NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Philosophy Of three philosophical structures that have been proposed for examination, namely virtue based ethics, utilitarianism and deontology, virtue based ethics appears to be the most relevant. To prove correctness of my proposition, Ill give a brief account of the history of philosophy concerning the concept of ethics as being viewed by various philosophers, and examine all three trends by juxtaposing them and indicating their strengths and weaknesses. Likewise, I will try to focus on some of todays events in the light of theories just mentioned, to see whether those are applicable to use in everyday life. Issues that concerned ethics have been present in philosophers works since ancient time. It was not just a case: mankind has always been preoccupied with the problem of moral choice, good and evil; and ethics, closely related to moral and religion, has been looked upon as possible to provide some answers for the questions. Thus, ethics must have emerged when people came to use abstract thinking, began to view their actions on the basis of their being right or wrong, leaving behind their struggle for existence.
Moral is usually considered to have been present in all societies, even the most ancient, since very early times, as a set of codified moral rules. Such code became a turning point for reflections on moral, i. e. for the emergence of ethics as such. (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 18, p. 492).
Reference books treating the history of philosophy usually mention the code of laws by Egyptian king Hammurabi, the book of Exodus, Jainistic philosophy, Buddhas writings, works by the Chinese philosophers Lao-tsu and Confucius, as the examples of notions of ethics in ancient times. In such philosophical doctrines, produced by various peoples over a long period of time, the central issues of philosophy as to the origin and basis of moral were settled in different ways. In most cases moral was deduced from such origin as God, human nature or laws of universe. Ancient Greece is commonly thought to be a birthplace of modern Western philosophy; many ideas worked out by founders of major philosophical schools or their disciples, were developed further by medieval or modern writers. The philosophers of antiquity, first of all Greeks, contributed much to research and development of ethical problems, even though many of them viewed ethics quite differently, which concerned the very concept, as well as the means of attaining high moral principles.
So many philosophical schools of ancient Greeks comprised epicureans, cynics, stoics, Plato's and Aristotle's adepts etc. They reflected on the transmigration of souls, justification of slavery, the nature of happiness that was linked, some thought, to sensual pleasure (Epicurus), while others saw it as a total negation of it (cynics). Some denied a necessity of obedience of an individual to ethical rules, as its natural inducements form a basis of the rules of conduct. Stoics accepted Socrates reason that virtues and happiness are generated by sub-consciousness; like them Aristotle held that the highest virtue is achieved through the use of ones mind, which is the demonstration of human nature, indispensable for attaining happiness. By contrast, sceptics considered cognition to be impossible and preached the refusal from any opinions whatever. Early Christian authors, who were influenced by Philo and Plotinus, demanded ascetic activities, celibacy, the refusal from spectacular performances.
Their ethics rests on the Revelation and belief; their starting point lied not with society or men, but God. Augustine developed a doctrine of liability to sins, of absolution and salvation (the problem of holiness and that of evil); in disputes between realists and nominalist in the Middle Ages similar issues were also discussed. Augustine's ethics influenced a lot on the first protestants salvation depended on sincerity of his belief rather than his right or wrong actions. A peculiar interpretation of ethical issues was given by Niccolo Machiavelli, who thought the disregard of common moral rules was possible in the course of political struggle. Thomas Hobbes denied the existence of God, thinking he had been produced by mans consciousness.
I realize that my survey is brief and incomplete. However, despite its being selective, I have pursued a goal of backing up my opinion that mankind had been preoccupied with ethical issues since the ancient time. To do that, I have given an idea of many diverse philosophers, who lived in diverse ages and whose views were frequently entirely different. Now let us go on to the immediate exploration of three diverse ethical doctrines that we have to compare. The origination of utilitarianism is linked to the name of Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832), an English philosopher, economist and theoretical jurist, who can to some extent be called a follower of the hedonistic trend in philosophy, dating back to Epicurus. Bentham belonged to so called laissez-faire philosophy, and he stood up for crucial reforms for English society.
He criticized some aspects of it and did not accept either the idea of social contract or that of natural rights. If philosophers of previous ages disputed on some metaphysical aspects of ethics, that had nothing to do with a real life, e. g. its divine or mundane nature, Bentham by and large, cared for so called normative ethics. The latter examined concrete action of people on the basis of their underlying reasons. Except Bentham, among utilitarianism's champions was also William Paley (1743 - 1805), who despite sustaining a view that God alone could determine whether a particular human act was right or wrong, still held that God wished happiness to everyone, and thus whatever increases happiness is right; whatever diminishes is wrong (Ibid, p. 505).
Like him, Bentham thought that moral virtue of human action depends much on what consequences it will have for one who took it, as well as for other individuals. A good action as viewed by Bentham is one that has as a result the greatest happiness, which was associated by the English philosopher with attaining the maximum pleasure. The world, in his words, is governed by two universal categories: pain and pleasure. It is they that point out what we do or should do. He holds that negation of those principles would be extremely unreasonable, and that the principle of utility he puts forward admits this fact and is deduced from it. By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing on other words to promote or to oppose that happiness (Bentham, ch. 1, II).
However, a problem arises as to the way of finding out which action results in increasing happiness, or, conversely, in diminishing it. To settle it, Bentham develops a system of calculation and measurement of what provides greatest pleasure; a reader can find it in the fifth chapter of his book. It is entitled Value of a Lot of Pleasure, how to be Measured. Pleasure and pain should be evaluated in accordance with such their consequences as their intensity, duration, as well as certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness.
If because of such feelings some other actions are taken, additional means of evaluation should be used such as fecundity and purity. In the first case, it is meant that the feeling caused by the original act may in turn cause pain or pleasure; in the second one; that it would not happen. Further on such factors are examined as the number of people who can be influenced by a particular act; whereupon the author suggests to sum up all considerations previously taken for finding out how good your actions are for another person or a group of individuals. Certainly, what is good for one person is not so good for another one. That is why Bentham proposes to determine by the way of complicated calculations described above if your action is good for majority of people it may concern, and then take it.
So, utilitarianism was what would be called consequent alist ethics. Criteriania of good / desirable actions should be found in their consequences, as dependant on their being right or wrong. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne (Ibid, I). Another representative of utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), the British philosopher, who wrote works on political theory, logic and epistemology. He introduced some amendments into Bentham's theory, extended the notion of values as being present in Bentham's works.
His essay Utilitarianism (1863) distinguishes between higher and lower kinds of pleasure. Few humans creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beasts pleasures; no intellect human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs (John Stuart Mill, ch. 2). In his opinion, utilitarianism is compatible with moral rules; instead of calculating consequences of your actions, as Bentham suggested, you should check its compatibility with some moral principles, as the duty of keeping promises. Having surveyed the key concepts of utilitarianism, let us begin exploring some notions of deontology. The term was first introduced by the same Jeremy Bentham (see his work Deontology, or the Science of Morality), by which he meant, as the title says, the moral doctrine in itself. Later on they came to call the deontology a branch of ethics that applied to duty, moral obligation and normative's, and more generally an area of duty as a specific form of moral, demonstrating social necessity.
Duty (what ought to be done), by the means of which moral expresses demand of social laws, including that of man and society, takes many forms in private conduct, common norms, moral and social ideal. Deontology treats ethics without making an attempt of picking out specific moral duties. An action is considered good or bad because of its being moral or not moral rather than its consequences. Deontology is characterized with expressions like Duty for duty's sake Virtue is its own reward, Let justice be done through the heaven fall (The Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Ready Reference. Vol. 4, p. 19). The most famous and perhaps consistent champion of this doctrine was Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), the German philosopher and academic. He proclaimed that the basic principle of ethics is so called categorical imperative, which requires to be guided by a rule that wholly irrespective of the moral content of an action might become a common law of mans conduct.
According to Kant, ethics is independent of experience; Kant distinguishes between a transcendental ego and an empirical ego based on experience. To Kant's mind, will was a mediator between them, the will, which is influenced at the same time by our natural inclinations and the law established by our own free mind, our transcendental ego. The categorical imperative had a form of precisely that moral obligation: Act so that the maxims of thy actions become a universal law (Kant, Introduction, par. 55). As regards to the philosophical structure whose advantages Ill attempt to defend, that is virtue based ethics, its roots can be traced as far back as the works of ancient Greeks. In his book on ideal state, Plato singled out three virtues: wisdom, valor and modesty (obedience). Aristotle thought that mans mind was an expression of his character, whereas ability to use it a virtue.
The difference between ethical virtues linked to personality of a person (courage, self-discipline, generosity) and those connected with his reason (cleverness, insight, comprehension, wisdom) is found via the difference between common sense and thinking. As the matter of fact, virtue based philosophy as well as ethical problems at large have appealed to philosophers of all ages. In Christian era the obedience to God was added to them as another virtue. In various epochs virtues might differ, but essentially virtue based ethics meant one thing: priority of some value that a person chooses consciously to be guided by, when he or she faces a moral problem, or, in other words, when he or she thinks what to do after finding himself in a difficult situation, as to not make wrong thing or do a harm to somebody. These principle may be connected with religion (as following the Commandments in Christianity), for every religion has a code banning to any wrong thing.
They may not, conversely, have anything to do with it as, learned by an individual in its childhood or realized with its mind. I think it is just those principles that do not let a person be misguided when he or she has to make a difficult choice. It is quite evident that the adherence to a religious doctrine or devotion to a set of moral principles which you may have chosen for yourself do not eliminate all the possible difficulties. Among adepts of various doctrines you may encounter people who sustain totally different views on key matters (for example, conservatives and liberals within modern Roman Catholic Church, the former continuing to blame abortion, the use of contraceptives or appointment women as priests; the latter admitting it); besides, moral rules may be controversial or un applicable in a certain situation (the commandment do not kill and a need to use violence, e. g. as self-defense).
Often, seemingly very religious people tend to defend capital punishment or a war for sake of ideals of justice (one should recall G. W. Bush, American president). However, devotion to principal ethical virtues, recognition of eternal moral values appears to be, still, more meaningful than other branches of ethics.
Undoubtedly, Bentham contributed hugely to philosophy and theoretic jurisprudence; he promoted its humanization, arguing that because any punishment causes pain, it should only be used if it is capable of to prove useful for the rest of the people. He was just as correct, I think, when he claimed that words like honor, fatherhood etc. Do not refer to any specific things and thus are demagogical. Bentham was also a supporter of the progressive laissez-faire doctrine. Nevertheless, his philosophical and ethical systems do not lack some serious slips, being by and large completely un applicable in practical way. The matter is pain and pleasure are very relative concepts; everyone has its own that differ from others; in everyday life, to measure them, as Bentham does, is quite impossible. (Especially it concerns pleasure, which is absolutely individual with every person).
Moreover, if you follow Bentham's logic, it will result in conclusion that any action that leads to the greatest pleasure for as many people as possible is justified. But nearly anything may, it seems, be viewed as such action, like murder, if someone would think a person is dangerous for society. Besides, utility principle leads to a scepticism and denial of universally recognized values: everything that gives pleasure is possible, and in that light poetry is no more useful than pushpin (an old game for children; The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 18, Ibid). Unlike utilitarianism, deontology denies consequent alist logic; it argues that it is only morality of an action that matters. It looks like going from one extreme to another: one cannot live minding only entirely abstract principles and ignoring any consequences. I agree with those who label deontology as a formalistic doctrine.
Actually, one can hardly deduce from the purely formalistic categorical imperative of Kant's how one should behave in a specific situation. Ethics do not supply Law for Actions (which is done by jurisprudence), but only for the maxims of Actions (Kant, Introduction, par. 55). The priority of formal moral law proves to be stripped of any specific content, which is a serious flaw in this philosophical system, too. To sum up, my principal objections against utilitarianism and deontology is their excessive abstractedness, formality, inability to be applied in any real conditions. Unlike them, virtue based ethics is able to provide answers to some specific questions. Certainly, it cannot settle all of them (for instance, how to treat euthanasia and things like that), but it lets a person consider them and make his or her choice.
Bibliography. Bentham, Jeremy. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Penguin Books, 1999. Give, Nils; Skirbekk, Gunnar. History of Philosophy.
An Introduction to the Philosophical Roots of Modernity. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1998. Mill, John Stuart. The Utilitarianism.
London and Sydney: Pan Books, 1971. Kant, Immanuel. The Moral Law. Metaphysics of Morals.
Trans by Thomas Abbott. N. Y. : Barnes&Noble, 1998. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15 -th. Edition.
Vol. 4, 18. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. , 1994.
Free research essays on topics related to: laissez faire, pain and pleasure, categorical imperative, encyclopaedia britannica, john stuart mill
Research essay sample on John Stuart Mill Pain And Pleasure
