INTRODUCTION
Heterogeneity
is one evident feature of every society which is apparent in the various
spheres or facets of each society. Amidst every other thing or phenomena, the
standard of morality or he standard to judge that which is ethically right or
wrong, differs from one society to the other. This therefore implies that there
are various yard-sticks or standards from which various actions performed in
the society can be judged, either as right or wrong. There are certain actions
which most of would condemn as morally wrong and ought not to have been done by
anybody, for example, armed robbery, embezzlement of public funds, bribery and
corruption, adultery, e.t.c, and even those who involve n such actions know
that they are wrong.[1]
There are also certain kinds of action which all of us would consider as
morally right, e.g kindness, honesty, e.t.c
On
the other hand, there are also various certain actions about which there are
diverse views or opinions, e.t.c. The emergent question will be “why do we consider
actions as right or wrong? How do we decide which actions are right and wrong?”
These are questions that preoccupy the mind of ethicists, and responses to
these questions are referred to as ethical theories. The focus of this write-up
therefore will be to give a critical analysis of some ethical theories. In
order to aid a better understanding of this write-up, this thematic outline
will be followed;
·
An Understanding of Ethical theories
·
Exposition of Specific Ethical Theories
·
Evaluation
·
Conclusion
AN UNDERSTANDING OF ETHICAL
THEORIES
Ethical
theories are the foundations on which ethical analysis are done .They
constitute the viewpoints that guide the pathway to moral decisions. The term
“ethical theory” suggests reflection on the nature and justification of right
actions.[2]
These words refer to attempts to introduce clarity, substance, and precision of
argument into the domain of morality . [3]Pertinent
to note is that, there are various ethical theories , but each theory has its
own peculiarity, in the sense that, each of the many theories emphasizes
different point. However, all of them are geared towards reaching the ethically
correct decision.
More
so, it is important to note that for any ethical theory to be useful, it must
be directed towards a common set of goals, namely ethical principles. These
ethical principles include among others, beneficence, least harm, respect for
autonomy and justice, e.t.c.
EXPOSITION OF SPECIFIC ETHICAL
THEORIES
EGOISM
Egoism
as a term has its root in the Latin word “ego”, which could ne translated to
mean “I”. Egocentrism therefore means making one’s own self or interest as a
principle of action without regard for other people. As an ethical theory,
egoism argues that we should always do that which will promote our personal
good. The egoists therefore contend that all choices either involve or should
involve self-promotion as their sole objective.[4] It
won’t be extraneous to say that, for the egoists, no sacrifices or obligations
are owed to others.
There
are two main theories of egoism, physiological egoism and
ethical egoism. Pysiological egoism is the view that everyone is always
motivated to act in his or her perceived self-interest.[5]
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy puts it thus: “physiological egoism is a
view about people’s motives, inclinations or dispositions.” One statement of
physiological egoism says that, as a matter of fact, people always do what they
believe is in their self-interest and, human nature being what it is, they
cannot do otherwise.[6]
Furthermore,
the proponents of this theory of human nature cum motivation found altruism a
serious problem and rhetorically ask: Can a conscious agent deliberately choose
to do a thing that he thinks will not pay him? The point of the emergent
question lies in whether such agent knows what he is doing or does he perhaps
understand his interest differently from the observer?
On
the other hand, ethical egoism is a theory stating that the only valid conduct
is the obligation to promote one’s well-being above everyone else’s.[7]
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy puts it thus: “ethical egoism is the
view that people ought to do what it is in their own self-interest” It is
important to note that ethical egoism is differently from the common morality,
and this is made evident in the maxims such as, “You are a sucker, if you don’t
put yourself first and the others second”.[8]
The idea of looking out for others interest have boggled the mind of some
ethical egoists and this has led some of these thinkers to regard conventional
morality as tinged with irrational sentiment and indefensible constraints on
the individual.”[9]
A
closer scrutiny at this theory could yield questions such as, what would the society be like if ethical
egoism becomes the dominant or prevailing theory of proper conduct? Thomas
Hobbes, a renowned modern philosopher has an answer to this: Imagine a world
with limited resources, he says, where persons are approximately equal in their
ability to harm one another and where everyone acts exclusively in his or her
own interest. Hobbes argued that in such a world, everyone would be at everyone
else’s throat. Such a state of nature would be plagued by anxiety, violence,
and constant danger.[10]
In his words, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”[11]
Critique of Egoism
Having
exposed this theory, it could be said that the theory gives incompatible
directiveness in circumstances of moral conflict: If everyone acted egoistically,
it seems reasonably certain that protracted conflicts would occur, just as many
international conflicts now arise among nations primarily pursuing their own
interest.[12]
More so, it is evident that egoists do not care about the welfare of others provide
it affects their own welfare. And so, for them also, this desire for personal
well-being is the standard to judge morality.
UTILITARIANISM
This
is another which states that utility is the moral standard, it is the criterion
or yardsticks with which good actions are distinguished from bad actions. It
holds that the moral worth of actions or practices is determined solely by
their consequences. An action or practice is right if it leads to the best
possible balance of good consequences over bad consequences for all the parties
affected.[13]
The major proponents of this theory are J.S Mill (1711-1776) and Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832).
The
Utilitarians conceived of their philosophical work as an attempt to lay down an
objectPive principle for determining when a given action was right and wrong.
They called this maxim the “principle of
utility”, and it states that: An action is right insofar as it tends to
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number.[14]
It is important to note that though Bentham and Mill have identified happiness
with pleasure, and interpreted this principle to a form of hedonism, the modern
utilitarians have stressed more on the consequences of an action, and not the
motive from which an action was done, in judging the rightness or wrongness of
an action. It could therefore be said that utilitarianism is a teleological
ethical theory that measures the worth of actions by their utility, i.e, by
their usefulness to the actors. It can be described to as a consequentialist
ethical theory because the utility in question is judged from the consequence
the act has or would have.[15]
Utilitarianism as an ethical theory has two variants; act utilitarianism and
rule utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism
This
holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action can be should be decided
only on the basis of the consequences of the action. An act utilitarian argues
that in all situations one ought to perform the act which leads to the greatest
number.[16]
More so, act utilitarianism does not take into account the nature of an action
itself; what counts is the result of the consequence of the action.[17]
An act utilitarian would not hesitate to break any moral rule if breaking it
would lead to the greatest number in a particular case.[18]
Rule Utilitarianism
The
principal idea of rule utilitarianism, according to Edwards (1976), has been to
apply the test of utility not to the effects of an act itself, but rather to
its tendency or to a rule under which the falls.[19]
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy elucidates more on this theory, as it
states clearly that: according to rule utilitarianism, individual actions are
evaluated in theory, not in practice, by whether they conform to a justified
moral rule, and the utilitarian is applied only to general rules. From the
foregoing, it is obvious that unlike act utilitarianism, which is concerned
with particular actions, rule utilitarianism is concerned with rules.
Critique of Utilitarianism
Amidst various criticisms of utilitarianism,
one of them is that it ignores non-utilitarian factors that are needed to make
moral decisions. The most prominent omission cited is consideration of justice:
The action that produces the greatest balance of value for the greatest number
of people may bring about unjustified treatment of a minority.[20]
DEONTOLOGY
This
is the ethical theory that claims the rightness or wrongness of
an act depends neither upon the motive from which the act was done nor upon the
consequences of the act but solely upon what kind of act it was. [21]
This theory stresses more on the notions of obligation and duty, and so, they
are referred to as duty ethics. Ethics of duty is the view that there are
certain other kinds of acts which we ought always to do and there are certain
other kinds of acts which we should never voluntarily do.[22] A
practical example of the kind of act we ought to do is that; it is right to
keep one’s promises, because in making a promise, one has performed an act that
by its very nature obligates one to carry it out, regardless of one’s
inclinations or the effects that carrying it out will have.[23]
On the other hand, the kind of activity that we ought not to do is to commit
murder or adultery. If we obey all the positive rules and all the negative
ones, we shall be doing our full moral duty.[24]
More
so, the emergent question could be “whence do duties and taboos arise?” The
primary and common source consists of the customs, norms, mores, e.t.c of our
social group, community or society. Apparently, these customs specify or
clearly state certain modes of behavior that are socially accepted and those
that are socially condemned. And so, we are in duty bound to conform or adhere
to the mores or codes of morality in our various social group, and not break
any. Deontologists will therefore hold that to conform to and do what is
required of one is morally right; to violate custom is wrong.
VIRTUE ETHICS
The
general concept behind Virtue ethics is that it focuses on what the individual
should choose for his/her personal inward behavior (character) rather than the
individual relying on the external laws and custom’s of the person’s culture,
and if a person’s character is good then so sought the person’s choices and actions
be good.[25]
Virtue as described by the American Heritage Dictionary is “moral excellence
and righteousness; goodness”. A virtuous person, according to The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, is one with dispositions
relevantly linked to human flourishing. Also, Aristotle defines a virtuous
person as someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from
natural tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they
become stable. It won’t also be extraneous to say that a virtuous person who is
characterized by morals; living out good moral qualities without being
persuaded to.
Furthermore,
there are various forms of virtue ethics that predominated in Western
Philosophy prior to the renaissance period, and this is evident in personages
like Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas. The various views of these medieval
philosophers focused on character rather than on discrete behavior, i.e,
conducts that would be seriously out of character for a virtuous person.[26]
More
so, it is pertinent to note that ethical theories such as deontological and
consequentialist theories aim primarily to specify or identify universal
principles that can be applied in any moral situation. But on the contrary,
virtue ethics simply deals with questions such as “How should I live?”, “What
is good life?”, “What are proper family and social values?” Virtues therefore
cannot be devoid of right desire and right reason. More importantly, amidst
other features, a distinguishing feature of virtue ethics is that character
traits are stable, fixed and reliable dispositions. If an agent possesses the
character trait of kindness, we would expect him/her to act kindly in all sorts
of situations, towards all kinds of people, and over a long period of time,
even when it is difficult to do so. A person with a certain character can be
relied upon to act consistently over a time.[27]
CARE ETHICS
This
is another ethnical theory that is closely related to virtue ethnics: an
influential version of virtue ethnics. This theory develops some of the themes
in virtue ethics this theory develops some of the themes in virtue ethics about
the centrality of character but the ethics of care/care ethics focuses on a set
of character traits that people are deeply value in close personal relationship-sympathy
compassion fidelity, love, friendship, and like.[28]
This theory has grown or developed by philosophers who are indebted to feminine
theory or feminist writer, such as Annette baier. Furthermore, theorists of
care ethics, through this medium, call for a change in how we view morality and
the virtues, shifting toward virtues exemplified by women, such as taking care
of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, e.t.c. According
to them, these virtues have been marginalized because society has not
adequately valued the contributions of women.[29]
The feminist approaches to ethics therefore may be characterized by at least
two presuppositions. First, the subordination of women is wrong. Second the
experiences of women are worthy of respect and should be taking seriously.[30]
In
addition, many scholars who uphold or hold on to care ethics, argue that moral
decision often require a sensitivity to the situation as well as an awareness
of the beliefs, felling, attitude, and concern of each of the individuals
involved and of the relationship of those individuals to one another.[31]
Finally, there are varieties of specific virtues whose their relation to social
practices and moral education, moral practices, e.t.c are very crucial or
central to virtue ethics.
EVALUATION
Having
made a critical exposition on the specific ethical theories, a denial of the
fact that there are various standpoints or yardsticks from which ethical
analysis are made, would be to turn one’s back against reality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry Holt and
Company, inc, 1958
Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study,
Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 2012
Joseph Omoregbe, Socio-Political Philosophy, Ikeja: Joja
Press, 20
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth
edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979
Pantaleon Iroegbu,
Anthony Echekwube, Kpim of Morality
Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman Educational
Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005
Richard H. Popkin,
Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made
Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993
Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,
2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
Virtue Ethics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy in
mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_utm?url=http%3A&2F%2Fwww.iep.utm.edu%2Fvirtue%2F8dm_redirected=true#2777
[1]
Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and
Historical Study, Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited,
2012, p. X
[2]
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and
Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany,
Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 2
[3]
Ibid. p. 2
[4]
Ibid. p.14
[5]
Ibid. p.14
[6]
Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999, p.254
[7]
Opcit. Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical
Theory and Business, p.15
[8]
Ibid. p.17
[9]
Ibid. p.17
[10]
Ibid. p.17
[11]
Joseph Omoregbe, Socio-Political Philosophy,
Ikeja: Joja Press, 20
[12]
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey:
A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 2
[13]
Ibid. p.22
[14]
Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy
Made Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993, p.32
[15]
Pantaleon Iroegbu, Anthony Echekwube, Kpim
of Morality Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman
Educational Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005, p.88
[16]
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey:
A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 24
[17]
Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and
Historical Study, Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited,
2012, p.237
[18]
Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry
Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.24
[19]
Pantaleon Iroegbu, Anthony Echekwube, Kpim
of Morality Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman
Educational Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005, p.89
[20]
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and
Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany,
Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 27
[21]
Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy
Made Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993, p.48
[22]
Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York:
Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.9
[23]
Opcit., Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made Simple, 2nd Edition, p.48
[24]
Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York:
Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.9
[25]
Virtue Ethics, Ethics in www.ethicsmorals.com/ethicsvirtuehtml,
retrieved on 22-04-2014
[26]
Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999, p.961
[27]
Virtue Ethics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
in
mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_utm?url=http%3A&2F%2Fwww.iep.utm.edu%2Fvirtue%2F8dm_redirected=true#2777
[28]
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and
Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany,
Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 39
[29]
Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999, p.443
[30]
Opcit. Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical
Theory and Business, fourth edition, p.40
[31]
Ibid. p.40
No comments:
Post a Comment