Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics And The Golden Rule

Utilitarianism is different from Kantianism because it says that you can perform any action even if it provides some harm to others, but at the end it should provide maximum utility. But on the other end, Kantianism says that you need to treat everyone equal, no one less than the other. They both hold different views but they both are right in certain situations. Utilitarianism and Kantianism conflict in many situations. For example, you have a friend who’s pregnant, but she’s scared to tell her parents.

ARISTOTLE ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE The first thorough analysis of the concept of justice is still the best. In one sense it implies to the whole of virtue. A just and a moral right person is one who always done what is morally right and obeys the law justice in this sense is called universal justice in the eyes of Aristotle. More precisely and particularly justice consist of taking only a proper share of some good.

The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

In contrast, doing what is good means more of doing what is kind, friendly, or morally exceptional. Kant states how doing your duty because it is your duty is the only reason that has moral worth, and says that if you do something good for someone, you do it because that is the morally right thing, and not because it is a morally good

He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people

Aristotle’s moral philosophy called virtue ethics and based on his theory of the golden mean. He wrote about this in his book called Nicomachean Ethics, in which he explains the origin, nature and development of virtues, which are necessary to obtains life’s ultimate goal of happiness. He tries to show that ethical virtues are no different from skilled laborers; these workers know how to avoid excess and deficiencies to make the right product. This is how he describes virtue as the mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency. The mean is what will directly provide each individual with happiness.

Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of

(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law.

Kant mainly considered this value in his theory as an important factor. Objective theory: Objective theory is a give and take theory in which beyond the desires passions and feelings of a certain person the desires of is considered with equal morality. Basically it is the opinion of everyone. Kant’s ethical theory is based on objective morality that involves the happiness of everyone.

Chapter 8 begins by talking about the classical version of the theory of Utilitarianism. This classical version was developed by three philosophers: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. According to the author, "Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action. (b) An action's consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c)

With World War II leaving high tensions between the United States and the USSR, and both nations assuming a policy of mutual destruction the president was commonly forced to make powerful choices that could determine the fate of billions of lives. In Fall-Safe(1964) a group of pilots routinely fly out to their fail safe zones upon the US’s command base issuing an alert due to a off-course civilian jet. However, one group of pilots received a false go and traveled beyond their fail safe point to bomb Moscow, leaving it up to the president to stop a potential all-out war with the USSR. Analyzing the president’s actions with a utilitarian position, we can arrive at the conclusion that the president acted morally despite the unspeakable consequences of his actions.

Today I learned a lot from the presentations in class from some philosophers theories and my classmate's opinions on these theories. Utilitarianism was one of my favorites and this theory seemed to care for people the most and how they are affected by a situation. I favored this idea because it is very close to my very own personality because before I take a serious action I put a lot of thought into consideration before proposing a decision. I am very considerate of others feeling and I think about how will my actions make this person feel or will it affect others so I guess that is why I took the concept of utilitarianism very personal and found this very interesting.

Does lying to a community make a person feel better as a sinner? Does acting to a community help hide one’s true self? Arthur Dimmesdale, a hypocrite, depends on lying to survive. He loves but cannot show it in public; he is depressed but tries to hide his pain within his sermons. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s