The theories of ethics examine beliefs that all decisions are not objectively
right or wrong. The definition by a person regarding what is right or what is
wrong is influenced by that person’s inner morality, cultural influence and
period in history (Cline, 2013). Examples of theories of ethics are: ethical
relativism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue, distributive and
contributive justices.
Ethical
Relativism supports that all points of view are equally valid and the
individual determines what is true and relative. This subjective decision
is influenced by the individual’s moral development and culture influences. The
issue with this theory is that what is right for one person can be wrong for
another. When every person has different viewpoints and it is difficult to
differentiate between that person’s ethical decisions versus their value system
(Ethical Relativism, 2013). The
theory of ethical relativism gives direction about the choices that people make
that reflect how they should behave. Ethical relativism debates that ethical
standards have never been proven within the history of mankind’s thoughts. It
is therefore difficult for an ethical relativistic person to appeal to a law or
standard because they do not support such predetermined guidelines of behavior. The use of this theory is subjective
in nature and will differ from time to time and place to place.
Utilitarianism ethics values
that the end justifies the means. This ethic shows no sympathy for the people
that get hurt on the way and the actions chosen are not important. This ethic
claims that there is a desire to make decisions for the greater good of
society, but the outcome does not always end that way (Kane, 2011). A
utilitarian’s subjective decision would weigh the consequences of the action,
but also incorporates the expectation of behaving justly. For example, the
action of stealing may improve the life of others and decrease their suffering
thereby justifying the act of stealing. Utilitarianism theory does not come
with perquisites of a certain belief and therefore it can be applicable by
different cultures and religions. The
strength of utilitarianism theory is it can provide an immediate decision; the
weakness is that in the long term the decision may not be the best option. It
does not consider of the possibilities of the future ramifications that
resulted by the decision and action taken. This type of theory makes choices
that regularly benefits one individual at the expense or neglect of another.
Deontology
ethics values that the action and therefore outcomes must be ethical. This
ethic supports that the action’s morality outweighs the results (Kane, 2011).
The most important element in deontology is the moral principles are completely
separate from any consequences (Cline, 2012). A person’s objective judgment is
related to rules of duty and morality that can be guided by a higher power. For
example, within the deontology theory everyone has a moral duty not to steal;
therefore stealing is always wrong. The strength of deontology theory is that
ethical rules guide judgment; the weakness is that the conditions of moral
duties are not always followed.
Virtue ethics focus on what an
individual person should choose from their own character, rather than the
individual relying solely on the laws and/or customs of that person's culture.
If person’s character is good then their choices and actions should be good
(Gowdy, 2013). The Greek philosopher Aristotle theorized that when people acquire
good habits of character, they are better able to regulate their emotions and
reason, therefore guiding people to reach morally correct decisions when they
are faced with difficult choices (Cline, 2013). For example, a person’s
decision to steal or not to steal is determined case by case including their
intentions and examining their personal and groups’ benefit. The decision
to steal or not will effect other’s impression about the person’s character and
moral behavior. The strengths of virtue ethics is it is a person-centered
and values human relationships, requires courage and restraint, intelligence,
and quality of character; the weaknesses are it is subjective in nature, not
based on Biblical teachings, and can be questionable regarding the person’s true
intentions.
Distributive justice is the
exact oppose of contributive justice. Distribute justice supports that
distribution of resources must be done in a fair manner for all. These resources can be delivered in a
variety of forms such as: money, benefits, recognition and rewards. The positive principles of
distributive justice support that all benefits are to be equally shared,
however in reality not everyone can get a fair share of the resources all of
the time (Maiese, 2013). This theory does not address the relationship between
the concepts of work and consequent reward.
Contributive
justice supports that distribution of resources is done in a give and take
manner. This theory supports that work is
to occur and therefore an exchange of that work and consequent reward are to be
equal in value. This theory examines equal rights within mankind (Maiese, 2013). For
example, is there contributive justice if the person is required to work a
menial job versus a professional job? Is it just to distribute resources to
people who do not contribute to the workforce? President Kennedy in the early 1960’s
was quoted “do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do
for your country”. This is an application of distributive justice versus
contributive justice.
The theory that I agree with the
most is a combination of deontology complimented with virtue ethics. Deontology ethics has a strong
guidance of rules and expected human behavior based upon Biblical teachings. Deontology theory values that the
action and the outcomes must be ethical however, the moral principles are
completely separate from any consequences. I could not support the Robin Hood
actions of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Stealing is always wrong
even if taking from the rich could benefit the poor.
Virtue ethics focus on what an
individual person should choose from their own character, rather than the
individual relying solely on the laws and/or customs of that person's culture. I
support that deontology theory cannot stand alone because the person must
incorporate the teachings into their own character. For example, a person that
has this combination would make a decision that stealing is stealing regardless
of the motive. However, if virtue theory stands alone the person’s
character may not match what deontology ethics teaches and they allow emotions
to enter into their decisions. For example, if their character is of poor
quality they would allow the action of stealing to occur even though they had
been taught deontology ethics of right from wrong.
Work Cited
Ethical
Realatism. (n.d) AllAboutPhilosophy.org. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ethical-relativism-faq.htm#sthash.pwh9JEKj.dpuf
Kane, J. (n.d). Differences between Utilitarianism and Deontology (n.d.).Difference Between
Utilitarianism and Deontology Retrieved
February 4, 2014, from http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-utilitarianism-and-deontology/#ixzz2s6wddocKk.
Maiese,
M. (June 2013). Distributive Justice | Beyond Intractability. Distributive
Justice | Beyond Intractability. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive-justice
The
Four Types of Justice: Commutative,
Distributive, Legal And Social Justice!. (2010, August 16). Bukisa. Retrieved February 4,
2014, from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/336446_the-four-types-of-justice-commutative-distributive-legal-and-social-justice
