Ethical Theories Comparison Chart: Utilitarianism And Ethica

Ethical Theories Comparison Chartutilitarianismethical Egoismethics Of

Compare and contrast various ethical theories, including utilitarianism, ethical egoism, ethics of care, Kantianism, prima facie duties, divine command theory, and virtue theory. Address how each theory determines what is "good," identify notable philosophers associated with each, and discuss the major strengths and weaknesses of each theory.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The realm of moral philosophy is rich with diverse frameworks that guide human conduct and determine what actions are morally right or wrong. Ethical theories serve as systematic approaches to understanding morality, often proposing different criteria for what constitutes the good and how moral decision-making should be carried out. This essay provides a comprehensive comparison of prominent ethical theories, including utilitarianism, ethical egoism, ethics of care, Kantianism, prima facie duties, divine command theory, and virtue theory, examining how each theory defines goodness, whose interests they prioritize, and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory rooted in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. The central principle is the maximization of overall happiness or pleasure and the minimization of pain. According to utilitarians, “good” is determined by the consequences that actions produce, specifically aiming to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). This theory emphasizes impartiality, considering all individuals' well-being equally, and underscores the importance of evaluating outcomes to guide moral choices.

One of the key strengths of utilitarianism is its practical approach to moral decision-making. It provides a clear criterion for evaluating actions and encourages thorough consideration of consequences, which can lead to socially beneficial outcomes (Shafer-Landau, 2012). However, this theory also has notable weaknesses, such as difficulties in predicting outcomes accurately, potential to justify morally questionable actions if they produce overall happiness, and challenges in quantifying happiness or pleasure (Railton, 1984).

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism asserts that individuals should act in their own self-interest, and “good” is determined by what benefits oneself (Rand, 1964). Unlike utilitarianism, which considers the welfare of all, egoism focuses solely on the individual's interests, claiming that moral actions are those that advance one's own long-term well-being.

A major advantage of ethical egoism is its alignment with human nature and psychological tendencies towards self-preservation and self-interest (Hobbes, 1651). It can also promote personal responsibility and self-reliance. Nevertheless, critics argue that ethical egoism may lead to selfishness and conflicts, undermining social cohesion and cooperation (Singer, 2011). It also struggles to provide a basis for altruism or caring behaviors, which are vital in social contexts.

Ethics of Care

The ethics of care emphasizes interpersonal relationships, empathy, and nurturing as the foundation of moral behavior. Prominent advocates such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings argue that morality is rooted in caring for others and maintaining relational dependencies (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). The “good” is determined by the virtue of care and attentiveness to the needs of others, especially in personal, context-dependent situations.

This ethical approach highlights the importance of emotional engagement and moral sensitivity. Its strength lies in addressing moral experiences often neglected by formal principles, such as empathy and compassion (Held, 2006). However, critics contend that care ethics can be overly subjective, lacking clear universal principles, and susceptible to partiality or favoritism (Slote, 2007). Additionally, it may struggle to resolve conflicts between competing cares.

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant's deontological theory posits that morality is grounded in duty and the adherence to moral laws expressed through categorical imperatives. The defining feature is that actions are morally right if performed out of duty and conform to moral maxims that can be universally applied (Kant, 1785). In this framework, “good” is not determined by outcomes but by the inherent nature of the actions performed.

One significant strength of Kantian ethics is its emphasis on moral consistency and respect for persons as ends in themselves, thereby protecting individual rights (Wood, 1999). Its systematic nature offers clear moral guidelines. Conversely, critics argue that Kantian ethics can be rigid, ignoring consequences that might lead to morally better outcomes, and sometimes producing conflicting duties that are difficult to resolve (Johnson, 1990).

Prima Facie Duties

Introduced by W. D. Ross, the concept of prima facie duties encompasses moral obligations that are apparent at first glance but may be overridden by more pressing duties in specific situations. These include duties such as fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, and self-improvement (Ross, 1930). “Good” is based on fulfilling these duties, which are considered self-evident but context-sensitive.

This approach acknowledges moral complexity and the necessity of moral intuition and judgment. Its flexibility is advantageous in addressing real-life ethical dilemmas. However, critics highlight that the lack of a precise hierarchy among duties can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in moral decision-making (Wiggins, 2006).

Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory posits that moral goodness is determined by divine will or commands. Actions are considered morally right if they align with God's prescriptions, and wrong if they contravene divine law (Aquinas, 1274). This theory grounds morality in the authority of a divine being, often tied to a religious tradition.

Its major strength lies in providing clear moral directives, which can inspire moral commitment among believers. Nonetheless, critics argue that it can be circular—defining moral good as whatever God commands—and raises questions about moral independence and pluralism among different religious traditions (Euthyphro dilemma; Plato, 399 BC). It also faces challenges when divine commands appear to conflict with moral intuitions or societal justice.

Virtue Theory

Virtue ethics, originating with Aristotle, emphasizes the development of moral character and virtues such as courage, temperance, and wisdom. The “good” is related to the cultivation of virtues that enable individuals to lead fulfilling and morally upright lives (Aristotle, 350 BC). Moral actions are those that express or cultivate these virtues.

A key strength of virtue theory is its holistic approach, focusing on character and moral development rather than isolated actions. It encourages individuals to become morally better over time. However, critics note that virtue ethics can be vague about specific moral rules and how virtues apply in complex situations (Hursthouse, 1999). It also faces challenges in defining universally accepted virtues across cultures.

Conclusion

In summary, each ethical theory offers unique insights and approaches to determining what is morally good and how moral decisions should be made. Utilitarianism emphasizes outcomes and collective happiness; ethical egoism centers on self-interest; ethics of care prioritizes relationships and compassion; Kantianism upholds duty and moral laws; prima facie duties recognize moral complexity; divine command theory bases morality on divine authority; and virtue theory focuses on moral character and virtues. Understanding their distinctions, strengths, and weaknesses enriches our appreciation of the plurality in moral philosophy and aids in navigating complex ethical dilemmas in contemporary society.

References

• Aristotle. (350 BC). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross.
• Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica. Catholic University of America Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
• Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. University of California Press.
• Railton, P. (1984). Conflict, clarification, and justification: The standards of morality and their application. In The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D. (2006). Fact and Opinion. Clarendon Press.
• Wood, A. W. (1999). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.