The deontological theory is an ethically based notion which uses rules to make the judgement between what’s right and wrong. The Kantian principle of ethics is associated with a deontological theory. According to Immanuel Kant, there is a universal moral law that guides ethical actions. Good is therefore associated with following a moral duty or ruling. Kant argues that a goodwill is the only unconditional good demanding zero qualifications. Though Troubles may hinder an individual from achieving his set goal, of most importance is the fact that his goodness will remain. The deontological theory is different from the hedonism theory of value of utilitarianism in that it does not need to weigh the benefits and the costs of the circumstances (Tsalikis, 2018). Deontology is therefore different from the hedonism theory where actions are judged based on their results. Kant’s first version of categorical impressive requires one to act in a manner which can backs ones aphorism of action to become a general law. In this aspect, one should always pose questions whether what they intend to do is reasonable and contradictory to what everyone does. Suppose you want to deceive your employer about being sick to get out of work. Making being sick a moral knowing that if you don’t fake sickness, you won’t be permitted to get out of work and yet you need to? The question of the molarity of such action aggregates to asking yourself of the possibility of faking sickness becoming a universal principle. If so, whether the sickness was fake, no one would believe when you get sick making it no sense to fake sicknesses. Therefore considering faking sickness morality is conflicting (Habermas, 2018).
Jeremy Bentham principle of utility judges the wrong and right of an action based on their consequences, specifically on the parties affected by the action (Heywood, 2017). For instance, does the action results in happiness in both victims. Jeremy’s utility principle would consider it unethical for an employee to fake an illness with a motive of going homes. Such an action is against the professional ethical code and is intended to satisfy only one party. The second version of categorical imperative states that one should act in a manner that treats humanity. This formulation is against treating another person as a tool of interest. If individual actions do not respect humanity it should not be performed. The third version clarifies on the need for autonomy despite having heteronomy. Kant argues that individuals-self conduct is necessary for addition to the expected right of conduct.
Aristotle’s approach to virtue ethics was based on the aspect of being human. According to Aristotle, one has to observe human behavior to comprehend ethics. Aristotle views a virtuous individual as one possessing the best possible character traits which occur naturally without necessarily being nurtured. Aristotle also describes virtue as a means between extremes. For instance, too much fear can hinder a coward from acting during a battle. On the other hand, a daring person who is afraid too will take the risk and fight regardless of the danger he is exposed to. In this case, the brave one is in the middle of the two extremes. Aristotle perception of the ultimate or final good of human beings is whereby his actions are self-sufficiency, desirable, achievable by man but not ill-intentioned. He concludes that happiness is the epitome of every action going hand in hand with requirements. Aristotle disagrees with Kant’s approach of ethics in that he believes virtue ethics should occur naturally in a person but does not necessarily have to follow a set universal law (Lopez, Pedrotti, & Snyder, 2018). For instance, a lie must be considered wrong not because of violating a certain rule but because it’s something an honest person wouldn’t do. On the other hand, Aristotle agrees with Kant by associating good act with ethics. They both believe that good is what makes human distinct and accepted.