More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between Deontology VS virtue ethics/ utilitarianism
Three ethical therioes deontology utilitarianism and virtue ethics
Strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Virtue, Utilitarianism, and Deontological concepts all have something in a common. Each one of these three concepts concentrates on an individual’s actions leading to various options, in addition to how the options affected others. The variations within each of these concepts are who engaged and was impacted by those options. The Virtue concept concentrates on an individual's character. One could stay in their lifestyle by seeking quality in everything they and others do (Boylan, 2009). The Utilitarianism concept considers that an activity, which is created to the advantage of a team, is fairly appropriate, if it delivers the biggest advantage to that team (Boylan, 2009). Utilitarianism is frequently known through the motto, “The biggest excellent for the biggest variety (Boylan, 2009).” between the three theories, Deontology is the most different. This concept moves around ones choice to control. Deontologists create options depending on understanding that something is right without concern to the higher excellent of others (Boylan, 2009).
Ethics and Morality
Ethics and moralit...
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
By looking further into this dilemma using various ethical standpoints allows for a broad understanding of principles and complexity in a specific situation with these paradigms. The focuses are three prominent ethical paradigms such as: teleological utilitarianism, deontological duty theories and virtue based ethics. Each of these three paradigms will be applied to the aforementioned dilemma, each will be evaluated and the best option will be revealed.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
According to deontology, people have an obligation that is imposed upon them by the duty to perform certain actions without due consideration on their consequential outcomes, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). This explains the instances where it is morally justified to perform a certain action whose pain is greater than the collective pleasures that can be derived from it, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). One of the major contributors to the deontological ethical theory is Emmanuel Kant. Deontologists include other ideologies that are inherently lacking among the consequentialist theories, particularly the utilitarianism. These aspects include the duty to act as well as a consideration of the intention to do what is right against what is wrong, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). Deontological theorists argue that good intentions or good will is what informs the moral worth of an action and not just a consideration of the
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), an American patriot and politician, once stated, "Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason"[1]. This statement is significant, as it undermines two of the primary ethical doctrines in philosophy - the deontological perspective defended by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (634), and utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) in his essay, Utilitarianism (667). Deontology and utilitarianism are contrasting theories. The former focuses on the intrinsic moral worth of our actions, whereas the latter argues that the consequences of our actions determine their moral value. Nevertheless, both perspectives substantiate Mill's claim that "our moral faculty.is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty" (678). Reason is an indispensable aspect of Kant's deontological view, as he believes the will is a capacity unique to rational beings. In Kant's opinion, the will is essential, as it facilitates our ability to act according to the universalizable maxims we establish for ourselves (653). Reason is also a crucial element of utilitarianism, as it is the intellectual faculty that enables us to distinguish the course of action with the best possible outcome (i.e., the choice that will ensure the greatest happiness or least amount of pain for as many people as possible) (688). However, since both deontology and utilitarianism are governed by the notion that moral judgements are established through reason, can either theory apply in circumstances in which rational thought is not feasible? For example, during World War II, a Nazi soldier offers a ...
Deontology refers to the judgment of the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules. The first philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Kant, who had founded critical philosophy. Kant held that nothing is good without the actual intent being good, and if one acts in accordance with the law, rather than what he thinks. He saw moral law as an unconditioned command and believed it should be established by human reason alone. Even now, with accordance to the law, people are bound to do things within the law, and following the law is considered ethical.
1. Utilitarianism was described by J. Bentham as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the amount of happiness. It is therefore a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined only by its outcome, so one can only weigh the morality of an action after thinking about all its potential consequences. Utilitarianism focuses more on the happiness of the greatest number whereas Aristotle focuses more on the happiness of the individual person Virtue ethics developed by Aristotle which is a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character. In virtue ethics, character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. Aristotle believes that the highest goal of humanity is the good life or Eudaimonia which means happiness and human flourishing. Developing virtues is the way to achieve a rich and satisfying life. According to him, virtues make
Growing up we are put in situations where we learn what is the moral thing to do and non moral just by our upbringing like religion, culture, and or race. This is called Ethics which is one of the major branch of philosophy that systematize, defend, and recommend concepts of right and wrong conduct. With that being said there are different kind of ethical approaches different philosophers discovered/ believed in which lay in the structure of consequentialist (the consequence of an action), Deontological ( duty, obligation, motivation, intention), and teleological ( striving to be a certain kind of person or fulfilling a kind of purpose ). In this paper I’m going to be defending Kant’s deontological theory which
Two ideologies that exist in ethics and apply to decision-making are utilitarian and deontological viewpoints. Ethical theories provide a systematic approach to decision-making toward the applications of standard principles. “In utilitarian ethics, outcomes justify the means or ways to achieve it” (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016, p. 5). Decisions made considering utility are based benefitting the greatest number of people. In utilitarianism, outcomes determine the moral nature of interventions. Some people are to experience harm, but the overall outcome is good for most individuals. Applying utilitarianism personally or professionally seems relevant when considering its ideology maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, the theory of ethics which judges actions in condition of the consequences. If the consequences are good, then the actions are also good. If the consequences are not good, then the actions are also judge as not being good. Goodness is in deflect judged in condition of the amount of happiness a behavior show. It could be argue that from a utilitarian peculiarity of inspection, the consequences of staying brisk may likely lead to the factor performing more Acts of the Apostles that increase the general happiness.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. The. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek.
...on the other hand, seeks to promote happiness as an end in itself. Reasonable and moderate versions of both theories really warrant the same action in most cases; for example, giving to charity and avoiding unfairly produced goods. The differences in suggested action only emerge in a few unique situations; the real distinction is in the underlying beliefs supporting the two theories. Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness. While happiness is indeed a great thing, I worry that by only looking at the result of an action Utilitarian actions could far too easily infringe upon one’s right to self-determination. I prefer Deontology for this reason and for its objective of respecting human autonomy and mandate to treat humanity always as an end and not as a simple means.