Deontological theory
Deontological theory is concern itself with the idea of what is wrong and right, an aspect that is emphasizes on values and morals (Walluchow, 2003). We have monistic and pluralistic deontology (Darwell, 2003). According to Monistic approach, an individual should do a thing because it is right and not because the consequences. A person should therefore do what is right even if the act will result to occurrence of damage. For instance, Kant decided not to save his friend from a murderer by telling a lie because he thought that it was not right to lie even if the consequence was useful (Mackinnon, 2014).
Pluralist approach on the other hand seeks to apply the concept of equality and uses the idea of harm and help (Giersson, 2000). This approach states that people should always help each and should prevent inflicting harm on others. To conclude, a deontological approach thus takes the standpoint that if a conflict arises in the course of dispensing a duty, a person should make the right decision because implementing a duty is not mandatory(Corrigan,2010).
Utilitarian theory
Utilitarian theory is usually associated with Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. According to Utilitarian, the consequences of ``an act” is the ultimate test on whether an action is right or wrong (Mill, 1683). Utilitarian theory thus focuses on acting for the benefit of other people and not acting to accomplish our desires. Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, argues that the act of an individual causes happiness or pain. Further, Bentham states that the right action causes happiness while a wrong inflicts pain (Scarre, 2002).
Utilitarian theory thus focuses on increasing happiness and reducing pain (Sen., 1982). The foregoing statement emphasizes on undertaking an act that yield greatest happiness. For instance, under this theory a doctor is right to kill a terminally ill patient in order to use his organs to save the lives of other people who are not terminally ill(Posner,1983). In conclusion, Stuart Mill and Bentham concur that the acts that are considered right and wrong are acquired from ``previous generations”(Smart,1973).
Natural rights theory
Natural rights theory is linked to philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Samuel Adams (Finnis, 2011). These philosophers express that ``everybody” is born with these rights despite the`` race and nationality” because God is the giver of ``all rights” and that nobody should be denied these rights (Tierny1997). Some of these are (Maritin, 2001) ``right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
Naturalist philosophers believed that the ``natural rights” of the people should be protected by the government (Fuerle, 2003). The need for protection of ``natural rights” forms the basis of many constitutional rights such as`` press freedom and freedom of speech.” To conclude, natural rights philosophers argue that each person has a moral responsibility to obey natural rights (Hochstrasser, 2003).
According to deontological theory, Jim should not accept a bribe in terms of money from the drug manufacturer. Jim should decide what is right, not because of the outcome but because it is the right thing to do (Mackinnon, 2014). In this case, the fact that the drug can cause cancer in the future should not make Jim decline to accept a bribe. However, it is because his values dictate that he does so.
Further, in regard to utilitarian theory, Jim should not accept a bribe from the manufacturer. We find that the drug can cause cancer in future thus the consequence of using this drug should help Jim to make his decision(Sacrre,2002).Utilitarian theory advocates for the promotion of happiness and reduction pain by doing an act that is right. In this case, if Jim takes the bribe, he will cause pain to the users of this drug in the future, and this is wrong according to utilitarian theory.
In conclusion, Jim has the right to make the decision of not accepting the money from the manufacturer. As per natural rights theory, Jim has the discretion to choose what he likes because no one can deny him ``the right” to exercise his ``free will” in making a decision that he deems just (Finnis, 2011).
Reference
Corrigan, R. & Farrell. (2010).Ethics: A University Guide. USA.Progressive Frontiers Pubs.
Darwell, S. (2003). Deontology.USA. Wiley.
Finnis, J. (2011).Natural Law and Natural Rights.UK. Oxford University Pres.
Fuerle, R. (2003).Natural Rights. A New Theory. Indiana. Xlibris Corporation.
Giersson, H. & Holmgren, M. (2000).Ethical Theory. A concise Anthology.UK.
Broadview Press.
Hochstrasser, T & Schroder, P. (2003).Early Modern Natural LAW Theories. Context and
Strategies in the early Enlightment. USA. Spring publishing.
Mackinnon, B. &Fiala, A. (2014).Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues.USA
.Cengage Learning.
Maritin, J. & Sweet, W. (2001).Natural Law .Reflections on Theory and Practice.
USA. St. Augustine Press.
Mills. (1683).Utilitariasm.available at http://www.justiceharvard.org/ retrieved 6th June, 2014.
Scarre, G. (2002).Utilitariasm.USA.Routledge publishing.
Sen., A., Williams, B., Arthur, B. & Williams, O. (1982).Utilitariasm and
Beyond. London. Cambridge University Press.
Smart.J. (1973).Utilitarianism .For and against it.London.Cambridge University Press.
Tierney, B. (1997).The idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Law Rights, Natural Law
And church Law. Michigan. WM.B. Eerdmans publishing.
Posner, R, (1983).The Economics of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Walluchow. (2003TheDimensionsof Ethics: An Introduction to ethical Theory.UK.
Broadview Press.
