RULES-BASED
NATURAL LAW-: This is a theory of ethics that say that if something is good, then it should be natural. 'Good' is defined as to fulfil a natural purpose, and 'badness' is going against a natural purpose.
This is way of making moral decisions does not help justify if honour crimes are good or bad. We do not know the purpose of living; it could be to live a fulfilling life or to do something proud or to reproduce. Therefore, seeing as the purpose of living is unknown, the natural law doesn't define the moral consequences behind honour killing.
KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE-: This ethical theory is 'rule-based', which means it focuses on whether the action is morally good or bad instead of considering the outcome of this action. Kant's thought that we should only perform an action whether we are willing to universalize the action. An action which is acceptable in one situation should be therefore acceptable in all situation.
This, again, does not help us to make a decisions whether or not to commit honour crimes as the person is affected by the honour crimes would say that honour crimes should not be practised because it scars them both mentally and physically. However, the murder would say that they should universalize honour killing as honour is a very important thing in order to live a fulfilling life. This way of making decision is very opinionated as different people would have different opinions.
This is way of making moral decisions does not help justify if honour crimes are good or bad. We do not know the purpose of living; it could be to live a fulfilling life or to do something proud or to reproduce. Therefore, seeing as the purpose of living is unknown, the natural law doesn't define the moral consequences behind honour killing.
KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE-: This ethical theory is 'rule-based', which means it focuses on whether the action is morally good or bad instead of considering the outcome of this action. Kant's thought that we should only perform an action whether we are willing to universalize the action. An action which is acceptable in one situation should be therefore acceptable in all situation.
This, again, does not help us to make a decisions whether or not to commit honour crimes as the person is affected by the honour crimes would say that honour crimes should not be practised because it scars them both mentally and physically. However, the murder would say that they should universalize honour killing as honour is a very important thing in order to live a fulfilling life. This way of making decision is very opinionated as different people would have different opinions.
CONSEQUENCE/ENDS BASED = TELEOLOGICAL
UTILITARIANISM -: This ethical theory decides whether an action is morally good or bad is by looking at the outcome of the action. The moral thing is to do in any situation is whatever will produce the greatest benefit for the largest number of people.
This helps us to a certain extent because this will depend merely on the fact on how many are in favor of honour killing. If lots of people want to kill in the name of honour, this method will encourage killing. However, if it is the other way around, then honour killing would be morally wrong.
SITUATION ETHICS-: Joseph Fletcher based the theory of Situation Ethics on agapé. Agapé refers to selfless, caring and concerned love instead of the romantic kind. The moral thing to do, according to Fletcher, is to do whatever you believe to be the most selfless thing. There are no rigid rules in this ethical theory as each person must consider each situation independently.
This formulae is the only one which tries to tell us that honour crimes are bad because killing innocent being for making a decision is no selfless, caring or concerned love. This is the only one which says that you should not kill for honour.