Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism and kantian ethics
Utilitarianism and kantian ethics
Virtue Ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism and kantian ethics
Studying ethics today will eventually reveal 3 different ethical theories, the ancient ones of Plato and Aristotle, who vary very minimally different from each other and are largely very similar, and then the contemporary ones of Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism, which have some similarities with each other but are very much different from the ancient ones.
The main differences start with what kind of ethics each one deals with. Aristotle and Plato’s theories fall under ethics of character or “virtue ethics,” believing that the role of one’s character the virtues they possess and employ are best for determining and evaluating ethical behavior. While Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism fall under ethics of conduct, or actions. Then they each
…show more content…
This is so because virtue ethics line up very closely with what Christians believe. This theory of ethics is concerned with the person behind the actions over the actions themselves. It takes into account the person’s attitude, motive, emotions, habits, and lifestyle to determine if they are ethical. This is very similar to Christianity because they do the same thing when determining the state of their hearts and their relationship with God. Also, Christianity has its own theory of ethics, dubbed “Christian Ethics” that are mostly based off of Aristotle’s work and ideas. This alone shows the value of his theory to Christians. Also, just like Aristotelian ethics, Christian ethics has a list of virtues and principles by which one should try to live by. The virtues for Christian ethics are; Prudence, which can also be described as wisdom, it’s the ability to judge between actions. Then there is justice, also can used said as fairness, it’s considered the broadest and also the most important of the virtues. Next there is temperance, also known as restraint, which is the ability to excerpt self-control, abstention and moderation in the appetites. Then courage, also considered fortitude, strength, endurance and the practice of controlling your fear and uncertainty. …show more content…
Much of his teachings were this way, he urged his followers to embody certain characteristics and to be certain kind of people, not to just do a particular action. The doctrine of Christianity is similar to this, you can’t get into heaven by simply doing acts, as Jesus said in the book of Matthew: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me…” Here Jesus is telling people that acts essentially don’t matter, but it is the heart, the character of the person that will determine their place in eternity, and I think this really echoes what Aristotle’s theory of ethics says. It’s not the actions but the person doing them that
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are not just different, but also meet different experiences. Utilitarianism has been rising as an active position, it is aimed at improving the management of society and changes the laws. Kantian ethics is the position of the ethical individual who confronts the world, who takes on the most weight of ethical action. This burden means the execution of the duty and ignores all the desires.
Moral decisions are based on ethics such as divine command theories, ethics of conscience or ethics of our inner voice, ethical egoism, ethics of duty, ethics of respect, ethics of rights, ethics of Justice, virtue ethics and utilitarianism which is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. Socrates and his contemporaries were the first to undertake by reasoned analysis and arguments to investigate how one ought to lead one’s life and, on that basis, to reject uncritical reliance on the traditional authorities in these matters. The claim that they are to be regarded as the first moral philosophers rests on their self-conscious appeal to the authority of reason in determining how one ought to lead one’s life, and there attention to devising methods appropriate for the employment of reason in investigating the questions that arose in this connection. No complete writing of any of this first generation of moral philosophers survives. The principal lines of the later debates were shaped by this first generation of moral theorists. Three treatises on ethics survive under Aristotle’s name: Magna Moralia, Eudemian Ethics, and the
Firstly, Plato's concept of reality contrasts with Aristotle's concept. Plato's theory of ideal forms claims that a perfect world exists beyond the world around us. Our world contains forms imperfectly copied from the ideal forms of the world beyond. In contrast, Aristotle's theory of the natural world states that our world is reality. Aristotle thought the world consists of natural forms, not necessarily ideal or imperfect.
We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Ethics is the study of human values, actions and life decisions, also known as morality. By using moral principles, claims which guide individuals by telling them what they ought and ought not to do, ethics attempts to determine if something is good or bad. However at times different moral principles conflict with another, making it difficult to see what the best course of action is. A good moral theory solves that dilemma by attempts to explain why a person or action is right or wrong, or why a person’s character is good or bad by stating which moral principles are more important than others. Two infamous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
Where Kant’s system is based on a set of principles or duties, Nietzsche’s system is based on virtue. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity in general and its evaluation of morality. In the reevaluation of values, he shows how the characteristics of morality in Christianity are more prohibitive of living virtuously than those of Ancient Greece, which include strength, confidence, sexuality, and creativity. In Christianity, those values are pity, shame, asexuality, and humility. The set of values of Ancient Greece is considered Master Morality and the values of deontology is considered to be Slave Morality. Master morality is a step in the right direction for morality but still not the
According to Morrison and Furlong, normative ethics discovers what is right and wrong and guides decision making for all situations in many areas including health care. A normative ethical theory that this research will discuss is virtue ethics in the American health care system. The purpose of this research is to develop potential for excellence and to find the highest good for humans by doing what is right short-term, long-term, and to compete globally (Morrison & Furlong, 2013). Giving certain situations each theory can provide tools to assist in decision-making but virtue ethics concentrates on excellence and perfection.
Virtue of Ethics. Virtue of ethics is based on principles and the virtues of individuals. This approach is based or featured on the individual rather than the actions a person takes. It focuses on the “virtue and moral character of the individual or person performing the action” (Rachel’s & Rachel’s, 2015, p. 159). “Duties” and “rules” are not the focus to this approach as like with the deontological approach (Rachel’s & Rachel’s, 2015, p. 159-160). It also does not focus on the consequences of action like the consequentialist approach does when it comes to ethics. It does however, still consider and focus on whether the action is right or wrong. The virtue of ethics is more of a “guide of characteristics and behaviors” of how an individual
The virtue ethics approach differs with other frameworks in that; it is not an ethical theory in the same way that Utilitarianism or Kantianism are, It is not so much a guide for moral decision-making, more a description of the moral life. Theories such as Utilitarianism and Kantianism address the question “How should I act?” – Virtue Theory addresses the questions “How should I live my life?”, and “What kind of person should I be?”It is interested in the whole person, not just their actions.
times. Then the sand was sunk. Aristotle was a great believer in virtues and the meaning of virtue to him meant being able to fulfil one's functions. Virtue ethics is not so much interested in the question, "What should I do?" but rather the question 'what sort of person should I become?'
Aristotle believed that to be a good person you had to have intellectual and moral virtues and that good people learned goodness from the people they interacted with. Also Aristotle believed that all beings has an inherent goal that they try to reach; for humans it is complete development of talents and morals. One problem with virtue ethics is that there is no way to morally make decisions in complex situation; the best way to handle a difficult decision is to ask one’s self what one’s idol would
In conclusion, Aristotle disagreed with Socrates and Plato as he denied that humans are naturally drawn towards “the good”. He said that you can be a good person if you choose to do the right thing, if you choose to be virtuous. He categorised and defined sciences and therefore defined what virtue and ethics is and how to be virtuous. He also came up with the idea of the “moral mean”, for example, too much bravery is too rash but too little bravery is being cowardly. The most important thing he says is that you cannot just simply know what the right thing to do is; you have to do that right thing.