Moral permissibility

Definition

Moral permissibility refers to the status of an action being acceptable or allowable within a moral framework. It plays a crucial role in ethical theories, determining whether specific actions can be justified without violating moral principles. This concept is particularly significant when evaluating the implications of various ethical theories and their respective critiques, especially when weighing the outcomes against moral duties.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Moral permissibility often intersects with discussions about rights, obligations, and the consequences of actions in ethical debates.
2. Consequentialist theories can sometimes justify actions that may seem morally wrong if the outcomes are deemed beneficial, which raises questions about moral permissibility.
3. Critiques of consequentialism often argue that it overlooks individual rights and duties, leading to scenarios where morally impermissible actions could be justified.
4. The debate about moral permissibility highlights tensions between different ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
5. Understanding moral permissibility is essential for evaluating real-world dilemmas where actions must be assessed not only for their outcomes but also for their adherence to moral principles.

Review Questions

• How does the concept of moral permissibility challenge the principles of consequentialist ethics?
  • The concept of moral permissibility challenges consequentialist ethics by questioning whether the ends truly justify the means. While consequentialism focuses on the outcomes of actions to determine their morality, moral permissibility emphasizes adherence to ethical standards and duties. This conflict arises when a consequence-based evaluation might deem an action permissible despite it violating established moral principles, prompting a deeper discussion on what actions are genuinely acceptable within a moral framework.
• Discuss how critiques of consequentialism relate to issues of moral permissibility in ethical decision-making.
  • Critiques of consequentialism often highlight its tendency to allow morally questionable actions if they lead to favorable outcomes, which raises concerns about moral permissibility. For instance, if sacrificing one innocent life could save many others is considered permissible under consequentialism, critics argue that this undermines individual rights and ethical duties. These critiques stress the importance of a more balanced approach that considers both outcomes and moral principles, emphasizing that moral permissibility should not solely depend on consequential assessments.
• Evaluate the implications of defining moral permissibility in relation to both consequentialist and deontological frameworks.
  • Defining moral permissibility in relation to both consequentialist and deontological frameworks illustrates a fundamental tension in ethical theory. Consequentialism allows for actions that may be considered morally impermissible if they yield positive outcomes, challenging traditional views on ethics. In contrast, deontological ethics maintains that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. This duality prompts critical evaluation of how we assess morality, suggesting that a comprehensive understanding of moral permissibility must integrate insights from both perspectives to address complex ethical dilemmas effectively.

Related terms

Consequentialism:

An ethical theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their outcomes or consequences.

Deontology:

An ethical approach that focuses on adherence to moral rules or duties rather than the consequences of actions.

Utilitarianism:

A specific form of consequentialism that evaluates actions based on their ability to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.