Ethical Perspectives

Ethics is the process of trying to decide whether actions are right or wrong. In many ways ethics is more a debate than making decisions based upon clear cut rules. A perspective is an attempt to describe the principle which underlies (might explain) how he or she acts. While no perspective is without flaws, each has inherent strengths and weaknesses. You might wish to consider the perspective of the individual when evaluating case studies to understand his or her motive and intent in the scenario.

Ethical action perspectives can include the following:

Actor-Based: (similar to egocentric) Actions are judged based upon who is doing them, not the action itself. [For example, the difference between the 'geeky' guy next door breaking your car window, and Brad Pitt breaking your car window]

Categorical Imperative: Actions based upon certain rules/principles/laws that are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned.

Consequentialism: Actions should be judged solely by their consequences. Any action is justified to attain a desired end result; the end justifies the means.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: An action is judged as "good" when the benefits of the action outweigh the costs.

Egalitarian: Actions based upon the principle of equal treatment for all.

Egocentrism: Acting in a way which benefits you the most; rationalizing your actions as a means of justifying them.

Ethnocentrism: Right/wrong is relative to and defined by a culture.

Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do upon you."

Hedonism: The ultimate good in life is pleasure; the ultimate evil is pain. "If it feels good, do it."

Heroic: Basing your actions after what you project a selected hero would do, given the same circumstances. What would George Washington do if he were in this situation?

Intentionality: Right/wrong is a function of the person's intent. Because a person did not intend an action to lead to a consequence, it is therefore not wrong.

Lex Talionis: "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth."

Principled Approach: Decisions are derived from reasoned judgments based upon desired values.

Relativism: Right/wrong is not absolute, but variable and relative depending upon the person, circumstances, or social situation.

Transparency: Acting as if everyone was watching you while you were performing an action.

Universalization: Governing actions based upon the projected result of everyone else engaging in the same action. (What would happen if everyone did it?)

Utilitarian: An action is judged to be good if it leads to a useful or functional result.

Virtue Ethics: Actions are guided toward attaining the character goals, personality attributes of "goodness".

FWIW (for what its worth): Dorbin (2002) considers there to be three major schools of moral thought regarding ethics. I've summarized his work as follows:

Virtue Ethics focuses on the character of the individual. They question, "What sort of person should I aim to be and how do I act to become that person?" Fulfillment stems from acting true to oneself by fulfilling their goals as a human being. The person is motivated to act as a virtuous person because it is the only way to live with himself.

Consequentualism focuses on the psychological traits of the person, such as affection, sympathy, etc. They question, "What is the result of what I do?" They are concerned less about the character of the individual than with the outcome of their action.

The Principled Approach relies upon rational thought (reasoning) and dictates actions which enable the person to live within the principles (values) desired. The system seeks universal principles that are applicable to all in a society. They question, "What does reason morally require me to do?"

Dorbin A., Ethics for Everyone: How to Increase Your Moral Intelligence, Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002.