applied ethics

Question 1

instrumental rationality

Answer 1

using reason as a means to achieve an end

Question 2

utilitarianism on simulated killing

Answer 2

• wouldn’t consider simulated killing as immoral as it gives pleasure to the participants and no one is harmed or hurt in the process - there is no harm in killing a virtual person
• the utilitarian would only consider it immoral only if there was a clear connection between the simulated killing and subsequent killing

Question 3

kantian deontological ethics on simulated killing - moral agents

Answer 3

1. kant argues that we only have moral duty towards another person- in the context of simulated killing, no actual person is physically harmed. a simulated being is not an actual being and therefore is not part of the moral world

Question 4

kantian deontological ethics on simulated killing - formulation of categorical imperative

Answer 4

• simulated killing can pass the universalisability test: it would not lead to any contradiction in conception or will. simulated killing is not actual killing.
• it is morally acceptable to treat simulated characters as a means to an end because they are not actual moral agents.

Question 5

virtue ethics on simulated killing

Answer 5

aristotle assesses the morality of simulated killing not in term s of whether the action itself is right or wrong but how it affects the character of the person doing it

Question 6

virtue ethics on simulated killing - development of character

Answer 6

So the cumulative effect of playing games which involve simulated killing may lead to the development of character traits that are not virtuous, such as injustice and unkindness, or at least inhibit the development of character traits that are virtuous, such as justice and kindness. Simulated killing is wrong if it prevents the development of virtue, and so prevents the gamer from achieving eudaimonia.