The main focus of Aristotle’s approach was virtue, which argues that people should act in a way that leads them to become individuals they would wish to become (Albanese, 2006). Kant, on the other hand, focuses on duty, which stipulates that in whatever action, a person’s should act according to how their duty requires of them (Albanese, 2006). The utilitarian theory emphasizes the consequences and benefits in that one’s action should be driven by the ultimate benefits and happiness of many people (Albanese, 2006). As such, the utilitarian theory and the principles as stipulated by Kant differ greatly. However, both of them are focused on conduct. Indeed, utilitarianism focuses on conduct, which will lead to maximization of happiness while Kant focuses on conduct as it is required by duty. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, does not specify on conduct but stresses that people should act in a way that a person of virtue would. In the real world, seldom do people consider using one theory, but most of the times, they consider a mix of perceptions from the dominant theories. Nonetheless, by considering the problems of the 21 st century, the utilitarian approach has been the most popular since it is the best theory that deals with the issues faced in this century.
Utilitarianism is a popular theory since it offers the best course of action when faced with dilemmas. People often use a utilitarian type of reasoning in making daily decisions. Today, when a person is asked why they performed a particular action, the answer would always be inclined to mentioning the benefits that would come out of the deed and the kind of harms that the action would prevent. Legislators, business analysts, and even scientists often use this type of reasoning to solve problems. For instance, a legislator would have to weigh the ultimate good and bad that would result from banning the use of marijuana or banning a certain controversial social activity.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, utilitarianism is the best option since it offers a straightforward method for deciding a course of action in any dilemma that people might find themselves in (Albanese, 2006). For people to deal with a dilemma and get out of it, they first have to identify the various courses of action that are possible in that situation (Mill, 2016). Secondly, one has to pinpoint the consequences and look at all the negative and positive impacts of each action. From a careful contemplation, a person would then make a decision, which entails choosing the option which has the most positive outcomes and the least negative consequences.
The utilitarian theory capitalizes on the fact that the purpose of ethics and morality is to make life better (Mill, 2016). Indeed, l ife is made better by increasing the number of good things while decreasing the number of bad things. Good things lead to pleasure and happiness among human beings while bad things lead to unhappiness and pain. According to utilitarians, morality is only justifiable based on its contribution to the life of human beings and non-human living things on earth (Mill, 2016). If morality promotes happiness, then it is justifiable in every means.
In the 21 st century, life is complex, and each day people are faced with different issues and dilemmas. In an environment where culture, religions, and duties are intertwined, the other theories fall short in explaining the desired course of action. In the 21 st century, people are constantly reacting and acting in every situation that arises throughout their lives. While it is vital to put into consideration how people will respond in a given situation, it is difficult to know how exactly a person will react since ethical dilemmas often come with confusions, emotions, and misunderstandings. As such, this means that all the ethical principles might have shortcomings. The virtue ethics approach is problematic since, amidst all the confusion and misunderstanding of ethical dilemmas, it does not provide clear guidance on the actions. Indeed, a person may perform a right action without being virtuous while it is also possible for a person to conduct a wrong action while trying to be virtuous. Additionally, the virtue ethics is subject to egoism since what is virtuous to one person may not be virtuous to another. In other words, this principle tells people to do what they want. However, in the 21 st century, one cannot do whatever they want to do because they will be termed as 'selfish.'
Kant’s ethics, on the other hand, also faces shortcomings due to its inability to guide action in case of a dilemma (Albanese, 2006). Kant’s focus on duty makes the principle too abstract in that it fails to consider the differences between situations and cases. For Kant’s theory to work, there needs to be a universal law that dictates morality, for instance, a universal truth. However, it may be virtually impossible for the universal truth to apply due to the complexity of situations. Additionally, Kantian ethics is subject to what a person wills to do and what they consider as a duty. In most cases, what a person intends to do may be right or wrong. In addition, determining whether a person’s will is right or wrong is wholly dependent on the situation.
In conclusion, ethical dilemmas in this century are complex. As such, the ethical principles need to provide practical solutions to practical ethical dilemmas. The Kantian and virtue ethics do not qualify as principles that offer practical guidance. In contrast, the utilitarian tenets are the most preferred since they give guidance on the choice that one should take. In addition, utilitarian thinking is widely favored since it enables people to weigh options depending on what causes maximum benefits.
References
Albanese, J. S. (2006). Professional ethics in criminal justice: Being ethical when no one is looking. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
