Finalist Theories (Part 1)

These are the three Finalist Theories presented in Module 4. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism bases morality on the consequence of the act, particularly on the amount of pleasure gained by a person or group of persons upon the completion of such action. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives look more on the intention or “will” that drives one to behave the way one does. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics aim at attaining “happiness”, the supreme end which Aristotle said is to be grasped by living a life of reason – doing things that are rational and acting so as to be able to embody the virtue of character and intellectual virtues.

Of these three, I find Mill’s Utilitarianism to be most appealing because it is to me both clearly simple and vaguely confusing at the same time. I say it is simple because when this principle is used to assess the morality of an act, there would be no second thoughts about the answer. One could readily determine on the basis of the amount of pleasure gained from the act whether it is ethical or not. On the other hand, I find it confusing because the “means” for coming up with the “end” is not properly bound. Does the end really justify the means?


If you are still reading up to this part, congrats! ;-) This is the part where I say that my definition of “appealing” is probably not what you have in mind. For if you tell me that something is appealing so that one would want to use or apply it, then I’d have chosen one of the other two to answer the question, whichever I had heavier reasons to support it with. But I answered this question based on which of the three drew more intrigue and interest in me; and that makes Utilitarianism appealing.