Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMestan, Kemran
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-23T14:42:42Z
dc.date.available2019-09-23T14:42:42Z
dc.date.created2018-05-14 23:20
dc.date.issued2016-08-24
dc.identifieroai:minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au:11343/115023
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/115023
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/79482
dc.description.abstractMy overall project is to clarify the distinctions among ethical theories. In doing this I am improving our ability to assess which moral considerations are legitimate. I firstly give an account of the traditional distinctions among ethical theories. I explain how specific ethical theories have been grouped together, which makes evident the significance given to the distinction between Consequentialist and Deontologist theories. I then argue that the Consequentialist/Deontologist distinction is problematised by considerations in action theory. The specific consideration in action theory (which I argue is true) is that there is no principled way to determine where an act ends and a consequence begins. Thus, since the distinction between acts and consequences can be vague, so too is the distinction between the ethical theories of Consequentialism and Deontologism, which relies on this distinction. In the following chapter 1 elucidate the usefulness of the concepts 'Consequentialism' and 'Deontologism' by analysing the relationship between the concepts they are constructed upon: goodness and rightness. I argue that to hold a state-of-affairs good to exist entails that one also holds that one ought to (it is right to) bring this state-of-affairs about. Hence, goodness entails rightness. However, this claim is heavily qualified. Moreover, I affirm that it is perfectly intelligible and coherent that an act can be considered right independently of the value of a state-of-affairs. Finally, I catalogue a number of intelligible and coherent characteristics of ethical theories, and demonstrate how the existence of such moral considerations will greatly complicate moral theorising. My intention here is to appreciate the complexity of our moral experience, rather than impose a false order. Giving too much significance to the Consequentialism/Deontologism distinction is an imposition of false order. Hence, I argue that the Consequentialism/Deontologism distinction is not the fundamental distinction between ethical theories, rather it is one distinction among many.
dc.description.abstractRestricted Access: University of Melbourne Staff and Students Only
dc.rightsTerms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. You may download, print or save electronic copies of a whole work, or part of a work, for your own research or study or as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner to use the work for any other purpose. If you believe this copyrighted work is available on the University of Melbourne network in such a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or a breach of an agreed licence or contract, please notify the Copyright Office at copyright-office@unimelb.edu.au
dc.subjectConsequentialism (Ethics)
dc.subjectDeontic logic
dc.subjectDuty
dc.subjectEthics
dc.titleClarifying the distinctions between ethical theories : with special attention to consequentialism and deontologism
dc.typeMasters Research thesis
ge.collectioncodeBF
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:14555047
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/14555047
ge.lastmodificationdate2018-05-14 23:20
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch (import)
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid148650
ge.oai.repositoryid2660
ge.oai.setnameSchool of Historical and Philosophical Studies
ge.oai.setnameArts
ge.oai.setnameMinerva Access
ge.oai.setnameSchool of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses
ge.oai.setspeccom_11343_397
ge.oai.setspeccom_11343_384
ge.oai.setspeccom_11343_159
ge.oai.setspeccol_11343_399
ge.oai.streamid2
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/115023


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record