Question

what are some of the basic tenets, pros and cons, of each of the following. Remember, these are to be written as essays: 1) Virtue Ethics 2) Deontology 3) Utilitarianism

Answer 1

• Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).
• Eudaimonism is the classical formulation of Virtue Ethics. It holds that the proper goal of human life is eudaimonia which can be variously translated as "happiness", "well-being" or the "good life", and that this goal can be achieved by a lifetime of practising the virtues in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of "phronesis" (practical wisdom) to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise.
  
• Ethics of Care was motivated by the idea that men think in masculine terms such as justice and autonomy, whereas woman think in feminine terms such as caring. It calls for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc, which have been marginalized because society has not adequately valued the contributions of women.
• Agent-Based Theories, give an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc), which we can identify by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars.
• Pros-
• Examines the moral agent unlike many other ethical theories.
• It holds human relationships in high regard unlike others such as Kant, who sees close bonds as morally dangerous.
• Human emotions and responsibilities are important. This separates Virtue Ethics from most other ethical theories as they regard emotions as illogical and therefore dangerous.
• Allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truth.
• It does not claim to be a miracle solution for every problem but tries to equip us so as to deal with the problems.
• It places virtues at the center of morality.
• Cons-
• Robert Louden stated that as Virtue Ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas. It may help make the moral agent virtuous but it does not give any answers relating to an ethical crisis.
• As it is particularist it focuses on a small number of traits that make the individual virtuous but ignores the big picture. Society toady is far too big and complex to take note of a moral theory that only focuses on the small things. Modern governments cannot make ethical decisions on the basis of individual character traits, they need to look at the consequences of actions on the population as a whole.
• It asserts that there are character traits, Gilbert Harman among other psychologists believe these to be an illusion.
• Deontology is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves.Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good.
• For example, if someone proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about.
• It is sometimes described as "duty-based" or "obligation-based" ethics, because Deontologists believe that ethical rules bind people to their duty.
• Pros-
• It offers motivation-People hesitate when making decisions because they fear what the consequence of a decision will be. In deontology, the consequence is taken out of consideration. Only the action is evaluated for “right” or “wrong,” so that creates a better level of motivation to make decisions.
• It offers justice-Deontology may offer an individualized perspective, but there are no shades of gray within this ethical approach. It is a black-and-white evaluation process. Something is either “right” or “wrong,” which dictates that the individual must always choose the option that is “right.”
• It can still operate under objective guidelines-Deontology can create similarities between individuals with like-minded ethics. It is also something that can be handed down from generation to generation. Individuals can learn what is consistently “right” and consistently “wrong” and teach that knowledge to others.
  
• Cons-
• It is motivated by pleasure-Right or wrong in deontology takes on a personal definition. That means people can define “right” by what makes them feel good. It creates an individualized moral code instead of a societal code, which can create unpredictable results.
• No consequences are considered-Deontology looks at the action be taken on its own. There is no consideration given to the consequence of an action. Even though the concepts of “right” and “wrong” can be taught to others, it is up to each person to decide their individualized ethics.
• It is selfish-At its core, deontology only considers the individual and what is best for that person, at that time. There is no thought of others, of culture, or of society. It focuses on each decision, in the moment, and determines the ethics of that choice at that time.
• Conflicts are created-Because choices are made in real-time, a “right” choice today could become a “wrong” choice tomorrow. The chances for ethical conflicts to occur are very high within this system.
• Utilitarianism gets its name from the term "utility," which in this context does not mean "useful" but, rather, means pleasure or happiness. To say that something has intrinsic value means that it is simply good in itself. A world in which this thing exists, or is possessed, or is experienced, is better than a world without it (all other things being equal).
• Hedonism- ethical theory that pleasure(in the sense of satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life; Pleasure is the only intrinsic good; pain is the only intrinsic bad .
• Act-consequentialism- actions are right to the extent that they promote good consequences and wrong to the extent that they fail to do so.
• Pros-
• It presents a strong sense of purpose-By using a utilitarian view to look at every decision you will make, every choice would become very important to you. As a result, you will start thinking of the things you do in a broader picture, which will affect more than just yourself.
• It promotes a world with more happiness-Generally, utilitarians would want everything and everyone to be happy in making decisions, which could be very advantageous because it helps individuals to truly think about the consequences of their actions.
• It articulates the basic human nature of feelings-Since birth, human beings are already conditioned to like or fear things based on the feelings that they can cause. Hurting yourself physically can cause us pain, while funny things can make us happy. The theory of utilitarianism just articulates the basic human nature of feelings.
• It helps with making tough decisions-People naturally face difficult choices, with desires and emotions taking over decisions most of the time. But with this theory of ethics, we will be able to think rationally and eventually make the right choices.
• Cons-
• It is disputable on whether who can decide good or bad-No one exactly knows who has the absolute right to say what is good or bad, as every individual is wired differently with different beliefs on certain things. For example, while some people believe that drinking alcohol brings happiness, others would disagree and argue that it is toxic to the body. When so much judgment is left to morality, issues will definitely arise.
• It prevents us to make speculations about the future-If you judge actions based on outcomes, then you can never make accurate judgments. After all, it is very difficult to accurately determine the exact consequences, making the ideals behind this theory irrelevant.
• It promotes favoritism-It would be difficult for someone to make a utilitarian decision with their loved ones on the line, as his/her instincts would take over, making him/her favor those he/she loves.
• It can lead to missed opportunities-For situations that require quick decisions, utilitarianism would not work effectively. Most of the time, the chance to make a truly correct decision would be lost during calculation.