Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which means that an accomplishment is right as far as it has a propensity to encourage happiness and wrong as far as it is more likely to generate the opposite of happiness. It also emphasizes that happiness should be generated not only in the performer of a taken action, but as well in everyone being influenced by it. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to general utility, which means the summed amount of happiness or satisfaction it produces among all people. The concept promoted by the theory is often expressed by the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, and is also referred to as “the greatest happiness principle”. The theory makes an individual face an ethical dilemma: what to do in order your actions to produce the best consequences possible? However, this principle is often difficult to put into practice, and it usually produces a lot of ambivalences. For example, we believe lying and stealing to be harmful practices. On the other hand, infrequent lie to keep yourself away from embarrassment or an occasional stealing from a wealthy man would not have bad consequences, and therefore be allowable or even necessary according to Utilitarianism.

Kantian ethics that is based upon the teachings of the philosopher Immanuel Kant suggests that the notion of “motive” is the most significant aspect of verifying what is ethical. Kant claimed that a moral action is one that is carried out of a “sense of duty.” The theory also posits that moral action is not founded upon feelings or pity, as well as is it is not motivated by the prospect of reward. Kant suggests that moral action is one based on a notion which can be expressed by phrase “This is what I ought to do.” For instance, according to Kant, assisting an old lady across the street because you feel sympathy for her is not a moral act, as well as assisting her in order to make people thing better of you is not a moral act also. What is believed to be moral though is helping an old lady because you are feeling yourself obliged to do that because of a sense of duty to help the elderly. Anyway, it is obvious that Kant’s approach gives little help for complicated situations, when there is confusion between several duties for instance. Moreover, Kant rejects emotions such as compassion and sympathy as unrelated to morality. Kant’s approach pays too little attention to actual critical analysis of the consequences of the actions being taken.

Natural law theory is one of the most significant theories in the philosophy of Classical Realism. Natural law or the law of nature is a theory that suggests the existence of a law whose subject matter is set by nature and that thus has authority everywhere. By natural law we mean the “unwritten law” that is more or less similar for everyone and everywhere. To be more accurate, natural law is the idea of a system of set moral values that is universal to all humanity and, as it is normally posited, is identifiable by human reason solely. Thus natural law is differentiated from positive law (which is man-made), the formal legal endorsements of a particular society, and is more about providing a pattern for them. Natural law is defined by principle of the practical order which is the one that guides individual’s actions in all the operations, and is anxious about the “good,” since we operate in terms of what a least appear to be good to us. The major principle of natural law is though a formulation established upon the concept of the good and can be declared in the following way: The “good” (according to reason) ought to be done, and evil (what is opposite to reason) must be evaded. We can also simply communicate this idea by an expression “Do good and avoid evil.” However, can we actually know what is good and what is bad? Do we know everything about the natural law? We surely do not, from which we can conclude that the investigation of the natural law is a constantly unfolding venture. For example, slavery was once acknowledged as common and natural even by those who supported the natural law theory. The period of time and supplementary philosophical evidences naturally bring up new questions in natural law theory.

The apparent conclusion here is that our awareness of natural law is incomplete and almost certainly will always stay so. However, I prefer this theory to the other two. Even though having numerous defects, I think it relates to modern society in the best way possible. It does truly explain human behavior in the most adequate way, while the other two theories are mostly generating confusion.