Virtue Ethics is comprised of the principle components in that an individual should be
striving to live up to a moral and ethical code in everything that they do in life. It is based on the
character of the person involved in making everyday decisions. According to Boylan (2009),
“Likewise, in every day life, virtue ethics takes the long look at one’s character and is somewhat
forgiving of an occasional slipup that is not consonance with that person’s historical character”
(p. 134). Both Plato and Aristotle are considered principle ethicists involved in developing this
ethical system.
Utilitarianism is comprised of the principle components of an individual taking the action
that will impart the greatest good even if that action may be negative for the individual making
the decision. This ethical system is based on the concept that a decision is moral when it has a
result that is more positive for the greatest amount of people. The principle ethicists involved in
developing the system are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
Social contract is comprised of the principle components of an individual taking actions
based on their interaction with polite society, such as not cheating on a spouse during a marriage.
Social contracts are necessary in order for society to exist as it does without chaos, such as
allowing for civil rights. In order for a person to have civil rights, they must be willing to respect
other individual’s civil rights. The principle ethicists involved in developing this system are
Socrates, Epicurus, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
Deontology with goals is comprised of the principle components of an individual making
ethical decisions based on achieving a particular goal. With Hinduism and Buddhism,
individuals are striving to reach the most enlightened state of being called Nirvana. In order to
become enlightened, they must follow the right path in life. Ethically, they must do the right
thing in order to finally attain this state of being such as living a life that espouses nonviolence.
The principle ethicists involved in developing this system would be the founders of the religions
of Hinduism and Buddhism.
Deontology with divine authority is comprised of the principle components of an
individual taking actions based on their religion. Deontology with divine authority is similar to
deontology with goals in that the person feels that they have to duty to take action in a certain
way because they have been told to do so by their religion, such as thou shalt not kill being a
Commandment that is seen as a duty by a Christian. The principle ethicist involved in
developing this system is René Descartes, but of course, the founders of the religions that created
the divine authority would also be considered important in developing the particular system.
Relativism is comprised of the principle components that either an individual or the
culture determines the right or wrong of an action. An individual following their own ethical
relativism will be the one to determine what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are not
moral based on their beliefs, and can see that their ethical beliefs may be different from another
person’s beliefs. Cultural relativism is based on the culture that a person is a part of determining
the moral or immorality of an action. According to White (2008), “If our culture says that
homosexuality is wrong, then it is wrong in our society. If ancient Greek culture said that
homosexuality is right, then it was right in that society” (p. 5). The principle ethicists involved
in developing this system are Franz Boas and Alain Locke.
Deontology with a categorical imperative is comprised of the principle components that
an individual should handle a task in a certain way because it the logical way to handle that task
particular task. The task should be looked at as a duty rather than from an emotional or goal
setting perspective. The categorical imperative is an absolute and unconditional requirement.
The principle ethicist involved in developing this system is Immanuel Kant.
The ethical system that is most prevalent in the United States today would be
utilitarianism. According to Hindson, E. E., & Caner (2008), “Perhaps the most common form
of ethical theory advocated today is utilitarianism, a subset of teleological ethics. … Commonly
expressed as ‘the greatest good for the greatness number,’ utilitarianism has effectively become
an approach whereby the ends justifies the means” (p. 46). This ethical system can be seen in the
motivations behind law enforcement, government, and other agencies of the United States. Law
enforcement officers look to deal with a situation that will result in the least amount of harm
befalling a group of people, and make decisions on how to deal with life and death situations
with that equation in mind.
Even the United States government uses utilitarianism to explain the actions that it takes.
For instance, when dealing with terrorists, the United States government has allowed there to be
restrictions in freedoms to prevent terrorist actions within the United States as this is doing the
greatest good for the people although it may be restricting the freedoms of some individuals. An
example of this would be the screening that individuals go through when trying to board an
airplane. The greatest good is preventing another situation like the one that occurred on 9/11, but
this does come with some negativity towards individual people, such as those that appear to be of
Middle Eastern descent, have the same name as a person on the no-fly list or just get stuck being
patted down by TSA agents.
Most countries in the world that follow democracy as their guiding political philosophy
will also use utilitarianism to determine the right actions that need to be taken to help with the
greater good. Some countries in the world may follow more closely to deontology based on a
political philosophy that is more closely related to the main religion in that country. For
example, countries that are under Islamic leadership or a country like Rome would probably base
their decisions on the divine authority that they worship.
The ethical system that I believe most closely matches my own personal ethical system
would be individual relativism in that many of the beliefs that I hold are based on what I feel to
be right, wrong, moral and immoral rather than what some parts of society are saying are right
and wrong. There are plenty of things that I hold to be moral or immoral based on my own
beliefs rather than my culture, religion or other outside factors. I do not think that homosexuality
is something that is immoral, but I do think that cheating on a spouse or loved one is immoral. I
believe that people who want to date outside of their race should not be seen as doing the wrong
thing or that people that live together before marriage are immoral.
I do believe in doing the right thing for the greater good, but I do not think that is what
defines my own beliefs. For instance, under utilitarianism the greater good may be for
individuals that have an alternative lifestyle to go back to hiding because that would eliminate
the debate that is ripping the country apart, but that would be so detrimental to those individuals
that are living their lives with an alternative lifestyle. Based on individual relativism, the
heterosexuality or homosexuality of a person will not be determined on a cultural level, but an
individual level.
I have a friend who when we were younger had gotten into a situation where she felt that
the only thing for her to do was to have an abortion. She went alone because she was worried
about what everyone would think about her, but felt that she was doing the right thing. It is
something that she has had to live with her whole life, especially now that she is a mother. I
believe that my ethical system would have to be individual relativism because I cannot fault my
friend for doing what she felt was best for everyone involved even if it was not the same choice I
think that I would have made for myself. The thing is that you never know how you might react
to a situation until you are actually in that situation.
References
Boylan, M. (2009). Basic ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Hindson, E. E., & Caner, E. M. (2008). The popular encyclopedia of apologetics. Eugene, Or.:
Harvest House Publishers.
White, J. E. (2008). Contemporary moral problems (9th ed.). Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.