A Comparative Analysis of Virtue Ethics and Utilitarianism in Contemporary Moral Decision-Making

Thesis Abstract

This study explores the comparative efficacy of virtue ethics and utilitarianism in shaping moral decision-making processes within contemporary contexts, addressing the ongoing debate regarding the relative virtues and limitations of these moral frameworks in practical ethical dilemmas. Recognizing the increasing complexity of moral choices faced by individuals and organizations in a pluralistic society, the primary aim of this research is to critically evaluate how virtue ethics and utilitarianism influence moral judgments and actions, and to identify contextual factors that affect their applicability. Specific objectives include examining the theoretical foundations of both ethical theories, analyzing their operationalization in real-world decision-making, and assessing practitioners' perceptions of their relevance and effectiveness. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research adopts a convergent parallel design to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative component involves a survey administered to 300 professionals from diverse sectors such as healthcare, business, and public service, selected through stratified random sampling to ensure representativeness. The questionnaire, developed based on existing validated instruments and tailored to assess moral reasoning aligned with virtue ethics and utilitarian principles, utilizes Likert-scale items and scenario-based questions. The qualitative component comprises semi-structured interviews with 20 experienced ethicists and decision-makers, purposively sampled to provide depth and contextual insight into moral reasoning processes. Data collection instruments include the survey instrument and interview guides, both subjected to pilot testing for content validity and reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.85 for key scales. Data analysis involves descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, alongside inferential techniques such as multiple regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test hypotheses related to the influence of individual and contextual variables on moral choices. Thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s methodology, is employed to interpret interview transcripts, facilitating identification of patterns and explanatory themes regarding the application of virtue ethics and utilitarianism in practice. Expected findings suggest that both ethical frameworks significantly influence moral decision-making, with virtue ethics being more prevalent among professionals emphasizing character development and moral integrity, and utilitarianism dominating in scenarios prioritizing outcome maximization and cost-benefit analyses. The study anticipates discovering substantial variations in the perceived suitability of each framework across different sectors and organizational cultures. It is also projected that the integration of virtue ethics and utilitarian principles could offer a more comprehensive approach to moral reasoning, accommodating both character virtues and consequential considerations. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence on the contextual applicability of two prominent ethical theories, expanding understanding of their interaction and relative strengths in various moral dilemmas. It offers theoretical insights aligned with the theories of Aristotle and Mill, respectively, and suggests pragmatic strategies for enhancing ethical decision-making through balanced incorporation of virtues and outcomes. The study concludes that effective moral decision-making in contemporary settings requires a nuanced appreciation of both virtue ethics and utilitarianism, recommending the development of integrated moral frameworks within professional training curricula. Further research should explore longitudinal influences of ethical education on practitioners’ moral judgments and extend investigations to cross-cultural contexts to enhance the universality of findings and contribute to global ethical discourse.