1.Utilitarian – The ends justify the means. 2.Kantian Ethics – Universalizabilit
ID: 375717 • Letter: 1
Question
1.Utilitarian – The ends justify the means.
2.Kantian Ethics – Universalizability – Theory of Rights. “if right for one, right for all.” Respect for persons.
3.Virtue Ethics – Justice or fairness. Look at what is fair and be able to make a decision.
** need you to provide a link to the article.
Please find a current (within the last year) article in a magazine, newspaper, or online concerning an ethical issue in a business setting. You should summarize the article, explain the ethical issue, discuss possible courses of action based on all three ethical theories outlined above, and make a recommendation. You will be looking at the article through the different lenses of ethical theory. You will make a recommendation based on what you believe and why – be sure to support it with theory
3-4 pages
Explanation / Answer
Utilitarian:
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.
Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates well with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').
In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT.
John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent").
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."
Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results).
Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules.
KARTIAN ETHICS:
Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent)
Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.
Morality and imperatives: What does it mean for one's duty to be determined by the categorical imperative?
What is an imperative? An imperative is a command. So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!"
Hypothetical Imperatives: these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E.g. “If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college.” If you don’t want to go to medical school, this command doesn’t apply to you. Another example, your father says, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command.
Categorical Imperatives: These commands unconditionally. E.g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes.” Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.
What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.
How does the categorical imperative work? The categorical imperative has three different formulations. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation.
1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]."
a) What is a maxim? A maxim is a rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family.
b) Basic idea: The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises.
c) More detail: More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always acts on that maxim when in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.
Virtue Ethics:
Virtue Ethics is one of the three approaches of normative ethics and is attributed to its founding fathers, Plato and Aristotle. Its emphasis is on a person’s individual character when it comes to ethical thinking as opposed to consequences and actions.
There are three central concepts of Virtue Ethics, namely: eudaimonism, ethics of care and agent-based theories. Eudaimonism can be referred to as happiness or having a good life which is said to be achievable by practicing the values of an individual in daily activities and in resolving conflicts while the ethics of care is based on a principle that when it comes to autonomy and justice, men uses masculinity and women, through caring.
Agent-based theories, on the other hand, are about virtues based on intuition that uses common sense. In this concept, character traits are kindness, compassion and benevolence. However, there are four cardinal virtues included in the traditional list. These are prudence, justice, fortitude or bravery and temperance. According to theologian James Keenan, justice makes it imperative for a man to treat others equally and impartially while bravery or fortitude makes it possible for a person to aim for self-care of protecting oneself.
Fidelity, on the other hand, requires an individual to care for other people close to him or her. Prudence makes a person practice justice, self-care and fidelity. Lastly, temperance is a virtue that gives a person self-restraint or the ability to do things in moderation, particularly when it comes to eating and drinking.
Coined during the 20th century, Virtue Ethics was revived by ethicists to bring about change from deontology and consequentialism. Here are the presented strengths and weaknesses of this approach:
STRENGTHS OF VIRTUE ETHICS
1. Character Traits
Virtue Ethics deals with a person’s virtues and how he or she uses them in making the lives of other people better. If a person has virtues, he or she can act morally and will be able to treat others with respect, compassion and love. These virtues prompt a person to do good things to others because these are innate in him or her, as opposed to the theory of Kant where people are forced to do good deeds out of duty.
2. Better People
Virtues such as generosity, honesty, compassion, friendliness, assertiveness and the like are already present in people and should be practiced in everyday living. The theory of Virtue Ethics makes it possible for people to be better individuals and members of society who are willing to help other people, thinking of others first over personal interest. With these virtues, people become better persons.
3. Broad and Holistic
Having no particular criteria, Virtue Ethics encompasses different virtues which are important live in harmony with other people. It also does not attempt to worsen the complexity of things by categorizing what are moral acts or not nut instead had developed throughout the years. Also, as compared to other ethical theories which can be a threat to morality and are confusing, Virtue Ethics is a holistic approach that it considers the totality of a person, including the skills, character traits and emotions.
4. Agent-centered
Another powerful attribute of Virtue Ethics is its centeredness or focus on the character of the moral agent and not concerned on consequence and duty or obligation. This also makes it flexible since it allows an individual to decide depending on his or her moral values and not just by simply following the law.
5. Sense of Community
Virtue Ethics motivates an individual to have high regard to personal relationships and encourage or motivates a person to be sensitive of others and take care of other people.
6. Preservation of Goodness
According to Tacitus, people can be easily corrupted with power and luxury which can impede liberty. Having said this, Virtue Ethics serves as a shield against polluting the minds of individuals and making them bad people. Instead, this approach makes it possible for an individual to preserve and make better the life he or she already has and enjoy it rather than dream of a life with luxury and power.
WEAKNESSES OF VIRTUE ETHICS
1. Without Focus
Critics of virtue ethics say that this theory lacks focus when it comes to determining the types of actions that are morally acceptable and permitted from the ones that should be avoided. Instead, it concentrates more on the qualities an individual has to enhance or improve in order to become a good person. Virtue theorists can consider murder as an immoral act which makes it unsuitable to be used as a moral act when it comes to legislation, say in court. It is also considered to be not action-guiding.
2. Nature of Virtues
Another weakness attributed to virtue ethics is the difficulty in determining the nature of virtues. This is due to the difference in opinions and perspectives of people who are inherently different from each other and came from diverse cultures and societies. These aspects lead to differences on what is morally right or wrong for people. Thus, it is hard to identify these virtues.
3. Self-centeredness
According to opponents of virtue ethics, it deals with a person’s own character when it is supposed to be how the actions of an individual affect other people. Another theory of ethics expects a person to think or regard other people instead of personal gain and interest.
4. Misguidance
Those who are not in favor of virtue ethics find this theory to be misguiding when it comes to educating or motivating people. This is because it leads people to rely on luck when it comes to attaining moral maturity. Also, this can result in people asking why others are luckier to have achieved moral maturity while there will be those who are not lucky enough even if this is not brought about by their own doing.
5. Limited
Since Virtue Ethics concentrate on only a limited number of virtues, it is not able to help the population but only an individual. This is one of the weaknesses seen by opponents, saying that this theory is not concentrating on the bigger picture.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.