Three General Theories of Ethics and Proposal for most Reasonable for determining right and wrong

Three General Theories of Ethics and Proposal for most Reasonable for determining right and wrong

            The three most compelling approaches to ethical analysis are deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. Consequentialist ethics proposes that the moral content of an action stem from the real and expected outcomes from an action. Virtue ethics is generally concerned with the intention behind the action while deontological ethical theories perceive the action itself as the object of moral evaluation. The three theories provide reasonable frameworks for decoding ethical dilemmas and providing insight into ethical analysis and evaluation of practices and behavior. The analysis concludes with an integration of deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethics to discuss the integrity approach.

            According to the theory, the moral content of a person’s actions is determined by the real and expected consequences arising from choosing the action. The scale for determining what is right or wrong is based on what is desirable and what is not in the society’s view. The consequences of the action are judged against a certain standard of the purpose or end. It suggests that actions are taken with an end in consideration and distance goal. Hence, ends are a means to a distant goal referred to as instrumental ends while ends achieved for own sakes are intrinsic.

Teleologists focus on the latter kind of ends of which one or more are chosen as standards for judging the moral content of the action. The ends that function in the theories are not moral in themselves. They become charged in their use as a standard for judging what is right and wrong. Teleological theories revolve around the targeted end that differs from one person to another. The moral path that should be followed when individuals end conflicts is the big question becomes the end for determining the moral action. Teleological theories are divided into levels comprising of sub-divisions such as ethical egoism a theory rejected in normative ethical theory because it does not meet the requirements for generalizability. Utilitarianism views the common good as the true end while teleological theories hold individual pain and pleasure to contribute to the ultimate good.

Adam smith proposed pursuit of self-interest as a means of achieving the common good. Utilitarianism uses the criterion of the impact on the welfare of the society of actions of a person. Consequently, utilitarianism is the general term that refers to ethical theories that propose actions should be judged based on their total costs and benefits to the society. The actions that people should follow are those that produce the greatest benefits to the society using the lowest costs. Jeremy Bentham also contributes immensely to the theory of utilitarianism building on the work of pioneers such as Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and David Hume. He proposes actions to be judged based on the “greatest pleasure for the greatest number”. In his utilitarian theory the pleasure of a vagabond citizen is just as important as that of a model citizen. In the society, everyone counts as one and no person counts for more than their slot.

Bentham explores formulation of utilitarian criterions in quantitative terms. According to him, ethics is simply a matter of counting. “Greatest pleasure” explained in quantitative terms in that happiness derives from greatest amount of pleasure with the absence of pain. He devises hedonistic calculus to weigh pleasure and pain.

The empirical theory is applicable within criminal law to serve state policy and legislation. Bentham argues like a classical utilitarian in the manner in which he associates the action and the severity of the punishment. Legislation is meant to serve the best interests of the society, however, care should be exercised to ensure that the laws are not utilized to other ends such as enforcing natural or divine rights. Punishment is in itself a suffering; therefore, it should fit the crime. The punishment should not cause more suffering than that emanating from the crime. Additionally, punishment is not justifiable if no one has suffered any damage caused by the crime. Bentham exhibits progressive uncharacteristic of his time in that he is against punishment for sexual offences perpetrated by consenting minors.

Deontological ethics seeks to solve a number of problems associated with consequentialist ethical theories. According to deontology, all persons have obligations that are non-negotiable, which cannot be bought off or disposed. Consequentialism does not have the answer to questions dealing with rights and obligations. Deontological ethics form their focal points on issues relating to rights and obligations. An action is morally good if it honors an obligation that is not dependent on the consequences of the action. They stipulate the duties that must be observed regardless of the consequences. Legitimate rights should be honored and unjust acts avoided within the society.

Kant (1724-1804) is one of the greatest philosophers in Western philosophical thinking. In his theory, moral rules are based in pure reasoning rather than mere intuition, own conscience, or cost of the action. Kant’s theory falls under monistic rule deontological theory. Therefore, he does not subject incidental actions but rather the types of actions such as keeping promises or lying to moral judgment. In the field of epistemology, he was able of bridging the gap between empiricism and rationalism. Other empiricists such as Hume suggest that knowledge derives from sense experience. Exponents of rationalism such as Spinoza, Descartes, and Leibniz argue that truth rather than appearance is achieved through reasoning. Kant argues that people’s view of the world goes beyond the passive function of the mind such that there is always an aspect of reason involved.

Individual integrity requires that a person’s words and deeds conform to coherent, substantive, and somehow stable set of qualities, ideals to which one is committed and behavioral principles. “integratedness” does not exclude conflict between commitments and ideals of the individual. Sometimes, it may be reasonable to let go of one goal to be able to achieve another. However, the compromise needs not threaten a person’s integrity, but can sometimes serve as a safeguard for “integratedness”. There are ideals and goals that are so intertwined to the extent that renouncing them would amount to a person “losing face” or trust of others. Integrity, therefore, requires a certain degree of integration and remaining true to ideals and values that make people unique. Similarly, responsibilities and limitations exist that each individual should respect regardless of the identity or principles.  The three core characteristics of the concept of integrity include internal coherence, coherence between motives, and coherence in motives in relation to the outside world.