Utilitarian Ethical Theory - Assignment Example

Running Head: ETHICAL THEORY Ethical Theory (Short answer questions) Name Institution Date Utilitarianism Qn.1. An action is considered right when it derives maximum contentment and delight compared to its substitute priority. Utilitarians believe in the value of concern and equality without prejudice and distinction of persons. Qn. 2. Utilitarian is an individual who accepts the principle of utility and aims at increasing the worth of creation. This means, for instance, that a utilitarian might believe that it is useful to endure a definite amount of affliction now, if it ensures a better amount of contentment later. The effort to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number is a considered virtue. Utilitarianism is a type of consequence, where the ends justify the means: if a provisional of negative utility must be traversed to attain a peak of greater utility, then utilitarianism supports it and considers it as morally right (Bentham, 2000). Qn.3 Act utilitarianism states that; we must first consider the cost of possible measures and, from that, choose what we think will create most contentment when faced with an alternative. The rule utilitarian, however, begins by looking at possible rules of exploit. He looks at what would occur if it were persistently followed before determine if a rule should be followed. If observation on the rule results to more contentment than otherwise, it is then ethically followed. The distinction involving rule and act utilitarianism is based on a difference of the appropriate purpose of consequentiality estimation, specific to a case or universal policy. It has been claimed as advocating general policy that in some precise conditions devalues happiness when adhered to. Qn. 4. A utilitarian derives his/her actions based on principle that should reject any illogical indifferences of individual. Kantian Deontology Deontologists look at duties and rules, according to which the precision of an action is resulted by its costs. Kant argues its not the result of measures that makes them accepted or not but the purpose of the act. His theory is considered deontological for several reasons. To respond in the morally accepted mode, a person should act responsibly. Therefore reason is the purpose qualified as good i.e. one that makes a situation better, despite the means. One acts out Of value for the moral law when they act in some way because it is their duty. The three Kantian formulations of the categorical imperative Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are: Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law. It implies that one must act according to the ethical standards that are acceptable to the universe .A person should be encouraged by a code of moral ethics that are acceptable to the universe. When the generalization of a maxim creates a rational Opposition, for example, if a person were to create the generalized Maxim, it would be considered morally right,” he further argues that in order for this maxim to subsist, private property is to exist (Cummiskey, 1996). Act in a way that you treat humanity, whether personally or with someone else’ interest, as the means, an end. This is easy to understand. It says that we should never use others for our personal advantage, thinking of them as slaves or individuals with no rights. Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends. This is the third formulation, it’s a combination .of the two principles. It begs the question that if we were suddenly directed in the point of having our maxims become laws for each person, what laws would we aim at creating? Those that benefit all mankind should be prepared, and those are the only ethical laws. The right drive is to do the right thing, duty, and respect the moral laws.A sensible living being that constantly has the precise motive has good will. Nothing is more significant for principles than to have a good will. According to Kant, a rational being with a Good Will automatically does its duty Justice This is the belief in the significance of personal freedom. This belief is worldly accepted today, and was accepted as a significant value by many philosophers historically. Nozick classifies theories of justice as either end-result or chronological, and either unpatterned or patterned.It does not require that the allocation resulting from just acquisitions, transfers and corrections be patterned, i.e. linked with anything else persons may be entitled to things possessed through mere luck or as a present. Despite the means, provided it has the correct history, considering it did comes about in agreement with the rules of attainment, Eligeterian theory on justice tends to discount the significance free will.It claims that the aim should not be equal resource sharing or welfare but egalitarianism of access to benefits.Inequality is acceptable only when it is as a result of genuinity (Wenz, 1988). The three Conditions behind the Veils and the Purpose it serves. Principle of Equal Liberty: All persons have equal rights to the most widespread liberties attuned with similar liberties for all. Difference Principle: Economic and Social inequalities must be set so that they are all; to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individual. Liberty principles. Justice is to be ranked in lexical order and therefore it can restrict basic liberties which are not incentive Behind the veil, what Rawls say people will agree on? All people will agree that we are self-cantered rational people thus we are driven to choose, in an informed and open-minded way, whatever seems beneficial to ourselves. One wouldn’t like to belong to a race and gender that is discriminated-against. So the values would be adopted that oppose discrimination. What Rawls, Nozick and a utilitarian have to say Humanity is divided between liberals and conservatives, reactionary and progressive, although both sides are well informed by historical politics. Those who believe no obstruction against those who believe that we should live within limits and consequently ought to enjoy equal say in public character and future which others are excluded from dealings despite of their assets .On the vendor rather than the object sold, might centre on the salaries, and then still more multimillion dollar stock option plans (Lyons, 1999). Rights Distinction Between positive and negative rights Positive rights are those which authorize or compel action considered include; protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic and social and rights such social amenities. Negative rights may include civil rights such as freedom of private ownership of property, freedom from violence freedom to worship, freedom from slavery and freedom of speech How conflicts between the same rights of different people can be resolved Leaders and members can identify latent conflict between groups of conflicts of right, where individuals and groups are entitled by law and by contract, problem may be solved. How conflicts between different rights of different people can be resolved Ethical relativism where a variety of individuals with differing perspectives and values, cause tensions .People become defensive and protective. Their should therefore be different ethic standards for different groups. The rules and regulations should however not collide as it would result to conflict (Tännsjö, 1998). Ethical relativism and why most ethicists reject ethical relativism This is the position that all points of view are similarly valid and the persons determine what is true and comparative for them. It explains that truth is different for diverse peoples, not that diverse people consider different things to be true. Ethical relativism is the most ordinary selection of relativism. It represents the situation of moral absolutes absenteeism, no right or wrong. The morals change with social norms periodically. Thus people are free to mutate ethically as the traditions, understanding, and technology change in the social order. Slavery is an example of ethical relativism. The value of an individual is determined by a mixture of social preferences and patterns, know-how, emotions, and regulations that bring maximum benefit. It goes against every virtue that atheists believe in. It supports the view that moral principles are comparative to individuals. What you believe is right for you individually is up to you to determine Ethics Issues Raised In the Article Source; Ethical Corporation Business ethics Ethics range from different areas of specialization: medicine, environment, education, internal business environment world market, religion and the society. In business perspective, there are some issues that are acceptable, but in the religious aspect they are not recognized. However there are ethical issues that are acceptable by the society which each individual is required to achieve (Manuel, 2001). A business organization is a representation of the society, in that when a business is thriving then the society’s welfare is positive. Therefore ethics in society affect the business performance and vice versa. There are codes of conducts that are acceptable to all in the society including organizations. Corporate governance implies the actions of management in an organization. As a leader, one is required to observe all rules and reglations.For instance, a manager is not supposed to favour certain employees and ignore others. His personal interests must never come first, but the welfare of the workers and the organization. Where the management is inconsiderate, consequences are definite, that is, workers tend to be rebellious, the performance lowers and losses are incurred. The other issue is community social responsibility. Like an individual, a corporative is entitled to encourage community development as they are directly or indirectly contribute to the vices in society eg corruption, greed and pollution. Therefore the daily activities of a business and future plans consider the community before hand. Reference Bentham, J. (2000). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Progressive Publishing Company Lyons, D. (1999). Forms and limits of utilitarianism. Washington DC: Oxford University Press US, Cummiskey, D. (1996). Kantian consequentialism.Washington DC: Oxford University Press US, Wenz, P. S. (1988). Environmental justice SUNY series in environmental public policy. New York: State University of New York Press, Manuel, G. (2001). Velásquez Business ethics: concepts and cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Tännsjö, T. (1998). Hedonistic utilitarianism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Read More