Double Effect application

The principle of double effect has played a significant role in the discussion of many difficult normative
questions. Its most prominent applications are in medical ethics, where it figures prominently in attempts to
distinguish among permissible and impermissible procedures in a range of obstetrical cases. The Catholic
magisterium has argued that the principle allows one to distinguish morally among cases where a pregnancy
may need to be ended in order to preserve the life of the mother. The principle is alleged to allow the removal
of a life-threatening cancerous uterus, even though this procedure will bring the death of a fetus, on the
grounds that in this case the death of the fetus is not "directly" intended. The principle disallows cases,
however, in which a craniotomy (the crushing of the fetus's skull) is required to preserve a pregnant woman's
life, on the grounds that here a genuine evil, the death of the fetus, is "directly" intended. There there is
significant disagreement, even among those philosophers who accept the principle, about the cogency of this
application. Some philosophers and theologians, by emphasizing the fourth, "proportionality," condition, argue
that the greater value attaching to the pregnant woman's life makes even craniotomy morally acceptable.
Others fail to see a morally significant difference between the merely "foreseen" death of the fetus in the
cancerous uterus case and the "directly" intended death in the craniotomy case.

Categorical Imperative Application
One of the advantages of this approach to morality is that it looks more closely at the individual and his
choices, rather than the actual consequences of what he does (which, after all, he has no control over). Take
this example; a scientist decides that he is going to find a cure for a particular sort of cancer, and spends years
trying to accomplish this. Look at his intent its highly moral. But imagine that he accidentally invents some
sort of super weapon instead, which eventually leads to the total destruction of entire civilizations. This is not a
positive result, but it was not what he wanted to achieve. The utilitarian would say that he is a bad person
nevertheless, as he has caused massive amounts of suffering. But its not what he wanted to do. Kants
approach here seems preferable, and much fairer.

The main problem with the categorical imperative is its rigidity. The famous example that illustrates this is that
of a crazed axe-murderer coming to your front door and asking you where your children are. You could lie
many would say you should lie but imagine if everyone in the entire world lied all the time. If everyone lied,
there would be no telling the truth and, thus, no real lying. As the law is logically contradictory, you have a
perfect duty not to lie. You have to tell the axe-murderer the truth, so he can go and kill your children. Kant was
asked about this personally, and he said that this was indeed the case. It would be immoral to lie to the man.
He did, however, say that you could also choose to lock your door and call the police. Heres another example
youre in a room with a man whos holding a gun to your mothers head. You know hell shoot her any
second. Right next to you, theres a button. If you press the button, the man will fall through a trap door and
land in a spike pit, dying instantly. Your mother will be saved. According to the categorical imperative, this
would be the wrong thing to do. You cant press the button. But if you dont, your mother will die. Its in
situations like this that strict ethical systems with specific decision procedures tend to fall apart. Morality is
simply too complex, too full of exceptions for these theories to ever fully work.

Maxim: I may make a false promise in order to reap financial gain.
Generalized: Anyone may make a false promise to get something s/he wants.

This is self-contradictory because:

If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody would take a promise seriously; promising becomes
meaningless.

Result: I may not act on that maxim.

The maxim fails Test One.
Similar reasoning leads Kant to conclude that any maxim permitting theft or lying must be rejected.

A thief's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the institution of property, but unless the institution of
property exists, there can be no theft.

A liar's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the assumption of truthfulness, but without this assumption,
no lie can even be attempted.
Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay me even though I could do so at little
cost to myself.

Generalized: Anyone may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay her even though it would
cost her little to help.

Can it be conceived? Yes.

Could you will this to be a universal law? Probably not, because you might find yourself in a situation of
extreme need and nobody else would help you.

Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan" maxim.

Virtue ethics application
Virtue ethics is an approach that deemphasizes rules, consequences and particular acts and places the focus
on the kind of person who is acting. The issue is not primarily whether an intention is right, though that is
important; nor is it primarily whether one is following the correct rule; nor is it primarily whether the
consequences of action are good, though these factors are not irrelevant.
What is primary is whether the person acting is expressing good character (moral virtues) or not.
A person's character is the totality of his character traits. Our character traits can be good, bad or somewhere
in between. They can be admirable or not. The admirable character traits, the marks of perfection in character,
are called virtues, their opposites are vices.
Character traits are
1) dispositions or habit-like tendencies that are deeply entrenched or engrained. They have been referred to as
second nature--"first nature" referring to tendencies with which we are born. Character traits are not innate--we
were not born with them. Thus infants are neither virtuous nor vicious.
2) formed as a result of more or less freely selected actions of a certain kind. We are not born honest or liars,
but we become so by repeatedly telling the truth or by repeatedly lying.
Moral Virtues :
1) are admirable character traits; generally desirable dispositions, which contribute, among other things, to
social harmony
Craft knowledge is a technical virtue specific to a particular line of work (rhetoric or the art of effective
persuasion, the housebuilder's art, the computer programmer's art, the accountant's art). The moral virtues
have a more general scope.
2) enable us to act in accordance with reason
You cannot be morally reasonable in the fullest sense, you cannot have the virtue called prudence, unless you
are morally virtuous. The person who is not morally virtuous is sometimes ruled by his or her appetites or
passions. Her emotions get in the way of doing the reasonable thing or even recognizing what the reasonable
thing might be.
3) enable us to feel appropriately and have the right intention
The person whose character is less than virtuous may do what looks, from the outside, like the right thing to
do, but her motives will leave something to be desired. A truthful person will usually tell the truth, and he will do
so because it is the right thing to do, not because he fears the negative consequences of being found out.
4) are orientations towards the mean, rather than the extremes (vices relate to extremes).
In Aristotle's famous study of character, a frequent theme is the fact that a virtue lies between two vices. The
virtue of courage, for example, lies between the vices of rashness and cowardice. The coward has too much
fear, or fear when he should have none. The rash person has too little fear and excessive confidence. The
courageous person has the right amount.
While courage is the virtue related to the emotions of fear and confidence, mildness is the virtue related to
anger. A person who gets angry too quickly will be irascible; a person who never gets angry, even when she
should, is inirascible (the term does not matter). The virtuous person will get angry when she should, but not
excessively and not contrary to reason. Aristotle calls the virtue of appropriate anger mildness or gentleness.
Emotion/Action Vice: Deficiency Virtue: Mean ("Middle") Vice: Excess
Giving Money Stinginess Generosity Prodigality
Fear Rashness Courage Cowardice
Anger Inirascibility Mildness Irascibility
Seeking Pleasure Insensibility Moderation Self-Indulgence
Virtue ethics can be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action by relating the choice to
admirable character traits:
An act or choice is morally right if, in carrying out the act, one exercises, exhibits or develops a morally virtuous
character. It is morally wrong to the extent that by makiing the choice or doing the act one exercises, exhibits
or develops a morally vicious character.
To apply virtue ethics to a given case one should discuss which character traits (virtues, vices, intermediate
states) are relevant and reflect on the kind of actions, attitudes, and feelings go along with them. It is not
enough to say "This action expresses virtue," you must say which virtue (generosity, appropriate compassion)
and be prepared to say why.
Virtue ethics can be used to praise or criticize institutions. Do they express virtues or vices? Do they promote
or hinder the development of virtue? For example, some bureaucracies are criticized because they are cold
and insensitive, or because they make people irresponsible, negligent or lazy.
Application of virtue ethics require a sensitive appreciation of human character and therefore considerable
familiarity with human psychology. It used to be easier to talk about these things because, in past ages,
members of a culture shared a common background, a set of stories with heroes and villains, and we formed
our notions of good character from heroes and bad character from villains.
Utilitarianism Application
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

How can the inhumane homicide of thousands of people be justified as anything even distantly resembling
morality? This is the opinion that the majority of us, who know how (during World War 2) the atomic bombs
dropped upon these two Japanese towns nearly wiped out their entire populations, maintain. It was an utterly
unnecessary action. However, a few people who were aware that the Japanese were in the process of
developing atomic weaponry themselves debate that had the United States not undertaken this brutal but
intervening action, many more nations could have been wiped out in Japan's quest for world dominion. Again, I
would like to remind the reader that this is not my personal opinion, but rather a compilation of what an
influential minority forwarded as a justification for the bombings.

Examples in Business

If we delve deeper, we can see a lot of examples of utilitarianism in business and workplace. One very good
example is the airlines industry. We all know that business class passengers pay a premium price to get all the
luxuries of that class that the airline offers. Now, if you know the huge difference between the price of an
economy class ticket and a business class ticket, do you think that the extra amenities that are being offered to
the business class travelers, traveling for the same amount of time as the economy class, really worth the
exorbitant price? Now, once you come to delve deeper into this, you'll realize that the premium price charged
from the business class travelers - the ones who can easily afford it - are actually used to ease out the burden
of deficit that the airline would have to bear if it is to allow the economy class passengers the opportunity for air
travel at a lower price. The principle also plays in case of discriminatory pricing strategies of companies when
pricing products for different customer segments having different income levels.

The idea of utilitarianism is tightly intertwined with the philosophy of consequentialism. The philosophy of
consequentialism is based on the belief that the moral and ethical value of one's action should be judged by
the consequence of such action. This philosophy states that the morality of an action is best judged by the
utility or usefulness of such an action. In essence, therefore, the premises of utilitarianism can be referred to as
a variation or extension of the philosophy of consequentialism. Now, before we proceed towards looking at
some examples, let us discuss this idea a little in detail.