Utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, virtue ethics, and Confucianism
Probably the most intuitive moral philosophies is utilitarianism, an ethical suitable that shows that ethical decisions should be built based upon what decisions is going to achieve the best good for the greatest number of people. Whenever we weigh decisions based upon all their costs and benefits, we are taking a kind of utilitarian method of decision-making (Ethics 5: Utilitarianism, 2008). Utilitarianism attempts to rationally determine what will maximize pleasure and minimize discomfort: it does not view any actions as inherently good or bad but instead focuses on the practical consequences of our decisions. It seeks to maximize electricity, whether this is happiness to get the individual or profit for a business. One of many obvious detriments of utilitarian theory is that many decisions often have a really negative effects upon a minority of folks. Another is actually defining what constitutes ‘the good’ that is certainly being accomplished. Ideally, all persons should be assessed whom may be troubled by the actions, not simply ‘the self, ‘ and the long-term consequences of actions must be taken into consideration (Ethics 5: Utilitarianism, 2008).
In stark compare to practical theory is Kant’s particular imperative. Kantian philosophy tensions the need for honest actors to target upon the moral worth of actions, not the results of activities. The end by no means justifies the means. Selected moral laws and regulations must always be obeyed. Additionally, every moral actor should behave as if he or she is setting a ethical law for all time. There are not any situational or contextual conditions (Three-minute beliefs: Immanuel Idea, 2009). It is recommended to behave as should you be setting meaningful laws forever and not make an effort to rationalize performing against all those moral laws with dreamed of consequences. Benefits problem with Kant’s inflexibility is the fact different people and different societies will vary rules intended for morality. Additionally , sometimes operating according to what would be regarded a widespread moral legislation (such as not to rest, cheat or steal) may have incredibly negative effects, both intended for the self and the rest of society.
Contrary to both of these worldviews stands Aristotle’s virtue integrity, which strains on the require a good moral character instead of to obey unyielding guidelines about making the most of utility or perhaps obeying moral laws.