Part I: Define The Following Ethical Perspectives In Your Ow ✓ Solved

Part Idefine The Following Ethical Perspectives In Your Own Words A M

Part Idefine The Following Ethical Perspectives In Your Own Words A M

Define the following ethical perspectives in your own words. A minimum of three sources must be utilized and cited properly with in-text citations and a reference list. Avoid using direct quotes. If you summarize or paraphrase information in your own words, you must cite sources to provide credit for the ideas and concepts.

A = Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests that the morality of an action depends on whether it conforms to a rule that, when generally adopted, leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead of evaluating individual acts, this perspective focuses on adherence to rules designed to maximize overall happiness and reduce suffering, promoting consistent and predictable moral conduct (Mill, 1863; Shook, 2016; Hitchings & Llewellyn, 2018).

B = Kantian ethics

Kantian ethics is a deontological moral philosophy rooted in Immanuel Kant’s principle that moral actions are those performed out of duty and in accordance with universal moral laws. It emphasizes treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end, and upholds qualities like honesty, fairness, and respect as fundamentally moral (Kant, 1785; Wood, 2008; Beabout, 2020).

C = Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics centers on the development of moral character and virtues such as courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom. It posits that ethical behavior results from a virtuous character cultivated through habitual good actions, emphasizing moral maturity and the pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing) rather than a strict rule-based approach (Aristotle, trans. 2009; Hursthouse, 2018; Annas, 2019).

D = Care ethics

Care ethics emphasizes the moral significance of caring relationships, empathy, and compassion within interpersonal contexts. It argues that morality arises from our interconnectedness and responsibilities to others, prioritizing relational duties over abstract principles and recognizing emotional engagement as essential to ethical decision-making (Gilligan, 1982; Tronto, 2013; Held, 2006).

E = Social contract ethics

Social contract ethics posits that moral norms derive from an implicit agreement among individuals to cooperate for mutual benefit. It maintains that justice and morals are grounded in the agreements that establish fair cooperation, rights, and responsibilities within a society (Hobbes, 1651; Rawls, 1971; Scanlon, 1998).

F = Subjective relativism

Subjective relativism asserts that moral judgments are based on individual preferences or feelings, meaning what is right or wrong depends entirely on each person's personal perspective. It implies that moral truth is relative to individual beliefs, making moral standards fluid and context-dependent (Rachels, 2019; Shafer-Landau, 2018; American Philosophical Association, 2016).

G = Cultural relativism

Cultural relativism maintains that moral standards are dictated by the norms and values of one’s culture. It suggests that what is considered morally acceptable in one society might be unacceptable in another, emphasizing cultural diversity and discouraging ethnocentric judgments (Fiske, 2012; Brenkert, 2014; Williams, 2019).

H = Divine command theory

Divine command theory holds that moral rightness is determined by God's commands. Actions are morally obligatory or forbidden based on divine will as revealed through religious texts or spiritual authority, making morality intrinsically linked to theology (Craig, 2003; Sanders, 2013; Pope & Basinger, 2020).

I = Act utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is a consequentialist perspective that evaluates each individual action based on whether it produces the greatest happiness or least suffering. Morality is assessed case-by-case, considering the specific outcomes of each act to determine its moral worth (Bentham, 1789; Singer, 2011; West, 2014).

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction to Ethical Perspectives

Ethical philosophy provides various frameworks for evaluating moral questions and guiding behavior. Among these, rule utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, care ethics, social contract ethics, subjective relativism, cultural relativism, divine command theory, and act utilitarianism offer distinct approaches to understanding morality. Each perspective emphasizes different principles, such as outcomes, duties, virtues, relationships, societal agreements, individual preferences, cultural norms, divine authority, or situational consequences. Understanding these perspectives enables individuals and societies to engage in more reflective and nuanced moral reasoning.

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism advocates that moral actions align with rules that, when followed universally, promote the greatest overall happiness. Unlike act utilitarianism, which assesses each act independently, rule utilitarianism emphasizes adherence to beneficial rules for consistency and social stability (Mill, 1863). For instance, adopting honesty as a rule enhances trust within society, fostering collective well-being. Critics argue that rigid rule adherence can sometimes conflict with specific circumstances, but the emphasis remains on general rules that maximize happiness over the long term (Shook, 2016; Hitchings & Llewellyn, 2018).

Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics is grounded in the principle that moral actions are performed out of duty, guided by categorical imperatives that apply universally. It insists that individuals must treat others as ends, never merely as means, emphasizing respect, autonomy, and moral consistency (Kant, 1785). For example, lying is inherently wrong because it violates the duty to be truthful and undermines trust, which is essential for moral society. Kant's deontological approach prioritizes moral principles over the consequences of actions (Wood, 2008; Beabout, 2020).

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasizes character development and the cultivation of virtues that enable moral excellence. Instead of focusing solely on rules or outcomes, it encourages moral agents to embody qualities such as courage, temperance, and justice, striving toward a flourishing life (eudaimonia) (Aristotle, trans. 2009). An act is considered morally right if it stems from a virtuous character. For instance, honesty is valued because it reflects integrity and moral maturity. Virtue ethics offers a holistic approach to morality rooted in moral character (Hursthouse, 2018; Annas, 2019).

Care Ethics

Care ethics focuses on interpersonal relationships, compassion, and nurturing responsibilities. It highlights the importance of context, emotional engagement, and caring actions in moral decision-making (Gilligan, 1982). Unlike abstract principles, care ethics posits that our moral obligations arise from our interconnectedness and responsibilities to those with whom we have relationships. For example, caring for a vulnerable family member reflects the ethic’s emphasis on empathy and relational duties (Tronto, 2013; Held, 2006).

Social Contract Ethics

Social contract ethics views morality as arising from an implicit agreement among individuals to form a cooperative society. This framework highlights fairness, justice, and mutual respect, emphasizing that moral rules are justified when they uphold social cooperation and protect individual rights (Hobbes, 1651; Rawls, 1971). Justice, in this view, involves fairness in distributing benefits and burdens, ensuring societal stability and equity (Scanlon, 1998).

Subjective Relativism

Subjective relativism claims that moral judgments are based on personal preferences or feelings. What one person considers morally right may differ from another’s view, making morality subjective and highly individualized (Rachels, 2019). This perspective often leads to moral tolerance but can also hinder moral progress by discouraging critical evaluation of personal beliefs. It underscores the importance of respecting individual moral autonomy (Shafer-Landau, 2018).

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism posits that morality is culturally dependent. It asserts that each society’s norms define what is right or wrong within its context, discouraging ethnocentric judgments (Fiske, 2012). For example, practices like arranged marriages or dietary customs are morally acceptable within specific cultures but may be judged differently elsewhere. This perspective promotes cultural understanding but raises questions about moral universalism (Brenkert, 2014; Williams, 2019).

Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory states that moral principles are grounded in divine will. Actions are morally obligatory or forbidden based on what God commands, making morality inherently linked to religious beliefs (Craig, 2003). It suggests that moral duty comes from divine authority, and following divine commands is morally right regardless of human opinion. Critics argue that this approach can lead to moral conflicts when divine commands appear to conflict with each other (Sanders, 2013; Pope & Basinger, 2020).

Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism evaluates each action based on whether it produces the greatest happiness or least suffering in a specific situation (Bentham, 1789). While similar to rule utilitarianism, it focuses on the immediate consequences of individual acts rather than general rules. For example, telling a lie might be justified if it results in greater happiness in that particular case. Critics contend that it can justify morally questionable acts if they lead to positive outcomes (Singer, 2011; West, 2014).

Conclusion

The diversity of ethical perspectives demonstrates the complexity of moral reasoning. Whether emphasizing consequences, duties, virtues, relationships, societal agreements, or divine commands, each approach provides valuable insights and challenges. Engaging with these perspectives allows for more thoughtful ethical deliberation, fostering moral growth and societal harmony.

References

  • Annas, J. (2019). Intelligent virtue: Education for moral character. Oxford University Press.
  • Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean ethics. (Trans. W. D. Ross). Batoche Books.
  • Beabout, G. (2020). Kantian ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-ethics/
  • Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press.
  • Brenkert, G. G. (2014). Cultural relativism and universal moral standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 391–404.
  • Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. Crossway Books.
  • Fiske, A. P. (2012). Human societies, simple and complex: An introduction to social psychology. American Psychologist, 66(2), 83–89.
  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
  • Hitchings, S., & Llewellyn, J. (2018). utilitarianism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism/
  • Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.
  • Hursthouse, R. (2018). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
  • Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Harper & Row.
  • Pope, R., & Basinger, J. (2020). Divine command theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-command-theory/
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Sanders, J. (2013). Divine command theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-command-theory/
  • Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.
  • Shook, J. R. (2016). Consequentialism and rule consequentialism. In S. M. Cahn & P. C. Lee (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to ethical theory (pp. 175–193). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Singer, P. (2011). Practicing ethics: Essential readings in ethics. Routledge.
  • Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. NYU Press.
  • West, H. (2014). Practical reason and normative ethics. The Best of Euvoluntarism. Springer.
  • Williams, B. (2019). Moral luck and cultural differences. In The ethics of identity (pp. 123–147). Princeton University Press.
  • Wood, A. W. (2008). Kantian ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-ethics/

Related Assignments