Members:

Javier Rodriguez
Javier Pintado
Javier Cordero
Christian Saraguro
 It can be said that deontological ethics as a
fundamental principle says that to be good
consists in following the correct rules and fulfilling
all your obligations. Very contrary case says to the
consequentialism. Consequentialism is not very
situational. (For example, if killing is wrong, it is
always wrong, even if killing someone saves a
million lives).
 Consequentialism is based on two principles: Whether an act is right or wrong depends solely on
the results of that act and the more good consequences an act produces, the better or better that
act will be.
 What this guide theoretically gives us when faced with a moral dilemma: A person must choose
the action that maximizes the good consequences.
 And therefore gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live to maximize the
good consequences.
Rules for ethics can come from anywhere; for example, W. D.
Ross thought it was evident that we had the following
obligations:
 1 Fidelity;
 2 Reparation;
 3 Gratitude;
 4 Justice;
 5 Damage Prevention;
 6 Self-improvement;
 7 Misappropriation Absence.
 This at the same time is very heavy so many people are not satisfied with a simple list of rules,
but want a systematic response to what determines the rules. This is the context in which Kantian
ethics come into play. In which it is based on two great affirmations:

1. The only source of moral goodness is Will

2. A Good Will is one that acts for universal reasons
 In summary, as to what we should actually attribute to the word "good," Kant first discards skills
and talents, because they can be used for evil. It should also be noted that he discards
consequences, because they do not ultimately depend on us, and goodness should not be based
on luck. The only thing we always have control over is our will: we can choose which policies to
apply within our own minds. The fact that will is the source of goodness is further confirmed by
the fact that reason is the thing that is most distinctively human. Reason is too bad to make us
happy (you only have to consider how happy most animals are), so our ultimate purpose cannot
be happiness. The only reason it's good is to allow us to consider and follow good
principles/maximums.
 Altarejos, F. et al. (1998). Ética docente. Elementos para una deontología profesional. Barcelona :
Ariel, SA.
 Leathard, A. & Mclaren, S. (Eds.) (2007). Ethics. Contemporary Challenges in Health and Social
Care. Great Britain : MPG Books Ltd. Bodmin