Villanueva, Shane E.

Ethics 101
BSMT-1B

ETHICAL CONCEPTS: REVIEWED AND CRITIQUED

Freedom of speech, freedom to determine one’s fate, and the freedom to choose the path in
life that one will take. Entailing this is their freedom to deem what is wrong and right. However,
there ceases to exist a one-size-fits-all perspective. This places people in a constant battle on
banters with their opposing ideologies. Despite the luxury of affirming with what they believe in,
these moral principles are yet deemed to be subjective from one person to another. To address this
conflict, the concept of ETHICS provides people with somewhat more objective, arguably
standardized, rules that people abide by to keep harmony and peace within a space. However, the
concept of Ethical Relativism shall still be noted. Below are some of the known Ethical concepts,
defined and critiqued.

I. DEONTOLOGISM
Deontologism is an ethical concept on which Immanuel Kant based his Kantian ethics
from. This paradigm emphasizes the duty that each person possesses. Deontologism is an
obligation-based ethics in which carrying out one’s duty is the most crucial aspect. Furthermore,
Deontologism is highly concerned with the motives or intentions along with the action. One of the
strengths of this concept is it lowers the uncertainties of what to consider an ethical action. As
the concept states, an action done in line with one’s duty is already an ethical action. Moreso, as
mentioned, this theory amplifies the motives behind the action. An action carried out with good
motives is ethical, while an action with an unpleasant motive is otherwise. However, as ironic as
it sounds, focusing on the motive is also its weakness. The manner in which the action is carried
out matters not, as long as it’s in line with one’s duty and done in a ‘subjectively’ good motive,
then it is in fact ethical. With this being said, I deem that the concepts under Deontologism may
be misused, per se. For example, un-alive-ing a criminal to protect people as a part of one’s duty.
The protector exhausts its means with the motive to ‘protect’ people even if it the criminal does
not pose any more threat, since the action bears a good motive and is definitely in line with one’s
duty, it is already ethical. But is it really ethical to deliberately take away one’s life out of spite? If
the ideology of the protector is “Deontologism says so”, then exploitation occurs.
II. THEOCENTRISM
The scope of Theocentrism revolves primarily around the practices and the moral and
ethical principles in line with the holy scriptures of Christians. This concept heavily relies on the
perspective of Christ being the ultimate creator and His intervention with His creations (Deddo,
n.d.). I would like to start the critique with the ‘advantages’ of this concept. First, this concept is
very much powerful as it deals with what is deemed to be the Supreme Creator. Speaking ill, or at
least giving an idea that questions the belief in God is such a taboo. Thus, it seems to me that this
is a powerful concept. Another ‘advantage’ of this concept is that it has established, exact, and
standardized laws such as The Ten Commandments. Meanwhile, what I deem to be the downside
of this ethical perspective are the following: first, the autonomy of the people. It somewhat raises
a question to me whether the people who are subscribed to this perspective exhibit good deeds
solely because ‘that is what the scripture says, that is what God says you ought to do’. As to what
I believe in, people shall do what is good because they have the capability to discern which is good
Villanueva, Shane E. Ethics 101
BSMT-1B
and which is not. Next, while Theocentrism claims that God is goodness Himself, therefore if
people do what God commands, then it must be good. Exclusivity. Atheists and Agnostics. How
about those who do not believe in God but do good deeds? Do these people get deprived of the
honor and integrity of exhibiting such pleasantries just because they do these things without the
commandments in their minds? And lastly, the fixation on salvation. It somehow concerns me
that people may only do good deeds in the hope of salvation; there is a questionable sense of
genuine rightness due to fear of the supreme. If people can only think of is to vouch for themselves
to secure a spot in heaven, if heaven does exist, then it certainly defeats the purpose of leading a
good life on Earth by doing good deeds autonomously. With all these being said, it is worth noting
that these critiques came from the perspective of an agnostic. The concept of Ethical Relativism
shall prevail here.
III. UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism upholds that whether an action is right or wrong is dependent on its
consequences. Furthermore, to intensify the rightness, the action must be carried out to benefit a
greater number of people. Should it only be for the sake of lesser people, then it must be wrong
(University of Texas, 2023). This ethical concept starts off strong with the idea of accommodating
the sake of the majority. There is no doubt that the more that benefits, the better. However, the
minority’s exclusion is very evident. Its strength of putting the sake of many is ironically its
weakness as well. The infamous critique that entails this ethical concept is ‘What about the
minority?’, and that, I believe, is one of the greatest setbacks of this concept. To further this, the
Utilitarian ethics, somehow, also fails to recognize the motives behind the actions; this concept
is result-centric. When a better motive reaches a fewer people and a lesser motive reaches more
people, then the Utilitarian concept prevails, still.

IV. JUSTICE by JOHN RAWL’S THORY OF JUSTICE

Humans are created equally, as such they must have access to equal chances and
opportunities. Justice for each and every one. This is what John Rawls’ Theory of Justice primarily
states. A society that bares no room for inequality and social injustice and a society that focuses
on providing similar treatment to each and every one is indeed an ideal society. As to how I see it,
Rawls’ Theory of Justice makes the most sense. As much as this ethical concept preaches
EQUALITY, Rawls’ idealism did not stop there. Equity, where people get provided with things
catered to what they actually need, may be better. But ultimately, achieving a longer term of equity
is through serving justice. Rawls’ presented 5 commendable, in my opinion, concepts of justice.
The Theory of Justice strongly upholds the concept of an individual’s inviolability. If an action is
always for the sake of the majority, then how about an entity? It occurs to me that this concept may
be asserting a win-win situation. When something is beneficial to many, then it shall also be
beneficial to the minority. In other words, “No one is left behind”, and I think that is absolutely
beautiful.