What appropriate principles do we rely on when making moral judgments? There is no consensus among those who study ethics.

A variety of different moral principles and ethical considerations intertwine and sometimes compete. A great many philosophers have gone round and round trying to define ethics and debate the ethical dilemmas of their time and ours. Ethical theories have been described and evolved as a means for applying logic and analysis to ethical dilemmas.

 Ethical

dilemmas: Situations involving conflict between ethical principles or normative priorities. Dilemmas have deep impact on the evolution of ethical reflection. Solving ethical dilemmas involves: Appeal to theoretical constructs. Reevaluation of established moral standards and inherited intuitions.

Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories: Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the actions intrinsic features or character.
Is one in which the resolution of dilemmas is based upon religious beliefs. Ethical dilemmas are resolved according to tenets of a faith, such as the Ten Commandments for Jewish and Christian faiths. Central to this theory is that decisions in ethical dilemmas are made on the basis of guidance from a divine being.

Egoism: The view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization. Egoists: Those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage.

An action is morally right if it promotes ones long-term interest. An action is morally wrong if it undermines it. Holds that we all act in our self-interest and that all of us should limit our judgment to our own ethical egos and not interfere with the exercise of ethical egoism by others. We act as we do and decide to behave as we have determined that it is in our own self-interest.

One philosopher who believed in ethical egoism was novelist Ayn Rand, who wrote books such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Ms. Rand, as an ethical egoist, would maintain order by putting in place the necessary legal protections so that we do not harm each other. Personal egoists: Pursue their own self-interest but do not make the universal claim that all individuals should do the same. Impersonal egoists: Claim that the pursuit of ones selfinterest should motivate everyones behavior. Egoists do not necessarily care only about pursuing pleasure (hedonism) or behave dishonestly and maliciously toward others. Egoists can assist others if doing so promotes their own advantage.

Psychological egoism: The theory of ethical egoism is often justified on the ground that human beings are essentially selfish.
Even acts of self-sacrifice are inherently selfregarding insofar as they are motivated by a conscious or unconscious concern with ones own advantage.

(1)

(2)

(3)

The theory is not sound: The doctrine of psychological egoism is false not all human acts are selfish by nature, and some are truly altruistic. Egoism is not a moral theory at all: Egoism misses the whole point of morality, which is to restrain our selfish desires for the sake of peaceful coexistence with others. Egoism ignores blatant wrongs: All patently wrong actions are morally neutral unless they conflict with ones advantage.

 Consequentialist

theories: Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the actions consequences or results.
British Philosophers Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and John Staurt Mill (1806-1873) argued that resolution of ethical dilemmas requires a balancing effort in which we minimize the harms that result from a decision even as we maximize the benefits. The theory recommends that we follow the course of action most likely to produce the greatest net good (or prevent the greatest net harm).

(1)

(2)

(3)

In choosing between alternative courses of action, we should consider the net worth of happiness vs. unhappiness produced by each course of action. We should give equal consideration to all individual preferences, then calculate the net worth of the various kinds of pleasures and pains. Anything can be morally praiseworthy in some circumstances if it promotes the greatest balance of pleasure vs. pain for the greatest number of people.

(4) We should seek to maximize happiness,

not only immediately, but in the long run. (5) We should avoid choosing actions if their consequences are uncertain. (6) We must guard against bias in our utilitarian calculations when our own interests are at stake. So it is advisable to rely on rules of thumb.

 Provides

a clear and straightforward standard for formulating and testing policies. Offers an objective way for resolving conflicts of self-interest. Suggests a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision making.

(1)
(2)

(3)

The practical application of the principle of utility involves considerable difficulties. Some actions seem to be intrinsically immoral, though performing them can maximize happiness. Utilitarianism is concerned with the amount of happiness produced, not how the amount is distributed, so the theory can run counter to principles of justice.

 Utility

and self-interest: Businesses are concerned with increasing profit and can be viewed as egoistic, but pursuing ones own economic advantage can increase the wellbeing of society as a whole. Adam Smith (17231790): The main promoter of classical capitalism who argued that society can flourish if businesses are left to freely pursue their self-interests.

 Ethical

relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards - standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own.

It is about personal preferences. Anytime a person says that something is right or wrong, all they are saying-and can say-about it is that they either like or dislike the action or position under consideration. You should ask yourself about how you feel about it. Feelings are more important than any reasoning you could do.

 Propounded

by Plato and Aristotle the theory purports that there's more to morality than simply arguing about correct decisions when a person is faced with a moral dilemma. There is more to the moral life than simply doing the right thing and making the correct decision. Being the right type of person is more important. Thus, we cannot neglect the place of an individual's character, or virtue, when considering ethical questions.

 Simply

debating issues is powerless if we continue to ignore the character traits that give people the ability to actually do the right thing. Aristotle taught the importance of cultivating virtues in students and then having them solve ethical dilemmas using those virtues integrated into their thoughts through their virtue training.

 Immanuel

Kant (17241804): A German philosopher with a nonconsequentialist approach to ethics. Said the moral worth of an action is determined on the basis of its intrinsic features or character, not results or consequences. Believed in good will, that good actions proceed from right intentions, those inspired by a sense of duty.

 The

categorical imperative: Morality as a system of laws analogous to the laws of physics in terms of their universal applicability. The morality of an action depends on whether the maxim (or subjective principle) behind it can be willed as a universal law without committing a logical contradiction.

Kant does not allow any resolution of an ethical dilemma in which human beings are used as a means by which others obtain benefits. Meaning you cannot use others in a way that gives you a one sided benefit. Everyone must operate in the same usage of rules. Another part of Kants theory: you not only have to be fair but also have to want to do it for all the right reasons. Self-interest was not a big seller with Kant, and he wants universal principles adopted with all goodwill and pureness of heart.

 An

example of the categorical imperative: A building contractor promises to install a sprinkler system in a project. But he is willing to break that promise to suit his purposes. His maxim can be expressed as: Ill make promises that Ill break whenever keeping them no longer suits my purposes. By willing the maxim to become a universal law, the contractor undermines promises in general.

(1)

(2)

Universal acceptability: To determine whether a principle is a moral law, we need to ask whether the command expressed through it is acceptable to all rational agents. Humanity as an end, never as a means: We must always act in a way that respects human rationality in others and in ourselves.

(1)

(2) (3)

The categorical imperative provides a solid standard for the formulation of rules applicable to any business circumstances. Kant emphasizes the absolute value and dignity of individuals. Kant stresses the importance of acting on the basis of right intentions.

(1)

(2)

(3)

Kants ethics is too extreme insofar as it excludes emotion from moral decision making and makes duty paramount. Kant fails to distinguish between excepting oneself from a rule and qualifying a rule on the basis of exceptions. It is not always clear when people are treated as ends and merely as means.

Propounded by Philosophers John Locke and John Rawls, is sometimes referred to as the social contract. They assume that we could all have a meeting of the minds on what were the good rules for society. They preferred just putting the rules into place via a social contract that is created under circumstances in which we reflect and imagine what it would be like if we had no rules or law at all.

Rational people, thinking through the results and consequences if there were not rules, would develop rules such as dont take my property without my permission and I would like the same type of court proceedings that rich people have even if I am not rich. the idea of Locke and Rawls is to have us step back from the emotion of the moment and make universal principles that will survive the test of time.

Also known as an Entitlement Theory and is one of the more modern theories of ethics, as philosophical theories go. Robert Nozick is the key modern-day philosopher on this theory, which has two elements:
Under this big umbrella ethical theory, we have the protection of human rights that covers issues such as abortion, slavery, property ownership and use, justice (as in court processes), animal rights, privacy, and euthanasia.
(1) everyone has a set of rights, and (2) its up to the governments to protect those rights.

 Moral

rights: A right is an entitlement to act or have others act in a certain way. Some moral rights derive from special relationships, roles, or circumstances in which we happen to be. Moral rights that are not the result of particular roles, special relationships, or specific circumstances are called human rights.

(1)
(2) (3) (4)

Human rights are universal. Human rights are applied equally to all. Human rights are inalienable and not transferable. Human rights are natural in that they do not depend on human institutions.

(1)Negative

rights: Those that reflect the vital interests that humans have in being free from outside interference (such as the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.) (2)Positive rights: Those that reflect the vital interests that humans have in receiving certain benefits (such as the right to education, medical care, equal job opportunity, etc.)