Utilatarian, Deontology and Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism is defined as ethic based on consequences. An act, either it is morally wrong or good is acceptable as long as the end outcome is greater. In this essay on utilitarianism, I would argue Peter Singer’s calculus preferences, equality is for all living being but sacrificing one for greater good is plausible. Counter argument of Immanuel Kant’s moral deontology claim, it is immoral to consider a human being as a means to an end. John Mills’ actions are right as long they promote happiness, wrong if they produce the opposite of happiness as the reply for the counter argument. In conclusion, I would ethically rectify my claim in supporting utilitarian argument.

Singer claimed that it is wrong to choose animals as research subjects in order to benefit human beings. Both humans and animals should be considered equally in the moral calculus, if it is morally permitted to use human being in research, then only, would it be permitted to use animal. And, if we were to consider the use of humans as well as animals and the research was considered to have great overall benefit for all, then the animals might be used since the general good is the most important thing.

“Moral law should be universalized”. Kant stated that concept of a good will from morally proper motive is the base for considering any action. If it is the act from some hidden motive or for personal gain it is label immoral duty even if it is otherwise appears morally good. Cruelty to animals reduces the feeling of compassion in man, an immoral duty. Therefore, researching animal to gain cure for diseases is wrong, because it is immoral action to sacrifice another living being for the personal gain of humans, although the end results appear morally good.

Kant’s theory is a strict morality. Universalize moral duty is good but some situations are exceptional. The outcome of the act is the reason the act was perform and if the outcome is general happiness then it is a morally right thing to