Approaches to Ethics
This is simply a meta-ethical view of ethics which holds that the ethical sentences are not expressions of personal propositions but are the emotional attitudes. In other words, it is an expression that the moral judgments that individuals express are either positive or negative human feelings which define who you are. In the view of emotivism, ethics looks at the persons feelings as the core values. They show whether he is wrong or right in the opinions or actions he presents. On the other hand, the morality of an individual is dependent on the person and his or her life preferences. This roots generally from the fact that feelings of different persons differ considerably. It holds on the fact that moral language is what passes across the information about personal emotions. The judgments thus expressed in a moral perspective can never be deemed to be correct or incorrect (Rae & Wong 2007 p.85). Basing on this view of ethics, we do not see the link between the moral thought and reasons to solve human problems. Since from a Christian perspective, morality can be backed by good reasons which usually lead to resolution of conflicts, however, the emotivist disagrees with this. We may therefore, be forced to make assumptions that the moral language an individual uses is not a factual language. More so, the moral judgments that we may have are just cognitive thoughts which are not just emotional feelings. Remember that these are thoughts are sentiments that may be difficult to be observed, weighed and verified thus ethics is a matter of personal making.
This is part of normative ethics which holds that the desired action in ones heart or a community initiative is that that maximizes the main goal of the person. It bases on the basic idea that the actions of a person are taken to be right proportion since they tend to improve personal happiness, and the wrong reverse the happiness. It is the end of an action that determines the morality of that act either to a person or the community. In present ethical setting, individuals look at the outcome of an action; the one that has the greatest good for many in society produces the highest balance over the bad and thus the good part is chosen (Rae & Wong 2007 p. 84). The emphasis of the outcome of the action put this form of ethics at a higher level in the acceptability in society. The society has to weigh the outcome of an action before deciding on the morality of the action. If an action has more good than the bad, it may be favored in society if there is no other option.
Ethical egoism is another approach to ethics that tries to explain the morality of the society. It is a consequentiality kind of philosophy that states that the morality of an individual is based on the self interests and preferences. Generally, it the art of prescriptive doctrines aimed at teaching all persons to act in line with their self-interests towards something. It bases on the fact that the actions are seen or taken to improve a persons interest are the moral part of life, but those that reduce the interests are not moral. However, it must be understood that ethical egoists are not egotistical. An ethical egoist usually uses the self-interest in the process of making the moral decision that is acceptable in society (Rae & Wong 2004, p.83).
The deontological systems are moral characteristics that majorly focus on the adherence to the independent moral code of rules and duties. This kind of ethics is straight forward and says that some actions are morally unacceptable in the society by their definition like stealing, murder, and lying. This set of moral systems stress the core reasons as to why some actions ought to be performed. It states that just personal adherence to the moral rules and regulations are not sufficient without correct motivations attached. In that line of thought, a person can not just be considered immoral just because of breaking a moral regulation in society, but the motivation of the required moral duty.
This form of ethics is thus based on the principles that one holds. It focuses on the aspect of moral obligations which are seen to be necessary and not basing on the input or the end point of an action. They focus on the moral duties that an individual has which are inherently right to the person and society (Rae & Wong 2007 p.84). This is manifested in the rule of law, and the religious part of life. This aspect can thus be applied in all fields of life including business setting and the outcome will be considered vary effective and applicable in the present society (Rae & Wong 2004 p.88).
Virtue theory is another aspect of ethics that holds the emphasis on the importance of character of a person and defines the moral philosophy in the society. It does not deal with one’s duties in time of life or the actions aimed at bringing out the morally acceptable results. The theories outlined in this ethical convention define a virtuous person possessing ideal characteristics. The character developed must be from natural human tendencies. They are then nurtured by the individual to perfection. At the end, they become stable and part of the person.
The theories thus show that morality is not just focusing on doing what is considered right, but going an extra mile of developing the virtues in the person. This approach thus is what develops and has good application even in the field of business where we need trust, cooperation and honesty which are very important. This is the foundation that ought to be developed in form of character to achieve the highest level of morality (Rae & Wong 2007 p.89)
This is an ethical approach that does not really focus on one doctrine of ethics, but fetches views from a family of experiences, evaluations, thoughts and realities and tries to show that some aspects of life occurrences can not be measured or they are relative to something else. There are no set standards of moral principles that can be justified. No truth can be measured with the language, biological makeup or the culture one comes from. The conclusions that are made by this approach are captivating since they raise questions that are relevant and the persons concerned must think critically to come to the right way of considering what is right and what is deemed wrong (Rae & Wong 2004, p.81).
Focusing on the deontological ethical systems that focus on the adherence to the moral rules of conduct, this medical issue can be explained to safeguard the doctors or company in question, the patient and family at large. Since it calls for understanding the moral duties, which can be tied to professional duties, we have to look at the correct rules and measures that regulate the professional activities. Owing to the fact that the drug had not been tested according to the CEO of Neotropix company, Peter Lanciano, it is right not to administer the drug to the patient. In line with medical duties, it is not right to administer a drug that has not been proven safe to the patient unless the patient, family, doctor and the company go into agreement that the patient is a test specimen (Goldstein, 2007).
The ethical approach is against this because the duties of the doctors will be deemed immoral if the patient succumbs to death. The moral rules and regulations according to deontological approach that allow medical personnel to practice force the doctors not to take the task of administering the drug until it is tested. This approach values the normal command of medical profession and going against them is immoral to society. The correct motivation to attend to the duties is not a justification for any action that a person takes in the deontological system, and thus the Neotropix CEO can not take the task on the basis of the motivation to do the job (Goldstein, 2007). The duties that the Neotropix Company takes are not subjective, but they are determined in an objective manner and absolute consideration of terms of operation. It is considered a huge dilemma, think of the pressure that the company and the employees will go through is the child fails to get better or even develop other complications. The family and society will definitely blame the company for not being careful in handling patients.
Goldstein, J. (2007, May 1). Who Should Get Experimental Drugs? - Health Blog - WSJ. WSJ Blogs - WSJ. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/05/01/who-should-get-experimental-drugs/
Rae, S. B., & Wong, K. L. (2004). Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach to business ethics (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.