Comparing virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics

¶ … People's moral actions and other undertakings are properly understood through various theories that have been postulated. This study focuses on the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontology theory, which have some commonalities and variations depending on the way they are interpreted and adopted. It is evident that instances of all the theories are evident in the way people act in their day-to-day activities as they try to uphold the desired moral standards in a society (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2000).

Deontology was established against utilitarianism. The theory of deontology is primarily concerned with the concept of duty. This means that people must fulfill their moral duty regardless of whether it makes the community happy. This theory argues that a right action is defined by a duty. When an individual identifies his duties, then he must carry out the natural right of action without taking in mind the consequences of the action. This theory argues that it is worthwhile for to do what is right whilst conforming to all moral laws. Immaculate Kant is the leading advocate of this theory. According to Kant, the right actions emanate from a sense of duty and not from impulses. As human beings, we might argue that Kant is rational because we must know what makes right actions right (Smith, 2000).

Obviously, Virtue theory do not oppose that we are constrained or limited by different internal or external conditions. Common sense is applied only on certain conditions. However, Sartre notes that we all have choices to make. Such choices are not predetermined like animals or objects because we reside within a shared space. Even people who have been sentenced to death have limited time on earth, but they have important choices to make. This is regardless of whether their decisions amount to significant inner rebellion or willingness to die. Sartre provides a major point that fundamentally exists in a different way than other living things. Since we exist as human beings, we are charged to live under conditions and define our lives (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2000).

People must treat others the same way they would like to be treated. Therefore, to claim that a person must value the freedom of others is like saying that he/she must be authentic. As we live, we are encouraged to act by ignoring the differences between other people and ourselves. Moreover, these differences are just on the outside and have no impacts on our identity as islands of subjectivity. Therefore, a person of virtue must abide by the golden rule of valuing others. By so doing, the person will be acting as he/she would expect others to act towards him/her (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2000).

Both theories have attempted to erect a standard by which moral people can elucidate in a community. Virtue ethics shows how an individual can act his moral standing and character in a community. This determines an individual's level of goodness. In utilitarian, a person is identified as of good moral when he acts in a manner that benefits the entire community over the individual's needs. Similarly, looking at deontology, an individual is moral and good when the person's choices of action in a community are inherently good and moral. Thus, the three theories have a common ground of morality and goodness as perceived by the community members such as family, workgroup and friends (Smith, 2000).