Virtue ethics- This theory stems from the works of Plato and Aristotle. According to virtue ethics, morality is rooted in the character of an individual rather than from the actions that one performs and the resulting consequences. Virtue ethics begs the question, “what kind of person does one want to be known as?” The answers are almost always different because we are all unique individuals with different wants and priorities. Therefore, the more pertinent question to ask in this context is, why should someone want to be virtuous? The answer lies within the individual’s ethical behaviors. The idea of ‘virtue’ itself refers to good habits and dispositions to display character traits like courage, prudence, rationality or temperance. Each one
…show more content…
Its fundamental moral question is, “What sort of character would a virtuous person have?” Conversely, Utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics place emphasis on the actions of the individual as the core of their morality. In both cases, the theories beg the question, “What makes an action right?”
Utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics endeavor to clarify the principles of ethical judgment which guide a person in figuring out what they should do or are expected to do in a given situation. On the other hand, virtue ethics emphasize that being virtuous person is more important than knowing about the rules or principles. A virtuous person will automatically do good deeds in any given situation because he is instinctively conditioned to always do so.
Utilitarian ethics differ from deontological ethics as it claims that morality is based on the degree of happiness that an action produces while ignoring the quality of the action used to create said happiness. According to deontological ethics, not every action that has positive results can be perceived as good or right if it does not adhere to the stipulated rules and principles of ethical behavior. This is because, an action cannot be deemed good if it is wrong in the first …show more content…
There are certain rules which have the value of right or wrong, and we perform those rules out of an obligation to do the right thing. Immanuel Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ is one such rule developed to address the question of justice by requiring us to always treat others as ends in themselves and also by ensuring we always act as if our own actions will be adopted universally. In other words, always do to others as you would like others act towards you. Kant argued that if we obey this rule then we achieve justice. the kind of deontological approach exemplified by Kant, and also in Rawls (1971) account of justice, fails to say exactly what social goods or justice are, or what it is that we owe to each other. Given this absence, applying such a framework to youth work would not help practitioners articulate what the social goods are that they aim to achieve when they exercise certain duties. deontic philosophers neglect the role of power and so cannot say how differences in authority, influence, wealth and status relate to the task of achieving what is good or just. Yet any workable theory of justice, especially as it relates to less powerful groups, like young people, needs to address the fact that such differences can create unfairness and impede attempts to address inequities and
Its fundamental moral question is, “What sort of character would a virtuous person have?” Conversely, Utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics place emphasis on the actions of the individual as the core of their morality. In both cases, the theories beg the question, “What makes an action right?”
Utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics endeavor to clarify the principles of ethical judgment which guide a person in figuring out what they should do or are expected to do in a given situation. On the other hand, virtue ethics emphasize that being virtuous person is more important than knowing about the rules or principles. A virtuous person will automatically do good deeds in any given situation because he is instinctively conditioned to always do so.
Utilitarian ethics differ from deontological ethics as it claims that morality is based on the degree of happiness that an action produces while ignoring the quality of the action used to create said happiness. According to deontological ethics, not every action that has positive results can be perceived as good or right if it does not adhere to the stipulated rules and principles of ethical behavior. This is because, an action cannot be deemed good if it is wrong in the first …show more content…
There are certain rules which have the value of right or wrong, and we perform those rules out of an obligation to do the right thing. Immanuel Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ is one such rule developed to address the question of justice by requiring us to always treat others as ends in themselves and also by ensuring we always act as if our own actions will be adopted universally. In other words, always do to others as you would like others act towards you. Kant argued that if we obey this rule then we achieve justice. the kind of deontological approach exemplified by Kant, and also in Rawls (1971) account of justice, fails to say exactly what social goods or justice are, or what it is that we owe to each other. Given this absence, applying such a framework to youth work would not help practitioners articulate what the social goods are that they aim to achieve when they exercise certain duties. deontic philosophers neglect the role of power and so cannot say how differences in authority, influence, wealth and status relate to the task of achieving what is good or just. Yet any workable theory of justice, especially as it relates to less powerful groups, like young people, needs to address the fact that such differences can create unfairness and impede attempts to address inequities and