A utilitarian may act differently or a Kanatian duty-based ethical may disagree from a virtue ethic, and a Christian-principle based ethic may disagree from other organized perspectives. A utilitarian may view controversy as an act of maximizing "the good consequences and minimize the bad" of circumstances (p.43). Oftentimes, people feel it may be their dutiful purpose to find the common denominator and reject the cons to fulfill the greater good for the national public. However, the bigger picture is not only maximize the good consequences for society, but also know the difference between personal ambition as well as moral ambition. A Kanatian-duty may agree or disagree with controversy, from their perspective they may view duty as an act…show more content… It's in ones right to uphold moral law, but does everyone usually follow that status quo? A virtue ethic, would strive to have belief in moral law and fatefully execute the status of moral law, unfortunately they are more governed by their emotions and rather than their motives to do so. Lastly, a Christian-principle based ethic would choose the path of righteous and choosing the way God would intend for us to act accordingly.
In the sense of virtue ethics, it is relative to moral character and distinctive from deontology and consequential. Moral character does not have much weight if one does not realize or gain the fullness of engaging in moral and ethical behavior. There are a plethora of circumstances happening all across the world and even in our own backyards. Yet, the main struggle is everyone defining moral character or rather virtue ethics in their own definitions and portray unethical behavior instead of the other. Any form of attack on an individual is usually chalked up to their own perception of moral character. According to Holmes (2007), on must have "temperance or self-control for the soul's appetitive part, courage for the spirited part, and wisdom for the rational part which guides them to the
