Developed by Manuel Velásquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S, J. Meyer The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally better. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance between good and evil. The rights approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for himself.
According to these philosophers, what differentiates human beings from simple things is that people have a dignity based on their ability to freely choose what they are going to do with their lives, and they have the fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects that can be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose. Favoritism benefits some people without a justifiable reason to exclude them; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom no burdens are imposed. Both favouritism and discrimination are unfair and wrong.
The common good is a notion that originated more than 2000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as certain general conditions that, equally, benefit everyone. In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions and environments on which we depend benefit everyone. Examples of common goods for all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace between nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.
What course of action treats everyone equally, except when there is a morally justifiable reason not to and does not show favouritism or discrimination?. In addition, it can be difficult to differentiate between a moral principle and something that is cultural or part of your education. The best course of action is usually to adhere to a loosely defined set of moral principles that align with your beliefs and with society as a whole, but also to consider each situation individually and to weigh the cost of adhering to your morals in terms of its impact on other people. The utilitarian approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally better.
Here are some examples of how moral principles don't always guide you to the best course of action. For example, psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development in children from different cultures. Moral principles were important in these societies because they believed that, in order to succeed, people needed a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. Moral principles are important to society because they help people learn to get along and live well with each other.
Later, philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant studied moral principles. It is essential that all leaders consider these principles when addressing the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. Some decisions will require you to prioritize and choose between competing ethical values and principles when it is clearly necessary to do so, because the only viable options require the sacrifice of one ethical value instead of another. For example, someone who is honest may feel that they are a good person because they follow the moral principle of being sincere at all times.
In the case of participants who were morally opportunistic, the researchers observed that their brain patterns changed between the two moral strategies in different contexts. Finally, sometimes people can use moral principles to justify bad behavior, such as stealing or hurting others in some way. Relative moral principles are based on opinions and circumstances that may change over time or from one person to another or in different situations. .
