There may be outliers in the form of singular events that do not follow the same path as most of the decisions that have created a virtuous life. It is for that reason we drop those outliers and look at someone’s long history to evaluate. Utilitarianism is the thought or the theory that is defined by providing the best scenario for the group or largest group possible. It does not focus on the individual. Utilitarianism focuses on the belief that actions can be morally correct if the masses get more of the benefit than any one person.
Consequentialism assumes that if human being would weigh the outcome of their taboos and beliefs, then happiness can be achieved and pain reduced. But utilitarianism assumes that people can only value a virtue if it is deemed beneficial in accomplishing human happiness. For example utilitarians believe that truth will make a better society while consequentialists believe that truth will make a better society only if the outcome causes no harm. Basically utilitarianism assumes that the wrongness or rightness of an act depends on the moral good produced as a result of doing that act. This implies that an act is right if it minimizes violation of a certain moral right thus no one should violate moral rights for happiness sake and be justified.
Virtue ethics theory is a wide-ranging term for theories that accentuate the part of personality and virtue in moral philosophy, relatively than either doing one’s responsibility or acting in order to bring about good values (Nafsika Athanassoulis). This particular theory is at present one of three major methodologies in creating standards of ethics. “It takes the viewpoint that in living your life you should try to cultivate excellence in all that you do and all that others do… these excellences or virtues are both moral and non-moral” (M.
Consequential is a type of ethical theory; it’s built upon moral views of acts, rules, etc. purely due to the consideration of their consequences, where the norm of consideration is worked as the norm of non-moral goodness. Happiness is a part of acquiring what could be an unsatisfying truth that we do not have a solid handle of our control or impact in our world; giving into the greatest good, as well as, ignoring what can bring negativity. It is important to make the best out of life as possible that represent positive and negative, and take the rest as life wants to give it. The theory of “good” and bad is really not a matter of concern; we have our own particular views, so what can be bad may actually be good.
Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life? Or on the other hand did morality come about because of something independent of God. Meaning that the determination of that which is good or that which is bad came from something other than God and the reason that God agrees with certain actions is because the action is already morally right. The former of these two is known as the Divine Command Theory and the latter is the Autonomy Thesis. The clash of these two options is the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
Assess Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics, meaning the consequences of an act are what matters. The utilitarian answer as to what to do in any situation is that we should always act to maximise utility. There are two different interpretations of utilitarianism; the positive being that we ought to do that which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number and the negative being that we ought to do that which minimises pain or suffering. Utilitarianism is teleological, or goal orienteered, meaning that the end matters more than the means used to achieve the end. The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action.
How far is virtue ethics a satisfactory guide to moral behaviour? Virtue ethics is person rather than action based as it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions, unlike Utilitarianism or Situation ethics, which always look at the consequence of the action. Virtue Ethics was a theory first developed by Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), Eudaimonia, or 'happiness', is the supreme goal of human life. Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose, Eudaimonia is the purpose for humans. Aristotle draws a distinction between superior and subordinate aims, believing Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake and therefore a superior aim.
Mill roots the Greatest Happiness Principle in his theory of life. The theory of life claims that all moral value can be understood in pleasure, which is intrinsically good, and pain, intrinsically bad. Therefore, an action is right if it produces pleasure and is wrong if it decreases pleasure or produces pain (Module 7.1). Mill’s theory of utility states that the utilitarian standard is not the agents’ own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of happiness altogether (Mill 20). He then goes on to explain that Jesus’ golden rule, do unto others as you would do unto you, is the “perfection of utilitarian morality” (Mill 27-28).
The principle of utility also advocates that, the correctness or incorrectness of a deed is dependent on the ability for the action to lead to joy or sadness. If an action aims at supporting pleasure and preventing pain, then it rhymes to this principle, and it is morally right. On the contrary, if it does not aim at promoting happiness or preventing pain, then it does not match to the principle of utility, and it is morally incorrect. This principle is argued to be the morally correct principle of deeds at all situations. The principle of utility continually states that morally right actions produce happiness for all the affected people whose concerns are involved in the picture.