Mindmap
Consequentialism 2
Inhalt der Mindmap
Consequentialism 2
utilitarianism continued
- Slippery Slope Arguments
- utilitarian reasoning is widespread in moral and political arguments. one popular form that such reasoning can take is that of a slippery slope argument.
- these arguments are designed to criticism certain social innovations on the grounds that allowing them will lead to terrible results in the long run. 2 essential elements to any such argument. 1st- a prediction that serious avoidable harm will result if some new practice or policy is allowed. the argument combines this prediction with the utilitarian requirement to choose options that will minimize harm or maximise happiness. if for instance, allowing the production and sale of genetically modified food will cause way more suffering and far less benefit than prohibiting it, then we should ban its manufacture and use. accoriding to this argument, doing anything else would be both short sighted and immoral.
- look at euthansia example
- we can undermine a slippery sloe argument by showing that the fire forecast at it's core is not as plausible as it may seem.i.e in 1960s and 1950s slippery slope arguments that foretold the doom that would come if long standing segregationist laws were lifted
- h/w sometimes quite difficult to know whether a prediction at the heart of a s l argument is plausible. often case with radical social reforms, rarely been tested
- 'since we lack such evidence we should continue to forbid it'. but such a rule would prevent all sorts of morally important social innovations; after all, we can't prove they will be beneficial if we are never permitted to test them out. also does the status quo result in needless suffering?
- 'since we lack such evidence we should continue to forbid it'. but such a rule would prevent all sorts of morally important social innovations; after all, we can't prove they will be beneficial if we are never permitted to test them out. also does the status quo result in needless suffering?
- h/w sometimes quite difficult to know whether a prediction at the heart of a s l argument is plausible. often case with radical social reforms, rarely been tested
- we can undermine a slippery sloe argument by showing that the fire forecast at it's core is not as plausible as it may seem.i.e in 1960s and 1950s slippery slope arguments that foretold the doom that would come if long standing segregationist laws were lifted
- look at euthansia example
- these arguments are designed to criticism certain social innovations on the grounds that allowing them will lead to terrible results in the long run. 2 essential elements to any such argument. 1st- a prediction that serious avoidable harm will result if some new practice or policy is allowed. the argument combines this prediction with the utilitarian requirement to choose options that will minimize harm or maximise happiness. if for instance, allowing the production and sale of genetically modified food will cause way more suffering and far less benefit than prohibiting it, then we should ban its manufacture and use. accoriding to this argument, doing anything else would be both short sighted and immoral.
- utilitarian reasoning is widespread in moral and political arguments. one popular form that such reasoning can take is that of a slippery slope argument.
- Slippery Slope Arguments
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Mindmap am Consequentialism 2, erstellt von penguinolympics am 14/04/2016.
- Erstellt von
- penguinolympics
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung