After Completing Your Assigned Reading For The Week Please J

After Completing Your Assigned Reading For The Week Please Join With

After completing your assigned reading for the week, please join with your classmates to deliberate about the three primary approaches to ethics: virtue ethics, deontology (rule–based ethics), and consequentialism (the consequences of an act determine whether the act is good or not). Use your posts to figure out what exactly and specifically are the crucial differences among these three approaches and which approach seems to have the most merit. Rather than think about these three approaches in the abstract, please ground your discussion and deliberation about these approaches by examining the approaches as they would apply in the following scenario: “You live in a neighborhood community that is restricted to those 55 years of age and older. One day, however, Jim and Barb Smith bring their 11-year-old grandson home to live with them after becoming his legal guardians. His unwed mother, Jim and Barb’s daughter, has been committed indefinitely for mental health issues. As an officer on the local neighborhood association, you have heard from several neighbors that the 11-year-old has to leave or the Smiths have to go. You’ve approached the Smiths about the situation. They’ve been trying to sell their home, but they cannot get anything close to their asking price, and they cannot afford to leave without selling their home first. If their grandson doesn’t stay with them, he’ll have to go to foster care. The Homeowner’s Association meeting is this evening. Will you vote to file suit against the Smiths or not?”

Paper For Above instruction

This essay explores how the three primary ethical approaches—virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism—would approach a complex moral dilemma involving the Smith family and neighborhood regulations. By analyzing each framework's specific requirements and principles within the scenario, I will demonstrate their differences and examine whether they lead to the same or different moral conclusions, ultimately discussing how to determine the most appropriate ethical response when conflicts arise among these perspectives.

Virtue ethics, rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle, emphasizes moral character and virtues such as compassion, justice, and prudence. Applying this approach to the Smiths’ situation would focus on the moral character and intentions of the individual making the decision, rather than on rules or consequences alone. From a virtue ethics perspective, the decision to support or oppose the Smiths' attempt to house their grandson would hinge on virtues like empathy and kindness. One might argue that compassion and familial loyalty should guide the decision, advocating that the community member show understanding and kindness to the Smiths and their grandson, especially given their hardship. The virtue approach emphasizes acting in accordance with morally admirable character traits, suggesting that supporting the Smiths' right to keep their grandson could be justified if the decision aligns with virtues like compassion and justice (Annas, 2011).

Deontology, as advanced by Immanuel Kant, asserts that moral duties and rules are the foundation of ethical action. In this scenario, deontologists would focus on adhering to moral principles such as honesty, fairness, and respect for individual rights. One key deontological principle may involve respecting the rights of the child and the Smiths’ legal guardianship, which could conflict with neighborhood restrictions. The moral duty to support family integrity and care for the vulnerable might outweigh the rule against non-owner-occupied households. Kantian ethics would compel individuals to act according to maxims that could be universalized without contradiction, such as “Supporting family stability is morally obligatory.” If such a maxim can be universalized, supporting the Smiths’ situation could be seen as morally correct from a deontological standpoint, emphasizing duties over consequences (Kant, 1785/1993).

Consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, evaluates morality based on the outcomes of actions. Applying this approach involves assessing what course of action produces the greatest overall happiness or reduces suffering. In this case, supporting the Smiths’ decision to keep their grandson might increase the well-being of the family, the child, and potentially the community if compassion prevails. Conversely, allowing the neighborhood rules to take precedence might cause distress to the Smiths and the child, leading to greater suffering. A utilitarian would weigh these outcomes carefully. If supporting the Smiths results in more happiness—such as keeping the family united and avoiding distress—then voting in favor of supporting them would be justified. The utilitarian might also consider broader societal implications, such as fostering a compassionate community, which could enhance overall well-being (Mill, 1863).

When examining whether these perspectives lead to the same or different outcomes, it is likely they may produce divergent results. Virtue ethics might stress compassion and familial loyalty, supporting the Smiths. Deontology might prioritize moral duties and rights, which could either support or oppose their case depending on which duties are deemed paramount. Consequentialism will focus solely on outcomes, which might support the Smiths if communal happiness increases. The divergence occurs because each framework emphasizes different moral factors—character, rights, or consequences—potentially leading to conflicting decisions.

Determining the ‘right’ result in such dilemmas often involves critical judgment and value prioritization. If the results conflict, one approach is to weigh which ethical principle has the most practical importance or aligns best with community values. For example, if safeguarding individual rights and family integrity outweigh community rules, deontology or virtue ethics might take precedence. Conversely, if overall community well-being and happiness are regarded as the primary goals, consequentialism could be favored. Alternatively, a virtue ethics approach emphasizes moral character, encouraging decision-makers to act in a manner consistent with virtues like compassion and fairness, which could serve as a guiding criterion across different situations (Singer, 2011).

While all three approaches aim to promote moral goodness, their differing emphases sometimes result in conflicting judgments, raising questions about the objectivity and universality of ethical standards. Some scholars argue that none of these perspectives holds a monopoly on moral correctness; instead, they offer different routes to ethical understanding. Consequently, in complex moral dilemmas, balancing these approaches—recognizing their respective strengths—may lead to more nuanced and morally grounded decisions. The key is understanding the context and the moral principles most relevant to the specific situation, ensuring that the chosen action aligns with a coherent ethical framework (Williams, 2015).

References

• Annas, J. (2011). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, B. (2015). Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Leahy, H. (2010). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
• Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Content. Clarendon Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Nagel, T. (1979). The View From Nowhere. Oxford University Press.