w5responsesphilosophy

  Description: 1- Utilitarianism is a teleologicaVconsequentialist ethical theory, in that it considers the happiness and suffering likely to be yielded by a given action (Mitchell 455)- ft is thus different from deontology (which focuses on duty, not outcomes) virtue ethics (which focuses on character rather than action) and existentialism (which eschews universal objective ethical values altogether)- Can you elaborate on you understanding of the differences between deontology and utilitarianism by reflecting upon how each might approach a particular ethical question, such as the Baby Theresa example in the textbook (Mitchell 456)? 2- Unlike deontology and utilitarianism, virtue ethics is more focused on who we should be than on how we should act- The difficult question in virtue ethics, then, is not whether a given act is ethically justified but, rather, whether one is a person of good character- Virtue ethics and care ethics are related, insofar as both focus more on the kind of person we should be 0-e-, the characteristics we should habituate ouselves to have) than on what we should do in a particular instance- The difference is that virtue ethics focuses on ou' rational determination of which virtues we should develop in ouselves while care ethics is critical of the idea of the autonomous, rational ethical subject, focusing instead on internalizing a caring comportment towards others (Mitchell 467)- tt does seem as though both virtue ethics and care ethics would maintain that the man should retu'n the ring to its rightful owner; thus, it might be interesting to consider the ethical responsibility of the people actually committing the adultery in you first example. What might a caring response to this situation look like?3- a deontologist would take a different approach given that this theory is focused on the duty we owe to ouselves and other rational beings and that harvesting Baby Theresa's organs would be treating her as a means to an end (Mitchell 459)- it seems as though baby Theresa's parents took a utilitarian approach, in their own view, in that they considered not universal rights or their own subjective happiness but, rather, the pleasue and suffering to be yielded for everyone likely to be impacted by their decision- The deontological conclusion hinges upon the assumption that Baby Theresa counts as a person in the Kantian sense- What makes a person a member of the Kingdom of Ends according to deontology? Would Baby Theresa qualify? Do you see any problems with associating personhood with rationally?