Four Schools of Thought Essay Example

is in charge of directing our paths and setting up rules that we must live by. All four of these approaches are known to be the four schools of thoughts one can approach or study ethics. And a complete understanding of these four schools of thought will give anyone the ability to deal and to understand how different people think and also help live life where ethical conflicts can be easily solved. Deontology is the first school of thought.

The term “deontology” is a modern combination of classical greek terms, and means the study or science (logos) of duty, or more precisely, of what one ought to do (deon)”(Becker and Charlotte 1: 391). Deontological ethics is a duty-based approach, which focuses the individual’s ethical decisions on his or her duty to others. The decision-maker uses traditional values such as honesty, fairness, and loyalty. This theory is perhaps less adaptable because it bases actions on established moral imperatives. Choices are more restrictive because of the duty owed to others.

Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as those within one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his little sister when they cross a busy road together. This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which is called "supererogation" (Ridley, Aaron. 1998). For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated that one person would have to die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her duty to the other students and performs an act

of supererogation.

Moreover, although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also has many flaws, which comes along with it. One of the biggest flaw is that there is no logical basis or way in which something determines a persons duties (Ridley, Aaron. 1998). For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Maybe the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair.

A similar scenario brings up two other faults of deontology including the fact that sometimes a person's duties conflict, and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others (Penslar, Robin L,. 1995). For instance, if the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time?

This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist's decision. Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting obligations. As we observe deontologists, we may raise a question, how are the deontologists sure that what they are doing or their rules are

morally right? The answer to this question lies in Categorical imperative.

Categorical imperative by definition means an absolute and universal moral obligation, established by Immanuel Kant, one of the worlds greatest deontological thinkers. Kant summed up a categorical imperative in three basic forms the first being “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Rogerson 130). In other words, this means that you can only call something morally just, if it is able to be turned into a universal maxim, on which everybody should uphold in a similar situation.

Kant used an example for this. If you make a promise with not intention of keeping it, then it is only morally just if it can be applied to everyone. This would mean that everyone who tells a promise would have no intention of keeping it. This would make promises pointless, as no one would keep them and there would be no reason for them. He uses this to argue that the maxim of making a promise with no intention of keeping it is not a maxim at all, because it would not work in society setting. Deontologists are also be known to be non-consequentialists.

Non consequentialists think that consequences do not determine whether actions, rules, or people are moral or immoral. In other words they believe that actions are judged solely on whether they are right or wrong based on some other higher standard of morality (Thiroux and Krasemann 54). So if there is a set standard of morality such as a religious book (i. e The Bible or the

Koran) then whatever that person or the book says is allowed to do is right and whatever that person or the book says is not allowed is considered as a wrong.

So for example lets say you are harboring Jews during the Holocaust and the Nazi soldiers ask you if you've seen any Jews? The Bible says it is wrong to tell a lie no matter how prudential the situation. So if don’t lie and follow the moral standard then, even though the consequence of being truthful will put the Jews in danger, you had to obey the bible. There are two types of non-consequentialism firstly, Virtue Ethics, because it is a character-based ethics; for instance, a right act is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances.

Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions. The other types of Non-Consequentialist theories share the feature of being clearly rule oriented. Duties can obviously be stated in terms of rules. Rights can be stated in terms of duties, which can in turn be stated in terms of rules. And theories of justice endorse principles of justice, which logically imply duties or rights that can be stated in terms of rules (BBC).

Some deontologists determine what is moral based on moral autonomy principle. This principle allows one to impose constraints on oneself through one’s own reason, which is “autonomy of the will” (Becker and Charlotte 1: 110). This type of deontologists believes that

only the acts that are guided by autonomous will have moral worth. Giving individual power to discern own morality allows deontologists to act for reasons other than to satisfy their inclination. By having an authority over one’s own ethical judgment, one can act on principles that are rational, and not guided by commands of others.

Utilitarianism is the classic form of results-based ethics is called utilitarianism. This says that the ethically right choice in a given situation is the one that produces the most happiness and the least unhappiness for the largest number of people. They can also be described as Consequentialists, who hold the belief that the result determines the rule. Consequentialists believe that an action is morally right only on the consequences of the act (Becker and Charlotte 1:304).

Consequentialism is based on two principles they are, if an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act and the more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act(BBC). Consequentialists are results-based ethics plays a very large part in everyday life because it is simple and appeals to common sense meaning that It seems sensible to base ethics on producing happiness and reducing unhappiness, it seems sensible to base ethics on the consequences of what we do, since we usually take decisions about what to do by considering what results will be produced.

And therefore lastly, it seems easy to understand and to be based on common sense (BBC). An imperative is a command. A hypothetical imperative is a command that applies if you want to attain a particular outcome. The following

conditional sentence expresses a hypothetical imperative: “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job”; “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”. (Moral Philosophy) The utility principle states that if an act or rule is right, it will produce the greatest happiness or the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

There are two kinds of utility principle: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism holds the idea that everyone should perform the act which brings the greatest amount of good over bad for everyone affected by the act (Thiroux and Krasemann 41). For example, sometimes telling a lie although its wrong will amount to good of everyone. Another interesting type of utility principle that everyone of us as citizens of this world should develop is know as the rule utilitarianism. Which tells that everyone should establish a rule and follow it always so it will bring good for everyone.

This allows people to have some guidelines so there can be stability and moral order in society. For instance, a rule can tell you to steal, unless you are a kleptomaniac. Existentialism is first and foremost a philosophical position. Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the leading figures in the movement claims that it is a philosophy for technicians (of philosophy) and professional philosophers(Bob Corbett Bob Corbett). Existentialism is a 20th century philosophy concerning with finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility (Becker and Charlotte 1:508).

The underlying concept for this principle is that human has free will and by choosing one’s own path,

human nature is chosen throughout life. The existential imperative holds a belief that people are finding their identity of who and what they are through choices they make based on their experiences, beliefs, and outlook. The existential imperative holds the belief that though human life is not complete or fully satisfying because of suffering and losses, there is meaning in life. And that each individual is to find his or her true personal meaning of life through making his or her own decisions (Existentialism).

Existentialism A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. The principle of facticity is also what existentialism is based on existentialism, which basically means that inter-subjective imposes the morality. If the reality of “other” did not exist there is no need for morality and rules in our lives.

For instance, lets say I am watching a movie in the theater and I am the only one present. Because there is no one in the theater I can talk on the phone, use my phone walk around, switch spots, but when the other component is added and others are present then I must respect the other position and be quiet, and not use my cell phone or walk around in the theater. Authenticity principle is another branch of existentialism, which states that we are responsible for the choices we make in our lives and also, we are the authors of our lives.

Authenticity means “to choose to live this freedom” and

inauthenticity means “to flee it by trying to coincide with ourselves” (Becker and Charlotte 1:105). This implies that you first have to be existent, choose what kind of person you want to be, and by working towards what you become or what you decide to be. For instance, If I really want to be a successful medical professional then I will work towards that goal by studying hard everyday and persevere through all the hardships. Theism is based on a belief that God exists.

God is “the unique, all good, all-powerful, all knowing immaterial person who created, or otherwise explains the existence of the universe” (Becker and Charlotte 3:1699). According to divine imperative, a branch of theism; morality depends on God’s will (Becker and Charlotte 3:1702). This is only true because God is omniscient, which means God’s present everywhere, God would know what is moral truth, and being supremely good and perfect, God would want to communicate the moral truths to the chosen people (1703).

God’s eternal law is imprinted in the Bible the Holy book, and people or his children are supposed to follow and obey the rules (commandments) put down by the Supreme Being. These divine commands are God’s moral code. So what ever is done that is morally good or morally bad, only because God said so (1702). In Favor of Gods commandment, theism makes people define and follow right conduct in whatever the situations or relationships they are in. If a conduct is right or wrong can be decided by referring back to the commandments given by god.

For example, many situations in relationships can be applied such

as a teacher student relationship, parent children relationship and husband wife relationship. In ethical realism the right conduct is preordained, pre-established, and pre fixed. Theism holds the belief that human beings are made in God’s image, thus we are born with a sense of morality (Becker and Charlotte 3:1703). Although we are born knowing nothing we have an inbuilt mechanism to know right from wrong. We have sense of guilt that haunts us when we are doing something wrong or when we have done something wrong.

Therefore, because we are made in the image of God, we have a natural ability to distinguish right from wrong. In conclusion, these four schools of thought and the approaches taken by these schools: i. e. , deontology, utilitarianism, existentialism, and theism can help us to understand how complex a individuals thought processes can be whether it be in making small decisions or big ones, each and everyone thinks and acts differently. Because people think different it is easy for them to contradict one another and get into fights because their way of thinking is so much different then the other.

By understanding how all the thoughts mentioned above operate one can clearly and easily solve any problems and conflicts. Moreover, a person who has been introduced to all these schools of thoughts will not get into conflicts or arguments with people with other schools of thought. Personally, I believe I am a theist although I might have gone through many changes in my life from being in many different schools, I consider myself a theist because of the values and belief I now have or retain

and I do believe that God exists.