Normative Theories, Free Essay about Ethics

The decision-making process requires an individual to take caution and consider the results of their choices since there are consequences that follow every option. It is important for an individual to know how to act right and behave morally while considering the needs of others who may feel the effect of the decision (McCloskey 23). Normative ethics focuses on the ethical decisions people make when faced with a situation. It determines the extent of an action being right or wrong as well as the moral implications of an option. Normative ethics takes into consideration the reasoning behind certain beliefs in ethical decision-making. The essay will present the perception of different types of normative theories, Utilitarianism, Egoism, Kantian, Natural Law, and virtue ethics, about the destruction of the second death star by Luke, in the popular movie, Star Wars.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The utilitarianism perception towards the decision-making process would consider the destruction of the second death star as a neutral action. This is because if the death star's existence would benefit a large number of people, then it would be considered as wrong to destroy it (Plunkett and Timothy 15). The benefits of the death star depend on the perception of Darth Vader and his troop, who controlled its existence. On the other hand, according to Luke's view, who took part in the destroying the death star, its existence would lead to more disadvantages than benefits to the Jedi members. Either decision would have had a maximized utility since each had their perception towards the death star.

The egoist ethical consideration would put their needs and self-satisfaction following the destruction of the death star. Luke had lost his parents to Darth Vader as well as his adoptive guardians, his aunt, and uncle. Therefore, he might have had sinister revenge to take against Darth Vader and an opportunity in destroying the second death star was a golden chance for him (Kagan 44). His motivation might have surpassed the long-term benefits other individuals would enjoy with the destruction of the death star. Therefore, in this case, Luke might have killed the death star based on the personal motives as opposed to the assumption his people would benefit more.

According to the Kantian ethics, the destruction of the second death star would be right since Luke would have considered whether his actions would or would not bring more happiness to individuals. The first death star had a potential of destroying the earth and its occupants since Darth Vader was using the natural force to engage in sinful activities (McCloskey 26). However, since it was destroyed and the second death star would have more implications and destruction, then it was right to terminate it since it would generate sadness for most individuals. Any person who was against the evil powers would have done the same action of destroying the second death star if they found the opportunity like Luke did.

Using the natural law perception as developed by Thomas Aquinas, the response in the destruction of the second death star would justify Luke's actions since he possessed the rights by him being human (Plunkett and Timothy 18). Every individual has rights endowed to them by nature and only their ability to reason can enable them to make independent decisions. For instance, Luke may have decided to destroy the second death star since he understood the implications of its existence and the effect it would have on human beings (Kagan 40). The fact that Luke was responsible and made an independent decision on behalf of a large number of people justifies his actions.

In virtue ethics, Aristotle would have argued that the destruction of the second death star was justified since Luke was compassionate and empathetic on the distraction its existence would have on his race and other creatures in the planet (Plunkett and Timothy 58). Luke may have considered the interdependence that exists in the society as well as relationships that must be in a community that live together in harmony. If the second death star were not destroyed, it would affect the lives of many creatures negatively which would distract the peaceful co-existence among people.

I believe the egoist approach is correct. People first take into account the benefits they will have when they engage in different actions. If there are benefits, then one is likely to have intrinsic motivation to decide within the shortest time possible. This means that when one benefit and others do or do not, it does not make any difference to the person since they already felt the effect they wanted in the beginning. In addition, once one takes care of their personal needs, they will be in a position to think about what others deserve. For instance, Luke might have been on a personal mission to destroy the second death star with the aim of punishing his offender. However, his decision benefited him and the entire planet as well which was by default.

Works Cited

Kagan, Shelly. Normative ethics. Routledge, (2018):40-54.

McCloskey, Henry John. Meta-ethics and normative ethics. Springer, (2013): 23-69.

Plunkett, David, and Timothy Sundell. "Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms." (2013): 18-24.