Utilitarianism and Kantianism
Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics and Kantianism are examples of normative ethics. In these theories, there are three components which characterize every action: the consequences of the action, the action itself (which also include the motive of the action), and the agent (the doer). Utilitarianism deals with the consequences of the action. On the other hand, deontological theories (Kantianism and divine command theory) are concerned with motive/action. Virtue ethics, however, is concerned with the doer/agent (Stewart, 2009).
Utilitarianism and Kantianism
Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is derived from the word utility. In utilitarianism, an action is deemed right only if its outcome is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Chappel, 2014). For example, if by donating food to a group of people it makes many of them happy, the action is deemed morally well. If the police shoot and kill thieves in a place makes all residents to be happy, the police actions are deemed morally good.
Kantianism: Kantianism is derived from the founder of the ethical theory, Emmanuel Kant. In Kantianism, the judgment of whether an action is either wrong or right depends on whether such an action fulfills a duty and not the consequences of such an action (Chappel, 2014). Kant argued that all moral actions should be based on a “sense of duty” and nothing else. For example, buying water for a thirsty stranger because one sympathize with her is not a moral action. However, buying water to a thirsty stranger because one has a sense of duty to buy her water constitute a moral act.
Both theories are similar in that they fail to incorporate everything that morality requires. For example, in both theories, there is a conflict of duties. Another similarity between the two theories is that they help people to make moral decisions. The two theories did not give a procedure on how to determine what is right or wrong in a practical decision-making situation. Rather, they only provided a criterion of what is right or wrong (Nordgren, 2001). However, the two theories differ in many ways. Utilitarianism theory is simple to follow. However, Kantianism is very complex to follow. Kant’s theory is also different from utilitarianism in that it put absolute limits on what others can do to other people. Certain aspects of Kant’s theory are very difficult to grasp since they are contrary to what one intuitively expect, and so different from the way people normally view their actions or their relationships with others (Collier and Halliburton, 2015).
Ethical Relativism and Ethical Egoism
Ethical relativism. Ethical relativism posits that what is considered right or wrong dependents on the cultural context of the people. What is wrong in one place may be regarded right in a another place because the only criteria for differentiating what is right or wrong, the only available ethical standard for judgment of individual’s action (s), is the moral system prevailing in the society in which the action (s)took place (Giersson and Holmgren, ). For example, abortion can be regarded an immoral action according to German Catholic, but it is accepted as a moral method of birth control in Korea. According to the proponents of ethical relativists, abortion is wrong in Germany but morally acceptable in Korea. Ethical relativists argue that morality is relative to a particular society in context.
Ethical Egoism: It is a moral doctrine which holds the view that moral individuals need only to pursue what is in their own self-interest (Widdows, 2014). Even if one was to pursue the interest of others, he/she would only pursue if others’ interests would ultimately contribute to his/her own self-interests. It explains how people are expected to behave. For example, a business person should only donate to a charity if by contributing he/she will also benefit such as getting access to more business deals.
Both ethical relativism is similar in a way because right or wrong depends on the views of people. For example, someone can assist someone to abort in a culture where abortion is acceptable. By assisting someone, an individual’s interest could be to get money. Ethical egoism deviates from people’s intuition about fairness, friendship, justice, and advice. For example, true friendship is such that both friends take a genuine interest in another’s well-being. In ethical egoism, one’s action to achieve a goal is motivated by the self. In virtue ethics, one’s action to do the right thing is motivated by his/her personality.
Virtue Ethics and Natural Law
Virtue ethics: Virtue ethics theorizes that an action is regarded right if it is only a virtuous agent would opt for in similar circumstances (Chappell, 2014). In virtue ethics, any action that is deemed right is a product of good character, from a conception of the appearance of a person: dispositions, motives, character, and inner traits (Widdows, 2014). For example, if two friends happen to be in a desert and they have only a little water left. A good person will not take more water than his share. By not taking more than his share, he exhibits virtues of justice and self-control.
Natural law moral theory: It is a moral doctrine which holds the view that the moral standards by which human behaviors are governed are, in some sense, objectively a product of both the nature of the world and the nature of human beings.
Both virtue ethics and natural law moral theory are similar in that they do not give a method for evaluating a moral action. If moral standards in natural law theory are a result of the nature of the human beings, and if the nature of the collective human beings is the same as those that characterize an individual, then the theory will become similar to virtue ethics. For example, if a community happens to be in a desert and they have only a little water left. A good community, acting according to naturally, will not take more water than their share. By not taking more than their share, they exhibit virtues of justice and self-control which are the same as those for virtue ethics. Virtue ethics are grounded in what human beings do. Natural law theory is grounded on the laws which are universal and not influenced by human beings; laws not made by human beings. Natural law theory suggests that what people do is written in their hearts while virtue ethics suggest that it is peoples’ repeated habits of excellence which result in what is deemed good characters.
Ethical relativism
Ethical relativism is a moral doctrine which holds the view that morality is relative to a particular culture in context. This implies that an action is judged right or wrong depending on the moral norms of the culture in which it takes place (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer, 1992). The same action which is wrong in one cultural setting may be regarded right in another cultural setting. This happens because cultures differ widely from one place to another. This differences in cultural practices have brought about differences in moral practices. Proponents of ethical relativism argue that there are no universal standards for measuring morals. To them, moral values are determined by cultural norms. For example, in one culture, euthanasia is acceptable while in another culture it could be unacceptable. In one culture, snakes can be a form of food delicacies while in another culture, snakes are unacceptable and seen as a sign of evil. So anyone seen associating with snakes is associated with evil.
References
Chappell. T. (2014). Ethics and Experience: Life beyond Moral Theory. New York, NY: Routledge
Collier, C. & Halliburton, R. (2015). Bioethics in Canada: A Philosophical Introduction. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.
Giersson, H. & Holmgren, M. (2001). Ethical Theory: A Concise Anthology. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.
Nordgren, A. (2001). Responsible Genetics: The Moral Responsibility of Geneticists for the consequences of human genetics research. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stewart, N. (2009). Ethics. Malden, MA: Polity Press
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T.S.J., and Meyer, M.J. (1992). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/
Widdows, H. (2014). Global Ethics: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
