Notes for 4/20/2026

4/20/2026
[Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")]
[Bioethics Club: Mondays from 5:30pm-6:30pm in Leigh Hall 408]

Can you think of a situation where it would be wrong to tell the truth?

Deontology: Ethics of duty/obligation/rules/principles

Consequentialism: Actions are made right/wrong entirely by consequences

Opponents of consequentialism generally think that some action-types are subject to restrictions.

Restrictions (forbidden)
Requirements (obligatory/duty)
Options (ok to do but also ok not to do)

Utilitarianism: An action is morally right if and only if performing the action produces at least as great an overall balance of utility over disutility for all affected as any alternative action that could be performed instead.

Some actions are BETTER or WORSE than others.

It seems that in some cases, requirements and restrictions can be overridden.
Under what conditions?

When the consequences become “heavy enough”.

If consequences can sometimes override restrictions or requirements, why don’t they ALWAYS do so?

Easiest “ethical” theory: “Do whatever.” = Very unsatisfactory.

Slightly better: “Do whatever you want” (pure egoism)
= Still unsatisfactory.

A satisfactory ethical theory seemingly must be: non-egoistic, allow options as well as restrictions and requirements, account for how some actions can be better/worse than others, and explain how/when restrictions/requirements can be overridden. 
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Notes for 1/12/2026

Notes for 1/14/2026

Notes for 1/23/2026