What Is The Three Ethical Or Systems Of Morality?
Phil-101, Dr. Kegley
Reflection Paper #1, “The Three Ethical or Systems of Morality”
We have discussed three major ethical or systems of morality; Ethical Egoism, utilitarianism, and Kantianism. The three systems go to different degrees in respect to the two ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence. Although quite different from each other in many ways some of them do share some common principles between them. In this paper I will discuss the similarities and differences of the three systems. We also watched the video case study “The Old Person’s Friend” which I will relate one of the theories that I believe best deals with this case.
Ethical egoism is the system of morality that I have the most problem with or …show more content…
wish that it is used the least by others. The basic principle of Ethical Egoism are that all people should do whatever benefits them or act only in his or her own best interest. Although autonomy is an important aspect to ethical egoism it believes that beneficence is self-defeating. There are several justifications or arguments for ethical egoism (Moral Systems: Ethical Egoism PP). The first argument is “Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs. We can pursue these, but know very little about the interests of others and thus to act on their behalf may produce more harm than good”. The Second argument is “Looking out for “others” is an offensive intrusion into other people’s privacy. It is essentially a policy of “minding other people’s business”. The third argument is “To concern ourselves with others’ good is to degrade them and rob them of their dignity. It says they cannot care for self and lead to them becoming less self-reliant and dependent”. The fourth argument or justification for Ethical Egoism is a statement by Ayn Rand “One’s individual life is of ultimate value and thus ethical egoism takes seriously this reality”. In regards to beneficence Ethical Egoism believes that it is self-defeating but I believe it goes the farthest to respect an individual’s autonomy. I believe that a level of Ethical Egoism is the most selfish and self-centered system of the three and seems the most prevalent system that people use in their personal lives in relationship to others. It seems to be becoming a more of a “It’s all about me” world.
Utilitarianism is the system that I find has the best potential for good in so far as it concerns itself with the greatest good for the greatest number, within the limits that it doesn’t infringe on the rights or happiness of the individual or minority group.
I believe that it has the potential to do great harm or be abused if it were the prevalent system in use. On the outward appearance Utilitarianism could appear benevolent it its pursuit of the most happiness for the most number of people. The problem for me is when it argues that the ends justifying the means and the possibility of the violation of the autonomy or rights of the minority or individual in its equation and calculation of a moral decision. In evidence to my aversion to Utilitarianism is from our class discussion and review of the rape case (Elements pages 111 & 112) in were it would have been in the interest of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people to falsely accuse an innocent man of rape, as a case of the end justifying the means. I believe this philosophy has been used throughout history to justify terrible atrocities. I’m sure Hitler and the Nazi’s believed their ends justified their means and that the success of their “1000 year Reich” would have meant that the murder of millions of Jews and other unwanted persons in time would mean the greatest good for the greatest number. I don’t believe the system is evil in itself or even wrong. If used in the right situations and by the right people it has the potential to do the greatest good. As with any system though the biggest question for me is who, who decides? Who decides what is best for me or what is best for that person? Utilitarianism doesn’t go far enough in regards to autonomy but does embrace beneficence in that decisions should be made and laws passed that will have the best outcome for the most people, but could go too far by the wrong but good intentioned politician or person in authority. In
defense of Utilitarianism, using the rape case as an example, arguments could be made that further consideration could or would be made and that if one projected out the consequences of baring false witness against an innocent man that it would be immoral “his lie might be found out, and then the situation would be even worse than before. Even if the lie succeeded, the real culprit would remain at large and might commit more crimes. Also if the guilty party were caught later on, which is always possible, the liar would be in deep trouble, and confidence in the criminal justice system would erode” (Elements page 117). Still personally I don’t believe this goes far enough to protect individual rights and especially my rights because it relies on someone to consider consequences and project outcomes that they may not be qualified to make and in many cases there could be the temptation to justify actions that they intended to make anyway.
Kantianism for me goes the farthest to be a system for myself or other people to follow that goes far enough to respect an individual or group’s autonomy and also allows you to incorporate beneficence to others in situations that you feel are morally correct so long as you make every attempt not to violate the rights or disrespect the other person or group. Kant stated in reference to autonomy that “our status as free moral agents is the source of our dignity and worth- we are “moral beings above all” (Immanuel Kant PP). Another aspect for Kantianism that I find important and embraceable by me is two of his ideals or statements in reference to Good Will the first statement for me allows one to not be so rigidly held to absolutes in special situations that go beyond what would be a normal situation. It is his statement that “The value of other qualities can be sacrificed or diminished under certain circumstances” (Emmanuel Kant PP). Although Kant didn’t work in “what if’s” I believe this statement which would also be compatible with utilitarianism and allow someone adhering to Kantian ideals to make a decision that could infringe on the autonomy or rights of an individual for the greater good of society. I believe Kant could sacrifice one innocent life to save millions. His second ideal or statement that I embrace is “Would not forfeit our moral goodness in order to attain some desirable end or object” (Emmanuel Kant PP). it is this ideal that I find counter to Ethical Egoism and key to what makes Kantianism most agreeable to my personal system of ethics.
In watching the video “The old person’s friend” and applying the three systems of ethics I believe that for me Kantianism would best deal with Mrs. Altman’s situation. I find it difficult to remain objective or impartial when analyzing and considering the ethics and particulars of this case. When considering Mrs. Altman’s case and situation I cannot help but to imagine my own grandmother in the position of Mrs. Altman. Were it my grandmother that was in terrible pain and I believed she was communicating to me that she was suffering and no longer wished to continue in such a state I would wish that she would be allowed to refuse treatment and engage in passive euthanasia or even active euthanasia if the situation were unbearable. My grandmother was a good but very proud, obstinate, and strong woman. It would be absolutely insufferable for her to be seen in such a situation as Mrs. Altman found herself. Despite having a large loving family, I could see my Grandmother in Mrs. Altman’s situation as she might refuse to have visitors so as to prevent anyone seeing her in such a way and would have only her nurse to appeal to for help in passing on. I believe Kantianism would not only allow the nurse to help Mrs. Altman to refuse treatment it would encourage her to do everything possible to honor her wishes. Kant places high value to autonomy and upmost respect for one’s personal will. Were it up to me to resolve this case I would be obligated to treat Mrs. Altman as if she were capable and competent to make decisions or choices regarding her own health (Ethical Principles lecture, 09/16/2010). Furthermore, in line with Kantianism I believe it would be disrespectful to Mrs. Altman’s personal will to disregard her wishes to withhold or refuse treatment. It appeared to me that the Dr. in the case was only concerned with how it affected or might impact him and showed no actual concern for Mrs. Altman’s well being. He made no effort to communicate to her or even ask her to nod her head in response to questions regarding her situation or possible actions. The nurse was Mrs. Altman’s only advocate and it was clear to me that she understood Mrs. Altman’s wishes based on their relationship and her experience with working with her for some time.
The personal impact for me I believe is In accordance with Kant’s principle and his statement that you should “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. In respecting Mrs. Altman’s personal will by honoring her wishes to refuse treatment it is a statement that you would wish it to become a universal law. So were it my grandmother in Mrs. Altman’s position I would want the doctors and nurses working with her to respect her personal will and honor my grandmothers wishes regarding her personal health care and medical decisions.
Of the three systems of morality I feel Kantianism comes closest to my own personal ethics and is the most thought thru. I believe It allows for decisions to be made based on one’s morally contemplated considerations, it respects individual autonomy “our status as free moral agents is the source of our dignity and worth- we are “moral beings above all”” (Immanuel Kant PP), and in situations that careful consideration has been given it can allow for beneficent action. In the case of Mrs. Altman, and personally my grandmother, it goes the farthest to allow someone to preserves their own dignity and ensure self-determination.
Reflection Paper #1, “The Three Ethical or Systems of Morality”
We have discussed three major ethical or systems of morality; Ethical Egoism, utilitarianism, and Kantianism. The three systems go to different degrees in respect to the two ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence. Although quite different from each other in many ways some of them do share some common principles between them. In this paper I will discuss the similarities and differences of the three systems. We also watched the video case study “The Old Person’s Friend” which I will relate one of the theories that I believe best deals with this case.
Ethical egoism is the system of morality that I have the most problem with or …show more content…
wish that it is used the least by others. The basic principle of Ethical Egoism are that all people should do whatever benefits them or act only in his or her own best interest. Although autonomy is an important aspect to ethical egoism it believes that beneficence is self-defeating. There are several justifications or arguments for ethical egoism (Moral Systems: Ethical Egoism PP). The first argument is “Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs. We can pursue these, but know very little about the interests of others and thus to act on their behalf may produce more harm than good”. The Second argument is “Looking out for “others” is an offensive intrusion into other people’s privacy. It is essentially a policy of “minding other people’s business”. The third argument is “To concern ourselves with others’ good is to degrade them and rob them of their dignity. It says they cannot care for self and lead to them becoming less self-reliant and dependent”. The fourth argument or justification for Ethical Egoism is a statement by Ayn Rand “One’s individual life is of ultimate value and thus ethical egoism takes seriously this reality”. In regards to beneficence Ethical Egoism believes that it is self-defeating but I believe it goes the farthest to respect an individual’s autonomy. I believe that a level of Ethical Egoism is the most selfish and self-centered system of the three and seems the most prevalent system that people use in their personal lives in relationship to others. It seems to be becoming a more of a “It’s all about me” world.
Utilitarianism is the system that I find has the best potential for good in so far as it concerns itself with the greatest good for the greatest number, within the limits that it doesn’t infringe on the rights or happiness of the individual or minority group.
I believe that it has the potential to do great harm or be abused if it were the prevalent system in use. On the outward appearance Utilitarianism could appear benevolent it its pursuit of the most happiness for the most number of people. The problem for me is when it argues that the ends justifying the means and the possibility of the violation of the autonomy or rights of the minority or individual in its equation and calculation of a moral decision. In evidence to my aversion to Utilitarianism is from our class discussion and review of the rape case (Elements pages 111 & 112) in were it would have been in the interest of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people to falsely accuse an innocent man of rape, as a case of the end justifying the means. I believe this philosophy has been used throughout history to justify terrible atrocities. I’m sure Hitler and the Nazi’s believed their ends justified their means and that the success of their “1000 year Reich” would have meant that the murder of millions of Jews and other unwanted persons in time would mean the greatest good for the greatest number. I don’t believe the system is evil in itself or even wrong. If used in the right situations and by the right people it has the potential to do the greatest good. As with any system though the biggest question for me is who, who decides? Who decides what is best for me or what is best for that person? Utilitarianism doesn’t go far enough in regards to autonomy but does embrace beneficence in that decisions should be made and laws passed that will have the best outcome for the most people, but could go too far by the wrong but good intentioned politician or person in authority. In
defense of Utilitarianism, using the rape case as an example, arguments could be made that further consideration could or would be made and that if one projected out the consequences of baring false witness against an innocent man that it would be immoral “his lie might be found out, and then the situation would be even worse than before. Even if the lie succeeded, the real culprit would remain at large and might commit more crimes. Also if the guilty party were caught later on, which is always possible, the liar would be in deep trouble, and confidence in the criminal justice system would erode” (Elements page 117). Still personally I don’t believe this goes far enough to protect individual rights and especially my rights because it relies on someone to consider consequences and project outcomes that they may not be qualified to make and in many cases there could be the temptation to justify actions that they intended to make anyway.
Kantianism for me goes the farthest to be a system for myself or other people to follow that goes far enough to respect an individual or group’s autonomy and also allows you to incorporate beneficence to others in situations that you feel are morally correct so long as you make every attempt not to violate the rights or disrespect the other person or group. Kant stated in reference to autonomy that “our status as free moral agents is the source of our dignity and worth- we are “moral beings above all” (Immanuel Kant PP). Another aspect for Kantianism that I find important and embraceable by me is two of his ideals or statements in reference to Good Will the first statement for me allows one to not be so rigidly held to absolutes in special situations that go beyond what would be a normal situation. It is his statement that “The value of other qualities can be sacrificed or diminished under certain circumstances” (Emmanuel Kant PP). Although Kant didn’t work in “what if’s” I believe this statement which would also be compatible with utilitarianism and allow someone adhering to Kantian ideals to make a decision that could infringe on the autonomy or rights of an individual for the greater good of society. I believe Kant could sacrifice one innocent life to save millions. His second ideal or statement that I embrace is “Would not forfeit our moral goodness in order to attain some desirable end or object” (Emmanuel Kant PP). it is this ideal that I find counter to Ethical Egoism and key to what makes Kantianism most agreeable to my personal system of ethics.
In watching the video “The old person’s friend” and applying the three systems of ethics I believe that for me Kantianism would best deal with Mrs. Altman’s situation. I find it difficult to remain objective or impartial when analyzing and considering the ethics and particulars of this case. When considering Mrs. Altman’s case and situation I cannot help but to imagine my own grandmother in the position of Mrs. Altman. Were it my grandmother that was in terrible pain and I believed she was communicating to me that she was suffering and no longer wished to continue in such a state I would wish that she would be allowed to refuse treatment and engage in passive euthanasia or even active euthanasia if the situation were unbearable. My grandmother was a good but very proud, obstinate, and strong woman. It would be absolutely insufferable for her to be seen in such a situation as Mrs. Altman found herself. Despite having a large loving family, I could see my Grandmother in Mrs. Altman’s situation as she might refuse to have visitors so as to prevent anyone seeing her in such a way and would have only her nurse to appeal to for help in passing on. I believe Kantianism would not only allow the nurse to help Mrs. Altman to refuse treatment it would encourage her to do everything possible to honor her wishes. Kant places high value to autonomy and upmost respect for one’s personal will. Were it up to me to resolve this case I would be obligated to treat Mrs. Altman as if she were capable and competent to make decisions or choices regarding her own health (Ethical Principles lecture, 09/16/2010). Furthermore, in line with Kantianism I believe it would be disrespectful to Mrs. Altman’s personal will to disregard her wishes to withhold or refuse treatment. It appeared to me that the Dr. in the case was only concerned with how it affected or might impact him and showed no actual concern for Mrs. Altman’s well being. He made no effort to communicate to her or even ask her to nod her head in response to questions regarding her situation or possible actions. The nurse was Mrs. Altman’s only advocate and it was clear to me that she understood Mrs. Altman’s wishes based on their relationship and her experience with working with her for some time.
The personal impact for me I believe is In accordance with Kant’s principle and his statement that you should “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. In respecting Mrs. Altman’s personal will by honoring her wishes to refuse treatment it is a statement that you would wish it to become a universal law. So were it my grandmother in Mrs. Altman’s position I would want the doctors and nurses working with her to respect her personal will and honor my grandmothers wishes regarding her personal health care and medical decisions.
Of the three systems of morality I feel Kantianism comes closest to my own personal ethics and is the most thought thru. I believe It allows for decisions to be made based on one’s morally contemplated considerations, it respects individual autonomy “our status as free moral agents is the source of our dignity and worth- we are “moral beings above all”” (Immanuel Kant PP), and in situations that careful consideration has been given it can allow for beneficent action. In the case of Mrs. Altman, and personally my grandmother, it goes the farthest to allow someone to preserves their own dignity and ensure self-determination.