach emphasizes factors beyond consequences such as motives, duties, or rules. Furthermore, the non-consequentialist approach focuses on character traits and moral virtues rather than the outcomes (Kant, 1993). Personally, the non-consequentialist approach is more reasonable to me since it considers other factors contributing to the results rather than considering solely the outcomes. It allows for nuanced, context-dependent decisions and it encourages self-reflection and improvement. For example, a pharmaceutical company has developed a life-saving medication for a rare disease, but the production process requires animal testing, which can cause harm and suffering to the animals. With the consequentialist approach, if the medication saves more lives than the number of animals harmed, the overall utility is considered justified. However, with the non-consequentialist approach, people will consider the moral rule of not harming living beings, regardless of the outcomes. People who incorporate the non-consequentialist approach will argue that harming animals is absolutely wrong, even if it leads to greater overall benefits.
References:
Bentham, J. (1781). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. History of Economic Thought Books.
Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (JW Ellington, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.(Original work published 1785).