Ethical Theories

A comparison of the three main branches of normative ethics

 Three main Ethical
Approaches
Three main approaches to normative ethics:

Virtue ethics (ethics of character)

Consequentialism

Deontology

The difference between these three approaches to

morality tends to lie more in the way of how moral
dilemmas are approached, rather than in the moral
conclusions reached.
Classification of Ethical
Theories
 Virtue Theory (ethics of
Character)
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and
the virtues that ones character embodies for determining
or evaluating ethical behaviour

The roots of this theory lie in the works of Plato and

Aristotle

Virtue ethics place an emphasis on being rather than

doing. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics,
morality stems from the identity and/or character of the
individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions
(or consequences thereof) of the individual.
 Virtue Theory

A virtue ethics philosopher will identify virtues,

desirable characteristics, that the moral or virtuous
person embodies. Possessing these virtues, in virtue
ethics, is what makes one moral, and one's actions are a
mere reflection of one's inner morality

To the virtue philosopher, action cannot be used as a

demarcation of morality, because a virtue encompasses
more than just a simple selection of action. Instead, it is
about a way of being that would cause the person
exhibiting the virtue to make a certain "virtuous" choice
consistently in each situation
 Virtue Theory

Aristotle suggested we should focus on virtues

which lead to what he called eudaimonia which
roughly translates as human flourishing

Virtue theorists stress that thinking, feeling and

acting should be harmoniously merged, so that a
person does what he wants, because for him there is
no distinction between I want to and I ought
to
 Difficulties with Virtue
Theory
There is a great deal of disagreement within virtue
ethics over what are virtues and what are not

There are also difficulties in identifying what is the

"virtuous" action to take in all circumstances, and
how to define a virtue.

A system of virtue theory is only intelligible if it

includes an account of the purpose of human life, or
in popular language, the meaning of life
 In pairs, answer these
questions:
What sorts of characteristics do you think might
lead to eudaimonia?

Is eudaimonia an emotion? What is the relationship

between the two concepts?
Deontological Ethics (Kantian
Ethics or Duty Ethics)
places the emphasis on adhering to ethical
principles or duties and fulfilling obligations

How these duties are defined, however, is often a

point of contention and debate in deontological
ethics

Deontology also depends, at least partially, upon

meta-ethical realism, in that it postulates the
existence of moral absolutes that make an action
moral, regardless of circumstances.
Deontological Ethics (Kantian
Ethics or Duty Ethics)
Immanuel Kant argued that the way to decide if
something is a duty is to see whether or not you can
consistently generalize it he used logic and
reasoning
For example: is it our duty to keep a promise?
If we dont keep a promise then we can generalize
this to allow anyone to break a promise which
creates logical contradictions therefore we can
generalize a rule that it is our duty not to break a
promise
Deontological Ethics (Kantian
Ethics or Duty Ethics)
Kants approach we should each adopt a dual
conception of ourselves as individuals and as one
among many

This should lead us to some impartiality and

objectivity

Kant argued that no individual should be given

preferential treatment and no individual should be
discriminated against
Deontological Ethics (Kantian
Ethics or Duty Ethics)
Kants ethics also say that the moral value of an
action is determined by the motive rather than the
consequence
Our actions should be motivated by reason, rather
than by emotions you should not only do good
things when you feel like it
There are three reasons why you might do
something good: (1) you expect something in return
(2) sympathy (3) duty according to Kant, only (3)
gives moral value
 Criticisms of Kantian Ethics

Leads to moral absolutism, the belief that moral

principles should always be followed irrespective of
context -rule worship blindly following a rule
without regard to its consequence
Conflicts of duty two duties which suggest
opposite actions -eg if your wife is dying of cancer
and you cannot afford the drugs to cure her are you
justified in stealing the drugs
Moral coldness focuses too much on reason at the
expense of feelings and emotions
 In pairs answer these
questions:
Think of some situations where intention is more
important than outcome or vice versa. Must
intention play an important part in ethical theory?

Kant claims that helping a friend just because you

like him is not a moral action. Do you agree?

What would Kant say about someone who, seeing a

sick person, was overcome with pity and went to
help them?
 Consequentialism

consequentialism bases the morality of an action

upon the consequences of the outcome

Instead of saying that one has a moral duty to

abstain from murder, a consequentialist would say
that we should abstain from murder because it
causes undesirable effects

The main contention here is what outcomes should/

can be identified as objectively desirable
 Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one form of consequentialism

which has as its main tenet that we should seek the
greatest happiness of the greatest number

Greatest Happiness Principle of John Stuart Mill

our determinant of the desirability of an action is

the net amount of happiness it brings, the number of
people it brings it to, and the duration of the
happiness.
 Arguments in favour of
Utilitarianism
Simple and coherent theory which is able to explain
our beliefs in terms of the greatest happiness
principle (GNH) simple way of solving moral
dilemmas

A democratic theory because each individual is

considered the best judge of what makes him or her
happy we take into account everyone in GNH
 Arguments in favour of
Utilitarianism
A rational theory because it encourages us to take
into account both short term and long term
consequences eg. Smoking in the short term vs
long term

Egalitarian theory people are all considered

equally regardless of status or wealth eg. It can
lead to a better distribution of wealth
 Criticisms of Utilitarianism

How do we measure happiness? How can we

compare the pleasure we get from radically different
experiences or objects and equate them into
happiness? Does pleasure even equate into
happiness?

How can we predict the consequences of our

actions? For example, saving the life of a baby
seems like a good thing what if that baby grows up
to be Hitler?
 Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Bad pleasures or empty pleasures suppose

someone gets pleasure from beating someone else
up.

Actions should be judged by motives not results

evil intent which creates a good result should not be
praised good intent which results in a bad result
should not be condemned
 Criticisms of Utilitarianism

There does not seem to be any scope for

consideration of moral obligations or human rights

For example we can lie as long as we make more

people happy however many people might feel
uncomfortable with lying just to make people happy

For example An orphan with no family is in

hospital for a simple operation. Beside him are two
individuals dying because one needs a liver
transplant and the other needs a kidney transplant
 In pairs, answer these
questions:
Make up an example of your own where it seems
that utilitarianism leads to a terrible and unjust
action.
 Comparing the Three
Ethical Approaches
For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is
wrong because of the negative consequences produced
by lyingthough a consequentialist may allow that
certain foreseeable consequences might make lying
acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is
always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that
might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would
focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead
consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said
about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying
would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be
based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit,
and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or
malevolent).
 In small groups, look at the moral
dilemmas on the sheet and do the
following:

Try to decide what you would do from the approach

of (i) virtue ethics (ii) Kantian (Duty) ethics (iii)
Utilitarianism

Which ethical approach would you choose? If you

would not choose one of the three approaches
explain why not.