PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 1 Ethical Theory Matrix

Theory

Decision Criteria

Your Own Example

Strengths

Weaknesses

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism uses the principle of utility to decide on the morally right decision and considers actions that will bring maximum happiness and reduce suffering (Yang, 2024). The choice of one of the possible actions is introduced by the analysis of the predicted outcomes of each of them and the choice of the one which gave the maximum net benefit to the majority of people. Such evaluation typically considers the magnitude, the length of time and extent of joy or harm. Utilitarianism instructs the decision makers to be unbiased in the action cases: consider the welfare of everyone and care only about the outcomes, not the reasons and principles.

An administrator of a hospital with limited funds is required to decide whether to allocate finances to support a program of treating cancer or increase the size of the emergency department. On the basis of utilitarianism, they would choose the one that would only benefit the greatest number of people. As long as increasing the size of the emergency department has more lives to save, they would focus on it to maximize the total well-being.

Utilitarianism advocates equality and takes into account the interest of all people; to make sure that his decisions do not lead to the end benefit to the greatest number of people. It offers practical and result-oriented approach to ethical issues, which is useful in policy-making and making decisions on a large scale (Yang, 2024). It discourages actions that cause suffering and promotes those that maximize happiness by concentrating on their consequences.

When the morally doubtful acts lead to the general wellbeing being more than the individual rights, the theory can be used to support the morally doubtful acts. As a result, none of the consequences is easy to foresee and quantify and make decisions. Besides that, utilitarianism can create an unjustified burden on individuals to sacrifice his or her and in the interest of others (Yang, 2024).

Kantian Ethics

The morally right decision is established by using Kantian ethics, which apply the laws of morality to all people and respect human dignity (Sullivan et al., 2021). The decision rules include the use of the categorical imperative that teaches a person to only do things based on principles that are capable of being applied universally. Actions need to be directed by the moral duty and not by co.nsequences or desire. Moreover, Kantian ethics emphasizes the treatment of other people as ends in themselves and never as a means to the ends. This is in such a way that no decision is arrived at before subjecting it to moral principles of fairness, justice, and respects to all human beings.

A manager is in dilemma on whether to lie to a client in order to make a business deal. According to the Kantian ethics, they would not lie since honesty is a moral obligation to everyone. In such a case, no one would trust anyone in business, and lying would be an unacceptable value principle. Instead, the manager adopts honesty where they do so because it is the right thing to do, and not because it would make them successful, but because the client is an end and not a means to an end.

Kantian ethics offers a clear cut objective model of moral decision making founded on duty and universal principles and thus creates consistency and fairness. It recognizes human dignity as it compels people to treat other people in a decent manner without exploiting humans as tools to an end (Ogar & Bassey, 2023). It encourages integrity and moral responsibility by emphasizing moral intent and not consequences.

The theory may also be inflexible, in that there can be no exceptions to it, even in cases where the violation of a rule may yield more desirable results. It also does not take into consideration the effects of actions which in certain cases results in not being practical or harmful. Also, it can be difficult to conclude on universal moral responsibilities because in complicated cases ethical principles can contradict each other (Ogar & Bassey, 2023).

Ross’s Ethics

Ethics, or pluralistic deontology, by Ross is the morally right decision, which is established based on various prima facie duties, which are basic moral obligations that must be taken into account in every case (Hammerton, 2022). Among the responsibilities that these jobs are supposed to have are fidelity (keeping promises), beneficence (helping others), non-maleficence (not hurting people), and justice (doing what is right to people). The conflict of duties and people have to use moral judgment to choose which one has more priority and this is not according to the rule stickiness or the result of those rules but according to the morality of the responsibilities.

A physician is constrained in medication and has to decide whether to give it to an aged patient or a small child. The doctor applies several obligations as described by Ross in ethics: beneficence (assistance to the two patients), nonmaleficence (not to harm them), and justice (equitable allocation of resources). Having considered these requirements, the physician can trust the child and consider beneficence to be the most important duty in this instance, as the latter has higher life expectancy.

The ethics that Ross has are not inflexible, such as they can make some moral decisions without being overly strict on moral obligations (Hammerton, 2022). It understands that life is complex and that there are various scenarios where a certain obligation can be more important than the other. It is thus more adaptable and not strict to the deontological or consequentialist theories since it takes into account the context and moral reasoning.

The theory does not specify the way of resolving conflicts of duties which makes moral decisions subjective and unreliable. It also demands people to use their own intuition and judgment which can be biased or uncertain. Also, it may not be easy to identify the strongest duty in a specific situation without a systematic decision-making model (Hammerton, 2022).

Natural Law Ethics

Natural Law Ethics judges the morally right decision by the concept that morals are based on human nature and the universal laws that are proposed by reason and nature. In this theory, morally right actions are those that fulfill the basic aim of the human life like safeguarding life, procreation, pursuit of knowledge, and social life (Kumar and Choudhury, 2022). One should be guided by objective moral laws instead of personal wishes and social tendencies and make sure that his actions will satisfy the natural purposes of humans and will lead to human prosperity.

An infertile couple is planning to undergo the use of artificial reproductive technologies. They would not tolerate some procedures such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) according to Natural Law Ethics as they would have separated the process of procreation and the natural way of conception which is not acceptable as it goes against the natural intention of reproduction. Rather, they may seek natural means that are compatible with human biology like fertility awareness or other medical interventions that do not interfere with natural conception.

Natural Law Ethics provides a framework of natural ethics which has its clear and objective moral principles. They are universal principles, which are not particular to culture or history. It fosters human dignity and meaning and pushes behaviors that support the welfare and livelihood of human beings (Kumar & Choudhury, 2022). Furthermore, the theory is also able to stabilize morale by making ethical choices based on the timeless natural laws, not on the promotion of the changing norms of the society or of feelings.

It can also be hard and be unable to adjust to the more intricate existing ethical issues such as the development of medicine and technology. Besides, it assumes that the moral principles that are based on nature are always perfectly obvious and they can be applied to all situations (Kumar & Choudhury, 2022). In addition, critics contend that knowing what is natural, is a subjective thing and that there will be argument on what is related to human nature.