Five Ethical Frameworks

Summary
Focuses on the development of moral character
and virtues. Emphasizes the importance of
wisdom, courage, justice, temperance, and other
virtues in guiding moral decisions. Examples of
virtues include courage, justice, temperance,
generosity, and wisdom. Moral development is a
process that involves three levels of moral
reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and
Virtue Ethics post-conventional. The goal of ethics is to help
individuals realize their fullest human potential,
embracing their capacity for reason, choice, and
freedom. Ethics is concerned with living an
authentically free life, allowing individuals to be
true to themselves. Reason and impartiality are
requirements for ethics. Good reasons provide a
solid foundation for ethical decision-making.
Character is essential for ethical behavior. The
development of a moral person is crucial for
ethical behavior.
Based on the idea that there are natural laws that
govern the universe and human behavior.
Supports the view that certain moral principles are
innate and universal and that humans have a
natural inclination to seek the good. The ultimate
goal of law is the common good, which benefits
all members of society. Aquinas believed that the
world is not governed by random chance and that
there is a purpose behind every action. He
distinguished between the laws that govern the
material universe and the laws that govern rational
Natural Law Ethics beings like humans. The material universe follows
a definite order but lacks reason, while humans
possess reason and will, making them subject to a
different kind of law. Aquinas identified four
types of law: Eternal Law, Divine Law, Natural
Moral Law, and Human Positive Law. Eternal
Law is the ultimate source of all laws, which is
unchangeable and universal and originates from
God. Divine Law guides individuals beyond the
world to "eternal happiness." Natural Moral Law
is a reflection of God's Eternal Law that applies to
all persons. It is unchangeable, universal, and
perpetual, anchored in human nature, and can be
easily understood. Human Positive Law is the
translation of the Natural Moral Law into
something more accessible to humans. It can take
the form of civil laws or canon law and
emphasizes doing what is good rather than
 avoiding what is bad. All human positive laws are
derived from the natural moral law, and the
natural moral law is seen as humanity's
participation in God's eternal law. No human
government should legislate or legalize anything
that goes against the natural moral law.
Focuses on the duty to follow rules and principles,
often derived from a divine or social contract.
Emphasizes the importance of autonomy, respect
for persons, and justice. Actions are evaluated
based on their adherence to moral rules and
principles, rather than their consequences.
Immanuel Kant is a prominent figure in
Deontology Ethics deontological ethics, emphasizing the importance
of the categorical imperative, which states that
individuals should act only according to that
maxim by which they can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law. Kant also
believed in the importance of treating individuals
as ends in themselves, rather than merely as
means to an end. Deontological ethics emphasizes
the importance of moral duties and obligations,
regardless of the consequences of actions. It is
often contrasted with consequentialist ethics,
which evaluates actions based on their outcomes.
Focuses on the consequences of actions, aiming to
maximize happiness and minimize suffering.
Emphasizes the importance of evaluating the
outcomes of actions, considering the
consequences for all affected parties.
Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Ethics Utilitarianism is based on the idea that the greatest
good for the greatest number of people is the
highest moral principle. It supports the view that
the rightness or wrongness of an action is
determined by its consequences. Actions are
evaluated based on their consequences, and the
moral worth of an action is determined by
whether it results in positive consequences
(pleasure) or negative consequences (pain).
Focuses on the principles of love and justice,
emphasizing the importance of compassion,
empathy, and fairness. Guides moral decisions by
considering both the love and justice aspects of
actions and decisions. Love is the act of sharing or
Love and Justice Framework giving more than what is just because justice is
just the minimum of love. Agape is the love
principle preached by Jesus Christ, which is the
act of willing the good of another. Justice is equal
access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges
within society, and the promotion of social justice
is equivalent to the promotion of the common
 good. The common good refers to those facilities
that the members of a community provide to all
members to fulfill a relational obligation they all
have to care for certain interests that they have in
common. Justice means giving what is due by
doing one's function. The virtues of temperance,
courage, and wisdom are expected to be inherent
in each class of people, and each member of its
class must require and maintain the virtue in their
class. The principles of love and justice are
complementary and should be considered together
in making moral decisions.

Each of these frameworks offers a unique perspective on moral decision-making, and they can be used in
conjunction to guide individuals in making informed and moral choices.
 Ethical stand on the death penalty
Virtue ethics, a moral framework emphasizing the
development of moral character and virtues, offers
a perspective on the death penalty. From a virtue
ethics standpoint, the focus is on cultivating
virtues such as compassion, justice, and prudence.
When viewed through a virtue ethics perspective,
Virtue Ethics the death penalty would be assessed based on its
alignment with virtues such as compassion,
justice, and prudence. This framework would
likely lead to a nuanced consideration of the
ethical implications of capital punishment,
emphasizing the development of moral character
and the cultivation of virtuous behavior.
In natural law ethics, the stance on the death
penalty is influenced by principles such as natural
moral law, human rights, and the common good.
Natural law ethics, as articulated by scholars like
Thomas Aquinas, underscores the inherent dignity
of human life and the pursuit of the common
Natural Law Ethics good. From the perspective of natural law ethics,
the stance on the death penalty is often critical,
highlighting the inherent dignity of human life,
the pursuit of the common good, and the necessity
for a moral foundation in legal theory to safeguard
human rights. These principles shape the ethical
evaluation of the death penalty within the
framework of natural law ethics.
Deontological ethics, a moral framework
emphasizing the duty to adhere to rules and
principles, provides a critical perspective on the
death penalty. From a deontological standpoint,
the emphasis is on the principle of respecting
human dignity and treating individuals as ends in
themselves rather than merely as means to an end.
Deontology Ethics When viewed through a deontological
perspective, the death penalty would be assessed
based on its alignment with the principles of
respecting human dignity, treating individuals as
ends in themselves, and the duty to follow rules
and principles. This framework would likely lead
to a critical consideration of the ethical
implications of capital punishment, with a focus
on the inherent worth and dignity of every human
being.
Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Ethics, a
moral framework emphasizing the consequences
of actions, provide a complex perspective on the
death penalty. From a utilitarian standpoint, the
ethical evaluation of the death penalty involves
 considering whether it maximizes overall
happiness and minimizes overall suffering. The
consequentialist perspective focuses on the
Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Ethics outcomes of the death penalty rather than the
inherent morality of the act itself.

From a utilitarian and consequentialist

perspective, the death penalty is evaluated based
on its ability to maximize overall happiness and
minimize overall suffering. This framework leads
to a complex consideration of the ethical
implications of capital punishment, emphasizing
the consequences of the act rather than the act
itself.
When someone you love is facing the death
penalty, it becomes a complex and emotionally
charged issue that can be approached from various
ethical frameworks. From the perspective of the
love and justice framework, the focus is on the
Love and Justice Framework principles of love and justice, emphasizing
compassion, empathy, and fairness. In the context
of the love and justice framework, the ethical
evaluation of the death penalty involves
considering the principles of love, justice, and
compassion. This framework would likely lead to
a nuanced consideration of the ethical
implications of capital punishment, emphasizing
the development of moral character and the
cultivation of virtuous behavior.

In conclusion, the death penalty raises moral questions that can be addressed using various philosophical
frameworks. Each framework has its perspective on the moral acceptability of the death penalty, and these
perspectives can help guide discussions and debates on this complex issue.
 Ethical stand on same-sex union

From the perspective of virtue ethics, the ethical

evaluation of same-sex unions involves
considering whether they promote virtues such as
love, compassion, and respect for human dignity.
Proponents of this framework might argue that
Virtue Ethics same-sex unions can indeed foster these virtues
and contribute to the flourishing of individuals
and society. Virtue ethics places a strong emphasis
on the development of moral character and the
cultivation of virtuous behavior. Therefore, the
ethical assessment of same-sex unions from this
standpoint involves determining their potential to
promote virtues such as love, compassion, and
respect for human dignity, with proponents
contending that these unions can contribute
positively to the flourishing of both individuals
and society.

The ethical stance on same-sex unions from the

perspective of Natural Law Ethics is grounded in
the belief in natural moral law, the inherent
dignity of human life, and the pursuit of the
common good. Proponents of this framework may
Natural Law Ethics argue that same-sex unions conflict with the
principles of natural moral law and the traditional
understanding of marriage, which is seen as
essential for the common good. Critics of same-
sex unions might contend that they undermine the
natural order and the purpose of human life, as
understood within the context of natural law
ethics. This perspective underscores the
importance of practical reasoning and moral
foundations in guiding human actions and ethical
decision-making, often leading to a critical
evaluation of same-sex unions based on these
foundational principles.

From the perspective of deontology ethics, the

ethical evaluation of same-sex unions would
involve considering whether they align with the
principle of respecting human dignity and treating
individuals as ends in themselves. Proponents of
Deontology Ethics this framework might argue that same-sex unions
promote the principle of treating individuals as
ends in themselves, while critics might argue that
they conflict with the principle of respecting
 human dignity. Deontology ethics emphasizes the
duty to follow rules and principles, such as the
principle of respecting human dignity and treating
individuals as ends in themselves. The ethical
evaluation of same-sex unions would involve
considering whether they align with these
principles.

From the perspective of Utilitarianism and

Consequentialist Ethics, the ethical evaluation of
same-sex unions involves considering whether
they promote overall happiness and minimize
overall suffering. Proponents of this framework
Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Ethics might argue that same-sex unions can indeed
contribute to happiness and reduce suffering for
same-sex couples and society as a whole.
However, critics might contend that they can lead
to negative consequences, such as the breakdown
of traditional family structures. Utilitarianism and
consequentialist ethics emphasize the
consequences of actions, aiming to maximize
happiness and minimize suffering. Therefore, the
ethical assessment of same-sex unions from this
standpoint involves evaluating whether they
promote overall happiness and minimize overall
suffering.

From the perspective of the love and justice

framework, the evaluation of same-sex unions
involves considering whether they align with the
principles of love and justice, emphasizing
compassion, empathy, and fairness. Proponents of
Love and Justice Framework this framework might argue that same-sex unions
promote love and justice by providing legal
recognition and protection for same-sex couples.
Conversely, critics might argue that they conflict
with traditional notions of love and justice. The
love and justice framework underscores the
importance of compassion, empathy, and fairness
in guiding human actions and decisions. In the
context of same-sex unions, this framework
encourages individuals to consider the impact of
their actions on the well-being of others and the
fairness of the treatment of all individuals,
regardless of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.