RE: The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics
October 2, 2016 at 5:23 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2016 at 5:33 am by Kernel Sohcahtoa.)
First, I’d like to clarify that my intent is to brainstorm the ideas in the op and not to impose a particular ethical system onto anyone.
That being said, thank you for creating this thread, Alasdair Ham. The topics of non-consequentialist ethics, consequentialist ethics, and virtue ethics are pretty interesting. Overall, a synthesis of the three approaches could produce a more effective ethical system than the application of a particular approach by itself, provided that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and is adaptable to human progress and development.
The focus of non-consequentialist ethics (deontology) is to make ethical choices because it is the morally right and dutiful thing to do. In particular, Jacques R. Thiroux suggested that there are five main ethical principles that are common throughout the world’s major cultures: valuing human life; honesty and truth-telling; justice or fairness; individual freedom; goodness or rightness (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 155-156). Thus, these principles provide a possible basis for this ethical system. However, what happens when people find themselves in situations where adhering to one of the above principles could produce chaotic results (i.e. telling the truth results in someone's death)? Hence, given particular circumstances, is doing the right thing actually the wrong thing? As a result, consequentialist ethics can help resolve this dilemma.
As per the op, consequentialism can be separated into two categories: rule consequentialism and act consequentialism. The former gives people contextual guidelines, which enable them to make sound ethical decisions in a prompt, efficient manner; however, guidelines are not full proof. As a result, act consequentialism encourages individuals to analyze a particular situation, account for its unique circumstances, and make the appropriate judgement call. Consequently, this approach is problematic if the situation demands an expedient ethical decision. Therefore, a synthesis of act and rule consequentialism seems like a practical approach (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 37-39). However, does having established ethical duties and guidelines prevent people from blindly applying them or using them as a means to pursue their own ends and ignore the greater good? Virtue ethics offers a way of addressing this problem.
Ultimately, an ethical system is what people make of it. As a result, virtue ethics stresses that people need to develop inner character and morally cultivate themselves, which helps them internalize the ethical principles and guidelines of their society. Thus, being virtuous gives meaning to an ethical system and raises it beyond a means of blind adherence to societal norms. However, solely applying this approach presents the following problem: how do we define virtuous (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2009, pp: 62-63, 70)? If a particular image of virtue is painted by society, then are people ultimately being deprived of the ability to be virtuous in their own unique way? Hence, it is clear that a virtue ethics approach would benefit from established rules and guidelines.
Overall, IMO, synthesizing the three approaches could result in the creation of an effective ethical system: it would have a basis for ethical duties and rightness; it would have contextual guidelines and allow people to make appropriate judgment calls under unique circumstances; it would cultivate inner character and virtue. However, it is imperative that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and can be modified accordingly as humanity continues to progress in their development. IMO, these elements promote a mindset of improvement and growth, which is fundamental to the success of this particular ethical system.
References
Thiroux, Jacques P. & Krasemann, Keith W. Ethics: Theory and Practice (11th ed). Boston: Pearson, 2015.
That being said, thank you for creating this thread, Alasdair Ham. The topics of non-consequentialist ethics, consequentialist ethics, and virtue ethics are pretty interesting. Overall, a synthesis of the three approaches could produce a more effective ethical system than the application of a particular approach by itself, provided that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and is adaptable to human progress and development.
The focus of non-consequentialist ethics (deontology) is to make ethical choices because it is the morally right and dutiful thing to do. In particular, Jacques R. Thiroux suggested that there are five main ethical principles that are common throughout the world’s major cultures: valuing human life; honesty and truth-telling; justice or fairness; individual freedom; goodness or rightness (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 155-156). Thus, these principles provide a possible basis for this ethical system. However, what happens when people find themselves in situations where adhering to one of the above principles could produce chaotic results (i.e. telling the truth results in someone's death)? Hence, given particular circumstances, is doing the right thing actually the wrong thing? As a result, consequentialist ethics can help resolve this dilemma.
As per the op, consequentialism can be separated into two categories: rule consequentialism and act consequentialism. The former gives people contextual guidelines, which enable them to make sound ethical decisions in a prompt, efficient manner; however, guidelines are not full proof. As a result, act consequentialism encourages individuals to analyze a particular situation, account for its unique circumstances, and make the appropriate judgement call. Consequently, this approach is problematic if the situation demands an expedient ethical decision. Therefore, a synthesis of act and rule consequentialism seems like a practical approach (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 37-39). However, does having established ethical duties and guidelines prevent people from blindly applying them or using them as a means to pursue their own ends and ignore the greater good? Virtue ethics offers a way of addressing this problem.
Ultimately, an ethical system is what people make of it. As a result, virtue ethics stresses that people need to develop inner character and morally cultivate themselves, which helps them internalize the ethical principles and guidelines of their society. Thus, being virtuous gives meaning to an ethical system and raises it beyond a means of blind adherence to societal norms. However, solely applying this approach presents the following problem: how do we define virtuous (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2009, pp: 62-63, 70)? If a particular image of virtue is painted by society, then are people ultimately being deprived of the ability to be virtuous in their own unique way? Hence, it is clear that a virtue ethics approach would benefit from established rules and guidelines.
Overall, IMO, synthesizing the three approaches could result in the creation of an effective ethical system: it would have a basis for ethical duties and rightness; it would have contextual guidelines and allow people to make appropriate judgment calls under unique circumstances; it would cultivate inner character and virtue. However, it is imperative that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and can be modified accordingly as humanity continues to progress in their development. IMO, these elements promote a mindset of improvement and growth, which is fundamental to the success of this particular ethical system.
References
Thiroux, Jacques P. & Krasemann, Keith W. Ethics: Theory and Practice (11th ed). Boston: Pearson, 2015.
