Ethical Philosophies Ethics Utilitarianism, Kant's Categorical Imperative,

¶ … Ethical Philosophies Ethics Utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative, virtue ethics, and Confucianism One of the most intuitive ethical philosophies is that of utilitarianism, an ethical ideal that suggests that ethical decisions should be made based upon what decisions will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When we weigh decisions based upon their costs and benefits, we are taking a kind of utilitarian approach to decision-making (Ethics 5: Utilitarianism, 2008).

Utilitarianism attempts to rationally calculate what will maximize pleasure and minimize pain: it does not view any action as inherently good or bad but rather focuses on the practical consequences of our decisions. It seeks to maximize utility, whether this is happiness for the individual or profit for a business. One of the obvious detriments of utilitarian theory is that many decisions often have a very negative impact upon a minority of people. Another problem is defining what constitutes 'the good' that is being accomplished.

Ideally, all persons should be assessed who may be affected by the action, not simply 'the self,' and the long-term consequences of actions should be taken into consideration (Ethics 5: Utilitarianism, 2008). In stark contrast to utilitarian theory is Kant's categorical imperative. Kantian philosophy stresses the need for ethical actors to focus upon the moral worth of actions, not the consequences of actions. The end never justifies the means. Certain moral laws must always be obeyed.

Moreover, every ethical actor should always behave as if he or she is setting a moral law for all time. There are no situational or contextual exceptions (Three-minute philosophy: Immanuel Philosophy, 2009). You should always behave as if you are setting moral laws for all time and not try to rationalize acting against those moral laws with imagined consequences. The obvious problem with Kant's inflexibility is that different people and different societies have different rules for morality.

Additionally, sometimes acting according to what would be considered a universal moral law (such as not to lie, cheat or steal) can have very negative consequences, both for the self and the rest of society. In contrast to both of these worldviews stands Aristotle's virtue ethics, which stresses on the need to have a good moral character rather than to obey unyielding principles about maximizing utility or obeying moral laws. Aristotle focused on fostering happiness, which was different than simply living for pleasure.

Aristotle believed that happiness comes from developing moral virtues such as courage. This allows for a more flexible approach to decision-making, given that it is assumed that a good character can make intelligent moral judgments on a situational basis without adhering to a strict formula. But it can be very subjective as to what constitutes a 'good character' in any given society. Aristotle believed that certain virtues transcended the specifics of different situations and were universal: these virtues were both moral (such as patience) and intellectual (such as wisdom).

Temperance, courage, wisdom, and justice must all be cultivated and in balance for the ideal moral actor, but wisdom was the most necessary, given without wisdom the moral actor would not be able to understand what that 'golden mean' was, balancing all the virtues within his or her character (Aristotle: Virtue ethics, 2012). While utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and virtue ethics are all largely Western systems, Confucianism is an ethical system that has had a powerful impact upon non-Western cultures.

Confucianism stresses filial obligations and the need for ethical actors to honor their obligations based upon the moral actor's place on a hierarchy. The ethical requirements of a father may be different from those of a son, or of a ruler vs. A subject. Confucianism is a relationship-driven ethical.