The idea is that there is a mean that we should strive toward. For example, we should neither eat too much food nor should we exercise too much. In doing so we diminish from excellence. Some think that Aristotle's mean is ironically enough, meaningless. Their perspective is that this mean is still esoteric in that the goal is subjective. What I think is too much may be enough for another but does not create a sense of ethical boundaries. (Groarke, 2015). .
1B: Confucius' Golden Mean.
It was a model that was founded long ago and also called Confucianism. In Confucius' Doctrine of the Mean we find a similar thread to Aristotle only there is an implied center of balance. That every person is working toward a constant state of equilibrium based on balance and harmony. The approach to ethics in this sense is that one should always be aware of the central truth of things. Business and communication can be a difficult thing to manage together but balance can often help to guide ethical decisions.
2A: Kant's Categorical Imperative.
He says that a good rule is universal and independent of the outcome (Casmir, 2013). You have probably heard of the term the end does not justify the means. This would be a Kantical statement. For example, pro-life activists often say that a woman's choice to be free of a pregnancy should not justify the taking of a life. Outside of the circumstances of being inside a woman's body, should a life ever be taken. This is probably the most difficult and inflexible of all of the models. There is no hierarchy of developing decisions. It is all or nothing. So for it to qualify as right, it has to be free from any 'motives and desires'. When you are carrying any motives and desires in your actions whether good or bad, you are not being morally obligated to the other individual.
2B: Islam's Divine Commands.
People of faith believe that anything pertaining to ethics and morality are left to God who dictates what is absolute right and wrong.
