There are different theories of ethics, which continue to be debated in the world of philosophy 1 . The main theories of ethics include utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kant’s deontology, egalitarianism, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics. The following paper seeks to discuss these theories by highlighting some of their differences, strengths, and objections.
Deontology refers to an ethical theory that argues that people can only act in ethically acceptable ways if their actions are in accordance with their obligations and their duties 2 . For example, nurses are required and expected to behave based on the code of conduct that is evidently different from other codes of conduct such as what applies to police officers or teachers. According to this theory, some actions are often wrong, though they may achieve ends that are admirable. For example, breaking promises or killing should be considered as wrong actions, and people should avoid such acts. One of the key features that separate deontology from the rest is based on its consistency. Deontologists act in reliable and predictable ways. They take their praises seriously and honor their obligations and duties. Consistency in this theory is valuable and forms part of its advantages. At the same time, deontology has made sense of supererogation – acting beyond or above duty or exceeding an individual obligation 3 . However, deontology requires justifications for the obligations and duties and there is nothing strongly rational about this theory. Further, deontology presents some problems with those obligations and duties that are conflicting. Dilemmas on moral issues are always created if duties come into conflict, and there are no mechanisms for solving them. Another aspect of deontology theory is that it seems to be indifferent to the results that are taken based on obligations and duties one might have - no matter what could happen, deontologists always have to follow their obligations or duties .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is the opposite of what deontology argues 4 . The single principle of Utilitarianism is that acts of people can be considered as right in proportion if they tend to be promoting happiness, and wrong if they are producing the opposite of happiness. In this theory, the action can only be considered as right or wrong based on the outcome. For example, killing a person, or breaking a promise could be right or wrong based on the outcome of such actions. In considering the above principle, besides the results, one is supposed to consider an action that brings more benefits or happiness in determining if it is a right or a wrong action. Some of the main aspects of utilitarianism are that it is situational, rational, and well-meaning. As a well-meaning theory, utilitarianism aims at ensuring that people are careful as they act in ensuring that their actions bring the most happiness 5 . As a rational theory, it has tried to provide the basis on which action to take based on the “amount” of good or bad consequences 6 . Finally, it is situational since it provides a way of solving ethical dilemmas. However, in Utilitarianism, it is impossible to predict the impact of an action; there is no room for supererogation and obligations, and it lacks consistency as is the case with deontology theory.
On the other hand, unlike both utilitarianism and deontology, the theory of egalitarianism attempts to enforce a state of equality on individuals in the society, regardless of their actual state. In any given egalitarian society, there should be no advantages accorded to its members on smartness, attractiveness, wisdom, intelligence and so on. On this end, equality must remain as “absolute equality” in the eyes of all people and should be independent of an individual based on his or her features or attributes, and the state should enforce it. Therefore, if an issue is allowed in a given group, to ensure that there is equality, the same issue should be allowed for all other groups in the society in a similar situation, no matter the actual practice that has been involved 7 . Critical to note is that there are different types of egalitarianism, which include economic, moral, legal, political, luck, gender, racial, opportunity, and Christian egalitarianism. One of the strengths of egalitarianism is that it attempts to focus on the justice and equality, which are key concerns for every person 8 . However, the theory is based on a generalization of the kind of equality that should be experienced in the society. In fact, this has been viewed as one of the weakest areas of this theory since it is not possible to have such a society or state 9 . Another difference, compared to deontology and utilitarianism, is that egalitarianism only describes a society, but ignores the personal role in determining what is right or wrong.
The direct opposite of Egalitarianism is Libertarianism which states that one is on herself or himself, from bad or good. According to Libertarianism, the government has no role in restricting one’s access to opportunity, and it is under no obligation of providing one with those opportunities as well. Before the government’s or state’s eyes, every person is equal, but that does not mean that individual abilities should be restricted or enhanced by the same government. Libertarianism argues that if a given practice is coercive or infringes on another’s rights, then that should not be acceptable. In other words, the main difference between libertarianism and the other three theories above is that it focuses on the freedom of an individual, without the interference of the government 10 . The main objection to this principle is that freedom of individuals should not be restricted.
Finally, Aristotle’s virtue ethics is an ethical theory that focuses on the virtues of character, instead of rules or individual actions, as the basis of the concept of ethics 11 . Moral virtues such as courage, honesty, temperance, integrity, and generosity are considered as being inherently good before the actions of an individual are evaluated depending on if they are expressing the same virtues 12 . In other words, the question should be if the actions that are taken match what virtuous people will do in the same circumstances. Simply, virtue ethicists say that one should behave or act in a certain way because such actions demonstrate good character. The strongest aspect of this theory is that it is clear on the fact that good actions depict the virtuous character. However, it seems to be weak due to this same simplicity. Critics argue that Aristotle should have considered the prevailing circumstances instead of limiting actions on good character.
In reference to the above theories of ethics, I find that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is the most persuasive compared to the rest. For example, it is not conceivable how people should only act based on their duties and obligations as noted in the deontology theory. Further, happiness could be relative, which means that a person can kill and make many people happy. Therefore, this does not make such an act acceptable. Finally, both egalitarianism and libertarianism are limited to government control and individual freedom respectively, which could create disorder. However, the virtue ethics emphasizes on doing what is good at all times.
Bibliography
Duignan, Brian. 2011. Thinkers and theories in ethics . New York: Britannica Educational Pub.
In association with Rosen Education Services.
Graham, Gordon. 2010. Theories of ethics: an introduction with readings . London: Routledge.
Geirsson, Heimir, and Margaret R. Holmgren. 2000. Ethical theory: a concise anthology .
Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
Mizzoni, John. 2010. Ethics: the basics . Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
1 Gordon, Graham. 2010. Theories of ethics: an introduction with readings . London: Routledge.
2 Brian, Duignan. 2011. Thinkers and theories in ethics . New York: Britannica Educational Pub.
In association with Rosen Education Services.
3 Heimir, Geirsson and Holmgren R. Margaret. 2000. Ethical theory: a concise anthology .
Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
4 Gordon, Graham. 2010. Theories of ethics: an introduction with readings . London: Routledge.
5 Mizzoni, John. 2010. Ethics: the basics . Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
6 Heimir, Geirsson and Holmgren R. Margaret. 2000. Ethical theory: a concise anthology .
Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
7 Brian, Duignan. 2011. Thinkers and theories in ethics . New York: Britannica Educational Pub.
In association with Rosen Education Services.
8 Gordon, Graham. 2010. Theories of ethics: an introduction with readings . London: Routledge.
9 Heimir, Geirsson and Holmgren R. Margaret. 2000. Ethical theory: a concise anthology . Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
10 Gordon, Graham. 2010. Theories of ethics: an introduction with readings . London: Routledge.
11 Brian, Duignan. 2011. Thinkers and theories in ethics . New York: Britannica Educational Pub.
In association with Rosen Education Services.
12 Heimir, Geirsson and Holmgren R. Margaret. 2000. Ethical theory: a concise anthology .
Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
