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 outcomes of the other person's activities? In the event 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 portrays the consequentialist see. As Stephen J. Freeman clarifies, consequentialism is the conviction that activities or potentially runs are directly as long as they produce the most good ramifications for those influenced by the activities or rules (Freeman 63). Consequentialists see the profound quality of a result in two viewpoints. One viewpoint is what is called moral vanity. Moral selfishness is the possibility that ethical quality is characterized as acting to one's greatest advantage and so as to expand the results of good over terrible (Freeman 49). Rather than moral selfishness is utilitarianism. Utilitarianists see profound quality as when an activity advances the best equalization of good over terrible for all individuals. Utilitarianism is a teleological, objective coordinated hypothesis underscoring joy as the final product of human activity (Freeman 49). In Freeman's book on morals, he examines Holmes' proposition of two kinds of teleological moral speculations that apply to these two varying consequentialist sees. Holmes' proposition is that of small scale and large scale morals. Small scale morals respects the satisfaction of the person as the most elevated great and characterizes what is directly as the activity that augments that end. By definition, small scale morals is fundamentally the same as the conviction of moral pride. Then again, large scale morals sees satisfaction as the prosperity of a gathering in general and characterizes what is directly as the activity that boosts 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 whole of any of its parts (Freeman 49). Those on the side of large scale morals would legitimize the penanc e of an individual or part inside the gathering, as long as it realizes useful ramifications for the gathering overall.