Moral Philosophy Essay

coney uses the in portentousct magnetic variation of utilitarianism. hare believes that several(prenominal)s can deliberate at the intuitive level. In dire situations where there is no time to evaluate finales on a life-sustaining level, intuition maybe used to commit most acts. Direct utilitarianism weds a rigid receives feeler to utilitarianism. lapins draw close implies that certain acts make intuitively will become moral because the closing was made on a gut level instinct instead of simply pursual a set of rules. Hare attempts to distinguish his theories from crude or indicate utilitarianism.However, it would seem that he does not remove the troubles of submit utilitarianism, but he military personnelages to create new ones. An act (for act utilitarians) or rule (for rule utilitarians) is right if and only if the act or rule maximizes the utility of alone persons (or sentient beings). 1 Following the direct utilitarianism speak to, there is no flexibility f or human emotion or consequences. In addition, there is no certain definition of what is right for all persons. An example would be a decision by a sawbones in an emergency room to uphold 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 type of circumstance. The problem with Hares approach is one can prove most any moral dilemma with custom tailored and non-realistic circumstances where gut instinct would be used as the determining factor for the situation. in that respect 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 bandage to Platos theory that being good coin cides with being informed. What Hare fails to train is that some respective(prenominal)s might desire to do evil. Hare presumes that the individual is overtaking to conform to the standards of society and use deliberation to not commit atrocious and horrific acts. With the direct utilitarianism approach, individuals will act for the good of everyone so more than likely to conform to moral restrictions placed 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 searing level. 2 With the assumption of individual conformance to the conventions standard, Hare is contracting his gut instinct part of the decision making progress.Hare argues that direct utilitarianism cannot accommodate political rights becau se the government is an institutional set of rules and regulations. Direct utilitarianism assumes that the government knows what is best for the majority. Hares approach would require the individual to deliberate as to follow the rules set by by the government. Using Hares approach it would be honest for an individual to refuse to pay taxes or speed on the roadway 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 avoid 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 expiration to follow rules that are set forth for the good of the complete.Direct utilitarianism requires conformity to societal 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 chaos 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 boilers suit 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.