Virtue Ethics Theory Analysis

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.

Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

Utilitarianism is one of the moral theories that literally only acts on gaining or developing the use for having utility, or what is also known as happiness. Pleasure is a helpful key word to define utility because it is the opposite of feeling pain. As long as there stands a high level of utility, there will be actions to obtain it and no matter how much morality is provided or taken away. Such pleasure can be from the act of the utilitarian in which... Add more examples to this paragraph.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,

Virtue ethics is a theory of ethics in moral philosophy in which it emphasizes that the notion of virtue is key to a

The first theory I will compare virtue ethics against is ethical egoism. The two theories share a commonality apart from being normative in nature. They both seek what is best for the doer. Aristotle claimed that happiness is ultimately attained by striving for the “function of man” which is the excellence found within virtue. This is comparable to ethical egoism because of it’s principle of exclusively acting in one’s own best interest. While virtue ethics states that a virtuous character is the goal, ethical egoism is not specific to what is in a person’s best interest. If attaining a virtuous character is

Utilitarianism also known as the principle of utility is an ethical theory proposed by early philosophers. This theory implies that actions are only judged by its consequences whether they are good or bad. One should perform a particular action because it will yield the best results for all. This approach also analysis the cost and benefit relationship. The downfall with this theory is that not everyone benefits (Fremgen, 2016).

Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Virtue ethics is a concept that is used in the process of moral decision making. It is dependent on the individuals themselves rather than on society, culture and religion. Aristotle was one of the main philosophers involved in virtue ethics. He was an advocate for virtue. Virtue ethics are associated with the type of person that one should become. It is solely concerned with human nature and morals. This essay will explore Aristotle’s conception of virtue. I will discuss Aristotle’s belief that virtue ethics are vital in achieving the ultimate goal of happiness. I will further consider and examine his theory of the Doctrine of the Mean. Finally, I will explore how Aristotle distinguishes between the two kinds of virtues and this will result

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

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.

Kantian deontology is an ethical theory that was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The founding principle of this theory is known as the categorical imperative. Within the categorical imperative, there are two fundamental formulations to be observed. The first formulation is specified as, “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.” In other words, one should consider if an action is right or wrong by asking themselves if they would endorse that action. The second formulation is stated as, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” In general, the second formulation is utilized and discussed more often than the first because it provides a more specific and applicable framework for different moral issues. Kantian deontology explains morality in terms of perfect and imperfect duties, both to others and to oneself. Perfect duties refer to acts that are absolutely forbidden and are impermissible under any and all circumstances because they treat oneself or others as mere means. Perfect duties to others forbid an individual to murder, lie, steal, or fail to uphold one’s promises. In terms of oneself, perfect duties include abstaining from drunkenness and suicide. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, offer more leniency, as they are not specific. Imperfect duties to others are

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

According to deontological theory the consequence of an act is good, some acts are always wrong this actions are judged as ethical or unethical based on duty or the purposes of an actor. Deontologist Immanuel Kant argues that “the action which is objectively practical according to this law and excludes inclination from its determining grounds is called duty” (Kant, 1956, p. 83). However he argues that there are two types of duty hypothetical and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is when individual perform certain action in order to achieve a desire and results. In the meantime categorical imperative is the basic principle to determine whether one’s actions is deemed to be ethical correct. According to Bowie, 1999 Kant suggest three maxims of categorical imperative. Initially, an action can only be considered as ethically correct if it can be accepted or made into universal law (Bowie, 1999). The second maxim stats that a person should be treated as an end and not the means to achieve an end (Bowie, 1999). Finally, the maxim calls upon each individual to act as a member of an ideal kingdom where he or she is both the ruler and the subject at the same time (Bowie, 1999).