Evaluating Three Ethical Theories Order Instructions: Write a paper evaluating three ethical theories.
Compare and contrast as well as discuss the strengths and weakness of each.
Also, the paper must be written in accordance with APA writing standards. The appropriate citation is required and 7 scholarly sources is a must.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories Sample Answer
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories
Introduction
People who engage in research studies that involve human beings as their subjects are required to adhere to regular procedures aimed at obtaining an ethical approval. When a problem is encountered within a community or an organization, people are bound to resort to different ethical views and opinions that depend on their personalized views. The existence of various ethical positions on an action may result in different judgments.
Such ethical judgment’s positions on an action are primarily categorized into three main theories. These theories include the principles or deontological theories, consequential or utilitarian approaches, and virtues theories. This paper seeks to provide a comparative and contrastive evaluation on the three principle theories that establish the manner in which judgments are made and applied in an ethical manner.
Consequentiality Theory
This ethical theory emphasizes on the repercussions and consequences of a specified course of action. In consideration of this ethical theory, an institution or individual is in a position to provide a judgment on a specified action based on the possibility of its effects to an action (Paul & Elder, 2011). According to this ethics of consequences, the effects of an action are likely to establish the worthiness of an ethical action.
When a society considers the outcomes of some particular actions as immoral, then such an action is considered unethical within the values of such a society. The end results of this ethical theory are noted in its advantage that achieves a predetermined action to the consequences of some unethical conduct with the aim of maintaining the society’s happiness, knowledge, and resources (Paul & Elder, 2011). Thus, it is important to establish that the extreme position of this theory lies in the fact that the end has the capacity to justify the means.
Deontological Theory
The deontological theory on the other hand is considered as an ethics of principles. According to Winebrenner (2012), this is an ethical judgment approach that is primarily based on an action rather than its consequences. In the ethics of principles, an argument is provided that details the need to establish actions that abide and adhere to ethical principles that are perceived as moral (pp.115). When this is not achieved, such an action may be considered as immoral. For instance, respect, justice, and honesty are some of the actions that adhere to the moral principles of different societies.
According to the views of Kant and Maxim, there is a need to treat each and every person as an end in their selves but not as a means only. These philosophers also detail that individuals need to act as if the maxim of their actions is the only universal law that is in existence in nature.
This principle of ethics is consequently classified as the primary rules that guide ethics in different research studies (Winebrenner, 2012). In this case, it is important to consider that this principle is advantageous since its intentional position may result into a moral dictated state. The primary aim of this ethical theory is to ensure individual abide and adhere to absolute principles irrespective of their specific actions that resonate around their human consequences.
Virtue Theory:
The virtue theory is also known as the ethics of utilitarianism. The ethical consideration of this theory opines the need to asses a sensitive approach within the context of a specified action. In other words, the ethics of utilitarianism initiates a judgment position that views ethical behaviors of researchers as an extent in which a researcher is required to internalize and understand the moral values of a community in the study (Bowie, 2015). This establishes the need of the researcher to display a personal integrity in developing a relationship with the community they conduct their studies, an aspect that is inspired by their interactions with the ethical values of such a community.
Under this theory, the judgment position of a researcher wholly depends on his feelings, perceptions, and skills including his/her ability to negotiate with those to ascent to participate in a study within a community (Bowie, 2015). This is supported by the fact that the feelings and perceptions of a researcher may vary depending on the ethical background of a researcher, an aspect that may result in the survival of a study without the inclusion of procedures and regulations.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories and Comparison of these Theories
The deontological theory of ethics and the consequential theory are significantly similar since they are known to raise similar questions. The two theories are bound to raise questions that tend to consider whether there are ethical principles that exist (Oh & Yoon, 2014). On the other hand, these two theories are known to contradict the objective that it is important to develop internal principles that are aimed at providing judgment in absolutism.
Alternatively, the deontological theory of ethics and the consequential theory also raise questions that establish whether the principles ethics of a community rely upon their values. The consequentiality theory therefore supports the theory of deontological principles in justifying the view that the ethical position of an action relies in the end results of an action (Oh & Yoon, 2014). In this case, it is arguable that the society has the capacity to form principles that guide their judgment on different actions based on the received outcomes of such actions. The society on the other hand has the capacity to set principles that guide their actions in abiding to the predicted outcomes of these actions.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories and Contrast of the Theories
It is important to note that these three ethical theories emphasize on a different element that relates to different ethical decisions and choices. In this case, it can be established that certain actions may result in different outcomes that is detailed in each theory (Oh & Yoon, 2014). For instance, a researcher may consider cheating a community on the intent of his research with the aim of achieving his goals while maintaining a positive image to the community about his study. The principle of deontological ethics therefore differs with the researchers approach since it supports the need for honesty as a universal principle, an aspect that rejects the action of deception even when the outcomes of the study to the community and the researcher are beneficial.
In contrast to this, the consequentiality theory may tend to justify such deceptive actions committed by a researcher based on the consideration that the study may benefit the community by yielding positive outcomes to the society in bettering their wellbeing and knowledge. However, the principle of ethics of value may regard its judgment based on the researchers reasoning capacity and ethical skills within the research context (Bonner, 2016). In any case, the deception is perceived by a community as ethical then such an action may be justified as moral. In a case where the deceptive action of the researcher is viewed as unethical within a community, then his actions are nullified and deemed as unethical or immoral.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories Strengths and Weaknesses of the Theories
Strengths:
The consequentiality theory can be applied in different situations since its decisions are measured against the outcomes and consequences of different actions. This is different from the deontology principle that requires rules that govern such ethical decisions, with decisions failing to have a rule associated with them (Yazdani & Murad, 2015). On the other hand, virtue ethics takes an examination of a decision within the context of an individual’s character, an aspect that is disapproved by dispositions that are considered as virtues. On the other hand, the consequentiality principle can be applied systematically, especially when the values of consequences are established in a practical life setting.
On the other hand, the deontological theory is essential in ensuring that the motivation behind every action is values over its consequences. In this case, an immoral action may not be justified by perceived good consequences but good motives are considered as the worth of value (Yazdani & Murad, 2015). On the other hand, this principle believes that justice is absolute even in a case where majority of the population does not benefit from it, thus recognizing the value of moral absoluteness.
The ethics of utilitarianism also known as virtue theory focuses on the maximization of the overall good, thus seeking to understand the good of others as well as that of an individual (Yazdani & Murad, 2015). This therefore, guides individuals in making ethical decisions that bring pleasure for the greatest population.
Weaknesses:
The application of the consequentiality theory in the decision making process is considered as time-consuming and complex since it requires that consequences are identified within the process and accounted (Albert, Reynolds & Turan, 2015). Secondly, the application of this process results in a limitation since individuals may be challenges in ascertaining the consequences of an action in marking a perfect decision or judgment.
The deontological theory also complicates the process of decision making since moral obligations are considered as arbitrary since the decisions of individuals are influenced by several factors, an aspect that questions whether duty remains a good motive as suggested by Kant.
Lastly, the ethics of utilitarianism may result in the development of decisions that may violate the human rights of different individuals if applied in decision making (Albert, et.al.2015). This is attributed to the fact that what is perceived as good for some individuals may on the other hand violate the rights of others. An instance of this can be depicted in a middle class individual needing an organ transplant.
When such an individual donates a huge chunk of money to a charity in exchange for an organ transplant, the principle of utilitarianism takes cognizance of these actions and considers it ethical since good results from the recipient of the organ would result from the donation made (Albert, et.al.2015). However, other individuals may perceive this as unethical since the individual uses his wealth as an advantage to achieve his goal.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories Conclusion
As established, the three ethical principles discussed in this study provide different grounds under which judgments are made within different contexts. Under a normal circumstance, a judgment is made based on the general principles, the community’s perceptions, and consequences of an action that depend on the moral outcomes of ac action.
Evaluating Three Ethical Theories References
Albert, L., Reynolds, S., & Turan, B. (2015). Turning Inward or Focusing Out? Navigating Theories of Interpersonal and Ethical Cognitions to Understand Ethical Decision-Making. Journal Of Business Ethics, 130(2), 467-484. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2236-2. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=108674076&site=ehost-live
Bonner, K. (2016). Arendt, role theory and the ethical evaluation of an action. Irish Journal Of Sociology, 24(2), 200-225. doi:10.7227/IJS.0007. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=116865441&site=ehost-live
Bowie, N. (2015). Richard De George and the Use of Ethical Theory in Applied Ethics. Journal Of Business Ethics, 127(4), 699-706. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2179-7. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=101805212&site=ehost-live
Oh, J., & Yoon, S. (2014). Theory-based approach to factors affecting ethical consumption. International Journal Of Consumer Studies, 38(3), 278-288. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12092. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=95616585&site=ehost-live
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2011). Critical Thinking: Ethical Reasoning and Fair-minded Thinking, Part I. Journal Of Developmental Education, 33(1), 36-37. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=45456473&site=ehost-live
Winebrenner, T. (2012). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools / The Miniature Guide to the Art of Asking Essential Questions / The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning (Book). Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 24114-118. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13787968&site=ehost-live
Yazdani, N., & Murad, H. (2015). Toward an Ethical Theory of Organizing. Journal Of Business Ethics, 127(2), 399-417. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2049-3. Retrived From: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=101363947&site=ehost-live
