Three Theories of Ethics
Student’s Name
Name of the University
Course Name
Instructor Name
Date
Three Theories of Ethics
Consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics have played a critical role in solving ethical standoffs and evaluating behavior and actions. Whereas consequentialism focuses on how one’s real and expected effects determine moral content, the deontological theory considers the move as a moral assessment object. Compared with the above ideologies, a virtue perspective focuses on one’s intention towards committing a particular action (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). The differences between the three theories, virtue ethics, deontological, and consequential ethics, lies within the effort, conduct, and impact. The competing nature of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theories means science could develop quality remedies to impact human existence and wellness.
Consequentialism Theory
Consequentialism ideology employs specific standards, objectives, or ends, to judge the impact of one’s action hence dubbed teleological ethics. In this regard, one’s activities aim at achieving a specific lot, usually with the view to a more distant objective. In the case where the said purposes influence a more distant goal, they exist as instrumental ends, while those obtained for their own sake prevail as intrinsic (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Consequentialists focus more on the inherent limitations, which often emerges as the standards for assessing actions’ moral content. Those ends that operate within the consequentialism theory prevail not as honorable but become ethically-driven when considered ethical actions.
Consequentialism theory may operate as pluralistic or monistic, depending on its number of intrinsic ends. The monistic perspective examines that a single inherent lot influences all the other end based on evaluating the general actions (Rand, 2017). Besides, pluralistic consequentialism theories perceive the existence of many intrinsic limitations as the existing one. More so, the classification of the consequentialism perspective could also depend on the current ends’ nature.
Utilitarianism, the branch of consequentialism, emphasized the need for individual self-interest to believe that such a scenario could indirectly serve the common good. When using this approach, societal welfare could help to assess actions. Utilitarianism generalizes all ethical perspectives, which asserts that action judgment happens using their total costs and benefits for society. The society should embrace moral standards emerging from its most beneficial activity at the lowest amount. Bentham (1748-1832) explained that the greatest pleasure should focus on the significant number as long as the judgment is happening on all issues (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Using quantitative terms, Bentham stated that happiness originates from the most significant quantity of fun, where there is no pain. He devised a hedonistic calculus to analyze pleasure and pleasure and achieve considerable satisfaction for the most significant number.
In summary, consequentialism theory and its broad concepts influence the state policy and corporate operations as they regulate actions. Nevertheless, these perspectives, especially the rule and preference utilitarianism, failed to clarify scenarios where justice should occur based on specific principles such as securing people’s rights and enhancing justice.
Duty-Based or Deontological Ethics
The deontological moral theory attempts to mitigate flaws within the practical elements of the consequentialism ideologies. The duty-based concept perceives that everyone has specific duties that exist as non-negotiable; thus, no one can buy or ignore them. Various types of inalienable rights act as the foundation of these obligations (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Deontological ethics addresses rights, justice, and responsibilities, by clarifying that a morally acceptable action respects a specific commitment independent of consequentialism. This perspective entitles particular individuals or groups to a claim of justice or rights. Deontological perspectives stipulate obligations and demand for their monitoring no matter the effects. Here, there is a need to respect legitimate rights and forbid unfair action (Roby, 2018). The primary differences between deontological and consequential theories originate from the influence of consequences under review.
Roby (2018) asserted that the consequences of one’s action could not influence its ethical character; thus, most deontologists cannot consider them. Here, an activity that deviates from moral duties prevails as immoral. But adhering to the moral responsibilities does not always justify the morality of such actions. Besides, the effects of a given action may fall into the said obligation. Nevertheless, deontologists may refuse to show commitment to a particular, specific result (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Hence the activity’s correspondence with specific concepts could help to differentiate between morality and immorality. It is critical to keep a promise because that would be a moral duty rather than a consequence. Deontologists use certain principles to judge people’s actions as exemplified by the golden rule “Do unto others what you have them do unto yourself.” This equal treatment of people for similar measures influences various perspectives of justice (Chonko, 2012). One of the deontological theories links God and social duties hence outlining that a given action’s nature may determine its wrongness or rightness status.
The difference between act-deontologists and rule-deontologists could also help to clarify specific elements of the broader theory. The act-deontologists assert that each situation has unique attributes that limit the formulation of the general rule of action. It is necessary to analyze every situation and find the most suitable moral action and judgment (Rand, 2017). Because this ideology depends on intuition, act-deontology prevails as inferior on the normative judgment. On the other hand, rule-deontology emphasizes that people must not assess actions individually but judge types of activities based on general rules or principles. The strengths of this concept lie in its practicality in decision-making. The application of many conduct guidelines allows the practical implementation of this approach with the societal rules to explain each other’s’ values.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) stated that each action, regardless of its trivial nature, falls within the specific rule of maxim or action because every human activity has a morally neutral element (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). This neutrality differentiates between action and behavior, thus elevating animals and people with psychiatric conditions from blame. Kant’s moral evaluation criteria used the boundless ideology called categorical imperative to determine maxim’s moral status. An individual needs to act by following the proverb, becoming a universal law. More so, one needs to work as if he feels such an action’s maxim could become the guide (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Here, this philosopher clarifies that elevating unethical maxim to a universal law could prevail as contradictory. There is no need to promote immoral maxims to universal laws because, logically, it is inconsistent.
Deontology is the most effective method of morality because it resonates well with widespread moral intuitions. However, this concept can easily result in a rigid application of laws. Although the presence of “prima facie” duty offers a solution to this hurdle, it remains inadequate, mainly when there is a need to address specific principles and significant economic interests (Chonko, 2012). In such a situation, the deontological ethics theory fails to provide an adequate remedy.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics theory focuses more on the agent, a person’s qualities, or the action source and not the action or consequences. Apart from analyzing one’s physical attributes such as age, size, and height, this ideology looks at the invisible characteristics, namely abilities, motives, and intentions. These intangible attributes influence how one acts during morally challenging situations, thus analyzing one moral term (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Asserting that one is or honest is a show of traditional moral virtues, which originates from the classical antiquity. Many ethical theories offer various attributes of virtues depending on the theory’s basis. According to Plato, wisdom, bravery or courage, justice, and moderation are four critical virtues. Some of the characteristics of these features include being desirable or worthy of pursuing. Secondly, people should express virtues through their actions (Chonko, 2012). Virtues should always be albeit or latently present. Lastly, the subject should influence these virtues.
An excellent human act should presume an objective that is worth pursuing. Here, virtues should exist as attributes that influence one’s realization of concrete and meaningful purpose. Aristotle asserted that virtues depend on natural order that is reasonable, which considers all things such as people and objects. Human status defines integrity because these entities have unique attributes in the said order (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). In Aristotle’s view, demand exists as a concrete entity daily. Besides, Plato emphasized that transcendent order identified morality as a transcendent reality (Roby, 2018). In his view, a good thing should be fair and that the virtue of a given item is the perfect fulfillment of its specific function. Biblical literature converted the term virtue into a divine entity; thus, people should allow virtues to guide their lives to live a love-filled life as per God’s will.
Freedom and consciousness are preconditions for ethics. The attributes that prevail as ethical differs from innate characteristics. Caregivers’ qualities, whose imposition has constructed their habits, could also exist as proper attributes. Concerning parenting activities and their rates, there is a need to talk about those individuals in question that could influence (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Besides parenting shaping child behavior, such a child could decide to develop more characters or change the existing traits. Such a scenario means that an individual many at least engage in focused or conscious decisions. There is a notion that moral virtues should exist as justice and benevolence because these two adhere to moral obligations. Attributes that deviates from such classification fails to meet the threshold (Kaptein & Wempe, 2002). Courage, diligence, and self-control do not meet the requirement of moral virtues because it is difficult to generalize them. Despite invalidating such ideology, ethical virtues need to do more than explaining the agent to act ethically. A chain of moral attributes should, therefore, not exist as an obligation to act.
References
Chonko, Larry (2012). Ethical Theories. DSEF, July 13. https://www.dsef.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EthicalTheories.pdf
Kaptein Muel & Wempe Johan (2002). Three general theories of ethics and integrative role of integrity theory. SSRN Electronic Journal, July 19. https://DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1940393
Rand Ayn (2017). Ethical theories summarized and explained: Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, and objectivist ethical egoism. Objectivism in Depth, April 23. https://objectivismindepth.com/2017/04/23/ethical-theories-summarized-explained-consequentialism-deontology-virtue-ethics-and-objectivist-ethical-egoism/
Roby Brandon (2018). Virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism, University of Mary Washington, December 13. https://scholar.umw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=student_research