William David Ross 's Theory Of Right Conduct

When observing the different ethical theories one may believe that although their differences are unique there are similarities in them. One may state that a similarity between utilitarian and deontology is that they both require one to consider their duty something that should be done and considering the character of an individual is if it will be done. If an individual has morals and character he or she may consider it their duty to do what is morally correct.

Kant develops a principle that we must follow in order to act morally. He explains that we have a duty to act morally. Duties as described by Kant “are rules of some sort combined with some sort of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our own powers of reason.” He calls this overall principle the categorical imperative and it is the fundamental principle of our moral duties. All of our moral actions should follow and should be justified by the categorical imperative, and this means that all

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

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.

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Moral responsibility is a concept that has, in some way, existed in every culture and civilization that recorded history can tell us about. From the Law of Hammurabi to beliefs in judgmental gods mankind has always assumed some form of moral responsibility—whether metaphysical or within a society. While pragmatic considerations of moral responsibility seem to be necessary for living within a society, the philosophic concept of moral responsibility beckons many inherent problems that must be resolved. Galen Strawson in “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” presents a strong argument as to why moral responsibility is impossible, while Susan Wolf responds to the problems presented, and argues that moral responsibility does exist in some

In a simplistic sense Utilitarianism, originally established by Jeremy Bentham, is the ethical and teleological theory which maintains it is the total consequences of an action which determines its rightness or wrongness; that is, it is not just my happiness which should be taken into account but the happiness of everyone concerned. However, although this is the classical approach to Utilitarianism, this theory as be interpreted in numerous ways- in this essay I will focus on three (Act, rule and preference utilitarianism). Another approach to moral philosophy was put forward by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. As a Deontologist Kant faces the same problems

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

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

According to principle of universalism moral duty of a person could be revealed through reasons, objectively. Kant said that to act morally is one’s moral duty and one’s moral duty is to follow innate law.

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.