Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,  if it follows the rule or moral law. According to the deontological view, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts "truth-telling" for exampleor follow an objectively obligatory rule as in rule utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.
References and Further Reading 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics One way of categorizing the field of ethics as a study of morality is by distinguishing between its three branches, one of them being applied ethics.
By contrasting applied ethics with the other branches, one can get a better understanding what exactly applied ethics is about. The three branches are metaethicsnormative ethics sometimes referred to as ethical theoryand applied ethics.
Metaethics deals with whether morality exists. Normative ethics, usually assuming an affirmative answer to the existence question, deals with the reasoned construction of moral principles, and at its highest level, determines what the fundamental principle of morality is.
Applied ethics, also usually assuming an affirmative answer to the existence question, addresses the moral permissibility of specific actions and practices. Although there are many avenues of research in metaethics, one main avenue starts with the question of whether or not moral judgments are truth-apt.
The following will illuminate this question. Consider the following claims: A large proportion of people, and perhaps cross-culturally, will say that this claim is true and hence truth-apt. So, it is the branch of metaethics that deals with this question, and not applied ethics.
Normative ethics is concerned with principles of morality. This branch itself can be divide into various sub-branches and in various ways: A consequentialist theory says that an action is morally permissible if and only if it maximizes overall goodness relative to its alternatives.
Consequentialist theories are specified according to what they take to be intrinsically good. Modern utilitarians, on the other hand, define goodness in terms of things like preference-satisfaction, or even well-being.
Other kinds of consequentialists will consider less subjective criteria for goodness. But, setting aside the issue of what constitutes goodness, there is a rhetorical argument supporting consequentialist theories: I take this straight from Robert N. For example, consider the Transplant Problem, in which the only way to save five dying people is by killing one person for organ transplantation to the five.
Such theories either place rights or duties as fundamental to morality. One is not morally permitted to save five lives by cutting up another person for organ transplantation because the one person has a right against any person to be treated in this way.
Similarly, there is a duty for all people to make sure that they do not treat others in a way that merely makes them a means to the end of maximizing overall goodness, whatever that may be. Finally, we have virtue theories. But given that we live in a world of action, of doing, the question of what one ought to do creeps up.
Therefore, according to such theories, what one ought to do is what the ideally virtuous person would do. What should I do?
Then whatever I do from there is what I should do now. This theory is initially appealing, but nevertheless, there are lots of problems with it, and we cannot get into them for an article like this.
Applied ethics, unlike the other two branches, deals with questions that started this article — for example, under what conditions is an abortion morally permissible? Notice the specificity compared to the other two branches.
Already, though, one might wonder whether the way to handle these applied problems is by applying one of the branches. Actually, this may be wrong. It might be the case that even if we are in error about morality existing, we can nevertheless give reasons which support our illusions in specified cases.
More concretely, there really is no truth of the matter about the moral permissibility of abortion, but that does not stop us from considering whether we should have legislation that places constraints on it.
Perhaps there are other reasons which would support answers to this issue.timberdesignmag.com is the place to go to get the answers you need and to ask the questions you want.
Do green products make us better people? Mazar N. and Zhong C.-B.
Psychological Science 21(4): Consumer choices not only reflect price and quality preferences but also social and moral values. Pamela Abbott and Claire Wallace Pamela Abbott Director of the Centre for Equality and Diversity at Glasgow Caledonian University. Journal of Consumer Marketing Emerald Article: The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?
Marylyn Carrigan, Ahmad Attalla. BOOK III. BEFORE speaking of the different forms of government, let us try to fix the exact sense of the word, which has not yet been very clearly explained.. 1. GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. I WARN the reader that this chapter requires careful reading, and that I am unable to make myself clear to those who refuse to be attentive.
Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one. Meat and meat products currently represent an important source of protein in the human diet, and their quality varies according to intrinsic and extrinsic parameters that can sometimes be shaped to make a product more desirable.