Source: Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. Fifth. ed., Oxford University Press, 2020. We have covered eight different normative

ethical theories: divine command theory, natural law theory, ethical egoism, consequentialism, Kant’s deontological theory, contractarianism, Ross’ theory of prima facie duties, and virtue ethics.

Which theory do you find most convincing

? Why? Please briefly explain and defend whichever normative ethical theory you find most credible.

What is the most significant objection to your chosen theory?

How would someone who accepts your theory reply to this objection?

 

SOLUTIONS 

Contractarianism, Ross’ Theory of Prima Facie Duties, and Virtue Ethics are three normative ethical theories that attempt to provide guidance on how individuals ought to behave in certain situations.

Contractarianism argues that ethical principles are those that people would agree to if they were to enter into a social contract. In other words, people should act in a way that would be mutually beneficial to everyone. This theory is often associated with the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who argued that individuals enter into a social contract in order to protect their own self-interest.

Ross’ Theory of Prima Facie Duties states that individuals have a number of duties that they ought to fulfill, but these duties are not absolute. Instead, they are prima facie duties, meaning that they can be overridden by other duties in certain situations. Ross identified several prima facie duties, including duties of fidelity, gratitude, reparation, and justice.

Virtue Ethics, on the other hand, argues that ethical behavior is not based on following rules or principles, but rather on cultivating virtuous character traits. Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of developing virtues such as courage, honesty, compassion, and wisdom in order to lead a good life and behave ethically.

Of these three theories, I find Virtue Ethics to be the most convincing. I believe that ethical behavior is ultimately based on personal character and the cultivation of virtuous habits. By developing good habits and virtues, individuals are more likely to make ethical decisions and act in accordance with their values, even in difficult situations.

The most significant objection to Virtue Ethics is that it may not provide clear guidance on how individuals should act in specific situations. Because Virtue Ethics emphasizes the cultivation of virtuous character rather than following rules or principles, it may be difficult to determine how to act in a particular situation.

In response to this objection, someone who accepts Virtue Ethics might argue that ethical decision-making is not always clear-cut and that there may not be a single right answer in every situation. Instead, ethical behavior requires a deep understanding of the situation, the values at stake, and one’s own character. By cultivating virtuous habits and striving to act in accordance with one’s values, individuals are more likely to make ethical decisions, even when the right course of action is not immediately clear.

In conclusion, while each of these theories provides a different approach to ethical decision-making, I find Virtue Ethics to be the most convincing. By focusing on personal character and the cultivation of virtuous habits, individuals are more likely to make ethical decisions and act in accordance with their values. Although this approach may not provide clear guidance in every situation, it emphasizes the importance of developing good habits and virtues in order to lead a good life and behave ethically.