Ethical Theory Vs Natural Rights Ethics
Out of all the ethical theories, natural rights ethics is the best overall theory. Natural rights theory is the best theory because it stays consistent and promotes equality among people. Also, the natural rights theory can help people maintain their dignity by allowing their rights to not be taken away. There are theories that are not as adequate as natural rights theory. Mill’s utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics have flaws. Natural rights theory is better than the others theories for multiple reasons. Natural rights first appeared in the seventeenth century as a demand for equality of all people. Natural rights ethics argues that all humans have rights apart from their membership in a civil society or political site. Rights are self evident and God given. All humans have rights. One does not have to qualify or earn rights
…show more content…
in natural rights ethics. Natural rights are moral rights that exist whether or not the government recognizes and protects them. These rights stem from our human nature. Human nature is the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. Natural rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. Natural rights are independent from duties. Some natural rights ethicists say that natural rights can also be used synonymously with the term human rights because all and only humans have rights. Natural rights theory is an adequate theory for many reasons. Morality should stay consistent because if it does not it may cause unhappiness among people. This occurs because if morality is not consistent then people may not agree on what is right and wrong or good and bad. This can cause a feud between people which may lead to their unhappiness. People are not in each other’s heads to understand what everyone is thinking. One person’s morality may make sense to them and not to anyone else. In order to prevent unhappiness due to the misunderstanding of other’s morality, consistency would allow people to understand each other better because there would not be a change as to what morality they follow. If morality stayed consistent the issues of people not understanding each other would not occur. Natural rights are derived from facts of human nature. Since human nature does not change, natural rights do not change. The natural rights theory stays consistent. Due to the consistency of this theory, morality is able to stay consistent. Natural rights theory is the best theory because it can help one maintain their dignity by allowing their moral obligations to not be taken from them. Morality should respect individual dignity because it creates happiness. Dignity is the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect. If one is given their moral obligations and they get simply taken away from them, it can give them a feeling of no self worth and no respect. Dignity can be lost if moral obligations are taken away. This feeling of no self worth and no respect can cause one to become unhappy. By allowing moral obligations to not be taken away, it would help people maintain their dignity. In the natural rights theory, these moral obligations or rights are inalienable. According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since rights come from nature, they cannot be justly taken away without consent. In natural rights ethics, rights come from nature. Nature does not change; therefore their rights do not change. Rights cannot be taken away in the natural rights theory, which allows people to maintain their dignity. Another way that the natural rights theory is the most adequate theory is that it promotes equality. Equality is an important aspect in life because it creates harmony among people. If not everyone is equally morally obligated to act in a certain way, this may cause unwanted tension because it would allow for some to act in ways that is not okay with others. If everyone follows through equally with their moral obligations, it can help keep harmony among people. Everyone is born with equality. The claim of equality is not something we invent or determine by law; it is self evident, even though humans are unequal in physical, mental, and social characteristics. Equality is defined as the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.The religious interpretation of this theory would say that rights are self evident and God given. This would mean that everyone is born with these rights and they are all created equal. One does not have to qualify for natural rights. Natural rights do not have to be earned; they are simply owed to one when they are born. Natural rights ethics creates equality due to everyone being born with their rights. There are other theories that are not as adequate as natural rights theory. Natural rights theory is more adequate than Mill’s utilitarianism because utilitarianism assumes that all people are similar with similar desires, which does not benefit everyone. Mill’s utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. In utilitarianism, the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely based on the actions consequences. If an action simply produces more happiness than harm, the action is acceptable. According to utilitarian’s, the desire for happiness is universal, and happiness is the greatest good. They believe that the only intrinsic good is pleasure and that the only intrinsic evil is pain. Utilitarian’s believe that people are naturally sympathetic and concerned with promoting happiness for others. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. By assuming that everyone is similar it only benefits specific people. This would only benefit the people who are in the majority group and not the minority. Always focusing on the group with the majority vote would be neglecting the minority group each time. Some would be constantly unhappy because they could be in the minority time after time. Although it would cause happiness for the majority group, this theory does not create happiness for everyone. By only worrying about the majority it would completely ignore the minority group and therefore not be in the best interest for everyone. Utilitarianism relies on quantity instead of quality which is not always the best idea. Kantian deontology is a theory that states that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome.
The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which means duty. Deontology believes that duty is the basis of morality. This theory believes that moral principles are universal. When discerning and applying moral principles, reason is important. In deontology, the moral community consists of all rational beings. Deontology states that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome. Deontology tends to focus too much on justice and abstract principles and ignore moral sentiments such as caring. Deontology does not take into account the emotions involved in making moral decisions. Deontology does not allow for looking at the consequences of one's actions and therefore seems more suited to a theoretical life rather than a practical one. Deontology is therefore not an adequate
theory. Virtue ethics is not an adequate theory. Virtue ethics place less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. This theory emphasizes right being or right action. Virtue ethics is a classification within normative ethics that attempts to discover and classify what might be deemed of moral character, and apply the moral character as a base for one’s choices and actions. A virtue is an admirable character trait to habitually act in a manner that will benefit oneself and others. Virtue ethics contributes to our moral well being as well as our happiness. A virtuous person, as a person of good will, is more likely to do what is right. Virtue ethics alone does not offer sufficient guidance for making moral decisions in the real world. Virtue ethics cannot generate specific rules to guide behavior. Virtue ethics also does not provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation”. The absence of such rules makes it difficult for a group of people to come to a consensus about what constitutes ethical behavior in a situation. There is a major difficulty in establishing the nature of the virtues, especially as different people, cultures, and societies often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue. Out of all the ethical theories, natural rights theory is the best theory. Many of the other theories such as, Mill’s utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics have flaws. They each have many ways as to why they are clearly not as adequate as the natural rights theory. Natural rights theory is the best theory because it stays consistent, and lets people maintain their dignity by keeping their rights and having rights unalienable. Natural rights theory creates everyone to be equal which allows for harmony among people. Overall, the natural rights theory is the best ethical theory.
in natural rights ethics. Natural rights are moral rights that exist whether or not the government recognizes and protects them. These rights stem from our human nature. Human nature is the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. Natural rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. Natural rights are independent from duties. Some natural rights ethicists say that natural rights can also be used synonymously with the term human rights because all and only humans have rights. Natural rights theory is an adequate theory for many reasons. Morality should stay consistent because if it does not it may cause unhappiness among people. This occurs because if morality is not consistent then people may not agree on what is right and wrong or good and bad. This can cause a feud between people which may lead to their unhappiness. People are not in each other’s heads to understand what everyone is thinking. One person’s morality may make sense to them and not to anyone else. In order to prevent unhappiness due to the misunderstanding of other’s morality, consistency would allow people to understand each other better because there would not be a change as to what morality they follow. If morality stayed consistent the issues of people not understanding each other would not occur. Natural rights are derived from facts of human nature. Since human nature does not change, natural rights do not change. The natural rights theory stays consistent. Due to the consistency of this theory, morality is able to stay consistent. Natural rights theory is the best theory because it can help one maintain their dignity by allowing their moral obligations to not be taken from them. Morality should respect individual dignity because it creates happiness. Dignity is the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect. If one is given their moral obligations and they get simply taken away from them, it can give them a feeling of no self worth and no respect. Dignity can be lost if moral obligations are taken away. This feeling of no self worth and no respect can cause one to become unhappy. By allowing moral obligations to not be taken away, it would help people maintain their dignity. In the natural rights theory, these moral obligations or rights are inalienable. According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since rights come from nature, they cannot be justly taken away without consent. In natural rights ethics, rights come from nature. Nature does not change; therefore their rights do not change. Rights cannot be taken away in the natural rights theory, which allows people to maintain their dignity. Another way that the natural rights theory is the most adequate theory is that it promotes equality. Equality is an important aspect in life because it creates harmony among people. If not everyone is equally morally obligated to act in a certain way, this may cause unwanted tension because it would allow for some to act in ways that is not okay with others. If everyone follows through equally with their moral obligations, it can help keep harmony among people. Everyone is born with equality. The claim of equality is not something we invent or determine by law; it is self evident, even though humans are unequal in physical, mental, and social characteristics. Equality is defined as the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.The religious interpretation of this theory would say that rights are self evident and God given. This would mean that everyone is born with these rights and they are all created equal. One does not have to qualify for natural rights. Natural rights do not have to be earned; they are simply owed to one when they are born. Natural rights ethics creates equality due to everyone being born with their rights. There are other theories that are not as adequate as natural rights theory. Natural rights theory is more adequate than Mill’s utilitarianism because utilitarianism assumes that all people are similar with similar desires, which does not benefit everyone. Mill’s utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. In utilitarianism, the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely based on the actions consequences. If an action simply produces more happiness than harm, the action is acceptable. According to utilitarian’s, the desire for happiness is universal, and happiness is the greatest good. They believe that the only intrinsic good is pleasure and that the only intrinsic evil is pain. Utilitarian’s believe that people are naturally sympathetic and concerned with promoting happiness for others. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. By assuming that everyone is similar it only benefits specific people. This would only benefit the people who are in the majority group and not the minority. Always focusing on the group with the majority vote would be neglecting the minority group each time. Some would be constantly unhappy because they could be in the minority time after time. Although it would cause happiness for the majority group, this theory does not create happiness for everyone. By only worrying about the majority it would completely ignore the minority group and therefore not be in the best interest for everyone. Utilitarianism relies on quantity instead of quality which is not always the best idea. Kantian deontology is a theory that states that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome.
The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which means duty. Deontology believes that duty is the basis of morality. This theory believes that moral principles are universal. When discerning and applying moral principles, reason is important. In deontology, the moral community consists of all rational beings. Deontology states that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome. Deontology tends to focus too much on justice and abstract principles and ignore moral sentiments such as caring. Deontology does not take into account the emotions involved in making moral decisions. Deontology does not allow for looking at the consequences of one's actions and therefore seems more suited to a theoretical life rather than a practical one. Deontology is therefore not an adequate
theory. Virtue ethics is not an adequate theory. Virtue ethics place less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. This theory emphasizes right being or right action. Virtue ethics is a classification within normative ethics that attempts to discover and classify what might be deemed of moral character, and apply the moral character as a base for one’s choices and actions. A virtue is an admirable character trait to habitually act in a manner that will benefit oneself and others. Virtue ethics contributes to our moral well being as well as our happiness. A virtuous person, as a person of good will, is more likely to do what is right. Virtue ethics alone does not offer sufficient guidance for making moral decisions in the real world. Virtue ethics cannot generate specific rules to guide behavior. Virtue ethics also does not provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation”. The absence of such rules makes it difficult for a group of people to come to a consensus about what constitutes ethical behavior in a situation. There is a major difficulty in establishing the nature of the virtues, especially as different people, cultures, and societies often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue. Out of all the ethical theories, natural rights theory is the best theory. Many of the other theories such as, Mill’s utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics have flaws. They each have many ways as to why they are clearly not as adequate as the natural rights theory. Natural rights theory is the best theory because it stays consistent, and lets people maintain their dignity by keeping their rights and having rights unalienable. Natural rights theory creates everyone to be equal which allows for harmony among people. Overall, the natural rights theory is the best ethical theory.