The Philosophy of Ethics 

The Philosophy of Ethics

1. The Consequentialism Debate: Compare and Contrast deontology and utilitarianism. Briefly discuss the differences between Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism. Discuss the political and ethical implications of utilitarianism.

Deontology may be defined as an ethical theory that emphasizes on rules as determinants of right or wrong. It is based on the belief that morality is measured by someone’s compliance with societal modes of doing things (Körner & Volk, 2014). One is seen to be moral if they perform their roles as expected by their communities. Immanuel Kant is believed to be the most influential person in the development of the theory. He believed that what is moral is determined by some moral laws which he thought were universal. They include laws such as “do not cheat,” “do not steal” and “do not lie.” It is relatively easy for society to apply deontology because one only needs to do what the community expects them to do (Körner & Volk, 2014; Sacco et al., 2017). The idea is compatible with human’s natural intuition to identify events as ethical or unethical. Deontology defines an action as moral or immoral regardless of its outcomes. It opposes consequentialism, which emphasizes more on the results. Deontology focuses more on the process and opposes the belief that “the end justifies the means.” It can be explained by expressions such as “Virtue is its own reward.”

Deontology has many advantages to society but can be disadvantageous in some cases. Sometimes its outcomes are not acceptable to society for various reasons. A software engineer, for example, may discover that a nuclear missile is about to be launched, and the results are likely to cause massive destruction (Sacco et al., 2017). They then decide to hack the attackers’ systems and cancel the plan. That action may be seen as ethical or unethical, depending on the theory used to describe it. According to deontology, such works are moral because the person acted against their codes of conduct, which state that the engineer should not break into any computer system without permission. It is also a form of cheating and lying because the person violated something which they agreed to respect during their swearing-in (Körner & Volk, 2014). A significant percentage of the population would support the engineer’s decision because he saved many lives and property.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on the outcome. Action is seen to be moral if it creates happiness in as many people as possible. In the case of one or more alternatives, the action that produces the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people is regarded as more ethical (Mill, 2016). It is believed to be the only moral theory that justifies actions such as war or military force. It compares the negative consequences of an action with its positive outcomes to determine whether it is ethical or not (Mill, 2016). The mode of comparing costs and benefits of something to decide whether or not it is a viable idea is standard in businesses where people compare available ideas and choose the ones that produce the highest profit.

Utilitarianism is advantageous in many ways, but it can also be disadvantageous. In most cases, one is not sure whether their actions will lead to desirable outcomes or not. It also does not account for important factors in society, such as individual rights and justice (Mill, 2016). It encourages a system in which one does what they feel without caring about how their actions may affect other people. That is provided the outcomes are desirable to them. Utilitarianism justifies actions such as sacrificing the life of one person to save many. It encourages actions such as a doctor collecting various organs from a healthy person and implants them to multiple people with different needs for organs (Mill, 2016). Utilitarianism would take that action as the most ethical, but most people would see it as the most unacceptable course of action.

One of the most significant similarities between utilitarianism and deontology is that both ethical theories aim at making people happy, at least to some extent. Deontology emphasizes on doing something which one could with other people to do as well (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). One refrains from cheating because they would not like the entire community to behave similarly. Utilitarianism encourages one to act in whatever manner, provided the outcomes create the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). In many cases, cheating leads to undesirable results. It creates happiness for only a small percentage of people and negatively affects the majority. In such a case, utilitarianism would oppose it. Deontology opposes cheating, as well. Therefore, both theories agree on some issues.

The events that occurred during the Nazi regime in Germany could be used to explain the political and ethical implications of utilitarianism and deontology. For example, a German could be hiding a Jewish family in their house, then a Nazi soldier approaches them in search of any Jew to kill or torture (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). The soldier asks the German if they have any Jew in their house, and the person is in a dilemma. They are worried about breaking ethical requirements. Under utilitarianism, the person would have considered the benefits and negative consequences of cheating and decide whether to tell the truth or lie. Under deontology, the person is supposed, to tell the truth regardless of the consequences (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). Under utilitarianism, the person would realize that if they tell the truth, the Jewish family will be killed, and if they lied, the lives of the poor family would be saved. The benefits of telling a lie carry more weight in most of such cases.

Both Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism agreed that the moral value of an action is based on the degree of happiness it produced in people. However, Bentham believed that only the quantity of happiness matters most (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). Mill believed that both quantity and quality of happiness are essential and should be considered when measuring the morality of an action (Mill, 2016). Bentham’s idea is perceived as incomplete by many psychologists who believe that human happiness should be differentiated from that of animals. Mill categorized happiness into higher and lower. The latter refers to forms of pleasure which both animals and humans can experience (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). Higher happiness refers to the types of pleasure which only educated humans can experience. The knowledgeable, in this case, refers to the people who have experienced various events in life that changed their perceptions of happiness.

2. Explain virtue ethics and care ethics and discuss how these approaches offer an alternative to the deontological and utilitarian focus on how we should act.

Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that states that when people plan on how to live, they should act not only in ways that shape the world in specific ways but in ways that define the kind of moral agents they will be in their environments. They should focus less on the type of norms to follow, as well (Van Hooft, 2014). The theory opposes the traditional way of defining people based on what they do and encourages a world in which people are defined by the role they play in promoting morality. Generally, virtue ethics focuses more on a person’s character. It does not advise people to act in specific ways but to develop a sound, moral character. It is based on the assumption that anyone who possesses virtues will act correctly (Van Hooft, 2014). Virtue ethics does not require one to create happiness for other people or act in ways that they expect other people to do. It just requires a person to do what is right. The theory appears to draw some support from both utilitarianism and deontology. For the latter, doing the right thing sometimes means avoiding acts that violate social norms (Van Hooft, 2014). For utilitarianism, doing the right thing sometimes creates happiness for a significantly great number of people. The significant connection between virtue ethics and both utilitarianism and deontology shows that virtue ethics can be used as an alternative to the two theories.

Care ethics is an ethical theory which defines an action as moral or immoral based on a person’s emotional responses to them. It is based on the belief that when one has a special relationship with a specific action, they will develop the duty to act morally (Barnes & Brannelly, 2015). One of the significant practical explanations for this theory is the fact that humans are less likely to attack other humans in front of other human beings because almost every human being has some respect for other human beings. The respect, in that case, is brought about by some emotional relationship between the parties. Humans can easily attack animals because they do not have a strong relationship with them (Barnes & Brannelly, 2015). The explanation tries to show that sometimes, a person acts based on the kind of emotional bond between them and other people or animals. Someone who has a negative emotional connection with other human beings is very likely to be immoral to them. The positive emotional relationship between people encourages them to act in ways that do not cause harm to each other. The theory faces significant resistance from animal rights activists who believe that humans can only claim to be caring organisms if they care about the rights of animals (Barnes & Brannelly, 2015). The theory relates to utilitarianism to some extent. Sometimes the bid to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number involves caring about the interests of the people one interacts with daily. Sometimes when one makes the other person happy, they influence the happiness of their families, close relatives, and friends. Care ethics may also relate to utilitarianism during conflicts as well (Barnes & Brannelly, 2015). If a negative relationship exists between a nation and an individual, for example, the nation can attack the individual to make a greater number of people happy. The theory also supports deontology in away. When a positive relationship exists between people, they will do things that maintain the connection between them (Barnes & Brannelly, 2015). Sometimes ding so involves avoiding actions that contradict universal laws, such as cheating. The fact that this theory encourages both positive and negative relationships means that it can be used as an alternative for utilitarianism. It can be used in place of deontology only in cases of positive relationships.

3. Explain existential ethics and briefly discuss the role of free will in ethical decision making. The explanation of existentialism should discuss the following ideas: authenticity, ambiguity, freedom, anxiety, and bad faith.

Existentialism is a belief that humans are responsible for creating meaning in their own lives. The theory opposes the traditional idea that a person’s purpose in life is given by external factors such as teachers, Gods, authorities, and governments (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). Anyone who has ever thought about the meaning of their existence or purpose in this world have promoted the existentialist philosophy, at least to some extent. It is usual for a person to ask themselves questions such as why they exist and one’s purpose in life (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). One wonders why they live and why things happen the way they do. For a significantly long time, people believed that someone’s purpose in life was determined before one was born.

The belief that a person’s meaning and purpose in life comes after existence is based on some of the real-life events which convinced existentialists that people’s courses of action are not determined by an omnipotent being (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). Events such as the holocaust proved to the world that humans have control over almost everything that happens in their lives. Existentialists believed that people are created as “blank slates” (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). One has the responsibility of finding their purpose in life. That means that every decision a person makes is entirely theirs. One creates purpose and meaning through one’s actions.

Existentialists believe that a person has the freedom to act in ways that create the best meaning and purpose in life. The personal responsibility for a person to control everything that happens in one’s life causes significant levels of anxiety (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). People experience various mental conflicts related to their existentialism. They worry so much about the possible outcomes of their relationships, career, and choices. Many ideas appear in their lives, a factor that makes it difficult for one to choose the ones that can make their lives as meaningful and fulfilling as possible.

Life is full of ambiguity. Sometimes what appears to be the meaning of something is meaningless. One is born into a world that has no purpose but is expected to create meaning out whatever it contains (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). The world is meaningless to every newborn, factor, which means that everyone can create their purpose and meaning, independent of other children of the same age. That means that no one specific explanation of life can be taken as the ultimate truth because they are based on someone else’s interpretation of everything (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). The interpretation is not necessarily the same for everyone because different people experience life differently. Everyone is free to develop their own moral code to live by. That existential belief opposes the universal culture of looking to the authority for answers and guidance because, according to existentialists, no one has them, and there is nothing like the truth.

Despite the absurdity and ambiguity, one should live authentically. That is, living with the understanding that one has the freedom to control their freedom. It is the belief that one has all the responsibility to create any purpose in their lives (Kondrla & Pavlikova, 2016). Existentialists believe that anyone who accepts to live by the rules of other people, such as parents and religions, opposes the absurdities of life. The refusal to take one’s freedom to control the absurdity is referred to as “bad faith.” True faith is the willingness to live by a person’s own definition of meaning as opposed to those of other people.

4. Illustrate the theories discussed with examples, including situations relevant to your current or future career.

One of the most significant philosophical theories that apply to my life is that of essentialism. I was born and raised in a religious family that believes everything that happens in human life was predetermined before they were born (Ellis, 2014). This belief affects my current career. I think it will have some impact on my future as well. Essentialism contradicts with existentialism.  It was created and developed by Aristotle, who believed that everything that exists in the world has some meaning. He defined essence as a set of specific properties that define something (Ellis, 2014). One of the significant examples that illustrate the belief is the definition of a book. Pages are one of the most vital elements of a book.

Sometimes an object in the shape of a book may contain texts or may be blank. However, it must-have pages for it to be called a book. Aristotle stated that the essence of something is created before its existence. That means that also, humans had a purpose before they were born. That belief implies that regardless of what one knows or what they do not now, they already had a purpose even before they were born (Ellis, 2014). It is based on the belief that whatever one does, regardless of what it may be, is a step toward their predetermined destinies. The idea supported the traditional theory that God created the universe and all it contains. Many religious beliefs state that he created everyone with a purpose. It means that a person’s role in life was predetermined before they were born. Anyone who believes in such theories has no reason to challenge the meaning of life or search for their purpose.

References

Barnes, M., & Brannelly, T. (Eds.). (2015). Ethics of care: Critical advances in international perspective. Policy Press.

Ellis, B. (2014). The philosophy of nature: A guide to the new essentialism. Routledge.

KONDRLA, M., & Pavlikova, M. (2016). From Formal Ethics to Existential Ethics. European J. of Science and Theology, 12(3), 101-111.

Körner, A., & Volk, S. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139-145.

Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology, 6(1), 5.

Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.

Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J., & Hugenberg, K. (2017). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 125-132.

Van Hooft, S. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.