Major Issues of Ethical Theories - Essay Example

16 November Ethics A. List at least three things that are wrong with or problems with each of these theories:  EGOISM  Acting in one’s own best interest is the basis of Egoism. A problem with this theory is that a person often acts out of desire that contradicts what is truly best for that person. Additionally, egoism implies that if everyone pursues his or her own interests, that all people’s interests are advanced. However, the interest of one person may be in conflict with another, so this is not possible. One would have to prevent others from pursuing their interests to advance personal interests. Egoism is also in conflict with conflict regulation. There are times when a moral choice requires one to act contrary to one’s own interest. The application of egoism would not allow this. UTILITARIANISM  People who prescribe to utilitarianism believe that one should always act in favor of what will provide the greatest amount of happiness for all people involved. The theory challenges one to measure happiness. This is difficult as happiness is subjective to each individual. Furthermore, utilitarianism condones terrible acts such as murder if those acts provide pleasure to the greatest number of people. Another concern is that there is no solid guide to follow and acts are often in conflict. Sometimes it is okay to do things like steal, other times it is not. Individuals must weigh the results of a particular action each time one encounters it in order to calculate the corresponding level of happiness for everyone involved and determine the proper course of action in each unique scenario. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE  The Categorical Imperative admonishes people to act the way they would want all other people to act. The theory assumes that people are rational and will act accordingly. Those who are irrational for any reason, including illness, would be exempt from practicing this theory. Moreover, actions taken by an individual may be in conflict when one considers perfect duties and imperfect duties. Bold statements of perfect duties such as never tell a lie govern behavior, but if a lie prevents someone from getting hurt one must do one to support the other when applying the categorical imperative. One could also stretch the rules to allow almost any action, because the rules are already broad in nature. NATURAL LAW  Natural Law theorizes that anything is moral that supports basic rights including survival, procreation, and maintenance of health. People may have trouble defining natural laws and determining how to apply them. In addition, one’s views on religion and the role of God in nature intertwine with the definition of Natural Law. Because one’s views on religion and the role of God in nature are determined on an individual basis, the theory is difficult to practice with any consistency across a group of people. Natural Law may also condone specific acts that many would view as immoral or unethical because they are not in conflict with any natural law. For example, many consider rape immoral, but one could argue that the act supports procreation if the intent of the act was to create a child. THEORY OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS-MAXI MIN  The theory of Justice as Fairness—Maxi Min suggests that one should balance opportunity with inequality. Equality is difficult to measure and one must reduce equality to embrace the lowest common societal denominator in order to apply this theory. In practice, however, this allows inequality on the other end of the spectrum. In practice, people must apply a veil of ignorance in order to apply the two principles inherent in the theory. People may find the veil of ignorance challenging to achieve. Additionally, the theory is difficult to apply on an individual basis and more aptly applies at a community level. WILL TO POWER - Existentialist Theory of Nietzsche  Nietzsche proposes that all humans naturally exert their will on others. Because each person acts selfishly, there are no altruistic acts. The desire to achieve power over others is what drives each individual. Those who have more drive are superior to those who do not desire to accomplish much. Some are uncomfortable with will to power because the pursuit of power with no tempering guidelines seems harsh. The theory also comes under scrutiny when one considers religious views. One may believe that God alone grants power, so it is futile for one to pursue gaining power. Additionally, religious beliefs may assert that one does not have control over one’s life because God controls all outcomes. CARING- One of several Feminist Theories of Ethics  A basic belief that the morality of men and women differs comprises the basis of the ethical theory of Caring. Caring requires one to acknowledge the considerations of others and act with compassion, kindness, and sympathy. The theory rejects the natural tendencies of men and negates any equilibrium that the sexes could achieve. Men who are unfamiliar with the concepts of caring may find application of the theory difficult. In addition, certain situations, such as economical constraints may prevent one from being caring. Caring introduces emotion and ambiguity to the morality equation which is most successful when it is well-defined. NORMATIVE ETHICAL RELATIVISM This theory states that there are “no universally valid moral principles.” This theory has little evidence to support it and some evidence that negates it. Normative Ethical Relativism implies that each individual makes an entirely independent judgment about what is right and wrong, and that a community bases its unique moral judgment on factors and experiences that apply to that community alone. Research conducted with individuals from different cultures across the world indicates that there are some basic tenets to morality regardless of background. Additionally, this theory applies no element of criticism or tolerance to others; as a result, people who support Normative Ethical Relativism have a tendency to contradict themselves in trying to practice it. 2. Critical Thinking  a. A blending of Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and the Categorical Imperative would present the most acceptable disadvantages and serve as the basis for a moral order in a society in which one would want to live. The Utilitarian consideration of the whole would temper the supposition of Natural Law for individuals to inherently protect personal rights. Moreover, the Categorical Imperative would provide an additional element to balance choice with societal expectations. b. Reason and evidence better defends the blending of these three theories because research supports the flaws in other theories, and many of them focus on self over others. Researchers conducted studies to confirm or invalidate Normative Ethical Relativism and found the theory flawed due to consistent universal responses to specific dilemmas. Egoism is by nature very self-centered. One should consider one’s self when taking actions; however, one should not undertake those actions while excluding the rights and needs of others. Will to power assumes a focus of individuals on one specific goal: to attain control. While this may be an objective of mankind, it is not the only one. Justice as Fairness requires one to forget everything one knows about a specific situation and to judge what can be done against what is right for society as a whole. This could prove problematic for the average, intelligent human. Additionally, when one reduces satisfaction to the lowest common denominator the result is a watering down of morality that leaves no one satisfied. c. In general, the focus of the other theories is too narrow to justify their inclusion in the mix. In some cases, such as that of Caring, not only is the focus too narrow as it looks at attributes which many consider feminine, but the assumptions that one must make to apply it in practice are too broad. Caring implies that there are basic differences in the physiology of men and women. The implication is that men would be incapable of practicing caring. However, the study conducted on the Normative Ethical Relativism theory indicates that the population often reacts and assesses situations using a common lens. Egoism does not consider others, nor does Will to Power. With these theories, the focus is on self alone and pursuit of personal objectives to the exclusion of everyone else. While this may be acceptable to someone not living in a community, society in general would not support these theories in practice. d. Criticisms of the blended Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and the Categorical Imperative theories as a basis for a moral society include conflicts around the utilitarian view that one should act for the happiness of all. Since happiness is relative, this presents a significant challenge. Furthermore, many people tie morality to religion. In particular, this clouds the ability to include Natural Law as part of the mix because religious views are subjective and relative to each individual. If God created the order and subsequent governance of nature, then under Natural Law, the dictates of religion should also govern morality. The Categorical Imperative’s assumption that people will be rational creates a significant challenge as many people are not rational all of the time, and all people are irrational some of the time. e. If one uses Natural Law as a reference for determining the definition of happiness, the lines become less fuzzy. In example, if one is able to maintain personal health and a quality of life that is in line with others, one can aggregate happiness against this measure. The danger of quantifying happiness lies in subjectivity and lack of definition. Natural Law can assist with defining happiness. If a society as a whole prescribes to specific religious views, the challenge of incorporating Natural Law with religion and God’s role in nature becomes easier. While the views may vary from community to community, and adjust to the variety of beliefs encountered, the question posed is a discussion on a specific society which members can manage. Cultural norms present numerous factors that may change how the community views God’s role in nature, but within the culture, those views should be standard. The blending of Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and the Categorical Imperative addresses the concern of irrationality inherent in the Categorical Imperative theory because it adds an element of responsibility and checkpoints to the decisions made within the model. When people are irrational, one must consider the Utilitarian good of the all and the imperative to maintain individual rights from Natural Law. Consideration of these factors places the onus back on others to hold irrational people to a standard they would not apply to themselves in their irrational state. A blending of Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and the Categorical Imperative presents the most acceptable disadvantages and serves as the basis for a moral order in a society in which one would want to live. The mix of these three theories results in a package that balances individual needs against societal needs. Features in each theory that allow greater scrutiny and governance in a blended model temper and offset the flaws that exist in each theory when considered independently. While flaws will always be a part of any model that contains a human element, due to the variability implicit in humanity, blending of theories creates the greatest chance for consistency and success. Read More