美国马萨诸塞论文代写:功利主义者

Keywords:美国马萨诸塞论文代写:功利主义者

对于功利主义者来说，这个决定很简单。每个人的价值都是一样的所以救5个人比救一个人更有价值;开关会被拉下。对于义务论者来说，这就更难了，因为义务论的强大约束是反对谋杀的，而扳动开关基本上就是直接谋杀一个人。如果义务论者没有按下开关，他们就不会打破约束，也不会直接死亡。就个人而言，道义论的方法对这种困境是没有吸引力的。不做选择本身就可以被看作是做了一个选择。义务论的观点认为不按下开关会导致五个人死亡，在我个人看来，五个人的死亡比一个人的死亡更糟糕。杀人也许是错的，但就像功利主义一样，死的人越少越好。虽然义务论批评功利主义缺乏对个人道德的承认，但遵循义务论可能导致比遵循功利主义更糟糕的后果。在我看来，这就是让功利主义变得更好的原因。我的决定通常围绕着找到最好的整体结果，而不是针对我的兴趣而制定的结果。因此，优先考虑最大幸福的理论似乎是两者中较好的。
美国马萨诸塞论文代写:功利主义者
For a utilitarian, the decision is quite simple. individuals are all worth the same so saving five people would be worth more than saving one person; the switch would be pulled. For a deontologist, it’s harder because a strong deontological constraint is against murder and to pull the switch would basically be the direct murder of a person. If a deontologist didn’t pull the switch, then they would not have broken their constraint and also not directly have killed.Personally, the deontological approach to the dilemma is unappealing. Not making a choice can be seen as making a choice in itself. The deontological idea of not pulling the switch leads to five people dead, and in my personal opinion, five people dead is worse than one person dead. Killing may be wrong, but like a utilitarian, it’s better if a fewer amount of people die.Although deontology criticizes utilitarianism for lacking the acknowledgement of individual morality, following deontology could possibly lead to worse consequences than following utilitarianism. This is what, in my opinion, make utilitarianism better. My decisions typically revolve around finding the best overall outcome rather than the outcome specifically tailored to my interests. Therefore, the theory that prioritizes maximum well-being seems the better of the two.