Ethical perspectives

If you had to chose one particular ethical perspective to live by, which one would it be and why?

The Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Do What’s Right No Matter What the Consequences Are.

I believe that doing the right thing is the most important thing irrespective of the the society believe is right because as a moral agent, the laws were set with me in mind and were not set to be changed just because a situation is out of hand. For one, the laws, rules, and regulations including ethical standards were defined with the entire community and were established knowing that the community need standards on which they are supposed to base their decision and behaviors.

I think, it is my moral duty to uphold the rights and shun the wrongs that the community has decided on as either right or wrong Commitments One of the most important perspectives is that moral agents should show commitment to these established value standards. I am member of a society that must abide by the rules, by abiding by the rules; I prove my commitment and loyalty to the established moral and ethical standards that everybody must subscribe to. Continuity

By demonstrating our commitment to the established rights and wrongs of the society, I am establishing continuity because the rest of the society will have to behave accordant to some set standard. This is because our forefather aligned their behaviors to these standards, and thus we must also demonstrate our loyalty to these standards so that we set the precedence for the coming generations.


Finally, I will live by the Categorical Imperatives because they help us share our purpose and worldview. Categorical imperative helps us to prevent the complex ethical miscues and overcome the influence of the competing obligation caused by the complex ethical dilemmas, as such to live in harmony, it is important to live according to the set ethical standards as way of promoting good neighborliness and preventing double standard (Rousseau, 1968, pp.77-79).

What ethical perspective do you think a president should live by?


The president should stick to utilitarianism and focus on delivering the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, America is large and that is why democracy is considered important. The majority carries the day because they have the commanding voice. In most case, it can be difficult for the president to act without considering the majority because they will shoot down bills in parliament and possibly, there will be mass actions throughout America.

The short term an long terms consequences of basing decision on the utilitarianism ethical perceptive is the most important because under such circumstance, the society will be able to defend such decisions in the short term and long term. If there is need for changes to the decision, it gives the society the power to decide on what they want to see changed to suit their needs (Martínez-Frías, González, &, Rull, 2012, pp. 257-262). Utilitarianism ethical perceptive is also considerably preferred because such decision is known to generate the most benefit compared to the disadvantages associated with such decisions. Additionally, it benefits the largest number of people. Therefore, if 50+1% of the population is in agreement with the decision made by the presidents, then the other 49+ 5 is nit irrelevant. Their needs can be met with few amendments to the constitution. The same ethical perceptive is the main reason why America is the most democratic and developed country in the world because the president has to make decision based on the preferences of the mass. Both act and rule utilitarianism points to one thing though, the preferences for the ration of harm to evil as opposed to the ration of happiness to unhappiness (Toner, 2000). Now that we have looked at a wide range of ethical perspectives this term, which do you feel might be the most beneficial when considering environmental ethics.

Why? What would be the ethical conclusions your chosen perspective would draw about environmental stewardship?

Environmental ethics should be more concerned about the benefits to the masses. However, considering the fact that the larger population has failed in taking care of its environment consequentialist ethical perspective is the most beneficial because it is important to achieve the highest possible degree of ethical and environmental accountability. therefore, to realize these high standards, all individual must be aware of the impact of their activities on the environment. By doing so, individual must be in position to make decision based on the antecedents and the consequences of their actins on the environments. For example all the ethical perceptive are grounded on the consequentiality theory, The ethical perspectives such as character, obligations, results as well as equity tend to view the ethical behaviors in the same manner because the actions of the individual is expected t be ethical, both environmentally and socially (TheWilliamsInstitute, 2008). Therefore, any action that does not add value to the environment should be considered unethical. Environmental stewardship is based on the overall ability of an individual to take care of the environment through protective use of resources and authority. If man is accorded the responsibility of taking care of the environment, they should be able to understand their action and analyze the impact of their action on the environment before taking any action. The ethical conclusion of the chosen perspectives is that n matter the action of an individual, the extent of their ethical stewardship is measured by the effects of their action on the environment.

Can you ethically give over the prisoner to his fate? Would your decision change if you were absolutely convinced that the criminal was guilty?

Ethical dilemmas when it comes to handling inmates can be difficult. However, considering the ethical perspectives and the ethical framework, it is important to look at the responsibility and duty. The duty of any prison warden is to protect the inmates, and the society by ensuring that they stay safe before there is incarcerated. As such, I would probably refuse to hand the prisoner to the gang. However, if the life of the entire village is threatened, it becomes hard to stick to my duty. Therefore, I would conveniently hand the prisoner over to the gang because looking at the consequentialist’s perspective, the consequences of my decision will affect the entire village. Also based on the utilitarianism perceptive, it is best to make decision that brings the most good to the greatest number. I will easily pass over the prisoner to his fate (Rhonda, Howard, &, Donnelly, 2005) This is an ethical dilemma and it is just like the case of Socrates’ Crito because such ethical dilemma involves making decision knowing too well the outcomes o f each decision. In most cases, the ethical dilemma has consequences that lead to the loss of life. In such case, the moral agent should make the right decision in the light of the externality of such decision. There is no better thing than to accord a prisoner the right treatment an execution. However, considering the consequences of denying the angry mob access to the prisoner. It is healthy to lose one life can save the community just as Socrates agreed to lose his life to save his children and family. After all the consequence of living with thing blood of the whole village on one’ hand is unbearable. Even if I was convinced that the criminal was guilty, I would still pas the criminal to the gang because it is my responsibility to protect the society by removing the criminal from the society (Weiss, 1998).


The Williams Institute (2008). Perspective Descriptions. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from Weiss, Roslyn (1998). Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Plato’s Crito. New York: Oxford University. Toner, James Hugh (2000). Morals under the Gun: The Cardinal Virtues, Military Ethics, and American Society. Baltimore: University Press of Kentucky Martínez, J., González, L. & Rull, F. (2012) Geoethics and Deontology.From Fundamentals to applications in Planetary Protection. Episodes 34-4: 257-262. Rhonda E. Howard and Jack Donnelly,(2005) “Human Dignity, Human Rights, and Political Regimes”, in Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p.67. Rousseau, (1968). The Social Contract, Maurice Cranston (trans.), New York: Penguin Books, pp.77-79; Book II, chapters 4 & 5.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s