Understanding ethical principles is crucial for understanding ethical issues and problems in all fields of Applied Ethics. These ethical principles allow us to view cases from different perspectives. Different people (Stakeholders) analyze cases from different perspectives. Understanding ethical principles helps us see how different people (stakeholders) identify ethical issues and how they justify their views on a case. Using the Ethics handouts in Moodle: Describe each of the following in 4 or 5 sentences. Your description should include quotations of the principles from the Ethics readings. If you want to you can write longer descriptions. These are the principles you will use to analyze case studies. Types of Relativism Individual Social Historical God as a moral authority Natural law theory The principle of double effect Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) These are technically the same Rule - Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) Act - Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) Long Term Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) Short Term Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) Kantian Ethics – Deontology Categorical Imperative I Categorical Imperative II Rossian Ethics Virtue Ethics Care Ethics Social Contract Theory Justice (related to Fairness) Distributive Comparative Punitive Rights Based Natural Rights Legal Rights Positive Rights Negative Rights Particularism Ethical Pluralism Moral agents are persons who are responsible for their intentions, actions and the outcomes of their actions. Each of these principles can be used to describe how stakeholders in a case can be held responsible and as guides for how they should act. We will be using these principles in our case study analysis.
 

Ethical Principles

Individual relativism states that the action of wrong or right exclusively depends on the actor's standards. The ethic considers cultural norms irrelevant; thus, only the particular actor's criteria are used to rule out the morality of their action (kellenberger, 2019). Every person has an average of morals that is equally appropriate or valid. Therefore, you cannot judge a person using your standards. Instead, you consider the other individual's moral standards.

Social relativism holds that for a property to be an action, it has to be required by the laws or rules of a particular society and itself to be considered as ultimate property for right-making action. Through obvious suitable extensions, we can consider a practice or a game where the theory will cling to the requirement of the rules of a particular pattern or play as an ultimate property right-making action. The maximum qualification is added because of the following reasons. Vividly, it is undeniable that some measures are suitable for one member of society, but they are wrong for another. For instance, the step of driving on the left-hand side of the highway in Boston is wrong. However, this action in Dublin is right.

Historical relativism is seemed to be one of the cases in which a problem is related to the phenomenon of practice all rights. Precisely, philosophers have a mechanism of construing relativism to refer to contradictory, trivial, or absurd things. Consequently, relativism is refuted quickly (Scott, 2019). The philosophers have to put in place a quick analysis to dispel the fog created by historians unaware of the logic mysteries. Various historians have drawn different conclusions about the same events. Additionally, the historian is written day in day out. Therefore, these facts show the challenge historical relativism is facing.

God as a moral authority. God is the sole creator of the universe, according to the Christianity view. He formulated the ethical standards without any guidance source from scratch. God disapproves of wrong actions because they are wrong and approves the suitable measures as they are right. Consequently, morality is solemnly independent of the will of God. However, God is omniscient, but He understands and knows better the moral laws, and He strictly follows them as He is virtuous.

Natural law theory in ethics states that persons have an intrinsic value that directs human behavior and reasoning. The law maintains that the right and wrong rules are inherent in persons, nor are they formulated by the court judges or the society. Additionally, the law remains constant all the time worldwide as it is based on human nature but not customs or culture. Notably, the law holds that moral standards are universally inherent with humans across time. Therefore, a justice society should be formed based on these standards.

The principle of double effect says that if you are doing something that is morally but has an ethically lousy outcome, then it is morally alright to do it as long as the bad result was not intended. Even if you noted that the wrong result would adequately take place, this is very true. The medical team applies the principle, which gives a patient a drug to relieve the symptom, although they know that the patient's life is shortened.  The doctors are not directly aiming to kill the patient, but the evil result of the patient's death is excellent for relieving the pain.

Morality theory states that consequentialism rule solely picks rules in connection with their goodness and outcome. Morality claims the rules are used to know which category of acts are wrong morally. The government is formulated concerning the quality of man and not the routine moral actions of the daily lives (Hedden, 2020). At least the agents should determine which rules to apply and the acceptance of who will produce the best result. Regulations such as, do not steal, do not harm innocent people should be practiced.

Act consequentialism claims that an act is morally right when the good is maximized. Additionally, suppose the total outcome of the good for all minus the full result of foul is more than the net amount of any incompatible act (Elias, 2019). In that case, the show must be present to the agent on that specific occasion. Therefore, the action is morally wrong when the result is less good than some possible available alternative.

Actions may tend to be short-term in that they are brief and immediate. Their consequences will also have a short-term effect. Generally, a consequentialist would expect that individuals consider the implications of their actions, specifically in terms of right or good outcomes.

Utilitarianism states that happiness is good. Traditionally, practical thinkers understand satisfaction in the absence of pain and terms pleasure. Action is very suitable as long as it produces joy in the absence of pain. Every possible course must have a utility in any given scenario. Therefore, the utility is the net total of pleasure caused by the action when the pain caused by the act is subtracted. 

Kantian Ethics or Deontology is a theory that stipulates that actions are bad or good according to a clear set of rules. The name deontology was derived from the Greek name deon, which means duty (Delganto, 2020). Therefore, the actions that obey these rules are ethical, whereas those that do not adhere to the law are not. The dignity forms a law on the sand that prevents humans from acting in awkward ways either towards other individuals or themselves.

Categorical imperative 1 says that an individual has to act in a manner that would want everyone else to behave similarly in the same way in the same circumstances towards all other persons. One is required to act accordingly to the maximum that you wish others to follow. The law is observed as if it was a universal law, but in reality, it is not. On the other hand, it is not a command but rather a formal protocol.

Categorical imperative 2 is a second formulation of the categorical imperative, also known as the End's formula. It says you have to act in a way that you would always treat humanity. The action should be shown in yourself on others. Always do so from the beginning to the End with other individuals.

Russian ethics postulates a plurality of fundamental moral principles. They include a code to keep and a promise and do not harm any person.  The principle postulates duties like prima facie, as they can conflict with each other, and in case they do, then the importance of the relative conflicts must be weighed in order to decide what to do considering all things. The principle may portray a property corresponding relevantly to the action is always wrong-making or right-making.

Virtue ethics are reasonable actions displayed by a virtuous character, including courage, wisdom, or loyalty. However, wrong actions portray the opposite, which is treachery, ignorance, and cowardice. But it is one thing to understand what are right and another to do it. We live our virtues by acting as if we already have them with us.

Care ethics means a moral significance in the relationship elements of fundamental and human life dependencies. Critics fault care ethics by implying that it is a kind of slave morality. Additionally, it has a severe shortcoming which includes ambiguity, essentialism, and parochialism. The best example of care ethics that is practiced in modern times is bioethics. The medicine profession deals explicitly with caring for others.

Social contract theory states that people stay together in one society according to an agreement that sets political and moral rules of behavior. There exist two types of social contracts. One assumes that a contract is a state of nature. The second one states that people are free and equal.

Justice is giving individuals their dues. Therefore, justice is major, defined by fairness which shows that the law is applied to every person equally. Fairness is an approach that focuses on the quality of being fair.  In many parts, the morality of a society is determined by fairness, such as the moral employment of the law or justice.  

Distributive ethics states that each human being should possess the same material goods, including services and burdens. The principle is justified because humans are morally equal, and material equality in services and goods is the best mechanism to affect the moral idea. The significant facts about distributive are fairness, equality, and proportionality. Distributive is a crucial ethical principle that applies to the provisions of goods and services.

Comparative ethic is also referred to as descriptive ethic. It states the study of empirical moral beliefs and practices of different individuals and cultures at other times and places. Comparative aims to elaborate the rules and behavior and understand how they are conditioned through the economic, social, and geographic circumstances. Additionally, comparative ethics is in contrast with normative ethics.

Punitive is also known as retributive justice. Disciplinary beliefs that a person's behavior is altered or changed through the administration of punishment.  Criminals will take responsibility only through discipline.  Further states that a criminal will only change in the future after being subjected to inflicted pain. Other beliefs that another similar activity should solemnly meet an action.

Right-based ethic states that some rights based on humans, both negative and positive, are only so because they are human. Therefore, these rights can also be conventional or natural. Natural rights are inherent rights. Traditional rights are the ones that humans formulate, and they directly reflect society's values.

Generally, legal rights mean that the action permitted by the law is known as a legal right. On the other hand, the act recognized and protected by the state is known as a legal right. A legal right is solely a protected interest. The interest of the people is pivotal rather than their will. Therefore, the primary objective is to protect people's interests and hinder the conflict between claims of individuals.

A positive right is a right that is being subjected to an action of another group or person. Additionally, for a positive right to be exercised, another person's actions must be added to the question. A positive right permits another person to act with respect to the holder of the request. Positive rights are connected with imperfect duties generally.

Negative rights like the right to privacy, the right not to kill, or the right for one to do what they want with their property are rights that govern some form of human freedom. They are called negative as they claim by one individual who imposes negative duties on all other individuals. The responsibility states that there is no interference with another person's activities at a specific place. The right to privacy bars those on duty not to disturb one's private activities.

Particularism claims that there are no moral principles defensible. The application of the moral compass to cases does not include honest thoughts. Further states that morally perfect people should not be considered as persons with principles. The generalist is the particularism opponent.

Ethical pluralism is an idea that says there are many theories regarding what is right and wrong. They are known as moral norms, and they can be inconsumable or incompatible according to your standards. Internationally, engagement involves working g in connection with other communities where you will likely face different norms. Careful consideration is required to decide when to act with a new model appropriately.

Outline Ethical principles

1. Types of Relativism
2. Individual
3. Social
4. Historical
5. God as a moral authority
6. Natural law theory
7. The principle of double effect
8. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) These are technically the same
9. Rule -  Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
10. Act - Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
11. Long Term Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
12. Short Term Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
13. Kantian Ethics – Deontology
14. Categorical Imperative I
15. Categorical Imperative II
16. Rossian Ethics
17. Virtue Ethics
18. Care Ethics
19. Social Contract Theory
20. Justice  (related to Fairness)
21. Distributive
22. Comparative
23. Punitive
24. Rights Based
25. Natural Rights
26. Legal Rights
27. Positive Rights
28. Negative Rights
29. Particularism
30. Ethical Pluralism