Consequentialism, rights theory, and virtue ethics: advantages and disadvantages

Pro/Con/Neutral Characteristics for Ethical or Conceptual Models

Three theories: A philosophical overview

Consequentialism (Egoism or Utilitarianism)

Pro: Often, individuals must choose between two imperfect alternatives. For example, in the current healthcare debate, inevitably there will be some limitations on access to healthcare, even if the system remains the same -- or whether the nation adopts a single-payer model. Choosing the best for the greatest number of people is one equitable way to make difficult moral decisions.

Con: Utilitarianism sacrifices minority rights for the sake of the majority. Simply because there is 'more' of a particular social group does not mean that the minority's interests are less legitimate than that of the majority's: consider the plight of African-Americans in the Southern states during most of American history.

Neutral: Utilitarianism was created by Jeremy Bentham as humane alternative to the more rigid moralistic codes that existed previously, as a rational way of organizing society and allocating punishment.

Rights theory (Social contract or Kant's moral imperative theory)

Pro: This encourages moral scrupulosity and fairness, by acting as if important moral actions set the law for all time, regardless of the situation or how many people are influenced by the action.

Con: This approach can be excessively rigid and fail to take into consideration social nuances

Neutral: Kant, the developer of the categorical imperative and the founding father of this ideology, saw his view as a kind of middle path -- he did not believe that all actions set moral laws for all time, but that some types of moral principles should remain inviolate.

Virtue ethics or human nature moral theory