Theories Of Virtue Ethics And Utilitarianism

The choice to have a child is life changing. Parents are given nine months to prepare for their lives to change completely. All of a sudden they are not the only person they are responsible for. Reitha and Ken Lakeberg’s circumstance was a bit more complex than the usual change in responsibilities. Instead of the one child to make decisions for, there were two, and they happened to be conjoined. Instead of having to consent for one baby they had two. This is the first ethical issue in this story. Autonomy is the right to make decisions for yourself, although with children the informed consent has to come from their parents. Yes it makes sense that children do not always fully understand and need guidance from parents. But when it is a life or death situation and there is no way to tell what they want circumstances become complicated. What gives parents or doctors the right to decide which twin should try to be saved and which twin should be sacrificed. “Mercifully, Reitha and Ken had been spared a Sophie’s Choice of selecting which of their offspring would die. Doctors made the decision strictly on medical grounds—which twin had the

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

It is easy to see the reasons that led Sara and Brian to make the decision, but following your heart is not always the ethical thing to do. The doctor mentioning the option of genetically engineering a child is unethical. The code of ethics that challenges both these actions is “act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustee, and shall avoid conflicts of interest,” (Grimm). Both decisions are conflicts of interest as the doctor and parents do not see the effects of both Kate and the future child. First, as the doctor, I would never mention genetically engineering a baby as an option to a family I would not have the right to suggest something so life changing, and the possible outcome of the family could be severe and are unknown. The doctors decision in not ethical. Also, as a parent, I would not create a child to cater my other child’s needs, due to the fact that it is not fair to both children. I believe the decision made my Brian and Sara is unethical. They decided to create a baby for the sake of sacrificing one child to save another's life.

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.

I. Provide answers for five (5) of the following (6 points each, total of 30 points):

Luke is in charge of ABC Company’s land development project in building an adult entertainment store on the land they recently purchased. Unfortunately, his brother, Owen, happens to live in the same area. Luke remembers Owen once told him he is thinking about selling his house, since he recently received a decent offer from a real estate firm. However, he is debating whether he should sell it or waits for the real estate to rise. Luke realizes with the appearance of adult entertainment in the near future, the values of Owen’s house and other houses in neighborhood are likely to drop significantly.

In The Giver, new children that are twins, or that are born unhealthy, are sent to elsewhere. When twins are born into the community, the one that weighs less is disposed of. "Well, they can't have two identical people around! Think how confusing it would be!" (pg.3). In the US babies are under life support is they are unhealthy. In a way this is not humane because the doctors are keeping the parents hopes up and the baby would have a very hard life or not live past a year. The decision about the child’s life should be up to the parents. The decision to keep the baby on life support is theirs to make. Parents usually keep both of their twins. This is humane because if they are both healthy and the parents can support them, then they should be able to take

This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. When applied to a situation these frameworks help teachers to resolve and justify their decision making. The objective is to apply the four frameworks to the scenario Helping Molly, to establish the most ethical course of action. Finally, a recommended course of action will be justification. The overarching ethical issue present within the Helping Molly scenario is the community sponsorship and the alignment with school beliefs and initiatives.

One ethical principle relating to the issue is beneficence. Beneficence means to do what is good. Beneficence is tough when it comes to the separation of conjoined twins because of the many issues that lie in the decision. The beneficent principle goes hand in hand with the utilitarian theory which is making a decision that brings about the most benefit to the most people. Both choices have beneficent aspects. Keeping the twins conjoined is good for the parents of the children, the children, and anyone who is close with them such as family and friends. It can make them happy and help them psychologically. Separating the twins can be good for the parents and the twins if they survive and get to live a productive and good life. It also

After filling out the Ethical Inventory again I found that Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics are the two areas that made the most persuasive thinking for me. Utilitarianism looks at the consequences and weighs the positives to see if it is going to bring happiness to the greater number. Every situation is looked at from a pros and cons point of view and a decision is made from there. One statement that is on the inventory sheet says, “When I am trying to decide what the right thing to do is, I look at the consequences of the various alternatives open to me.” In this example for myself I usually don’t think about consequences and react on emotions. After reacting from emotions I think about the consequences and realize most of the time it wasn’t the right thing to do. There are many times that I react and then realize I could’ve done things differently in that situation. I think about my own self interest before I think about the effects of the greater number. I see myself now looking at the situation and seeing both sides of it. I look at the positives and negatives before I react on emotions. By learning more about utilitarianism and changing my thought process I see my virtue ethics in a different perspective compared to what I did before this class. All the virtues that are stated in the book are virtues I hold very deeply in myself. These virtues are courage, generosity, honesty, loyalty to friends and family. Courage was one I had a hard time with because I don’t always

While utilitarian approach is based on the society as a whole, Aristotle’s virtue ethics gives us perspectives on harm reduction from an individualistic point of view. Aristotle defines good in terms of something we aim at and is related to the function one performs in a community. Society, for Aristotle is a conglomeration of citizens with good character, where each one performs the specific function assigned to him in the best possible manner. (Macintyre 2002: 52; Aristotle Politics Book II) Virtue ethics, unlike utilitarianism is not concerned with specific actions under specific circumstances, but rather with the ‘character’ of the individual (Aristotle Ethics Book II). While Ethics prescribes the kind of life we must lead to attain eudaemonia,

Virtue ethicist may be defined as concepts that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral theory rather than making difference through action. They emphasis on undertakings that encourages or makes a person more generous or benevolent. According to Aristotle virtue are of two kinds; intellectual virtue which originate from birth and grows from teaching and through experience and time. The second one is moral virtue which comes through human habits especially one that is hard to give up, (Aristotle, 1931). It is important to differentiate this from deontologist which uphold the the concept of doing unto others what you want others to do unto you. Utilitarianism in contrast with virtue ethicist emphases on actions that give the maximum benefit to a large number of people as possible.

In this essay, I will be discussing an article about a woman who starved her two horses. I will address the issue about whether or not the woman’s action was ethical. I will use the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to support my argument. I will also suggest a different course of action the woman could have taken to be justified, through both ethical theories.

you ask what the virtues are, it is likely you would be told that we

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.