According to Holland (2011) there are few criticisms of virtue ethics. First, virtue ethics is really complicated and multiple varieties of the theory of virtue ethics exist. Hence a single summary of VE cannot completely do justice to this theory and the complexity it encompasses. Second, as VE is attempted to be used on more specific cases and is tried to be made more concise, the theory tends to become more inaccurate. The article further suggests the needs for a more comprehensive and specific explanation of virtue ethics. Although there are criticisms of virtue ethics, there are positive remarks about it as well. Stephen (2011) cites McDougall, according to whom, virtue ethics might be the best way to think about and approach …show more content…
“Utilitarianism focuses on the greatest good of society rather than of individuals” (Garbutt, Davies 2011) and the theory makes the assumption that prediction about the results of action can be made and thus “end justify the means” (Garbutt, Davies 2011) if the result leads to greater good. So if the technology can be perfected harming as few individuals as possible and if it can be used to enrich the lives of many people, more than that was harmed, then a utilitarian approach would approve of this technology.
Virtues and Vices of Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
A major issue with a utilitarian approach is that when looking at the greater good it sometime neglects the needs or values of the smaller group. This approach somehow devalues what the smaller group needs. And this is does not seem just to treat people. Just because a greater number of people requires a certain treatment, the happiness of the other group should not be sacrificed. But that is what utilitarianism is about, to make the greatest number of people happy at the cost making the smaller group unhappy. This aspect of utilitarianism to provide happiness to the greatest number of people at the cost of others does not seem like a fair approach for an ethical principle. And especially in medicine this kind of approach should
Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.
No form of Utilitarianism addresses the concerns raised about the intrinsic value and human life, it is a simple, easily exploited mask of morality. While the claims are to maximize happiness, with the reasons being that it wants to increase the aggregate happiness in general, the theory promotes with the inverse to eliminate as much unhappiness as possible. Rather than maximizing the good for all involved, one could easily just attempt to a limit the amount of people affected by whatever deed is done, especially if the deed would be considered bad if people knew about it. By keeping the action to a select
Utilitarianism looks too much towards the future and how society will be impacted but there is no way to really know what will happen. You could not allow an abortion to a poor unloving
Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.
Utilitarianism poses an issue when it is used as the sole method for decision making. I do not agree with it at all. There is no way to truly calculate or measure the outcome of a situation. It involves setting aside your values to make a decision based on what will
Utilitarianism by definition is defined as actions which are deemed right only if they provide benefits to the majority of the people. In Paul Farmer’s book, Reimagining Global Health, Farmer talks about utilitarianism as being one of the four moral frameworks in global health. Utilitarianism has both strengths and weaknesses which leads the reader to contemplate on which is more presiding over the other. The strengths of Utilitarianism are comprised of many qualities as it is shown in Farmer’s book.
My purpose of this essay is to explain and analyze virtue ethics. According to virtue ethics, in order to live an ethical life, one must possess the right character traits, which are virtues, and as a result, they will have the appropriate moral character. While virtue ethics does have many strengths to it, such as that it places a central role on character, I have to disagree with this theory because it is too difficult to identify which virtues we should acquire. Unlike most ethical theories, virtue ethics understands morality in terms of good and bad character rather than the rightness or wrongness of actions. It tells us not how we should act but how we ought to act.
Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.
Utilitarianism can be defined as the theory that maximizes the benefits of the majority by taking the best action. Take the trolley problem, for example. From a utilitarian standpoint, the best action would be to save the most people regardless of the situation. However, because we are the ones to decide whether flipping the switch is a good idea or a bad one; it depends on who we are and what the situation is. For example, one person might agree with the utilitarian; and is confident that it is best to save the most lives as well. Another person might not be decisive and it will be too late, and another person might understand the situation, but will not do a thing about it because they question whether they should play god and decide on other
Ever since the 17th century, utilitarianism -and many more political ideals like it, started becoming popular, and rightfully so as the world grew unbalanced economically due to expansionism. Utilitarianism is used precisely for achieving overall happiness in a society and does so without regards to how it is achieved. Specifically, to achieve the greatest
Utilitarian. are where goods and services are provided to those who are likely to benefit the most. These terms may refer to medical utility or clinical benefits and social benefits as valued by society. Justice in the medical utility refers to medical procedures or interventions used for a patient. For example, Oregon legislation provided basic health care for all their residents, but this was established on a cost-effective system, whereas treatments may be covered or not covered based on the funding availability, according to Doyle 2014 article.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it
“I would rather be a good man than a great king” said the character Thor in Thor: The Dark World. In these words we find a frightening tension. Almost everyone agrees that it is good to be ethical; this is an easy affirmation. It is much more difficult, though, when ethics is in direct opposition to success. This dichotomy- between ethics and success- will no doubt confront an engineer during a professional career of any substantial length. Can you say that you would rather be a good man than rich? Or popular? Or a successful engineer? What should happen when an engineer faces this question? One real world example that can shed some light on this problem is what is known as bid shopping. This essay will provide a thorough definition of the problem of bid shopping and the ethical dilemma surrounding it. It will then apply the ethical theories of Duty Ethics and Virtue Ethics to the question. And seek to show that bid shopping is unethical according to both ethical theories.
Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.
In addition to this it has the property of universalisality in that the right action will be right for everyone. However, as a pragmatic and functional system of moral analysis, Utilitarianism has a number of difficulties. One of the major problems is the fact that it is extremely difficult to quantify happiness, and if it is not possible to decide which of several available actions produces the most happiness, it follows that it is not possible to decide which action is the right one. Also a particular action generating a high degree of happiness may have unforeseen consequences that have the opposite effect. Can it be morally right to have a completely innocent and well person killed if two seriously ill people could be saved by an organ transplantation? Is an action always and incontrovertibly right because it gives greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? – Brady(1999) refutes this: “the majority vote is not an ethic; it is a social choice technique.”