Running head: VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

Views Of An Ethicist
Mfon Michael Essien
University of People

VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

Dilemma: Explain the actions of a person who steals food to feed a small, starving child. An
ethicists view
Ethicist 1: Socrates
Socrates was known as a man who preached and taught on the principles of virtue.
Socrates believed that all desire is rational; that is, everyone always does what they believe is the
best means to the best end. Consequently, everyone always pursues their genuine happiness.
From the early dialogues of Plato, Socrates would have seen the good in a person who steals
food to feed a small, starving child because this act would have expressed personal virtue
(goodness) even though it may be considered a crime by the laws of the state. Socrates believed
that no one does evil intentionally and that virtue was some kind of knowledge. To him, "Evil is
ignorance." The basic idea here is that humans always seek to do what they perceive to be the
good. Even if an action is obviously a horrible evil to everyone else, the person who commits the
act is seeking to attain some good that they perceive in it. This does not excuse anyone of the
wrong committed. Rather it is recognition that ignorance and confused perception can be the
source of great evil. On Socrates' view, to know the good is to do the good (Oregonstateedu,
2016).
This position is evident in his trial and condemnation. He was tried and condemned for
misleading the young Athenians with his teachings of personal virtue (goodness) even though the
practice of such philosophies led to disobedience (chaos) of the state laws.
Socrates final words to his judges showed that he, perceived his actions and teachings as
virtuous thus felt no regret for taking them no matter the consequences "Wherefore, O judges,

VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth that no evil can happen to a good man,
either in life or after death (Oregonstateedu, 2016).
Ethicist 2: Immanuel Kant
Kants position is one of deontological moral theory where he believes in the supremacy
of the Law thus he will not support stealing no matter what good such actions may serve.
Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The
Categorical Imperative. An imperative is a command such as Dont steal!, Don't kill animals!"
etc. Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. E.g. Dont cheat on your
taxes. Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.
(Csusedu, 2016).
According to Kant, if one was to excuse stealing on the premise that it served a particular
good, then one would have to make stealing universally acceptable thus find no fault if he is
stolen from. This eventually would lead to lawlessness.
Kants theory also talked about perfect duties (duties of justice) and imperfect duties (duties of
virtue) where he suggests that although one is expected to uphold unconditionally perfect duties,
one is also expected to show kindness (virtue) when necessary. (Csusedu, 2016). From this view
point, Kant would never support stealing but nonetheless may find other ways of providing food
for the starving child as long as such ways violated no Categorical Imperative.
Ethicist 3: Buddha
The teachings of Buddha are centered on the three universal truth; Nothing is lost in the
universe, everything changes and Law of Cause and Effect. The law of cause and effect is known

VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

as karma. Nothing ever happens to us unless we deserve it. We receive exactly what we earn,
whether it is good or bad. We are the way we are now due to the things we have done in the past.
Our thoughts and actions determine the kind of life we can have. If we do good things, in the
future good things will happen to us. If we do bad things, in the future bad things will happen to
us. Every moment we create new karma by what we say, do, and think. If we understand this, we
do not need to fear karma. It becomes our friend. It teaches us to create a bright future. (Sfsuedu,
2016).
At this point, it would not be clear to state what Buddhas action will be with respect to
our dilemma as either action could be considered good (stealing to feed a starving child or not
stealing). But further studies into Buddhas teachings of the Five Precepts shows that Buddha
discourages stealing and thus will not steal to feed the starving child.
The five percepts:
1. No killing

Respect for life

2. No stealing

Respect for others' property

3. No sexual misconduct

Respect for our pure nature

4. No lying

Respect for honesty

5. No intoxicants

Respect for a clear mind. (Sfsuedu, 2016).

There is also a conflict of interpretation of the Second precept by the two schools of Buddhism:
One basic principle in Buddhist ethics is that the motive behind the moral offence should be
considered. If a man steals a loaf of bread so as to feed his starving family and save their lives,
he has a good motive for his action. The Mahayana would stress this point more than the

VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

Theravada. The Theravadins, who tend more towards a deontological interpretation, would be
more likely to say that a Buddha could not act in this way because of the nature of the act,
regardless of the motive, so that even if we can easily understand why the loaf of bread was
stolen, that doesnt make it right. (Clear-visionorg, 2016)

VIEWS OF AN ETHICIST

6
References

Oregonstateedu. (2016). Oregonstateedu. Retrieved 15 September, 2016, from

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Socrates/socrates03.html
Csusedu. (2016). Csusedu. Retrieved 15 September, 2016, from
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian ethics.htm
Sfsuedu. (2016). Sfsuedu. Retrieved 15 September, 2016, from
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm
Clear-visionorg. (2016). Clear-visionorg. Retrieved 16 September, 2016, from http://www.clearvision.org/Schools/Students/Ages-17-18/Buddhist-ethics/2nd-precept.aspx