Morality involves what we ought to do regarding right and wrong and/or good and bad based on our values, virtues and principles (Gray, JW). Something is moral if it is the right thing to do or rational thing to do based on the facts presented in a situation. Objectivity is the state or quality of being true even outside of one’s individual biases, interpretations, and feelings (Wikipedia). Objective decisions are ones that are not based on personal feelings or opinions, but instead it is based on the circumstances and facts presented when considering a particular decision. I shall argue that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules.
One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same.
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics propose two different ideas on morality of an action. Where one focus on the end result and the other on the action itself rather than the result. In my opinion Kantian ethics hold a greater moral value to an action because any action is thought up in a rationalized process, to determine whether it will be moral, where as Utilitarian’s propose that the morality is determined by the consequences, which are never quite certain anyway. Kantian theories would be a better choice for someone who is determined for a particular action because it promotes the value of human traits, and promotes fairness and equality which can be applied unconditionally.
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
There are consequences including good or bad by the act. It is between an action and their happiness or unhappy outcomes depending on the circumstances. There is no moral principle only itself of utilitarianism. It balances the individuality and community of happiness. The purpose of the morality is by making life better and increasing that amount of good deed.
There are two versions of utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism. Although they oppose each other, they are consistent with the utilitarian principle that was just explained. Act utilitarianism holds that what is believed to be morally right or wrong is based on consequence. When deciding which action results in the most good, it is dependent on whomever or whatever will benefit the most from it. Then, rule utilitarianism is dependent on moral rules.
Justice and Honesty: Rules in Utilitarianism Reconsidered Utilitarianism, with the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle being its core, is a consequentialist theory which attaches the greatest importance to the consequences of each action. While acting justly and honestly may not always bring the best consequences, some criticize its conflicts between traditional moral rules or virtues, such as justice and honesty. To answer the challenge, it is essential to distinguishing two kinds of utilitarianism, one being act-utilitarianism and the other being rule-utilitarianism. In order to focus on the question about the relationship between the two moral rules and utilitarianism, I am not going to compare which kind of utilitarianism is more convincing. Rather, I argue that both types of utilitarianism could avoid the conflicts mentioned before, and could account for the significance of justice and honesty.
Utilitarianism “The utilitarianism theory states that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Actions are viewed to be right if only they promote happiness” (Mill, 2010. page 17). On the other hand, actions are considered to be wrong if they lead to anger and unhappiness to an individual. “The theory aims at right actions that give pleasure to individuals while making sure they are free from pain”, (Mill, 2010. page 22). Utilitarianism is divided into two categories: “(1) Rule-utilitarianism in which the primary goal of the utilitarian individual is to ensure that everyone is happy.
These advantages of ethical egoism together with the disadvantages should be weighed per circumstance and moral codes should be followed when taking decision for no two circumstances are exactly alike. In conclusion, having examined the consequences of the benefits and disadvantages of ethical egoism, I can say that ethical egoism seems to have a strong influence as to why individuals make certain decisions. Ethical egoism is not bad in itself, for one saves himself to save others. An individual cannot thrive if they stifle their needs to help
Normative ethics involves either a single rule or a set of principles to evaluate moral conduct. Teleology stipulates that acts are morally acceptable if they produce some desired result. Deontology on the other hand, focuses on the preservation of individual rights and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior. In summation, teleological philosophies consider the ends, or consequences, associated with an action whereas deontological philosophies consider the means (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2011). This is why teleology is commonly referred to as Consequentialism.