This essay focuses on proto-utilitarian positions.Though there are many varieties of the view discuss, utilitarianism is generally hold to be the view.
Please follow the instructions by using any 1 case in the book attached EXCEPT case 3-6 title “Is The Patient Always Right?”. It should be a case that has some level of complexity to it so it can be address fully. It is very important that throughout the essay, it is use and engage relevant terms of ethics introduce at the beginning of the book.
For example, consequentialism, utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology, beneficence and non-maleficence. And most importantly the Pharmacist Code of Ethics. Please let me know if you have any other questions: email@example.com thank you.
Though not fully articulate until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discern throughout the history of ethical theory.
Though there are many varieties of the view discuss, utilitarianism is generally hold to be the view. The morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim.
The right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the , proto-utilitarian positions overall good — that is. Consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure. So, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good. That is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.
Everyone’s happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially consider. My good counts for no more than anyone else’s good. Further, the reason I have to promote the , proto-utilitarian positions overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.
All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making have proven. To be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory.