Doing the Right Thing in Hamlet :: The Tragedy of Hamlet Essays

Doing the Right Thing in Hamlet   â â When an individual has gone in a specific direction, who is to decide if that activity taken was correct or wrong? Also, what premise should the individual condemning use to choose whether that activity was correct or wrong? Should the individual condemning think about the other person's motivation or aim in making the move, or would it be a good idea for him to consider the subsequent results of the other person's activities? On the off chance that the individual condemning were to decide to do the first of these two other options, he would be taking a deontological position, when contrasted with the later which depicts the consequentialist see. As Stephen J. Freeman clarifies, consequentialism is the conviction that activities or potentially leads are directly as long as they produce the most good ramifications for those influenced by the activities or rules (Freeman 63). Consequentialists see the ethical quality of an outcome in two viewpoints. One perspective is what is called moral selfishness. Moral pride is the possibility that profound quality is characterized as acting to one's greatest advantage and so as to amplify the results of good over awful (Freeman 49). As opposed to moral selfishness is utilitarianism. Utilitarianists see ethical quality as when an activity advances the best equalization of good over terrible for all individuals. Utilitarianism is a teleological, objective coordinated hypothesis underscoring bliss as the final product of human activity (Freeman 49). In Freeman's book on morals, he talks about Holmes' proposition of two sorts of teleological moral hypotheses that apply to these two contrasting consequentialist sees. Holmes' proposition is that of small scale and large scale morals. Smaller scale morals respects the joy of the person as the most noteworthy great and characterizes what is directly as the activity that amplifies that end. By definition, miniaturized scale morals is fundamentally the same as the conviction of moral vanity. Then again, full scale morals sees joy as the prosperity of a gathering in general and characterizes what is directly as the activity that expands that end. As utilized here, a gathering can be those individuals of a particular city, state, country, or race, and a specific gathering has more prominent significance than a specific individual or subgroup inside it, since its great surpasses the total of any of its parts (Freeman 49). Those on the side of full scale morals would legitimize the penance of an individual or part inside the gathering, as long as it achieves valuable ramifications for the gathering in general.