Question One, Part One The Utilitarian moral perspective and Kant’s moral perspective offer fundamentally contrasting ethical philosophies based on the theoretical reasoning behind choosing a particular action. One difference between these theories is that Kantianism focuses on the intentions and moral obligation behind our actions, while Utilitarians emphasize on the consequences of our actions. According to Kant, one should act according to a maxim or personal principle that guides decisions. These intentions propose rules to oneself when deciding what to do (p.127, Weston). To test if one’s motives are ethical, they must decide if this is a rule that they would want everyone else to follow. Utilitarians deem an act unethical based on the …show more content…
The Aristotelian virtue perspective concludes that one makes a right decision on practical wisdom and practicing the virtues they wish to obtain. Virtue ethics place more emphasis on character traits and behavior rather than analyzing a single act as being right or wrong. One practical guideline is “an action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstance” (Sevenoaks School). The Ethics of care theory focuses making the interests of those close to them a priority in making the right decision. These decisions should be based upon what is required to maintain these values and relationships. Beneficial choices are based on a sense of responsibility to reduce harm and suffering of …show more content…
Aristotelian theory recognizes that moral characteristics develop over time and one must seek them out and continue to establish them. To understand what kind of person to be, one must obtain traits that lead to a full and satisfying ethical life. This theory approaches inquires on whether a person is expressing good character and morals. Ethics of Care answers the question on how one should be based on the connection and obligations to others. One develops into the right kind of person by building moral knowledge through care of relationships. Lastly the question of what is most important in each theory plays of significant role in defining Virtue and Care Ethics. Virtue ethics emphasis that the state of character exceeds all other factors, while the ethical attention on relationships is the most influential factor of Care ethics. Virtue ethics focuses on developing and demonstrating virtues and Care ethics focuses on developing and demonstrating strong
In my film analysis I will be discussing some of the fourteen principles of a satisfactory moral system and a good ethical decision. I will also discuss how some of the characters use the theory of care ethicist (care ethicist is to treat others as a human being fairly or equally) and virtue theorist (virtue theorist is doing the hard thing). My movie analysis is on John Q.
The moral of Utilitarianism is, “What is going to reduce the most pain?” Also, when dealing with utilitarianism everyone else’s happiness matters meaning that when you do something for someone even though you do not want to do that for he/she you know that the outcome will make them happy and that’s all that matters. Most of the time when you make someone else happy it makes you happy so therefore your happiness counts equally as well. “The Ethics of care is sometimes seen as a potential moral theory to be substituted for such dominant moral theories as Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, or Aristotelian virtue ethics.” (Held, 115). Care Ethics is based on morality with particular others including emotions in particular relationships, in both private and public life. Care Ethics is difficult to define, but has several distinct features. The Top 3 are moral importance of meeting the needs of particular others, values emotion rather than rejecting it and rejects abstract impartiality. Morality includes reasons and
“Utilitarianism” focuses on the definition as well as the characteristics of utilitarianism. The text also draws attention to theories of morality. The author differentiates between the teleological/consequentialist theory, and the deontological theory. These theories place different levels of importance on the consequences of actions. Teleological theory emphasizes that the consequences of an action determine whether that act is right or wrong, whereas the deontological theory illuminates the role duty plays in actions, and contends that duty is unrelated to consequences (1). The widely accepted concept of utilitarianism asserts that the purpose of behavior is to bring the most happiness to the most people, and that this happiness should be
From earlier discussion of Held, “ethic of justice” attempted to make sense of morality from a rational standpoint. We regard moral agents with an impartial manner before developing general rules. This is an unfeasible approach, because we need to first construct theoretical moral agents that “hypothetically come into existence fully formed and independent of one another”(Held, p.325). In our current world, it is almost impossible to find an individual free from cultural or societal influence to model general moral principles after. “Ethic of Care”, however, accounts for our lives with worldly experiences. Held emphasized that we are creatures in social and sentimental context. Rather than being a de-relationed person. Our identity are formed by “the intermediate realm of family relations and relations of friendship”(Held, p.337). Due to its interconnected nature, “ethic of care” helps us conduct self-evaluation in a unique, absorbing fashion. In our society and culture, there exists a variety of ideas, rules and customs that we did not create. In this case, we evaluate ourselves by defining what we count as values from this variety. By focusing on the specifics of each situation and the emotional responses of each context, we have to reconsider our personal values before making decisions. This preserves both spontaneity and self-reflection as well as
She reckons that the act of caring can overcome any negative actions one may be tempted to pursue. Held argues that the value of care is crucial by laying a foundation of three components that she believes others would agree on. These three components are attending to the needs of others that one would deem responsible for, the importance of emotions of caring, and the rejection of popular believed moral theories. The first component is vital to everyday circumstances that you may encounter, the odds that you will run into a dilemma that will affect not only yourself but also those of loved are excessively high. If you choose to not put their feelings or well beings over yours then you could potentially be causing yourself more harm than good. One may overlook the importance of caring for others when it comes to moral dilemmas, but when you really think about it you must care a little to even try to solve an issue. Many would agree that this theory is most similar to utilitarianism in that caring and being happy may be closely related, but they do differ in vast categories such as when to measure the consequences of your actions. This theory puts itself aside from the rest in the rejection of dominant moral theories because in a way it is a means to exploit egotistical and societal dilemmas that many have claimed. It brings about a new approach in which, if we care for those few individuals, then we will do all that we can to make sure that they are being treated fairly. The reason this system would not be ideal for the introductory dilemma is that by choosing someone it would be going against all principles set by Held due to
“A virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action,” these words said by Aristotle on virtue ethics. The word habitual meaning that someone that does something all the time and not just occasionally. For example, the virtue of honesty, is not someone who only tells the truth here and there, and what will benefit that person. This term used in normative ethics, really emphasizes the virtue of mind and character. A theory of virtue has several components within the theory like a list of virtues, what each consist of and why each of the virtue are a perfect fit in this theory. To really understand this theory, it is important to discuss it in depth, the strengths and weaknesses, and whether it rest on a sound or cogent argument.
Virtue ethics is able to provide concrete ethical guidance to doctors because the theory is able to point doctors to either a single right solution or a set of right solutions. To show how virtue ethics is able to provide such guidance, I will elaborate upon particular aspects such as the theory’s focus on the individual and attention to human emotions and motivations that make the theory particularly conducive in guiding medical dilemmas.
Philosophers Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and Held each describe their moral approaches to ethical problems and dilemmas in our text book, Exploring Ethics. I compared Kant’s “categorical imperative,” Mill’s “utilitarianism,” Aristotle’s “nature of virtue,” and Held’s “ethics of care,” philosophies. Each of the theories were approaches to moral dilemmas in life and they each made logical sense, but Mill’s utilitarianism approach seemed to me to be the best way to face a moral or ethical dilemma. Mill’s approach is centered around “the greatest happiness principle,” promoting the most happiness as possible with the least amount of pain.
Briefly characterize the ethics of care. According to the theories, what is it that makes an action morally correct (or when is it that an action is morally correct)?
Kantianism is the philosophy created by Immanuel Kant in which duty is the only reason as to why you should do something, he created the theory known as the “ Kant's duty of Ethics”, formulated by Kant himself and includes several ethical principles. Utilitarianism on the other hand, founded by Jeremy Bathhand, is an ethical theory in which you act based on the interests of all concerned. These two theories have both similarities and differences to each other, they have different ways of determining whether an act we do is right or wrong.
Aristotle believed ethics were part of hexis, which some interpreted as were nothing less than mere habits. However, Aristotle’s meaning of hexis appears to be far deeper than habit, but rather something ingrained deep in a human’s DNA or rather our souls. Hexis is what either gave people a sound moral character or an unsound moral character. Although Aristotle was very logical and perceptive of natural human behavior, especially in regards to virtues, he lacked complete insight on some aspects that Virtue Ethics neglects.
Consequentialists believe that the more good of an act conducted means the consequences will be more beneficial than not (Slowther et al, 2004., Beauchamp and Childress, 2009). Virtue ethics is the last ethical approach and mainly focuses on the morals and virtues of the individual and is the key difference between Consequentialism and deontology (Slowther et al, 2004., Beauchamp and Childress, 2009). This theory states that when the individual is faced in a moral dilemma they will chose the correct moral action based on their virtuous characters as a person. The ethical principles are classed as virtues (Slowther et al,
In the present world we’re often taught key principles in order to live a flourishing life. Young children especially are often reared in school to become successful, and be the best they can be; and be a good person. We pose the question what does it mean to be a good person? According to Jacques Thiroux & Keith Krasemann mentions, when individuals apply these virtuous behaviors into their daily lives it promotes a decent human being (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg 78). This paper will examine the argument how having virtues can promote a balance in today’s society, and how this virtue ethics can also pose a problem.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is character based and centers around the three key principles: arête (virtue),
Virtue Ethics focuses on the development of the right person over a period of time having the correct habits. The focus would then be place on the question as to what makes up the characteristic traits of a person having the capabilities to choose right or wrong. The character traits that make a person unable at time to choose right or wrong can be seen in some governmental bureaucracies where many times they are cold, insensitive an...