If I had to choose just one of the ethical theories presented in the reading to base all of my ethical decision making on, it would probably have to be Kantianism (Quinn, 2011). Although many ethical theories may sound appealing in one aspect or another, Kantianism is very appealing because it offers a logical reasoning behind all decisions.
While examining the known ethical theories, it is somewhat easy to temporarily “try it on” in a sense, by imagining how you may react in a certain situation while following that theory instead of your own. For example, subjective relativism is probably the easiest alternative to try out. This is because it is very easy to internally rationalize what is actually right or wrong. As the name of the theory implies, this is subjective to each person, and therein lies the problem. When a person takes an action that harms another, it may not seem bad to that person because no harm has come to them. However, to the other person that action is bad because it did cause harm to them. Therefore, when the same action is viewed by multiple persons, the moral alignment of that action will not likely be viewed as the same by each person.
Going back to Kantianism, it seems to have the most appeal because it very closely resembles the divine command theory. A major difference, however, is that the divine command theory may state that it is wrong to steal because it says so in the Bible; whereas Kantianism suggests a logical approach to the situation. By attempting to create a universal law from a moral rule, we can test if it is reasonable or not. The example used in our text states that you should not give a false promise; if everyone gave a false promise then promises would not be believed (Quinn, 2011). Once you apply “everyone” to the same action you are contemplating, it becomes clearer as to whether it is morally right or wrong.
I feel