Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism emphasizes on the importance of morality in the formulation and implementation of rules. In this regard, the impact of an action is considered by establishing whether it is morally justified and if its consequence results in maximum benefit as compared to other rules.
Kantian Ethics
According to Kantian Ethics, the wrongness or rightness of an action is dependent on fulfilling our duty as humans, irrespective of their consequences to other humans.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics can be defined as a set of theories that emphasize on the role of virtue of character rather than participating in acts that can be considered one’s duty to have positive consequences.
Care Ethics
Care ethics, also known as ethics of care, is a feminist philosophical approach to decision-making that considers a combination of the situational and relational context in morality and decision-making processes.
Social Contract Ethics
Social Contract Ethics postulates that people live together in communities based on an agreement created with consideration of political and moral rules to govern behavior, and without necessarily having a divine influence.
Subjective Relativism
According to subjective relativism, each individual should hold to his/her own opinion of what is right or wrong, irrespective of what opinion others might have regarding the issue.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is used to refer to a theory which states that one should not judge other people and their cultures using their standard on what is considered right or wrong, but rather, they should strive to understand these cultures in their contexts.
Divine Command Theory
The theory asserts that what is morally acceptable or not depends on a supreme being, God and that humans have a moral obligation to obey God’s commands.
Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism is closely tied to rule utilitarianism, in that an action whose consequence creates maximum net benefit or net well-being compared to other actions should be pursued. However, the role of morality in arriving at this decision is disregarded.
Reflection on the Implications of the Ethical Perspectives
Argument #1
This argument is about human sacrifice. Since it was practiced in some societies and was not considered wrong, it cannot be deemed to be inappropriate by other cultures even if the subject is viewed differently.
The ethical perspective that best describes the above is cultural relativism, which states that a cultural practice should not be judged based on how it is viewed on a different culture ( Monshipouri, 2019) . Even though human sacrifice might be considered to be morally wrong in other cultures, those who practice it within the contexts of different cultures cannot be said to be immoral since it is acceptable within these cultures.
Argument #2
According to this argument, the Constitution offers equal protection of same-sex marriage under the law and proves that same-sex marriage is right. The Social Construct Ethics best describes the argument above. According to this postulation, what is considered right should be based on morality and political rules, without considering the role of divinity. From this argument, since same-sex marriage rights are constitutionally protected, then it is right irrespective of what other religions, cultures, and societies consider to be right or wrong.
Argument #3
The argument refers to a bible verse (Leviticus 11:7), which instructs believers not to eat or touch the pigs’ carcasses as they are considered unclean. The Divine Command Theory best describes this argument since it asserts that humans have a moral obligation to obey God and his command. The bible verse describes a command issued by God, and it is expected that all people who profess the Christian religion should abide by this teaching by not eating or touching pigs’ carcasses ( Plaisted, 2017 ).
Argument #4
The argument presents a case where a neighbor runs to her house, screaming while shedding blood and being pursued by another individual holding a machete. The latter asks where the neighbor is, to which you respond honestly. Kantian Ethics best describes the scenario since the honest response is given to fulfill our duty as a human, without consideration of the possible consequences. In this scenario, while it might be good, to be honest, considerations should have been made as to whether it endangers the neighbor’s life.
Argument #5
The argument involves a family agreement to allow one of their members to take a medicine that would enable her to die peacefully instead of living with pain. Act Utilitarianism best describes the scenario since the family member’s decision to terminate his/her life is most beneficial to both her and her family members by relieving pain and relieving them from emotional distress, respectively. Further, the morality of the individual’s decision to terminate their life is disregarded. In different contexts, the fact that one would want to take their own life would be considered immoral, irrespective of the reasons presented for the decision.
Argument #6
The argument is based on a decision to trust some children over others by observing their daycare behaviors. Subjective Utilitarianism best explains this scenario, since it means that the judgment to trust some children over others is based on the individual’s opinion after observing them for a while. It is noteworthy that other people/parties may decide to trust other children other than those who were initially considered trustworthy.
Argument #7
In this argument, an individual is judged on their ability to be a good state governor based on their temperament, lies, drinking habit, and impatience. Virtue ethics best explains the idea since an ideal candidate for a state gubernatorial seat should possess a set of positive traits, unlike those highlighted above. It is noteworthy that good leadership can be a consequence of positive traits such as humility, self-control, decisiveness, positivity, strong communication, etc.
Argument #8
According to the argument, patient autonomy and free choice are morally correct. Care ethics best describes the idea since it considers autonomy and free will in making the best decision to achieve morality ( Fieser & Dowden, n.d. ). The situation is contextual since obtaining informed consent is both a legal and moral duty, and that free will is often a primary consideration in the determination of moral responsibility. However, the implication of context is applicable since a patient’s health and safety can override their free will to make decisions.
Argument #9
The belief that it is perfectly okay to lie about other things can be described by Subjective Relativism, which postulates that each individual is entitled to their own opinion of what is right or wrong, regardless of what other people might think. In this case, whereas some people may argue that it is wrong to lie even once, other people may not have an issue with lying occasionally.
Argument #10
The argument that wearing a mask when interacting with the public to protect those in the community is best explained by Social Contract Ethics, which contends that people live together based on an agreement created with political and moral rules to govern behavior ( Fieser & Dowden, n.d. ). The act of wearing a mask is an ethical rule which everyone should abide by since it protects other members of the public from contracting and spreading infections. Further, in most countries, there is no legal obligation to wear masks, but people still choose to do so in consideration of the welfare of other members of society.
References
Baron, M. W. (2018). Kantian ethics almost without apology . Cornell University Press.
Fieser, J., & Dowden, B. (n.d.). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy.
Monshipouri, M. (2019). Reza Afshari and Cultural Relativism. Human Rights Quarterly , 41 (1), 204-208.
Plaisted, D. (2017). On justifying one’s acceptance of divine command theory. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 81 (3), 315-334.
