Ethical Theories: Foundations Of Decision Making - Essay Sample

Introduction

Ethical theories are philosophies that define ethics. It is through ethical theories that the foundation of decision stems. Whenever ethics are in play, ethical theories provide part of the decision making. Per the mentioned essence, ethical theories are viewpoints from which individuals seek to refer for guidance as they make decisions. Each approach emphasizes a particular point, which is represented by the choices that people make daily. Each of the ethical theories represents different points that influence the way the decision is made (Lucas et al. 475). For example, one ethical approach places much emphasis on the motivation of an action rather than the results and vice versa. It is essential to realize that moral decisions are made depending on the ethical theories variation. To reach what an individual considers necessary, they have to follow one ethical duty, which they find most superior to the rest. In this paper, the focus is to dissect specific ethical theories while applying them to a case study scenario that has been provided. The ethical theories presented will help in directing the different outcomes of the situations that have been described. Below is an in-depth analysis of the scenarios borrowed from Phillipa Foot while linking them to the ethical decisions that will influence the results.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

What Would Mill Tell the Rescuer to Do in Rescue I and Rescue II

Stuart Mill is an English philosopher who lived in the 19th century. He advocated for utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, as an ethical idea, expresses that actions are morally right if they produce the highest good. As a utilitarian, an action can only be correct if the most significant number of people will benefit from the said action. If it were Mills advising on rescue 1, the five people would have been rescued at the expense of the one. The people affected by the action who will receive the most significant good are the five who are drowning. Losing a single person who needs rescue from another disaster at the expense of one is morally upright, according to utilitarianism (Brink n.p). Mill would tell the rescuer to save the five people from drowning and leave the single guy to die. The principle of utility as an ethical theory also argues from the point of a moral agent. A moral agent is the cause of moral action. From the scenario, the rescuer is the moral agent. The principle of utility recommends that a moral agent should only commend or do that, which causes a significant number of benefits, pleasure, and happiness to the most significant number of people (Brink n.p). An action that leads to satisfaction is justified to be moral. Based on the explanation above, there is reason to believe that Mill would ask the rescuer to rescue the five people at the expense of the single person.

Rescue two, Mill would advise the rescuer to run over the one person at the cost of saving the lives of the five people who are drowning. The decision mentioned above is justified by the consequentialism that is embedded within the principle of utilitarianism. Consequentialist is a branch of the principle of utility where the focus of the moral good is based on achieving a positive consequence. Happiness and pleasure is the one thing that is desired by everyone. An action is said to be ethical when it promotes happiness more than it diminishes it. A moral action leads to pleasure, while an immoral act leads to sadness (Brink n.p). The most considerable number of people who would bring happiness is the five people; therefore, running over one person at the expense of one, according to Mill, is moral. The principle of utility is fulfilled by saving the five people, which is the most significant amount of happiness for the most significant number of people.

Kant deontological theory focuses on the agent, unlike consequence. The primary concern for deontological theory is on the agent's motive, (also known as the reason for acting). Moral action is one that emphasizes on the agent's goodwill. Goodwill, in the definition, is the tendency to do the right thing governed by reason. Kant argues that no one can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions when all they were trying to do was the right thing accepted universally. According to Kant, no human can control the result of their actions, but every human can control motive and will. The deontological ethical theory develops by including that moral law is universal (Kant n.p). The moral law is based on pure reason, logic, and not inclined towards context. A branch of the deontological theory is the categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is a command statement (Kant n.p). The agent of morality is obliged to follow the command. One characteristic of the categorical imperative is that they are universal. Based on the deontological theory and categorical imperative, Kant would advise rescue one to save the group of five people at the expense of one single person. This decision might only change if the rescuer was already on the route going to save the person. If the rescuer is on the course going to save the single person Kant unlike Mill, would advise that the group of five people die at the expense of one (Kant n.p). In rescue 2, Kant would advise the driver to stop and not run over the one person at the cost of the five who risk drowning. The single person at the path would remain alive at the cost of the other five. The reason for Kant's advice is that as a moral agent, it is universally wrong to commit murder. It does not matter what the consequences are as long as it is illegal to kill, the one person on the path will not die at the expense of the five people who are drowning.

An imperative is applied to scenarios to derive if the ethical decision is universal. The first version of the categorical imperative implies that an action can only be used to a maxim with the motive that the work should become a universal law. In definition, a maxim is an implied rule that underlies all the action (Kant n.p). In simple terms, Kant explains categorical imperative as an action that everybody else universally will do when faced with the same situation at the same time. Categorical imperative rule warns anyone against making rules for themselves and then following those rules. Kant expects that a person should ask, "Can a person do this if everyone else does it?" If the answer to the question is yes, then the action is permitted. If not, then the action is immoral.

A version of categorical imperative stresses the sense of humanity. This version of deontological theory emphasized the need to engage humanity to any person as your person. Everyone should be treated like they have an inherent value. For Kant reason, autonomy should differentiate humans from animals (Kant n.p). The stressed attribute in the deontological theory is that humans are moral agents, unlike animals. Using the categorical imperatives to reason, Kant would advise the rescuer to save the five lives in Rescue scenario 1. The maxim in reasoning which would be universal is, 'I will save five lives by sacrificing one. 'The motive is global, and so the rescuer can go ahead with this line of action. In the Rescue scenario, 2 applying categorical imperative Kant would advise the rescuer not to run over the single person. The moral agent has to decide to kill the one person, which is not universal. Kant would also not kill the person because, just like anyone else, the one person is to be treated with inherent value. Explain one criticism of both Mill and Kant

Explain One Criticism of Both Mill and Kant

The main criticism of Mill's advice is that pleasure is not defined. Happiness, according to Mill, can be equated to that of an animal, which is entirely physical. According to Mill's reasoning, intellectual pleasure possessed by humans is compromised. For Mills, a pig is better satisfied than a human (Etinson 19). On the other hand, Kant criticism ails from the fact that there is no clear definition between the knowledge of objects and awareness of thoughts (Etinson 21). It is very unclear on what Kant meant on the line of thought of objects or ideas.

In terms of personal opinion, Kant's ethical principle of deontology is overhead to Mill's theory. Such reasoning comes from the fact that Kant has a taste for humanity and universality. Most people would do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The determination for what is right should be universal and based on the moral law and not the consequences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper compares and contrasts two ethical theories. The deontological ethical theory of Emmanuel Kant has been compared to Mill's utilitarian ethical theory. The article also goes further to give an in-depth analysis of how the two ethical theories could be in an actual ethical dilemma that requires critical decision making. It logical, therefore, to derive that ethical principles create a necessary foundation of ethics and ethical decisions.

Works Cited

Brink, David. "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 09 Oct. 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/Mill%201.pdf

Kant. "Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/Kant%201.pdf

Lucas, Karen, Bert Van Wee, and Kees Maat. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches." Transportation 43.3 (2016): 473-490. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2

Etinson, Adam, ed. Human rights: moral or political?. Oxford University Press, 2018. https://philarchive.org/archive/ETIHRM