Ethical Philosophies

Ethical Philosophies Sometimes, when faced with a situation within murky ethical waters, there are difficult decisions to make. This is not made easier by the various philosophical outlooks available today, some of which would provide contradictory advice. The ethics of Emmanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and Aristotle might, for example provide widely different viewpoints on whether a charitable donation should be accepted from a business person whose main income is from selling drugs.

Ultimately, the choice lies with the individual, and the main question must be whether the person who accepts the donation can reasonably live with the final decision he or she makes. According to Johnson (2010), Kant's categorical imperative focuses on the command and action, divorcing the action from premeditated or related goals. It applies unconditionally to the imperative to engage in action such as leaving something alone or taking something.

This can be applied to the donation from two perspectives: The command could be to take the donation regardless of its connection to the sale of illegal drugs or the effect of these on the community. It could also be to refuse the donation, regardless of the good it could do for the recipients of the charity's services. In such a case, the most desirable decision might be the one with the greatest effect.

Not accepting the donation, for example, would not have any effect on the business person's sale of drugs to the local population. Accepting the donation is therefore most usefully connected to the fact that it would make a difference to the lives of the population, whereas not accepting it would make no such difference. From this point-of-view, the acceptance imperative appears most ethical. West (2012) holds that John Stuart Mills' view of ethics is that the greater good should always be served.

If greater good is produced by engaging in the action than by not engaging in it, the best course of action is to engage. This is also the case with the donation. As mentioned above, no difference in the sale of drugs to the population would be accomplished either by accepting or not accepting the donation. Accepting it, however, can accomplish more good than not accepting it can, which would, from a utilitarian perspective, mean that the donation should be accepted.

Kay (1997) provides a suggestion that John Rawls' sense of justice also includes what he refers to as a "veil of ignorance." This implies that certain facts of reality are ignored in the interest of creating a fair and just society of all. Inequality and injustice, for example, are hidden behind this veil in order to serve the greater purpose of creating justice at least for the majority, if not for all.

According to this philosophy, the charity owner might hide the fact of where the business person's income is from behind such a veil. Choosing to ignore this, the money can then be applied to serve the purpose of the charity, which is to help the local population live better and more productive lives. Finally, Aristotle's golden mean philosophy focuses on finding a balance between two excessive opposites.

From this perspective, standing on an ethical high ground by not accepting the business person's donation might be considered excessively moral for no purpose other than demonstrating that the refuser of the donation is publicly moral. The true purpose that this serves is, however, not far beyond.