Morality and ethics represent the most complicated issues throughout the history of humankind. There are many ethical principles and frameworks guiding people to morality in their lives. Therefore, one should choose three ethical theories, including deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, to understand how they can be applied in real contexts.
Deontology sees some actions as morally obligatory, independent of their results for human welfare. For instance, Immanuel Kant considers an act morally right when it conforms to universal ethical principles. On the contrary, consequentialism regards ethically correct actions as those that bring ethically right consequences.1 Virtue ethics focuses on the moral agent rather than the action or its result. The morality of action thus comes from a person with inherent characteristics that guide his or her actions. In other words, an individual should not take a moral action but be righteous at the core.
Within the framework of deontology, duty serves as a starting point for morality. In simple words, if a person follows a particular set of rules considered ethically right, their action is moral. For instance, Grincevičienė et al. have found the application of Kantian deontology in providing equal educational opportunities as a duty when it comes to inclusive classes for healthy students and those with disabilities.2 According to consequentialism theory, the result of action plays the role of a determiner of the morality of the action. In virtue ethics, the ethical decision is guided by virtues that a person or community has.
Strengths of deontology include the presence of a clearly defined set of moral norms that allows people to align their intentions and actions to what is commonly accepted. Another strength is the focus on the way how the action is done, which ensures the right means of doing something. However, the theory possesses weaknesses that make it hardly applicable in various situations. Some moral norms can change according to a particular situation, and the unification of morality may look unreasonable. Besides, it is unclear what is the structure of moral action and whether recognition of an obligation is a true motive for a good action.
In terms of strengths, consequentialism looks more favorable compared to deontology due to its flexible applicability. One of the advantages offered by this theory is the importance of the impact on people, which helps to direct one’s intentions into a beneficent channel. On the other hand, consequentialism is oriented to the ultimate goal, which often means making as many people as possible happy. However, the goal orientation has failures with predictability, and thus some actions may turn out to be negative in a long-term perspective. In addition, the evaluation of the morality of a certain action can be difficult, as it is unclear whether one must judge it before or after the action is done.
Virtue ethics can be a good foundation for ethically right decision-making. Among the strong reasons for it is the space, the theory provides for self-reflection. Thus, moral action comes from internal intention rather than external motivators or obligations.3 In addition, virtue ethics emphasizes the integrity of a decision with its context. Nevertheless, the focus of the theory on the virtues of a person poses a challenge because people have different self-judgment, which may go against the understanding of morality in someone’s actions. One can exemplify it with villain film characters who suddenly do something morally accepted, such as save someone’s life, while it is supposed that villains should act wrongfully due to their internal characteristics. In addition, virtue ethics seems to be an excessively individualized concept. Under this statement, one understands the under-evaluation verging on ignoring the universal moral norms. A person cannot take his or her moral orienting points from nothing. Although self-reflection is always good, it has to be based on some commonly accepted rules and assumptions to allow an individual to identify whether the act can have positive consequences.
Finally, the deontological theory seems to be the most compelling because it exceedingly relies on the external determinants of morality. Besides, the decision-making can be deteriorated by the unclearness and changing nature of moral norms. A person is forced to act ethically, but he or she may not understand for what reason. Thus, the moral action must be at least partially based on internal motives.
Many people tend to act morally not for the reason of doing good to others but because of religious beliefs. On the contrary, it is also possible to rely on facts when deciding what can be moral. Thus, the present reply will concern a thread dealing with divine command theory, divine nature theory, and the seven-step model of moral decision-making suggested by Scott Rae.
Divine command theory states that the morality of actions is ultimately grounded in the commands of God, and thus individual’s actions are right if they correspond to what God demands to do. Commands of God represent the established set of requirements for moral actions, which makes it similar to the deontological principles because commands serve as duties for every Christian, which guides moral decision-making.
Thus, one can assume that one of the strengths of this theory is the clearness of moral principles allowing for an immediate evaluation of one’s action. In addition, commands provide an objective assessment of what is good or bad, and thus a person does not have to fluctuate between self-reflective speculations. However, the ultimate weakness of the theory is its religiosity and ancientness. Moreover, divine principles are often limited to the Ten Commandments, as was mentioned in the thread to be replied and they cannot suffice to make moral decisions in daily routines. Consequently, modern challenges, such as euthanasia or cyber security issues, are difficult to judge from the perspective of the Holy Scriptures. In addition, the rules set by God can be interpreted in various ways when applied to the mentioned problems and thus perplex an individual and impede the right decision-making. The second weakness is the reliance on Christianity and ignoring other numerous world religions, especially Islam or Buddhism among them.4 Other religions teach their own moral principles, which can have dissimilarities with Christian ones. Thus, divine command theory looks exceedingly targeted to a definite category of people.
One can say almost the same about divine nature theory, at least because it is a part of the divine command theory and its religiosity. Since the nature of God is considered to be ultimately good, people need to make decisions accordingly. The divine nature comprises the instances from the Bible making an individual seek hints of moral guidance for action. Striving to be like God in moral terms and thus be closer to Him can be regarded as the second advantage of the theory. However, similar to the divine command theory, it does not seem to consider the huge number of possible interpretations of what is morally good or bad. Furthermore, the understanding of the nature of God can be vague, despite the availability of explanations regarding it. In view of this, morality also becomes indeterminate and loose.
Scott Rae’s seven-step model of moral reasoning highly contrasts with the two previously discussed theories because it does not apply religion to decision-making. A person can decide what is good according to the context of the problem to be solved. In this regard, the model engages different potential aspects that determine the morality of the action. On the one hand, the strong characteristic of this framework is the ability to make informed decisions, for some steps include collecting the facts and assessing alternative actions. Moreover, it allows reflecting on the consequences of the decision made, which helps to avoid mistakes in the future. On the other hand, the model may reveal its weaknesses in some cases. For instance, there may be a problem with identifying an ethical dilemma because people have different views on what is right or wrong in a particular situation. Furthermore, comparing alternatives with the principles or virtues may pose a challenge since it is left to an individual what morality departure point he or she will take.
In conclusion, the ethical theories based on Christianity may propose vague guidance to making moral decisions, though it does not exclude the compelling nature of the theories. In view of this, an individual tends to base their decisions not on personal desires and intentions but on what God considers moral. The seven-step model can be used as a helpful tool for moral reasoning, though it also may lead a person to seemingly good outcomes.
Bibliography
Danaher, John. “In defence of the epistemological objection to divine command theory.” Sophia 58, no. 3 (2019): 381-400. Web.
Grincevičienė, Vilija, Jovilė Barevičiūtė, Vaida Asakavičiūtė, and Vilija Targamadzė. “Equal Opportunities and Dignity as Val ues in the Perspective of I. Kant’s Deontological Ethics: The Case of Inclusive Education.” Filosofija. Sociologija 30, no. 1 (2019): 80-87. Web.
Manguson, Ken. Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues (Invitation to Theological Studies). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2020.
Footnotes
- Manguson, Ken, Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues (Invitation to Theological Studies) (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2020), 26-27.
- Grincevičienė, Vilija, et al. “Equal Opportunities and Dignity as Values in the Perspective of I. Kant’s Deontological Ethics: The Case of Inclusive Education.” Filosofija. Sociologija 30, no. 1 (2019): 85.
- Manguson, Ken, Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues (Invitation to Theological Studies) (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2020), 28.
- Danaher, John. “In defence of the epistemological objection to divine command theory.” Sophia 58, no. 3 (2019).