The study of ethics has always captivated many intellectuals, and over the centuries, many ideas have been offered to demonstrate the moral principles that influence human conduct. By describing the origins of occurrences and the reasons behind why something occurs in the way it does, scientific theories aid in human understanding of the material universe. A moral theory, for instance, emphasizes why action is either right or wrong or why an individual or their personality is virtuous or harmful. Numerous moral theories have contributed significantly to the field of bioethics and are still shaping how individuals perceive related matters. Out of three well-known theories, Kantian ethics is the most optimal in terms of considering morality and human conduct, unlike natural law theory and utilitarianism which mainly disregard justice or strive to find the correct reasoning.
Although natural law theory, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics focus on the topic of morality, they differ substantially. For instance, according to Kantian ethics, a deed is ethical if it is motivated by a sense of obligation and abides by a general, unchanging moral law (Vaughn 41). Kantianism respects the individual and connects to the common experience of humanity. As per this theory, the categorical imperative, a specific ethical principle, may be used to rationally and reflectively deduce human obligations (Vaughn 41). Because Kant’s morality is so simple and grounded in reason, anyone can understand it. The benefits of this theory are that it focuses on human duty and claims that morality is independent of motivations, outcomes, and religious laws (Vaughn 41). Therefore, the concept commands everybody to protect human life and provides universally applicable norms.
In comparison, natural law theory contends different perspectives in terms of morality. According to this theory, only behaviors that adhere to moral principles “discerned in nature through human reason” may be regarded as ethical (Vaughn 56). Therefore, the main responsibility of humans is to direct their life in the way of such universal objectives while following the dictates of natural law (Vaughn 56). The benefit of the natural law idea is that it can be applicable on a broad scale, and it relies on logical thinking. The approach, however, dismisses how society influences conduct (Vaughn 56). Natural law theory does not give a specific moral norm that applies in every circumstance, although it does offer direction through basic moral concepts, some of which are believed to apply unconditionally and globally.
The third theory, utilitarianism, focuses on human happiness yet has shortcomings. The theory holds that the best behaviors are those that produce a balance of good over adverse outcomes for all parties concerned, which is the dominant consequentialist theory (Vaughn 39). The traditional formulation, such as many utilitarian ideologies, calls for a deep sense of objectivity. When fostering well-being and happiness, people must give each person’s requirements and interests an equal priority in addition to considering the satisfaction of all others who may be impacted (Vaughn 39). Nevertheless, utilitarianism disregards fairness and regards immoral deeds that benefit society as a whole as moral if only a small minority suffers as a result (Vaughn 39). In this case, the failure of utilitarianism to pay attention to issues of justice may be its fundamental drawback.
Upon reviewing all three theories, it can be seen that the merits of Kantian ethics outweigh those of utilitarianism and the natural law theory by a wide margin. It holds that moral decisions should not be based in the least on outcomes, value maximization, happiness creation, or the desires and requirements of other people (Vaughn 42). In such a situation, it is the exact opposite of utilitarianism. Unlike the two other theories, Kantian ethics prioritizes following a moral law that is reasonable and relevant to all people and acting entirely out of a sense of responsibility (Vaughn 41). Only when an activity complies with this norm is it morally right, and only when individuals carry out their duties solely out of obligation are they morally acceptable. Thus, equal protection of all individuals is required under Kantian ethics, which effectively eliminates prejudice from decision-making.
Hence, Kantian ethics is the best of the three well-known theories when it comes to taking into account morality and human behavior, as opposed to natural law theory and utilitarianism, which ignore justice or try to arrive at the right thinking. A deed is ethical in Kantian ethics if it is motivated by duty and abides by a universal, unchanging moral rule. In contrast, the natural law approach asserts several moral vantage points. However, the strategy ignores how society affects behavior. The utilitarianism concept, the third theory, focuses on human happiness but has flaws, including ignoring questions of justice. Reviewing these three theories reveals that Kantian ethics has a significant advantage over utilitarianism and the natural law theory. In contrast to the other two theories, Kantian ethics emphasizes behaving only out of a sense of duty and adhering to a moral code that is rational and applicable to everyone.
Work Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2022.