Ethics

Professional Issues Paper 2 Scenario One requires me to act and I plan to determine exactly what Kimberley expects me to do, buy myself some time and then begin an investigation. I am also determined to encourage Kimberley to access some counselling services. I choose to act in this manner because I am looking at the situation from a combination of deontological and consequentialist theories. Beauchamp and Childress state, Kant argued that morality is grounded in reason, not in tradition, intuition, conscience, emotion, or attitudes such as sympathy. (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p348) It is with this in mind that I have decided to use Kants theories in part in order to decide how to move ahead within the moral dilemma of scenario one. The scenario is one that could lead to people becoming highly emotional and indeed could have already been affected by intuition. By following a deontological theory I will ensure my emotions do not get in the way of finding the most ethical solution or way forward. Kant argues that intention is imperative if a moral right is to be reached and it is my intention to seek out the truth in order to treat Kimberley as an end and never as a means only. (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p350-351) Alexandra & Miller state that Deontologists hold that at least some actions are right or wrong irrespective of their consequences (Alexandra, A. & Miller, S., 1996, p26), and while I do agree with this statement to a certain degree, I most certainly will take the short and long term consequences into consideration when weighing up my argument. In this way my decision is based not simply on a deontological theory but is a mixed theorists solution, with consequentialism affecting my choices. Although consequentialism requires the maximum happiness of the greatest number it does not mean that Kimberleys potential sexual abuse being appropriately addressed would not mean the greatest good for the greatest number,...

Personal Value System

Personal Value System Patricia Webb Northern Kentucky University Abstract Essential Life Skills defines a personal value system as a set of principles or ideals that drive and/or guide your behavior. The values we set for our self are defined as our character. According to Craig E. Johnson in the book Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership casting light or shadow, character appears to be more caught than taught. I disagree with Johnson. I believe character is a direct result of the environment and people and influences we are exposed throughout our life. There is also a close correlation to spirituality and character. In this paper I am going to talk about my personal value system, how it effects my family and how becoming disconnected with my value system devastated my life. Personal Value System I was raised in a small town in upstate New York by a middle class family. My father was a factory worker and business owner and my mother was a stay at home mother of two. From as far back as I can remember my father was a very strong man with superior morals and values. My parents never sat me down and explain to me what a persons character, morals or principles were. It was through there examples and way of livingthat these things were instilled in me. My character was developed by my parents, my environment and the people around me who I admired and respected. My personal value system consists of 3 characters that I feel is the core of who I am as a person. * Personal Beliefs * Spiritual Beliefs * Family Values My personal beliefs are the essence of my character. It is what I aspire to be and how I want to come across to the people in my personal life and in my career. The most important of these character traits are honesty, integrity, kindness, caring, respect, loyality, responsibility and generousity. These deeply held beliefs have guided me throughout my life and while dealing with issues concerning my family and my... What are ethics? Ethics are a set of principles and practices that govern human conduct. To me, ethics are values that guide us in everyday choices and actions. They assist us in determining the course of our lives. There are many people in our society who do things that are ethically right to them based on their culture. There are others who do ethical things as an individual. Who is right or wrong? There are many theorists who believe that ethics is based on reason and not emotions or vice versa, some theorists who strictly go by the social contract theory, and others who believe whole hearted in virtue ethics. No theorist is wrong or right, but one thing that is correct for all of them as stated by Waller in Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues , is that Regardless, all of them give arguments for their views, and those arguments must be critically examined (waller, p. 1). In our reading we have examined four ethical theories. They are the rights theory, justice theory, utilitarianism, and profit maximization (mallor, et al p. 130). The rights theory focuses on the individual. The text offers the following

description of the rights theory, rights theory may protect a persons right to clean drinking water regardless of its cost, (mallor, et al p. 134). The justice theory focuses on the idea that it is right for governments to redistribute wealth to help the poor and disadvantaged (mallor, et al 2009). It argues for a just distribution of societys resources by which a societys benefits and burdens are allocated fairly among its members (mallor, et al p. 132). Utilitarianism needs the decision-maker to examine society as a whole and act in a way that benefits everyone in society (mallor, et al p. 133). The last of the... An Ethical Dilemma in Neonatal Care Ethical dilemmas in the health care setting, such as neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) present themselves daily. It is imperative that the health care worker be able to understand when an ethical dilemma presents itself and know how to deal with the dilemma in the best interest of all involved. For this paper, ethics are defined as the applied philosophical study of right actions or how healthcare professionals may struggle to do what is right or good for their patients (medscape). Many ethical dilemmas that health care workers face are difficult. There is no easy fix and often the result is upsetting. Occasionally, an ethical committee is needed to offer solutions and direction. Scenario One requires me to act and I plan to determine exactly what Kimberley expects me to do, buy myself some time and then begin an investigation. I am also determined to encourage Kimberley to access some counselling services. I choose to act in this manner because I am looking at the situation from a combination of deontological and consequentialist theories. Beauchamp and Childress state, Kant argued that morality is grounded in reason, not in tradition, intuition, conscience, emotion, or attitudes such as sympathy. (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p348) It is with this in mind that I have decided to use Kants theories in part in order to decide how to move ahead within the moral dilemma of scenario one. The scenario is one that could lead to people becoming highly emotional and indeed could have already been affected by intuition. By following a deontological theory I will ensure my emotions do not get in the way of finding the most ethical solution or way forward. Kant argues that intention is imperative if a moral right is to be reached and it is my intention to seek out the truth in order to treat Kimberley as an end and never as a means only. (Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J.F., 2001, p350-351) Alexandra & Miller state that Deontologists hold that at least some actions are right or wrong irrespective of their consequences (Alexandra, A. & Miller, S., 1996, p26), and while I do agree with this statement to a certain degree, I most certainly will take the short and long term consequences into consideration when weighing up my argument. In this way my decision is based not simply on a deontological theory but is a mixed theorists solution, with consequentialism affecting my choices. Although consequentialism requires the maximum happiness of the greatest number it does not mean that Kimberleys potential sexual abuse being appropriately addressed would not mean the greatest good for the greatest number,... Virtue Theory Virtue Theory or character ethics is an ethical theory that says a person lives his or her life to strive for excellence (Boylan 2009). This is both morally and other ways of achieving excellence. These characteristics are chosen and matured. A person chooses to live this way and is supported and encouraged by his/her community. Many politicians will campaign with an emphasis on their life long ethical character. They will reflect upon a long history of good character and moral behavior. The politician will suggest that he/she will continue to make moral choices as he/she serves his constituents. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism suggests that something is good when it is good for the masses. It is something that produces the most good, more than any other alternative. The capitalism and democratic societies operate under these assumptions (Boylan 2009). Countries like the United States operate under a utalitarianism theory. Decisions and laws are intended to provide the most good for its people. People are to be treated fairly and just. A legal system is established to protect the citizens rights and to create a fair and just society. It assumes that we are innocent until proven guilty and the opportunity to prove your position of innocence is offered to everyone. We have a set of inalienable rights that protect the citizens from unjust treatment.

Deontology Deontology suggests that a person do right because it is the right thing to do. It does not weigh the consequences of the right or wrong actions (Boylan 2009). The person is tasked to do right based upon duty to act morally and right. Many religions are based on deontology. The followers are tasked with doing what is defined as moral and ethical because of a duty to obey. While some of the religions teach the consequences of afterlife terror, no tangible consequences are implied. The persons are asked to make the...

Ethical theories and principles are the foundations of ethical analysis because they are the viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to a decision. Each theory emphasizes different points such as predicting the outcome and following one's duties to others in order to reach an ethically correct decision. However, in order for an ethical theory to be useful, the theory must be directed towards a common set of goals. Ethical principles are the common goals that each theory tries to achieve in order to be successful. These goals include beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy and justice (1,2,3,4).

Ethical Theories
Ethical theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each emphasize different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. People usually base their individual choice of ethical theory upon their life experiences (1,2). Deontology The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is considered ethically correct (1,2). For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the individual's set duties. Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as those within one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his little sister when they cross a busy road together. This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which is called "supererogation" (1). For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated that one person would have to die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her duty to the other students and performs an act of supererogation. Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of flaws. One weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual's duties. For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair. A similar scenario unearths two other faults of deontology including the fact that sometimes a person's duties conflict, and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others. For instance, if the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time? This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist's decision. Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting obligations (1,2). Utilitarianism The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is more beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rationale argument for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context (1,2).

There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as described in the above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time (1,2). As with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contain numerous flaws. Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the future. Although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be true. This uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look unethical as time passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as he predicted (1,2). For example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and then the fire burns down the house because the soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have chosen an unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as unethical because it did not benefit his friends. Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. However, comparing material gains such as money against intangible gains such as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a large extent (1). A third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for the existence of supererogation or heroes. In other words, people are obligated to constantly behave so that the most people benefit regardless of the danger associated with an act (1). For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices her life to save a train full of people is actually fulfilling an obligation to society rather than performing a selfless and laudable act. As explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the maximum good. According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is apparent when a utilitarian faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences a change in those variables that causes her to change her original decision. This means that an act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment and then dislike you the next moment because the variables have changed, and you are no longer beneficial to the most people (1). Rule utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its usefulness. In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules (1). Let us revisit the example of a person running late for his meeting. While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state governor may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time because the members of the state government will benefit from this decision, he may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he is running late. As a rule utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law because this benefits an entire society, but at the same time, he believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting because it is a state government meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario (1). Virtue The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person's morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person's character and will be able to judge the friend. If the plagiarizer

normally follows the rules and has good standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior (2). One weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person's change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him or her (2).

Ethical theories and principles bring significant characteristics to the decision-making process. Although all of the ethical theories attempt to follow the ethical principles in order to be applicable and valid by themselves, each theory falls short with complex flaws and failings. However, these ethical theories can be used in combination in order to obtain the most ethically correct answer possible for each scenario. For example, a utilitarian may use the casuistic theory and compare similar situations to his real life situation in order to determine the choice that will benefit the most people. The deontologist and the rule utilitarian governor who are running late for their meeting may use the rights ethical theory when deciding whether or not to speed to make it to the meeting on time. Instead of speeding, they would slow down because the law in the rights theory is given the highest priority, even if it means that the most people may not benefit from the decision to drive the speed limit. By using ethical theories in combination, one is able to use a variety of ways to analyze a situation in order to reach the most ethically correct decision possible (1). We are fortunate to have a variety of ethical theories that provide a substantial framework when trying to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when trying to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.
What a person should do and what a person wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate gratification/happiness, but might not benefit the person in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate discomfort/unhappiness, even if it is good for the person. This is the underlying message of Kantianism: the purpose of morality is NOT to make you happy! (Although in the long run, doing the right thing should eventually lead to happiness). The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of doing it. Doing the right thing for the right reason is a very important issue to a Kantian. Kantian morality is not consequential, which means that actions are based on the motive/will of the person, and not on the consequences that come from the behavior. For Kant, there is only one reason to do the right thing, and that is just because it is right! In other words, a person's actions are based on their intentions. Kant used the terms "will" and "motivation" interchangeably. Will means that we have the ability to choose good, based on reason. I like Kant's theory because he doesn't merely look at people's actions (or the consequences of such actions) but also at their reasons for doing them. So you could spend your life doing the "right" things and still not be moral, because you are doing them for the wrong reasons.

Immanuel Kants deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the persons will or intention of acting. Kants theory can be categorized as a deonotological because actions are not

assessed to be morally permissible on the basis of consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agents will in acting, (Dodds, Lecture 7) therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. Kantianism is based on three principles: maxims, willing, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle be universalisable and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone that encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. The second aspect of Kants theory is willing. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states that, In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and its impossible for p and q to be the case together (Feldman, 1999, 203). The last aspect of Kants theory is the categorical imperative. The importance of the categorical imperative is that one must act in such a way that they can will that the maxim behind ones actions can be conceived as part of the universal law. The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories are the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises. Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action. Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved. The two theories also differ Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on to which morality is based; therefore they judge each situation individually. Because of this, in weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility this can become a lengthy, time-consuming process. Not to mention the fact that you will never clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility. In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical theory because it looks to maximize utility. Utilitarianism refers to moral theories which maintain that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action's consequences. Utilitarianism requires that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. It seems as though this process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, ones person Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of

the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.

Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial) as it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others. Although the utilitarian concept of enlightened self-interest could be considered an agent-focused form of the philosophy.

Ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons ought to act from their own selfinterest. A. Personal ethical egoism is the belief that only I should act from the motive of selfinterest, nothing is stated about what motives others should act from. 1. Personal ethical egoism is not a theory because it is not generalized to others. 2. I cannot recommend personal ethical egoism to others because such a recommendation would be against my own self-interest. B. Individual ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons should serve my self-interest (i.e.,egotism) 1. Individual ethical egoism is a belief that can't be consistent unless it applies to just one person. In other words, this belief is not universalizable. 2. Practically speaking, the doctrine is similar to solipsismthere's no way to justify the belief since it applies to just one person. C. Universal ethical egoism is the universal doctrine that all persons should pursue their own interests exclusively.
The ethical egoist makes this fundamental normative claim: all moral decisions should be made on the basis of a consideration of what serves the interests of the moral agent him or herself, that is, the person who is making the decision.
Ethical egoism is a normative theory that states that our actions ought to be done from the perspective of self-interest. One of the problems with this position is that it might not be in one's self-interest to have eveyone act from the perspective of self-interest. This 'state of nature' would not be desirable (in Hobbes' terms, life would be "beastly, brutal, and short") and so it might ultimately be in one's self-interest to enter into a contract with others that would place restraints upon self-interested actions.

Alternative: the alternatives that some agent has at some time are the actions that are open to the agent at that time; they are her "options"; two actions are alternatives to one another when an agent can do either one of them, but not both of them. - Consequences: the consequences of a given act are the things that would happen "as a result" of the act, if it were performed. Note that some subsequent event is a consequence of an act whether it is near in space and time or far away; whether it is something that the agent of the act could reasonably anticipate or not; whether it involves the agent of the act or some distant stranger. A real selling point of Ethical Egoism is that it is a theory that allows people to focus on what they really know about; their own interests. After all, we are intimately aware of our own wants and needs and are in the best position to make plans to achieve these goals. Theories that ask a person to concern

themselves with the interests of other people require an omniscience that just doesnt exist. Thinking about others forces us to guess or presume what they really want. Is it arrogant to stick our noses in other peoples business by trying to figure

Defining Self Interest It is very important to keep one thing very clear when thinking about Ethical Egoism. It can be a very sophisticated theory. An ardent egoist will not necessarily do the thing that serves her immediate interests. If she wants money and is intelligent, she might well decide that getting a MBA and earning her millions as the CEO of a powerful company best serve her interests. Similarly, and egoist might devote his life to charity and good works if he reasons that such actions are in his best interests. On the other hand, an egoist might calculate that robbing banks or swindling people in stock scams is in his best interest.
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek deon, "obligation, duty"; and -logia) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty".[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism.[

Immanuel Kant Main article: Kantian ethics Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[4][5] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[6] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action. Kant's argument that to act in the morally
right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[7] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good: he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.[7] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."

Consequentialism
First published Tue May 20, 2003; substantive revision Tue Sep 27, 2011 Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.

Classic Utilitarianism
The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1789), John Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sidgwick (1907). (For predecessors, see

Schneewind 1990.) Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act consequentialism. Act consequentialism is the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion. (Cf. Moore 1912, chs. 12.) Hedonism then claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. Together these claims imply that an act is morally right if and only if that act causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, as the common slogan says. Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its future effects on those other people rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past.

Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules

Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the donor. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965). We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the donor, and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the donor will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation). If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. Most people find this result abominable. They take this example to show how bad it can be when utilitarians overlook individual rights, such as the unwilling donor's right to life.
Ethics and character are two human characteristics that enable us to make the right decision under any circumstances for the community's interest. We are confronted with ethical issues on a daily basis during social interactions at the workplace and school, or in health care, finances and business. Ethics and character enable us to be law-abiding citizens. Read more: Ethics & Character | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7634820_ethicscharacter.html#ixzz29WbiK4y2

Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches to normative ethics, often contrasted to deontology which emphasizes duty to rules and consequentialism which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself. [1] The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lyingthough a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable.

A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent).
While virtue ethics was born with Plato and Aristotle, their forms of virtue ethics are by no means the only ones. What virtue ethics refers to, rather, is a collection of normative ethical philosophies that place an emphasis on being rather than doing. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions (or consequences thereof) of the individual. Today, there is a great amount of debate among various adherents of virtue ethics about what specific virtues are morally praiseworthy. However, the one thing they all agree upon is that morality comes as a result of intrinsic virtuesthis is the common link that unites the sometimes disparate normative philosophies into the field known as virtue ethics. Plato and Aristotle's treatment of virtues is by no means the same however. For Plato, virtue is effectively an end to be sought, for which a friend might be a useful means. For Aristotle, the virtues function more as means to safeguard human relations, particularly authentic friendship, without which one's quest for happiness is frustrated.

Distinctions
Virtue ethics can be contrasted to deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics by an examination of the other two (the three being together the most predominant contemporary normative ethical theories). Deontological ethics, sometimes referred to as duty ethics, places the emphasis on adhering to ethical principles or duties. How these duties are defined, however, is often a point of contention and debate in deontological ethics. One of the predominant rule schemes utilized by deontologists is the Divine Command Theory. Deontology also depends, at least partially, upon meta-ethical realism, in that it postulates the existence of moral absolutes that make an action moral, regardless of circumstances. For more information on deontological ethics refer to the work of Immanuel Kant. The next predominant school of thought in normative ethics is consequentialism. While deontology places the emphasis on doing one's duty, which is established by some kind of moral imperative (in other words, the emphasis is on obedience to some higher moral absolute), consequentialism bases the morality of an action upon the consequences of the outcome. Instead of saying that one has a moral duty to abstain from murder, a consequentialist would say that we should abstain from murder because it causes undesirable effects. The main contention here is what outcomes should/can be identified as objectively desirable. The Greatest Happiness Principle of John Stuart Mill is one of the most commonly adopted criteria. Mill asserts that our determinant of the desirability of an action is the net amount of happiness it brings, the number of people it brings it to, and the duration of the happiness. He also tries to delineate classes of happiness, some being preferable to others, but there is a great deal of difficulty in classifying such concepts. For a more complete outline of the niceties of Mill's classification system see the page on utilitarianism or read Mill's works Utilitarianism, Defense of Utilitarianism, and On Liberty. Examining the meta-ethical theories of naturalism, upon which many consequentialist theories rely, may provide further clarification. Having looked at the other two normative ethical theories we come at last to virtue ethics. As stated before, deontology focuses on adhering to ethical duties, while consequentialism focuses on the outcomes (consequences) of actions. Here virtue ethics differs in that the focus is instead upon being rather than doing. A virtue ethics philosopher will identify virtues, desirable characteristics, that the moral or virtuous person embodies. Possessing these virtues, in virtue ethics, is what makes one moral, and one's actions are a mere reflection of one's inner morality. To the virtue philosopher, action cannot be used as a demarcation of morality, because a virtue encompasses more than just a simple selection of action. Instead, it is about a way of being that would cause the person exhibiting the virtue to make a certain "virtuous" choice consistently in each situation. There is a great deal of disagreement within virtue ethics over what are virtues

and what are not. There are also difficulties in identifying what is the "virtuous" action to take in all circumstances, and how does one define a virtue? Consequentialist and deontological theories often still employ the term 'virtue', but in a restricted sense, namely as a tendency or disposition to adhere to the system's principles or rules. These very different senses of what constitutes virtue, hidden behind the same word, are a potential source of confusion. This disagreement over the meaning of virtue points to a larger conflict between virtue theory and its philosophical rivals. A system of virtue theory is only intelligible if it is teleological: that is, if it includes an account of the purpose (telos) of human life, or in popular language, the meaning of life.[citation needed] Obviously, strong claims about the purpose of human life, or of what the good life for human beings is, will be highly controversial. Virtue theory's necessary commitment to a teleological account of human life thus puts the tradition in sharp tension with other dominant approaches to normative ethics, which, because they focus on actions, do not bear this burden.[