Evaluating Moral Theories

1465 Words6 Pages
When evaluating various moral theories, we find that some can be consistent, determinant, and public, but in many cases a fallacy can be found as to why one or all three of these criteria could be easily dismissed. While all of these theories have favorable foundations, they tend to contradict themselves in nature. Summarized below are various theories to include Ethical Egoism, Divine Command Theory, Ethical Relativism, Natural Law Theory, Consequentialism, and Virtue Ethics. Following these summaries, I have discussed the theories I find to contain the most consistency, determinacy, and publicity. According to the text, Ethical Egoism is the view that you should always act so as to bring about the best consequences for yourself. It…show more content…
If God has not made a command in favor or against an action then the action is optional. One must always follow God’s commands in order for the theory to be consistent and determinant. The difficulty with this theory is that humans don’t always have a clear understanding of God’s commands and also since the race as a whole is not perfect cannot always act in accordance to the laws of God. One could be public with their views of following the Divine Command theory, but only if their environment will allow it. At times of religious persecution, it could be life threatening to be open about ones religious views. For example the Jews persecution during WWII might have caused the Jewish community of that period to be less public in their…show more content…
To do this they would use three basic steps first formulation, second universalization and then finally examine contradictions. It is believed that all theories should be a result of what one ought to do and not what one can do. It is also believed that everyone should be treated the same with equal value regardless of social standing. It would be very difficult to be consistent and determinant with this theory. For example, let’s say that a person has created two maxims, one is to always tell the truth and another is to protect their child’s best interests. If something embarrassing happens to your child maybe they have to have a surgery to an area that if other children found out about might cause them to be taunted by their peers. Not telling their peers what happened would result in constant questioning and pressure to your child. According to Kant you wouldn’t be able to lie and say the surgery was on a different part of the body because that would be immoral, but you can’t protect your child either by telling the

More about Evaluating Moral Theories

Open Document