When making ethical decisions, sequencing can often be applied to behavioral relativism theory guides. Philosophers and ethics use teleology from "telos" Greek, ie from the end (Beckner 2004). Conclusion The term was first used in the theory of responsibility (1), but (2) generally used the theory of right and wrong. (1) the view that an agent is both responsible for the intended consequences of the plot and its unforeseen but predictable consequences (Anscombe 1958).
Ethical theories underlying the categorization of consistency mean that any action is correct or bad with the consequences of action. In other words, the consequences are generally considered to serve some internal qualities. The most widespread form of consequence is utilitarianism (social consequence), which proposes to act in the best way to bring the greatest number of the best. Consequence is a name given to ethical theories, which claims that moral law, evil and duty depend only on the value of the consequences (impacts, results) we have. Ethical egoism claims that moral law, evil, and duty depend solely on the value of consequences for the agent (Brandt, 1959).
Utilitarianism (Lyon 1992) states that moral law, evil, and obligation are exclusively for the consequences of everyone, including the agent (thereby denies ethical altruism) and everyone else (denying ethical egoism). Consequently, we have to do what we did to maximize the good consequences. This in itself does not matter what we are dealing with. What matters is to maximize the good results. One of the most popular sequences is classical (hedonistic) utilitarianism. This view says that we must do everything we can to maximize the balance of joy for pain for those affected by our action. This view can be based on the golden rule that makes us worry about the happiness and misery of others. It may be based on God's will, self-evident truths, or our personal feelings
The underlying conception of consequence is that the ethical status of an act depends on the value of its consequences. (Beckner, 2004). The notion of consequences of the act is central to the theory. The first characteristic of such a characteristic consequence is that it will allow a wide range of situations to count as a consequence. In fact, any situation that can be called the outcome of an action is one of the consequences of this act. The outcome of the act is the state of affairs caused by the act. For example, if an act promises, the promise of the promise that the promise holds is the consequence of the result to act in the fullest possible sense and the value of the consequences. Such a wide-ranging assessment of the consequences immediately facilitates the different nature of the answers to the hypothetical examples.
On the other hand, the opposite of inconsistency is the deontologist who, according to the ethical standpoint, claims that an appropriate act or a verified moral rule is otherwise, with the goodness or the bad of the consequences. "The term denotology comes from the Greek word" deon ", that is," duty "and logos, that is," logic. "This system of things is the act or kind of act" (Pojman 2002, p.). Deontological morality systems are primarily focused on observing independent moral rules or duties. So, to make the right moral decisions, we simply have to understand what our moral duty and what are the rules that govern these tasks. When we follow our duty, we behave morally. If we do not follow our duty, we behave immorally. Deontological moral systems also put some emphasis on implementing certain actions. So simply following good moral rules is often insufficient – instead, we need to provide the right motivations. This would allow a person not to be immoral, even if a moral rule has been broken, but only as long as those and obligations are objectively and absolute, and not subjectively defined.
Some examples of deontological ethical theories: the divine command: one of the most common forms of deontological moral theories is the one that derives moral obligations from a deity. Action is morally correct if you agree with the rules and tasks set by God. Duty theories: action is morally right when it is in line with the list of tasks and responsibilities. Rights theory is an action that is morally correct when properly respected by all people (or at least all members of society). This is sometimes referred to as libertarianism, political philosophy, so that people are legally free to do whatever they want until their actions affect the rights of others. Contractarianism: An action is morally right if it is in line with the rules that rational moral agents will accept if they have a social relationship (contract) with mutual benefits. Finally, monistic deontology is where action is morally true if it agrees with a certain deontological principle that governs the principle of all other subsidiarity. According to McCain R. (1999), the mixed consequences must be reasonable and ethically acceptable. It should be reasonable to promote committed views; the moral aspect is to promote the views that we have to commit. Mixed Consequence refers to moral decisions that do not always depend on the consequences. Mixed Consequence involves the causes of the correct position of actions in situations. Mixed Consequence is a combination of both consistency and deontologism, and it is only because every approach can be applied in different circumstances. "The concrete situation and the changing circumstances should be carefully considered and the decisions should be adjusted accordingly" (Beckner, 2004, p. 151).
In summary, the institutions have remained confused with the result of the measure, or when institutions take into account the virtues and nature of the decision maker. If the institutions fully follow the consequences, then they can make any decisions that are conducive to the common good and have good consequences, even if the decision is motivated by the individual or specific concern of the individual.
Beckner, W. (2004) The Anatomy of the Anatomy of Anatomy of the Anatomy of the Anatomy of the Anatomy Ethics of Educational Leaders New York: Allyn and Bacon
Lyons, D "Utilitarianism", Ethics Encyclopedia, edited by Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1992), Volume II, 1261 (2002), Ethics: Discovering Good and Bad 4th Edition) Belmont, CA Wadsworth Publishing Comapnay
Source by sbobet