Ethical theories. In this short presentation, we will give an example on how to apply Utilitarianism, Kantian Theory, and Virtue Ethics. Consider the following case. A city council has decided to renovate the railway station which is outdated. Architects are invited to submit a proposal for a design for the new railway station with a deadline. After the deadline, Architect John calls the responsible person Alex, who is in charge of collecting the proposals, to ask whether he can still submit his proposal. Alex knows John and Alex knows that John is one of the best architects. And, moreover, the proposals have not yet been evaluated by the commission. Should Alex accept the submitted proposal of John for evaluation? From a utilitarian perspective, we must demonstrate that the action, in this case the acceptance of the submitted proposal of John after the deadline for evaluation, leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Since John is one of the best architects, it could be the case that his proposal is the best of all the submitted proposals. If John's proposal will not be accepted for evaluation, this could lead to a situation in which the second best proposal will be selected, which does not lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Moreover, the chance that the other candidates will find out that John has turned in his proposal past due date is very small. And if John's proposal is not the best one, then the proposal will be chosen, that would be chosen regardless whether John's proposal was accepted or not accepted for evaluation. So, from a utilitarian perspective, Alex should accept the submitted proposal of John for evaluation notwithstanding that John didn't make the deadline. In other words, the ends, in this case the best proposal, justify the means, in this case, accepting that someone doesn't make the deadline. On Kantian grounds, it is morally unacceptable that Alex allows that John submits his proposal after the deadline. The first categorical imperative is formulated as follows: "Acts only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." A maxim is an old fashioned word for a practical principle or proposition that prescribes some action. Now we have to show that the maxim, I may accept proposals submitted after the deadline for evaluation, leads to something that is insensible as soon as a general law is made of it. Such a general law could be, deadlines may be violated. From this general law, it follows that setting a deadline would become useless. And what it is supposed to accomplish will not be achieved. Note that it is not the negative consequences that bothers Kant, but what bothers him rather has to do with unworkable practices. So, if everyone can decide when it is convenient not making the deadline, this leads to unworkable practices. For those practices to work, they must be universalizable. That is, applied to all persons equally. You might also say that Kant is bothered by the idea of people making exceptions for themselves by breaking rules that others are expected to follow, which means that not everyone is treated equally. If we apply the second categorical imperative, always act as to treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as means only. We see that the architects who submitted their proposal within the deadline are treated as means and not as an end, because the principle of impartiality is violated. In this case, if Alex accepts John's proposal for evaluation, Alex gives preferential treatment to John to the detriment of the other architects. Another argument one could make here is as follows: If all other architects were asked whether they would consent to making an exception for John, and they all gave their consent, then it might be okay to allow his proposal since this would respect everyone's autonomy. In other words, the architects are also treated as ends, but if not everyone consented to allowing John to submit late, then this categorical imperative forbids a late submission because, otherwise, the persons who did not consent are treated only as means. Utilitarianism and Kantian Theory, both are theories about criteria concerning action. In this case, the acceptance of a submitted proposal after the deadline for evaluation. However, they do so in different ways. Kantian Theory is about the principles behind our actions whereas Utilitarianism is about the consequences of our actions. Rather than taking the action as points of departure from moral judgments, Virtue Ethics focuses on the nature of the acting person. In this case Alex, which good or desirable characteristics should a person in the position of Alex have. In this case, we would expect from a virtuous person that he or she possesses the virtues reliability, objectivity, honesty, and impartiality. All these relevant virtues point toward not excepting John's proposal for evaluation. For example, with respect to honesty, it would not be fair towards the other candidates that there will be made an exception for John. And with respect to impartiality, John would receive preferential treatment if his proposal will be evaluated since his proposal is submitted after the deadline. As we have seen, the different ethical frameworks do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion. And if they do, they provide different reasons why an action is morally acceptable or not. Therefore, further reflection is required. The objective for this reflection is to come to a well argued choice whether an action is morally acceptable or not. The ethical frameworks can help with this reflection since they provide reasons. In the reflection, you have to argue whether these reasons are strong enough to justify the conclusion or that there are other reasons which are not covered by an ethical framework.