The Ethics Of Moral Reasoning

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

It is important to understand that ethics is not equal to personal emotions. Therefore, ethical decision making should be void of personal feelings. Moreover, an ethical action is that which protects and respect the moral perspectives of those affected. Indeed, ethical approaches help to determine the standards of behavior that constitute a common good for the human

During the course of living human being are subjected to many controversial arguments and ethical stations. Education in concept of ethical reasoning and in the fundamentals of the principles are important for one to be skilled in ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning is a very important element in human nature of living either professionally or individually. Ethical reasoning offers critics with the capability to represent viewpoints, ideas and make judgement. Moreover ethical reasoning enable critics’ to consciously give examination for them to reach a solution that does not harm anybody else. Ethical reasoning can be defined as arguing the wrong and the right of human behavior.

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism, deontological, and virtue theory ethics are three normative approaches to ethics. This paper will go over the similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological principles. It will include information of the variations in how each concept details ethics, morality, and it will also discuss a personal experience to describe the correlation between virtue, values, and moral perceptions as they relate to one of the three theories.

In Ruggiero’s book, Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, he explains that there are three basic criteria for making ethical decision and aiding in moral actions. A moral action is, “one that demonstrates respect for persons by honoring the relevant obligations and ideals and by producing favorable consequences.” (Ruggiero, 81) The three basic criteria are obligations, the moral ideals and consequences. Ruggiero believes that when making a decision, one should first understand the details. Second, one needs to understand the obligations, the moral ideal and the consequences of his or her action. We will furthermore go into each criterion

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

In this article, ‘How to Make Unethical Decisions,’ I read about how individuals take care of issues and decide. The stressed issue related is that many people quickly make decisions without thinking. Sometimes the use of moral judgment can be set aside for later and decide suitable activities is intensely influenced. It is important to break down and understand commonly used wrong decision-making methods, as well as look at fitting guides that can help with deciding moral activities.

To contrast utilitarianism and deontology, utilitarianism summarized is making the right decision followed by the right actions that has the best outcome for the largest number of individuals. Deontology is the understanding and practice that there is a respect for life, fairness, and honesty despite the consequences and no matter the affect on

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.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a subject of philosophy that engages itself in systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong. It investigates questions of right and wrong and of the best way of living for people. In this essay I am going to explain the differences between the ethical schools of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics and argue that in my opinion deontology is the most reasonable theory of the three.

Ethical theories in philosophy are used as decision making tools (Trevino p38), many theories with different frameworks with argument with and against.

Now that both sides have been established, those stakeholders who favor and those who oppose the policy in question, each of their argument 's evidence and reasoning will be analyzed. The corresponding pages which follow will provide an understanding of each side through three developed sections: a critical analysis, moral reasoning, and a tentative solution. The critical analysis will thoroughly measure to what level an argument 's authoritative, accuracy, reliability, precision, applicability, and etc. is able to represent their claims. At the same time the critical analysis includes a judgement call on whether or not a side 'wins ' or 'loses ' each of their arguments based upon the strength and weakness of the argument 's claims and evidence. The moral reasoning section will then secondary the value of each side 's evidence, and focus on analyzing each side 's moral reasoning, or rather, evaluating what "values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles" present reasonableness to their position on morality. Following these two sections of analysis, a conclusion will be made on which of the two sides makes an overall stronger, more conclusive and moral argued solution to the normative question.