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.

Virtue ethics or human nature moral theory

Pro: This stresses the need to be a good person, to make good moral decisions. It focuses on the good that 'doing good' can provide both for the actor and the subject of moral decision-making.

Con: Good people, even when they believe they are doing the right thing, can engage in actions that have very negative moral consequences.

Neutral: Virtue ethics has come into prominence in recent decades, perhaps because of the increasing focus upon the 'self' in modern culture, and one's moral character being equated with one's psychology vs. The sum total of one's actions.