The Similarities and Differences of Ethical Theories Mike Dyer ETH/316 November 18, 2013 Michelle Clark-Washington The Similarities and Differences of Ethical Theories There are many types of theories that coincide with virtues, values, and moral concepts to help one decide on what is right and wrong. I will be discussing the similarities and differences between three types of theories and how each theory addresses ethics and morality. These theories are virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics. Similarities Society, and we as individuals, want to achieve a common goal with ethics and morality. That goal is to do what is morally right, if it be through pleasure to avoid pain.
Therefore, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the action. The theory holds that morals are inherent in the law of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of god, or some other fundamental source. Thus, the theory recognizes objective facts about morality: moral claims are either true or false for everyone. One such relative theorist, Hobbes, argues for morality as a solution for practical problems. Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest.
Explain what is meant by moral absolutism Moral absolutism also known as moral objectivism is the belief that there are fixed universal laws which are true irrespective of time, place and situation. This belief is that an action can be intrinsically right or wrong in itself, and this is not dependent on outcome, culture or time. Moral absolutism is a priori and objective; based on facts and logic, and on the most part deontological. It is always right or wrong. It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws.
Morality is best described as the distinction between good and bad, and right and wrong behaviour. In this sense, how do we know what is right or wrong? What is good for one, may not be good for the other and vice versa. There are many cultural and traditional values that have to be taken into account, many of them with differing and even completely contradictory implications. Though there are views that take true morality as absolute.
Secondly, moral absolutes do exist. The final body paragraph will counter the supporting arguments by clarifying that absolute objective truths do not exist as moral truth can be universal but not absolute as every culture has the opportunity to hold the same moral truth and the opportunity to be tolerant of all societies. To reply, a current example that is relevant today is provided to show that theoretically the counter argument is strong, but practically Sumner’s statement is not possible. Cultural relativism is the theory that a person's culture strongly influences an individual’s mode of perception and thought (“Relativism”, 2014). The principle claims that there are no objective truth or values as morality is relative to each society or culture.
Similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics ETH316 Saloman Chavira, MBA . What I have come to realize by reading these chapters are that virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology theories try to establish a moral standard that a virtuous person can live and act upon and by. With these types of approaches to ethics, you have similarities and differences that always will be judged and taken apart piece by piece and evaluated. Just one of the similarities between these theories are that they set a standard by which a good and moral human being can live by within a community or even as a loner or someone that lives outside of a community with family. It is said that virtue ethics measures a person by his or her character and moral standing within a community in determination of his or her good.
Cultural relativism is a valid moral theory because there are no universal moral truths. Critically Discuss. Cultural Relativism theory takes the position that no objective truth or values can exist for these are distinctive to each society and culture (D’Olimpio, 2013). William Graham Sumner argues that that there are no universal truths in ethics; all ethical norms are relative to cultures (Sommers, 2001). I will now present my argument that cultural relativism is not a valid moral theory.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant on Morality When discussing the morality of ethics there are many different schools of thought by which we can attempt to justify why we think or do things the way we do; why we value the things we value; and what makes our actions right or wrong. In this essay I will address the flaws in the assumptions of Immanuel Kant’s theories on morality by reason, using David Hume’s beliefs on morality by feelings and material from the Subjectivist school of thought. The Kantian view on morality places extreme emphasis on reason rather than what we desire as humans. In other words, people act in accordance to what is their duty, not by how they feel or what they personally believe to be right. This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality.
Everyone starts out with a moral compass. Other than of course sociopaths, but those are outliers so I’m not including them in my topic. We are all born with an idea of what’s right from wrong. It’s most often referred to as natural law, or as I like to call it, “the universal law of man”. Without getting too into it, It basically says that we all have a basic idea of how we want to be treated and how we should treat others.
The rule utilitarian believes that there are enough human motives and situations to justify setting up rules that apply to all humans and situations. Kant’s duty ethics were broken down into categorical imperative and practical imperative. According to categorical imperative an act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all humans. Practical imperative states that no human should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end but rather each human is a unique end in himself. There are similarities and differences between these two groups of categories.