So, we have deontology, grounded in the idea of a duty to keep rules (often owed to God). We have situation ethics, grounded in the idea of different responses, depending on the situation. We have virtue ethics, grounded in the idea of developing and expressing good character. And we have utilitarianism, which is unashamedly grounded in outcome, 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'. So we have duty and rule, situation, character, and outcome all vying for the ethical space.
But on examination, the deontologist stresses duty because (s)he thinks that will lead to the best outcome, the situation ethicist thinks that flexibility is the route to the best outcome, and the virtue ethicist thinks a population of good characters will lead to the best outcome. But they all, eventually, end up in the same space, which is the utilitarian justification based on outcome.
What do you all think?
Best wishes, everyone. 2RM.
But on examination, the deontologist stresses duty because (s)he thinks that will lead to the best outcome, the situation ethicist thinks that flexibility is the route to the best outcome, and the virtue ethicist thinks a population of good characters will lead to the best outcome. But they all, eventually, end up in the same space, which is the utilitarian justification based on outcome.
What do you all think?
Best wishes, everyone. 2RM.
