Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
which character traits are virtues, then we will not be able to agree on what a
virtuous person would do in a particular situation. Therefore, the virtue ethics
approach is not as powerful as Kantianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract
theory, which identify moral norms that are universally true.
2.
Virtue ethics cannot be used to guide government policy.
Virtue ethics focuses on the
agent, a virtuous human being, more than the act or the consequences of the act.
Government policy is typically set by government agencies or groups of officials, not
individuals. Consider the case brought up in Section 2.7.2, in which a state must de-
cide whether or not to replace a section of highway. An act utilitarian can determine
the monetary costs and benefits of the proposal and reach a conclusion about the
better option. Virtue ethics has something to say about the officials involved in the
decision—they should be honest, diligent, and prudent, for example—but it has
nothing more to contribute to the analysis.
3.
Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people responsible for their bad actions.
According to virtue ethics, people are not born virtuous. Instead, intellectual and
moral virtues must be acquired over time. To a great extent, the virtues a person
attains depends upon how she is raised by her parents, the education she receives,
and the community she grows up in. All of these things are outside the control of a
child. In that case, how can we hold a person responsible if she acquires vices instead
of virtues [29]?
These criticisms show that virtue ethics is not perfect. However, virtue ethics does
provide a framework for people to analyze moral situations, to reach a conclusion about
the right course of action, and to justify the conclusion using logical arguments. There-
fore, we determine that virtue ethics is a workable ethical theory, along with Kantianism,
act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory.
The divine command theory, ethical egoism, Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utili-
tarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics share the viewpoint that moral good
and moral precepts are objective. In other words, morality has an existence outside the
human mind. For this reason we say these theories are examples of
objectivism
.
What distinguishes ethical egoism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract the-
ory, and virtue ethics from the divine command theory is the assumption that ethical
decision making is a rational process by which people can discover objective moral
principles with the use of logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values.
Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics explicitly take other
people into consideration when defining what makes an action morally correct, which
sets these theories apart from ethical egoism. Of all the theories we have considered, we
conclude that Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory,
and virtue ethics are the most workable.
An act utilitarian considers the consequences of the action, computing the total
change in utility to determine if an action is right or wrong. Kantianism, rule utilitari-
