are still objectively likely or probable, unlike the case of Alice. However, it is useful to make the following distinction: Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -.e., the guide to good or right conduct. Opponents still object that all such consequentialist theories are misdirected. For such reasons, some rule utilitarians conclude that it would not maximize utility for people generally to accept a rule that allows doctors to transplant organs from unwilling donors. What is wrong with the slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave owner's ends,.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The scholar who systematized this position was his successor Heinrich Rickert, who had come from the tradition of Kuno Fischer. One common example of such is the theory of utilitarianism. Then those who want to talk about the even smaller group of moral theories that accepts both evaluative consequentialism and agent-neutrality may describe them as agent-neutral evaluative consequentialism. Similarly, critics of utilitarianism often argue that utilitarians cannot be good friends, because a good friend places more weight on the welfare of his or her friends than on the welfare of strangers, but utilitarianism requires impartiality among all people. Meanwhile, logical empiricists (or logical positivists ) were interested only in the analysis of expressions of moral judgment, which they reduced to imperative statements that are emotive and aimed at winning adherents. Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights.
Consequentialism stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy )
Some hedonists claim that this objection rests on a misinterpretation of hedonism. If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. This narrower definition is motivated by the fact that many self-styled critics of consequentialism argue against agent-neutrality. Contents, main article: Kantian ethics, kantian ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotions or end goals. The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. Beck, a protg of Kant, it was the act of synthesis; for the empirical critic of Kantianism.E. Then, if deception causes false beliefs, deception is instrumentally bad, and agents ought not to lie without a good reason, even when lying causes no pain or loss of pleasure. Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. Consequentialist moral theories that focus on reasonably foreseeable consequences are then not subjective insofar as they do not depend on anything inside the actual subject's mind, but they are subjective insofar as they do depend on which consequences this particular subject would foresee. Harsanyi (1977, 1978) argues that all informed, rational people whose impartiality is ensured because they do not know their place in society would favor a kind of consequentialism.