Ethics are the moral principles, which determine the rightness or wrongness of particular acts or activities. In which every human action is aimed towards the purpose of doing and achieving something good in order to live a happy life.

Here are some definitions of the different theories on ethics followed by some problems with each one of them.

·             Ethical Egoism: is the moral theory, which holds that people behave in a very selfish way, putting self interests ahead of everything or everybody else’s.

   Problems with ethical egoism:  

1. Provides no moral basis for solving conflicts between people.

2. Obligates each person to prevent others from doing the right thing.

3. Has the same logical basis as racism.

4. The egoist cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoist’s interest. [Pecorino, Online Text, ch. 9] 

·             Utilitarianism. A moral theory that says that what is moral right is whatever produces the greatest overall amount of pleasure (hedonistic utilitarianism) or happiness (eudaimonistic utilitarianism). Some utilitarians (act utilitarians) claim that we should weigh the consequences of each individual action, while others (rule utilitarians) maintain that we should look at the consequences of adopting particular rules of conduct.[1] The end justify the means, therefore any means to arrive at the end are acceptable. 

Problems with Utilitarian theory as explained by Pro. Pecorino:

1.      The theory treats all people as being equal. It does not take into consideration special relationships that exist between people, for example the relationships of family members.

2.      The theory can’t really resolve conflicts in views, e.g.. Sometimes it supports lying, cheating, killing, stealing, etc. and sometimes not.

3.      It is difficult if not impossible to do the calculations required. How do you measure the happiness (pleasure) produced? 

·             Categorical Imperative. An unconditional command. For Immanuel Kant, all of morality depended on a single categorical imperative. One version of that imperative was, "Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law."[2]

Problems of the Categorical Theory: 

1.      The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational, e.g., humans with brain malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative coma.

2.      The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties:

a.       between two perfect duties

b.      between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty.

3.      A clever person could phrase the maxim to be universalized in such a manner as to permit almost anything. By placing qualifiers on the maxim or peculiar definitions on terms a clever actor could satisfy the categorical imperative and yet be acting in a manner otherwise not consistent with it.[Pecorino, text online, ch. 9]

 

·             Natural Law. In ethics, believers in natural law hold (a) that there is a natural order to the human world, (b) that this natural order is good, and (c) that people therefore ought not to violate that order.[3]

Problems:

1.      How do we determine the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature? Traditional natural law theory has picked out very positive traits, such as "the desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. But some philosophers, such as Hobbes, have found human beings to be essentially selfish. It is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accord with human nature is morally wrong. For instance, if it turns out that human beings (at least the males) are naturally aggressive, should we infer that war and fighting are morally right?[4] 

2.      It is doubtful that one can infer moral principles forbidding adultery, rape, homosexuality, and so forth, either from biological facts about human nature or from facts about the inherent nature of Homo sapiens. [5]

3.      Two philosophers (Aquinas and Aristotle) integral to the theory have different views about god’s role in nature, which confuses the issue, especially when trying to decipher if the theory relies on the existence of god.[6]

4.      The intrinsic nature of humans as it pertains to establishing laws of behavior may not be the same for animals, which presents difficulties within the theory.[7]

 

·             Normative ethical relativism is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times.[8] 

 

Problems:

1.      According to the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism each culture has its own ideas about ethics and morality. In each culture the predominant view is correct because it is the predominant view. There are no principles that could override or take precedence over the predominant view. Thus there can be no criticism of the moral views held by the majority of people in a given society by any minority. This is so because the minority must always be wrong in virtue of the fact that it is the minority view. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism cannot support or explain criticisms of the majority’s views by minorities. Yet there have been such criticisms and many have led to moral reforms. Such reform cannot be accounted for by the theory.[Pecorino, online text, ch.9]

2.      If the theory applies to peoples of different cultures because they are raised in different social environments then it applies as well to any peoples raised apart form other peoples. So it would apply within a culture and within a society wherever there are isolated groups. Indeed the theory eventually supports a subjectivism in which each person raised differently from others must make his or her own moral rules and those rules are equal in value and importance as any other set of rules. In this application of the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism no one has the right to make moral judgments about another person, for each person has the right to have his or her own morals.[Pecorino, online text, ch.9] 

3.      Although there may be variations amongst the various cultures on this planet that does not mean that there are no points of agreement or that there are no fundamental set of ethical principles that could be common to all. Take for example the rather basic principle that there is a right to life and so killing is wrong. Now there may be societies that permit the killing of a cheating spouse or of unwanted children at birth. Still despite the differences there may be a common principle to the effect that an unjustified killing is wrong. Then societies have differences over what constitutes the justification for the deliberate termination of a life but not over the basic rule that killing is orally wrong.[9]

 

·             Justice as fairness: or The Maxi Min Principle is the Principle of the GOOD .MAXIMIZE Liberty (opportunities)

MINIMIZE Inequalities (differences, disadvantages)

The laws for providing equal access to opportunities for minorities and the disabled. The first significant and unique contribution to the study of Ethics by an American has been that of John Rawls, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University. He developed a Theory of the GOOD as Justice and Justice conceived as Fairness. His theory was developed to assist a society in ordering its affairs. His ideas have influenced many lawmakers and Supreme Court decisions in the United States. [10] 

Problems:

1.      Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principle are unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged. The problem for these advocates is to explain in a satisfactory way why the relative position of the least advantaged is more important than their absolute position, and hence why society should be prevented from materially benefiting the least advantaged when this is possible. The most common explanation appeals to solidarity: that being materially equal is an important expression of the equality of persons. Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have over others, if they are better off materially. Rawls’ response to this latter criticism appeals to the priority of his first principle: The inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do not result in unequal liberty. So, for instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty, even if they increase the material position of the least advantaged group. [Philip pecorino, online text, ch.9]

2.      The Utilitarian objection to the Difference Principle is that it does not maximize utility. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls uses Utilitarianism as the main theory for comparison with his own, and hence he responds at length to this Utilitarian objection and argues for his own theory in preference to Utilitarianism (some of these arguments are outlined in the section on Welfare-Based Principles) [11]

3.      Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well off.[12]

4.      Like Desert theorists, advocates of Resource-Based Principles criticize the Difference Principle on the basis that it is not ‘ambition-sensitive’ enough, i.e. it is not sensitive to the consequences of people’s choices. They also argue that it is not adequately ‘endowment-sensitive’: it does not compensate people for natural inequalities (like handicaps or ill-health) over which people have no control. [13] 

Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are simple:

·        Mankind has free will.

·        Life is a series of choices, creating stress.

·        Few decisions are without any negative consequences.

·        Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.

·        If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through. [14]

 

 

Problems:

1.      This theory promotes individualistic views

2.      There are no rules, therefore ethics are obsolete

3.      The stronger is the one who survives. What about children and elderly people don’t they have a right to survive?

4.      The theory creates conflict and struggle for power. 

 

·             FEMINIST ETHICS Act with Caring

Problems with this theory:

1. Some philosophers argue that the ethic of care is based on traditional women's values in a quest for new virtues.

2. Beings other than women may not agree because humans often only understand what they can relate to.

3. Gender free morality may be impossible, according to Nel Noddings. Traditional philosophers believed that women were inferior to men and female goddesses were involved in silence, obedience and service. These female roles can be shaped into an ethnic of care according to many women philosophers.

4. It is politically imprudent to associate women with the value of care.

5. The theory ultimately disempowers women.[Pecorino, online text, ch.9] 

                      After evaluating all the above theories about ethics I find my self in a terrible dilemma. For I see that all of them are based in fundamental views erroneous to the principles of human nature and their value of life. Furthermore, they are inconsistent and inadequate at this point in time. So the relevant question, which is the best way in which I would like to live? Is not been answer, for none of the theories above satisfy a good answer.

The difficult part is that I have to choose one therefore I think that the theory of the Maxi- Min principle or justice as fairness will be the one that is the closest to the ethical principles that I wish for.  According to Dr. Philip Pecorino, The most widely discussed theory of distributive justice in the past three decades has been that proposed by John Rawls in his seminal work, A Theory of Justice. (Rawls 1971) Rawls proposes the following two principles of justice:

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

(Rawls 1971, p.302)  

Discussion of the two principles:

Although the theory of the Maxi-Min is a hypothetical utopia, the principle in which Rawls based his theory is to a certain point acceptable. But we have to consider that such theory works only in a general way for the less advantaged. 

Principle one:

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

This principle entitles an equal right and universal standards, which concern of justice for all.

A just constitution, Rawls thinks, would be one whose outcome is most likely to be just, and involves just procedures for reaching outcomes. He thinks that the best system is likely to be one that protects basic rights and liberties, and will be some form of constitutional democracy.

For Rawls, the role of justice, ideally, is to ensure that disputes are resolved on a basis of agreement rather than through force. So ideally, even if there are disputes about the justice of legislation and social policy, there should at least be agreement about the procedures that are to be used to settle these disputes. Under favorable conditions then, these necessary just procedures will be supported by general agreement. But it is not essential to justice that laws and public policy should be made through a procedure that is agreed on in this way. What is essential is that the procedure is just.

In fact, Rawls's ideas of liberty are quite hard to pin down. On the face of it, the legal restrictions against committing rape and murder are restrictions on what we can do: so they would seem to limit our freedom. Now what Rawls's first principle says is precisely that liberty can only be curtailed for the sake of a greater overall liberty. So if restrictions against rape and murder are justified (as they obviously are), and if (according to the first principle) such restrictions can be justified only because they allow a greater overall freedom, then it must be the case that private citizens can restrict our freedom through violence or fraud. This is plausible in some cases, but not in others. Liberty requires the rule of law (p.240), given that a coercive system of law enforcement is required (and Rawls argues that even in a well ordered society it would be required, since people might lack full confidence in each other).
This is why only those who are responsible for breaking the law should be punished. If you can't help it, that must be a valid defense.  [15] 

The Second Principle:

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

(Rawls 1971, p.302)  

                       The second principle of justice as fairness presents some problems because it does not specify well enough what are the inequalities, or what are the circumstances for such inequalities. This point is not clear whether Rawls is referring explicitly to the acquisition of wealth. However if the principle is apply to:  a) the minorities as being the least advantaged, and b) since we are all equal, we aspire to positions in the institutions based on the equal opportunity principle; then the theory makes sense.

 Rawls suggests that the mere fact that I have greater talents is not enough to justify my getting greater reward. But the fact (if it is a fact) that a system in which I get greater rewards is better even for those who do not get them can justify my getting them (see p.78). If the Diff. Princ. is satisfied, everyone will regard the inequalities that exist as acceptable in the sense that they acknowledge themselves to be better off with these inequalities than they would be if the distribution were more equal.
A refinement of the principle (p.78-9):

 The ideal situation is the one that optimizes the position of the least advantaged; just ones are those that contain no inequalities that do not improve the position of the least advantaged; unjust ones those that contain inequalities that do not help to raise the position of the least advantaged.

There are also principles of right governing the conduct of individuals. These can only be understood once a conception of justice is on hand, since in many respects what individuals should do depends on whether the social institutions in which they participate are just.

The Principle of Fairness says roughly that if some practice or institution is just, and you either voluntarily accept the benefits produced by the practice, or voluntarily take advantage of the opportunities offered by the practice, you must do your part as specified by the rules of the practice (p.112).

All obligations, in the strict sense, arise from the Principle of Fairness, even the obligations that we acquire when we join a game (p.113). [16] 

                       Major critic to Rawls theory:

                        The theory of justice as fairness leaves a gap between people of different cultures, for it clearly focus its central idea in a democratic view, then justice as fairness is a theory that presents the following problems:

1.      It can only be practice in certain parts of the globe. Countries that do not practice a democratic government have no reference for justice, not for what is fair.

2.      The Maxi-Min principle is well oriented, but it lacks one important aspect: It’s unreal to think that in a society such as today’s will adapt to ideologies that promote the equality and distribution at the equal level for everyone. The society in which we live today follows utilitarian, existentialist, and overall egoist views. Few are the ones who actually practice a decent ethical way of living. 

Then what are the advantages of living in a world that advocates justice as fairness?

The advantages are in fact very few if any. One advantage it will be the acceptance that a lot of people are disadvantaged in many ways. Let’s say economically, culturally, intellectually, and by gender itself. Therefore the Maxi-Min principle will in effect lift that label and help people with those disadvantages to maximize their liberty. To open new opportunities, and expect to be accepted because under this principle everybody has the same right of opportunity.

Conclusion:

We do need to have moral and ethical standards of living in order to live in harmony and peace with one another.

For say, we all agree that contemporary issues such as biological, and technological matters are being treated in an unethical way because people don’t know which is the ethical thing to do. i.e. cloning and genetically engineering foods are just a few to mention. Hopefully we will come to an agreement that in order to pursue a good life in which we all live in peace, we have to compromise to be ethical in every possible way with one another and as Aristotle said, “Moral virtues can best be acquired by practice and habit.” Can we compromise? Probably not, but at least we can try. 

Bibliography

[1], [2], [3] Http://ethics. acusd.edu/glossay.org.html

[4-13] Http://web.acc.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/Intro_text/Ch.9

[14] Http://tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html.#basics

[15-16] http://ask.com/main/metaanswer.asp?t=a