What is more important to an individual: caring about the actions taken or what the consequences are? Imagine a world where one person is able to choose whether or not they want to transform the modern day society into a utopia, despite the deeds, either advantageous and detrimental, accomplished to get there. In this case, which is more important: the acts or the consequences? Deontology and virtue ethics are two ethical theories which primarily focus on the actions of a situation rather than the results. Although both theories are similar in the way that they focus on actions, they center around different ideologies. Deontology and virtue ethics are very significant in our society and can work for each other if they coexist when relating
…show more content…
He continues to state that human beings have the ability to act in a way that withstands our inclinations and emotions in order to complete our moral duties. That in itself––the way humans think and act out of respect for morality––makes them worthy of dignity (114). The question then becomes how does one know what is morally right, which is explained by Kant’s basic moral principle: the categorical imperative. Moral imperatives are different than hypothetical ones in the way that moral imperatives have an “ought” that is not contingent on one’s desires. Moral imperatives are known as categorical imperatives because they are both unconditional in the way that it depicts what one should and should not do. In Kant’s first form of his basic moral principle, he states that when one considers the act they want to complete, it must follow through as an act that he or she consistently accepts no matter who does it. The second form depicts humans to treat everyone, including themselves, with intrinsic value and as means to an end. He explains that as long as the individual believes that it is right and does not use the …show more content…
Rather than concentrating on what one should do in thoughts of what is morally correct, he or she must pay attention to what they should be. This whole theory regards one’s character based off their traits, tendencies, and inclinations that make an individual good. A virtue is defined as a commendable quality or trait and as a particular moral excellence (Merriam-Webster). A virtue, under the Golden Mean, is “a mean between extremes” in the case of traits. For example, courage is the mean in between someone who is scared of danger and someone who has little to no fear. Someone who is very fearful typically deals with the inability to do anything about the situation while someone who has little to no fear presumably causes foolishness and recklessness. In this specific ethical aspect, moral life is about establishing a good character that possess these virtues (Mackinnon 152). Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, is acclaimed for his basic notions of moral theory which was heavily emphasized by virtue. He believed in two forms of virtue: intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtue dealt with reasoning and logic, whereas moral virtue exist to impel us with good behavior. Aristotle explains that moral virtue is achieved with repetition and practice as good habits are. One attains a virtue with consistency––to
He continues to state that human beings have the ability to act in a way that withstands our inclinations and emotions in order to complete our moral duties. That in itself––the way humans think and act out of respect for morality––makes them worthy of dignity (114). The question then becomes how does one know what is morally right, which is explained by Kant’s basic moral principle: the categorical imperative. Moral imperatives are different than hypothetical ones in the way that moral imperatives have an “ought” that is not contingent on one’s desires. Moral imperatives are known as categorical imperatives because they are both unconditional in the way that it depicts what one should and should not do. In Kant’s first form of his basic moral principle, he states that when one considers the act they want to complete, it must follow through as an act that he or she consistently accepts no matter who does it. The second form depicts humans to treat everyone, including themselves, with intrinsic value and as means to an end. He explains that as long as the individual believes that it is right and does not use the …show more content…
Rather than concentrating on what one should do in thoughts of what is morally correct, he or she must pay attention to what they should be. This whole theory regards one’s character based off their traits, tendencies, and inclinations that make an individual good. A virtue is defined as a commendable quality or trait and as a particular moral excellence (Merriam-Webster). A virtue, under the Golden Mean, is “a mean between extremes” in the case of traits. For example, courage is the mean in between someone who is scared of danger and someone who has little to no fear. Someone who is very fearful typically deals with the inability to do anything about the situation while someone who has little to no fear presumably causes foolishness and recklessness. In this specific ethical aspect, moral life is about establishing a good character that possess these virtues (Mackinnon 152). Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, is acclaimed for his basic notions of moral theory which was heavily emphasized by virtue. He believed in two forms of virtue: intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtue dealt with reasoning and logic, whereas moral virtue exist to impel us with good behavior. Aristotle explains that moral virtue is achieved with repetition and practice as good habits are. One attains a virtue with consistency––to