The Views On Ethical Dilemma Through Consequentialism, Teleological And Virtue

An ethical dilemma is an incident or event that causes us to question how we should react with our beliefs. The dilemma will make us make a decision that needs to be made immediately that we will have to choose between a possible right or wrong answer. I have a good deal of experience with those type of ethical dilemmas in my life, and with that, I know that there is no such thing as an ethical dilemma that can or will only affect one person. I also know that some ethical dilemmas are easier to resolve than others are. The basic or easy ones are the ones in which we can make decisions on the spot. The best example of this is when a cashier gives me too much change, I can immediately make a decision to either tell the cashier and return the money or just say nothing and keep it and in most cases, it is to just keep the money.

Through Kant’s categorical imperative there are two things needed in the criteria for determining moral right and wrong. The basic of Kant's imperative is to act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people. The biggest problem I have faced that has me rethinking about what I did was when I almost got into an accident before the school year. The accident was when I was driving on the highway and was passing when a car came out of nowhere and almost hit me so the car next to me had to go into the chit and I had to go in my lane quickly because the car on the other side was somehow going faster than me while I was going 85 miles per hour in a 70 speed limit part. The problem I faced was to see if I should get out of my car and see if the other person car was still good. The essay can be broken down into how I faced my decision with the three different views including consequentialism, teleological and virtue.

The drive started off like almost every drive back to the school. The drive started to get pretty bad when I hit Bartlesville: there was a four-way intersection and I was behind many slow driving cars and I made the car in front of me get into a dangerous position by constantly being within a foot if his bumper. The reason I felt the drive to Winfield was about to be bad is due to this incident which made me or more accurately prompted me to almost cause the second close call or almost accident. The second almost accident was in between Caney and Dexter on the interstate highway. The scenario is I am about three car’s behind a slower car going around 50 miles per hour and I passed the three behind it and went back behind the car I almost made swerve or turn right before it wanted too. The reason I went behind the car was because soon there was about to be a hill and with that a no passing zone and so once we could pass again I turned on my left blinker to prepare to pass and so: I checked for a car and saw no cars within the next 400 or 700 feet of me so the amount of time needed but I miscalculated or the car decided to speed but the other car almost hit me. The speed limit for the area was about 75 miles per hour while I was going about 85 miles per hour and with us being in almost eight or six feet I decided to quickly return to my lane without looking and the car I was passing had to press hard on the brake and go into the side chit and I looked back to see if. The event did not hit me for a couple of minutes and then I started to feel the pressure of what just happened. The event can be broken down with consequentialism the easiest. The problem occurred because I wanted to pass the slow driving cars in my way so in the end it did work so it was in the end justified because it did make happen what I wanted. The problem I faced was that after it was all over it gave me a terrible thought about it because it brought in the what if potential. The what if potential I am talking about is what if when I was passing and the car behind me did not press the brake I mean I would still be in front but then the result is I would have been in a car accident or caused an injury to someone due to my careless and the other side reckless driving due in part of them going even faster than me when they saw me preparing to past and go faster than me who is already going almost twenty miles over the speed limit in that area. The next what if I thought of what if I passed perfectly fine but the driver on the other side swerved into the grass or the car I passed: with the end result being I passed the slow driving car but then two people would have then gotten into an accident due to me. The end result of my decision to pass did not cause any accident or problems because the car behind decided to turn right into the street that leads to someone between Caney and Dexter.

The other view that gives me some second thoughts about what happened a while ago was teleology. The reason I chose teleology is that in this view I was in the right. The reason I say that in teleology sees it’s for the purpose in the ends rather than the stated causes, making the actual outcome, or the "final" cause : because when you see things in terms of teleology, you explain the actions by their results. The actions I did can be defined as an in between decision depending on whose view. The reason I say that in my view I was in the right and I did nothing wrong but in the person I was passing I was probably in the wrong because his car had to take some chit which is terrible for low cars. The other point of view is I was definitely in the wrong to them because I could have caused a significant amount of pain to someone if my actions were slightly different.

The most difficult one I can use to explain myself cannot help me because the virtue ethics can prove I made the wrong decision. The reason I say this is the consensus of virtue ethics is it emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves this goes against the other three ethics like consequentialism, teleology, and deontology. The way I look at it with virtue ethics is I proved that my virtues are weak. The reason I say that is that instead of staying and deal with whatever they had to say even though both cars kept going like nothing happened I should have stopped and pulled over on the side to make sure. The only way my actions are justified I never stopped is through teleology and consequentialism. The only way I can explain myself is when “Aristotle held that Eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life” (“Virtue Ethics”) this can help me explain myself in it made me want to be better than the guy that ran from his problems.

The conclusion is that in most ways people can use the ethical view I can be justified in my decision. The reason I say in the first paragraph is that in teleology view I am justified thanks in part of my purpose being achieved. The next paragraph showed that with consequlism I am justified is that in my actions I accomplished my goal of passing the cars above of me. The only ethical view that can prove me wrong is a virtue view can show I lacked a good moral character in the aftermath of it but if stretched to the limit I can be proven right.