Deontology
Deontological moral theory implies that certain actions are implicitlyright or wrong, regardless of their consequences. John Stuart Mill'sutilitarian moral theory takes deontology one step further by alsoincluding the relevance of consequences as they relate to the greatest goodfor the greatest number. Actions may have intrinsic moral weight, but anaction is judged on the basis of whether it causes pleasure or pain.Deontology, which is based on duty or obligation to follow moral law, couldimply that it is inherently wrong to kill an animal or harm nature.However, animals and nature are often excluded from an ethical code. Manydeontologists or duty theorists focus on religious definitions of moralitythat state it may be wrong to kill or harm a human being. Nature andanimals are usually excluded from this obligatory ethic. If animals areconsidered as inferior beings, humans do
According to Mill's utilitarianism, any use of nature is moral ifit offers pleasure to a large number of people. Most teleological and deontological philosophersdetermine the morality of an action based on its impact only on humanbeings, not on animals or nature. Likewise, according to strict deontologistslike Kant, acts that directly or deliberately harm the environment would beconsidered unethical unless the intentions were clearly to offer benefit tohumanity. Bentham and Mill could conclude that inmany situations, slaughterhouses are immoral because they cause a largeamount of pain to a large number of creatures. If killing animals for food is considered morally acceptable,then there is no obligation to spare the animal kingdom. Depending on the specific code of ethics in question, Kant couldargue that killing animals is either always acceptable or never acceptable. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham diverge from thisstrict deontological theory to include consequentialism and a pleasure/paintheory. Short-term gain is not necessarily considered moreimportant than long-term gain. Killing animals for food can be consideredmorally justified because human beings have nutritional needs and mayrequire animal protein to survive. Our obligations to animals and nature are intimately connected to ourobligations to human beings. However, if thatenvironmental damage is so severe and long-lasting that it would produceproblems for future generations, then environmentally unsound actions wouldbe considered immoral. For example, the effects of global warmingwill cause pain to large numbers of people in the future; therefore, anyaction that causes global warming is immoral and any action that preventsit would be an ethical act. If a person's intention is to rightlyfollow moral law, then any action can be considered moral, regardless ofthe consequences. However, animals do feel pain andvegetarianism is a viable option.
Common topics in this essay:
Bentham Mill,
Stuart Mill's,
According Mill's,
Jeremy Bentham,
,
killing animals,
moral theory,
animals nature,
deontological moral,
John Stuart,
food considered morally,
killing animals acceptable,
consequences john stuart,
causes pleasure pain,
follow moral,
pleasure pain,
causes pleasure,
pleasure people,
bentham mill,
regardless consequences john,
action causes,
|
Acceptance Essays
