Professional Documents
Culture Documents
These questions have been present in society throughout history. Issues of ethics and
morality have been debated for centuries, resulting in a multitude of opinions and philosophies.
Among philosophers, four scholars of three distinct schools of thought have made their mark on
ethical studies: Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham & Mill. Aristotle’s belief in the formation of
human virtues, Kant’s belief differ in (whatever ways) and are similar in (other ways).
First, Aristotle’s philosophy revolves around the following tenets: everything a person
does is done in order to gain an end; the supreme good is happiness for the community; and
refining personal virtues will lead to the supreme good. The first of these tenets is the premise
for the other two. Aristotle argued that every one of our actions benefits the individual- even
something as basic as brushing one’s teeth. This subordinate aim can lead to the superior aims:
to smell good, attract a spouse, get a job that will lead to a successful career, and be happy.
Although Aristotle believed happiness could come in different forms for different people, the
ultimate happiness would benefit the entire community. In this way, Aristotle is a proponent of
actions that benefit others as well as oneself. So, moral decisions are based in pursuit of this
community happiness. This is good, because it does not allow anyone to think of himself or
herself solely. Aristotle proclaimed that the method for making virtuous decisions was to refine
one’s personal virtues, so that it becomes second nature. Consciously practicing the self-control
necessary to do this is imperative. For example, one of his twelve virtues is modesty. When a
person first makes an effort to be modest, he or she must be mindful of his purpose and be sure
not to fall into two potential vices. If a person is too modest, he or she will be bashful; not being
modest enough is shameless. The problem with his methods is that they are very subjective. It
requires a great deal of personal evaluation. Also, it supposes that by practicing virtues, moral
decisions will come naturally. Aristotle believed that tailoring your personal virtues will lead to
making decisions that, in turn, will lead to happiness. His belief in good people rather than good
actions differs from many philosophers. However, it is simpler in that it does not make it
necessary to focus on whether a particular decision is right or wrong. Instead, the issue is
whether the person making the decision actually leads an ethical life.
regardless of the consequences. Immanuel Kant was an absolutist, like Aristotle, so he believed
that all morals are true for everyone in every circumstance. He called these rules the categorical
imperative. First, he proclaimed “Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalized.”
Also, he believed that human beings are the highest point of creation, so they must be treated as
ends. Third, he said that we should behave as though everyone else has the same morals, like we
live in a “kingdom of ends.” These three tenets provide a means to discern whether actions are
morally right. The advantage of this method is that it is possible to determine through reason
what is right or wrong in every situation. Followers of Kantian ethics should never feel
conflicted. They do not have to consider possible outcomes. Arriving at an ethical position is
completely objective. On the other hand, this method is not appealing to most people because it
can be considered unrealistic. It is based completely on reason rather that intuition. The fact is,
though, that humans have emotions, feelings and instincts that are significant in ethical decisions.
Kant would say that acting out of compassion, for instance, is not virtuous. In addition, the fact
that there is no regard for consequences can cause a lot of controversy. The example of a
murderer asking you where your father is presents such a dilemma. By following Kantian ethics,
you would tell the murderer the truth and then be forced to protect your father. You are not
allowed to consider the negative consequences of telling the truth. Kant’s assumption that we
live in a “kingdom of ends” may be considered naïve. If he was right, the murderer would not
even be a threat. However, there are obviously people who consider humans a means rather than
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed the teleological theory, utilitarianism,
which is directly opposed to Kantian ethics. While Kant focused on actions, Bentham & Mill
were concerned with consequences. Their main belief was that humans pursue pleasure, and this
is the ultimate good. This hedonistic approach influenced their ethical philosophy tremendously.
For Bentham & Mill, the morality of an action is determined by the resulting pleasure. The
hedonic calculator allows utilitarians to see which course of action in any given situation should
be followed because it provides the most pleasure. This calculator considers the amount of
pleasure generated by an action including intensity, certainty, and propinquity. This method
implies that no one can act solely for their own pleasure; thus, it is democratic. Also, it focuses
on the happiness of the majority. Also, Bentham’s “act utilitarianism” is flexible and more
realistic than Kantian ethics. However, it is a problematic approach. For example, almost
anything can be justified using “act utilitarianism” if it generates happiness. John Stuart Mill
realized this issue and amended the philosophy to become “rule utilitarianism”, which focuses on
a more general happiness. He ensured that individual cases are put into context. So, even
though it may make gang members happy to beat up a kid, they cannot justify their actions
because they do not lead to the greatest good for their community. Another problem with
utilitarianism is that it makes no provision for minority rights. Even with Mill’s additions to the
philosophy, “rule utilitarianism” could justify slavery, since the majority of society could benefit.
Overall, the philosophies of these three philosophers represent different parts of a wide
spectrum of ethics. All of them are theories that have flaws in practice. Aristotelian ethics
provides little guidance on day to day ethical decisions. Kantian ethics is unrealistically
detached from the consequences of actions. And, Utilitarianism has no solid morals that can
withstand a misguided majority. Among the three, however, Utilitarianism is the best scheme
for the contemporary world. In the diverse society we live in, morals are constantly changing,
and it is impossible for everyone to agree on an absolutist set of rules. However, the theory that
everyone wishes to be happy is more easily accepted. In this country, the laws reflect a
Utilitarian approach by making sure that society as a whole achieves the most possible
happiness. The pursuit of happiness is a provision that is integral to American society. The
downfall of utilitarianism has even been addressed with the theme of “majority rule with
minority rights.” Also in other settings, such as the workplace, compromise is a major factor in
making decisions. People use utilitarianism to come up with solutions that are acceptable to the
most people. Although it is not a perfect ethical guideline, Utilitarianism is a practical and