The Limit of Morality Revisited

How do we determine the right course of action? How do we distinguish between right and wrong? Are there instances where it is right to do something that is inherently wrong, or must one always act in a way that considers the nature of the act itself? When trying to decide what the morally correct action is for a particular scenario or moral dilemma, these are the questions that one usually has to attempt to answer in order to justify his or her actions in the moral sphere. If one subscribes to consequentialism, then the locus of ethical action lies in the outcome or consequences of one’s actions and regardless of what the specific act is that must be performed, or the feelings of the actor regarding carrying out such an action, the greatest good for the greatest number must ultimately prevail. In deontology, the locus of ethical action lies in the act itself, and regardless of whatever the circumstances of that particular situation may be, the act must be good in and of itself, in spite of the potentially harmful or undesirable consequences that might result from such an action. Finally, in virtue ethics, the locus of ethical action lies in the actor or agent, and one must cultivate oneself and habituate one’s nature so that one is most likely to act in the correct moral manner for any given situation. While each of these three schools offer fairly equally compelling ways to determine action on a small scale, when applied to larger sectors such as foreign aid deontology and virtue ethics appear to fall short, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be cast aside. When trying to determine the best course of action on a large scale, one must act in accordance with consequentialism, but should still keep the principles of deontology and virtue ethics in view.