1. Now that we have looked at the Big 3 of moral theories -- Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Theory -- we have the 3 base
categories of moral importance/evaluation.
- In Utilitarianism, the consequences are emphasized and judged.
- In Deontology, the actions are emphasized and judged.
- In Virtue Theory, the personality traits are emphasized and judged.
Which of the above do you think is the best explanation for morality: Utilitarianism, Deontology or Virtue Theory?
Which should be the determination of morality? Consequences, actions, or personality?
Why that one? What specifically about the other 2 is wrong (if you can articulate it)?
2. We also discussed the relationship between virtues and principles or principles and virtues.
-In Pure Virtue/Aretaic, Virtues are dominant/primary. Principles are just instrumental as to how to practice being virtuous. What
matters is having the right personality.
-In Standard Deontic, Principles are dominant/primary. Virtues are just instrumental because they generate rule following behavior.
What matters is following the principle (such as Utilitarianism, Kant, Ross, Egoism, etc.) or doing the right thing.
-Complimentarity. Neither are dominant/primary. Some principles generate instrumental virtues. Some virtues generate instrumental
principles. Follow either.
Which do you think is most true regarding the essence, fabric, nature of morality? Principles or Virtues?
Which do you think is more-so just instrumental? Virtues or Principles?
Why?
