Categorical and Consequentialist Moral Reasoning: Writing Assignment 1_ ETH-230-OL014

This assignment examines scenarios from both a categorical and consequentialist perspective.

Categorical reasoning holds that there are certain actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. In other words, the ends never justify the means with categorical moral reasoning. One well-known example of this is the ethical principle called the "non-aggression principle" which states that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person, even if doing so would produce a good outcome.

On the other hand, consequentialist reasoning assesses the morality of an action based on its anticipated results. So, in a consequentialist view, the ends always justify the means. A famous example of this is utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it produces the most happiness for the greatest number of people.

Let's look at a few scenarios to see how these two different types of moral reasoning would assess the same situation.

Scenario 1: You are walking down the street when you see a man being mugged. The mugger has a knife and is demanding the victim's wallet. You have a gun in your pocket. Do you shoot the mugger?

Categorical reasoning would say no, you should not shoot the mugger, because it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. Even though shooting the mugger would stop the robbery and probably save the victim's life, that does not make it morally right.

Con consequentialist reasoning would say yes, you should shoot the mugger because doing so would produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Although shooting someone is normally considered wrong, in this case, it would prevent a greater evil (the mugging) from taking place.

Scenario 2: You are a doctor working in a hospital in a developing country. There is a shortage of supplies and you must choose between using what little you have to save the life of an infant or using it to save the life of an adult. What do you do?

Categorical reasoning would say that you should use the supplies to save the infant because it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. The fact that the adult might be able to contribute more to society does not make it right to let them die.

Consequentialist reasoning would say that you should use the supplies to save the adult, because doing so would save more lives in the long run. Although it is tragic to let an infant die, saving the adult will allow them to continue working and helping others, which will have a greater positive impact on society as a whole.

As you can see, categorical and consequentialist moral reasoning can sometimes lead to different conclusions about what is right or wrong in a given situation. There is no easy answer about which type of reasoning is better. Ultimately, it depends on what you think is more important: following absolute ethical principles or maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.