Utilitarianism is a theory that describes the expected behavior or conduct of an individual for the achievement of the best outcome possible. It entails distinguishing an action as right or wrong depending on whether it results in happiness or sadness respectively. The theory was developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and his economist counterpart John Stuart Mill around the 18th and the 19th century. The theory, in contrast to ethical theories which determine the rightfulness or wrongfulness of without considering its outcome, states that an ill-motivated action can breed a fair result. Mill believes that an act should only be deemed right or wrong if its recipient feels the perpetrator ought to be obliged to conduct himself or herself in a detailed way.
Utilitarianism bases its conclusions upon intrinsic value theory whereby something is regarded to be good, and the assessment of its rightfulness or wrongfulness depends on upon its relationship with this inherent goodness. According to Bentham, ‘wrong’, ‘ought’ and ‘right’ only get a meaning when judged from a utilitarian perspective. (Crisp, 2). Mill believed that pain or pleasure influence human actions and since happiness is the sole objective of all human activities.
Academically, I would apply the utilitarian theory by dedicating my time to studying as a measure to prevent failing in case I have failed previously. I would let the previous failure act as a way to forewarn me of my future conduct thus put ion a lot of effort to attain satisfactory grades.
On a personal level, I would ensure that past mistakes serve to motivate me to avoid making further erroneous decisions that would jeopardize my goals and objectives in life. Utilitarian theory sees punishment, which in this case could be equitable to failure, as a way of making the concerned individual not repeat similar mistakes rather than a way of making them suffer the consequences of their actions.
Deontological ethics entail a set of duties which denounce particular behavior. The theory states that the wrongness of an action depends on the type of activity involved and not on the outcome of the measure itself. For instance, the act of murdering an innocent person is considered wrong as it includes the killing of an innocent person rather than its consequences where it leads to grief on the victim’s kin. However, this theory fails to justify the prohibition of some actions which when disobeyed result into a positive outcome. Moral action is deemed to be a matter of observing a set of rules that allow or prohibit particular actions. The theory is based on obedience or disobedience of the set moral requirements. An individual is considered to have committed a wrong when their act inflicts harm on another person. The action is deemed to be a mistake regardless of the consequences it brings forth. Furthermore, one ought not to tell a lie even when it has a positive outcome. A lie remains to be forbidden. Deontologist ethics recognize active duties that prevent suffering and encourage the propagation of the truth although they put a bigger emphasis on prohibitions. Positive and negative duties are differentiated by acting and keeping away from acting. For instance, a killing ban needs one to stay away from murdering innocent people whereas positive duty needs one to do good actively for others. Negative duties on the other hand place limitations on what an individual is at liberty to do and require one to avoid doing particular acts.
In real life situation, I would stick by the prohibitions advocated for by this theory so as to avoid inflicting harm on others as well as to promote good relations with other people: colleagues at work and fellow students and tutors at school. This fosters a healthy relationship and helps to avoid conflicts. Application of this theory would also give me a hand in distinguishing between what is right and wrong and act accordingly.
Virtue ethics degrades the significance of rules, consequences, and individual actions and puts emphasis on the perpetrator of the acts. The theory is not majorly concerned with whether an action is right or whether it has observed the correct rules or whether its outcome is good; its principal focus is whether the perpetrator has adhered by the moral virtues. (Hursthouse 2). An individual’s character traits, which can be wrong, right or “a combination of the two”, determine the person’s overall character. Some characters evoke admiration while others do not. Admirable traits are referred to as virtues whereas the repulsive ones are called vices. The theory is applied in judging whether an act is right or wrong by comparing it to virtues. An act is regarded to be right if when it is being committed, the perpetrator shows a moral character. An act is wrong if one applies a morally vicious nature.
Academically, I would apply the virtue ethics when writing my examinations by avoiding acts such as cheating as they are not admirable traits. In a work environment, I would be sensitive and considerate to the subordinate staff as they are admirable qualities. I would also discourage laziness and negligence at work as they are vices which should not be accepted at the workplace for an institution that wants to grow.
References
Crisp, Roger. "Ideal utilitarianism: theory and practice." (1988).
Hursthouse, Rosalind. "Virtue Ethics". Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2003. Web. 2 May 2016.
