Moral Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Moral Philosophy EssayHargon exercisings the indirect version of utilitarianism. hare believes that somebodys can deliberate at the a priori level. In dire situations where there is no time to evaluate determinations on a critical level, intuition maybe used to commit most acts. learn utilitarianism follows a rigid rules approach to utilitarianism. Hares approach implies that certain acts done intuitively will become clean because the decision was made on a catgut level instinct instead of simply following a set of rules. Hare attempts to distinguish his theories from crude or direct utilitarianism. However, it would see that he does not remove the problems of direct utilitarianism, but he manages to create new ones. An act (for act utilitarians) or rule (for rule utilitarians) is right if and merely if the act or rule maximizes the utility of all in all persons (or sentient beings). 1 Following the direct utilitarianism approach, there is no flexibility for human emotio n or consequences. In addition, there is no true definition of what is right for all persons. An example would be a decision by a surgeon in an emergency room to save the life of an elderly priest or that of a young man that was in a terrible car accident.By the direct utilitarianism approach, the surgeon would have to ascertain what would be best for all persons. Such a decision would realistically be made deliberation and gut instinct. The direct utilitarianism approach does not answer what is best for everyone in this grapheme of circumstance. The problem with Hares approach is one can prove close to any moral dilemma with custom tailored and non-realistic circumstances where gut instinct would be used as the determining factor for the situation. There are no set guidelines for defining what is moral for these extenuating circumstances.Hare in general often speaks about conflicting desires, and he seems to adhere to Platos tone that being good coincides with being informed. Wh at Hare fails to address is that some individuals might desire to do evil. Hare presumes that the individual is going to conform to the standards of society and use deliberation to not commit heinous and horrific acts. With the direct utilitarianism approach, individuals will act for the good of everyone thus more likely to conform to moral restrictions lay upon them by society.Hares approach states that individuals will follow gut instinct to do what is moral but at the same time Hares approach calls for individuals to follow deliberation when making some decisions. For the individual that is a sociopath, Hares response would be that the sociopath would condemn those desires at a critical level. 2 With the assumption of individual conformity to the groups standard, Hare is contracting his gut instinct part of the decision making progress.Hare argues that direct utilitarianism cannot accommodate political rights because the government is an institutional set of rules and regulation s. orchestrate utilitarianism assumes that the government knows what is best for the majority. Hares approach would consider the individual to deliberate as to follow the rules set forth by the government. Using Hares approach it would be ethical for an individual to avert to pay taxes or speed on the highway because there wouldve been a deliberation and analysis based on the critical level of thinking.Hares approach is more direct utilitarianism on the political issues because the individual will most likely make a choice that is inherently good for everyone to forefend negative consequences such as a speeding ticket or imprisonment. Each decision or choice that the individual makes results in some type of consequence. Hares approach to indirect utilitarianism does not address consequences. The direct utilitarianism addresses consequences because the individual is going to follow rules that are set forth for the good of the whole.Direct utilitarianism requires conformity to soc ietal standards to maximize individual happiness. Hares approach requires that the individual deliberate and make a decision. Yet, the other part of his approach requires the individual to follow gut instinct while conforming to good of the whole to make an ethical decision. Instead of refuting the direct utilitarianism approach, Hare is supporting the notion that we all have a set of rules that we inherently follow.To strictly follow Hares approach to indirect utilitarianism, society would be in total crazy house because virtually any circumstance can be manipulated to appear as though the individual was following instinct and thus making a moral decision. There are no overall guidelines for extenuating circumstances with Hares approach to indirect utilitarianism. Hare creates more chaos in trying to refute the direct utilitarianism approach instead of providing solid arguments for the nature of human beings and ethical decisions.