Ethical Systems

Meanings
The meanings of the following words are difficult to define but it is helpful to try
to distinguish between them

Morality/Morals
- beliefs and standards of good and bad, right and wrong, that people
actually follow in a society. Morality is the practice of what people do and
believe.
Ethos
- the predominant morality/morals of a cultural community
Human Values
- names for states of affairs that conform to what is right and that further
the human good. They are prized and promoted, i.e., autonomy, honesty,
justice, knowledge, etc.
Ethics
- the study of morality. It gives a philosophical account of justified behavior
and belief. It spells out the reasons why a rational person ought to accept
the answers he or she gets. It develops rules and ideals that spell out
standards of good and bad.
Different values may come from
different ethical systems
 Examples of Ethical Systems
Ethical relativism

Divine command theory

Virtue ethics

Utilitarianism

Deontology (from the Latin root "deon" meaning duty, or obligation.)

Social Contract theory

 ETHICAL RELATIVISM
No principles are universally valid.

All moral principles are valid

relative to cultural tastes. The rules
of the society serve as a standard.
Brings about tolerance of
other cultures.
Keeps societies from falling
apart.

Confuses what ought to be done

BUT with what is currently done
Confuses custom with values

Examples of practices that have been considered ethical that most modern
societies no longer agree with:
Cannibalism
Slavery
Unequal treatment of women
 Subjective relativism
Each person decides right and wrong for him
or herself
Since well-meaning
and intelligent The line between right
and wrong is not
people can have sharply drawn
opposite opinions
who is to decide Makes no moral
distinction between
Ethical debates are actions
pointless It is not the same as
both sides are right tolerance indeed is
but incompatible with
universal tolerance
no-one is all
knowing It is not necessarily
based on reason
 Cultural relativism
right and wrong rests with society
different societies may have different rights and wrong
It represents the Just because societies
reality of a history of have different views it
changing ideas about doesnt mean that they
what is acceptable ought to
How should the individual
One society should relate to a society he or
not judge another she disagrees with
The actual behaviour Societies change through
of people is close to the actions of individuals
what a society who act against the
believes is right or accepted ethos
wrong How to resolve conflict
Are there shared core
values?
Based on tradition not
reason
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
Moral standards depend on God who is all-knowing.
Any act that conforms to the law of God is right;
An act that breaks God's law is wrong

Standards are from a higher authority Can be arbitrary depending on

than humans. interpretation.

Gives reasons why man should BUT Can we know the true divine
behave morally. authority?

Gives worth to all equally. Can lead to conflict between

different cultures and
Little ambiguity. societies

Examples:
Religions point believers to rules in the Bible (like the Ten Commandments)
or Koraan or to the authority of religious leaders who interpret Gods rules
for us (e.g. Papal authority)
 Problems with Divine Command Theory

1. There are many holy books

and their teachings disagree
2. Not all moral problems are
addressed directly in scripture
3. We live in a multicultural
secular society
4. It is fallacious to equate the
good with God good is
something that exits outside
God
5. Divine Command Theory is
based on obedience not
reason
VIRTUE ETHICS
Morals are internal.
It seeks to produce good people
who act well out of spontaneous
goodness.
It emphasizes living well and
achieving excellence.
It internalize moral Offers no guidance for
BUT
behaviour. resolving ethical
dilemmas
Examples:
It might be ethical for the teacher to give a student who tries very hard in class
higher marks than someone whose work is equally good but does not make
the same effort it will make the teacher feel good and it rewards virtue
What kind of
ethics does
this advert
indicate?
UTILITARIANISM
Actions are judged right or wrong solely by
their consequences.
Right actions are those that produce the greatest
balance of happiness over unhappiness.
Each person's happiness is equally important.

One person's good can be

Promotes human well-
being and attempts to
lessen human
suffering.
another's evil.
BUT
It is hard to predict
accurately all the
consequences of an
action.

Example:
In the Tuskagee syphilis study that the imformation gained would benefit all
people at the cost of a few.
 Jeremy Bentham
The father of utilitarianism
I saw crimes of the most pernicious nature passing unheeded by
the law: acts of no importance put in point of punishment upon a
level with the most baneful crimes: punishments inflicted without
measure and without choice: satisfaction denied for the most
crying injuries: the doors of justice barred against a great majority
of the people by the pressure of wanton impositions and
unnecessary expense: false conclusions ensured in questions of
fact by hasty and inconsistent rules of evidence: the business of
hours spun out into years: impunity extended to acknowledged
guilt and compensation snatched out of the hands of injured
innocence: the measure of decision in many cases unformed: in
others locked up and made the object of a monopoly: the various
rights and duties of the various classes of mankind jumbled
together into one immense and unsorted heap: men ruined for not
knowing what they are neither enabled nor permitted ever to
learn: and the whole fabric of jurisprudence a labyrinth without a
clew. These were some of the abominations which seemed to
present themselves to my view.
 Principle of Utility
Greatest Happiness Principle
An action is right or wrong to the
extent that it increases or
decreases the total happiness
of the affected parties

Act Utilitarianism the principle of

utility applied to individual
moral action, calculated by the
individual on each occasion

Rule Utilitarianism the principle

of utility applied to moral rules
that if everyone follows that will
lead to the greatest increase in
happiness
Assessing Benefits (and harms)
Must consider
Intensity magnitude of the experience
Duration how long the experience lasts
Certainty probability it will happen
Propinquity how close is the experience in time and
space
Fecundity its ability to produce more experiences
Purity extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain
Extent number of people affected
 Act Utilitarianism
It focuses on happiness It is not clear where to draw
It is down to earth the line who or what to
include in the assessment of
It is comprehensive
greatest happiness
It is not practical to calculate
the possible outcome of every
action
It ignores our sense of duty
It is susceptible to the problem
of moral luck unintended
outcomes may result
 Advantages of Rule utilitarianism
It is easier to calculate
than act utilitarianism
society makes the
calculations and
establishes the rules
Reliance on rules
simplifies action
Exceptional situations do
not overthrow the rules
It solves the problem of
moral luck
 Focusing on consequences I
There are problems in
basing an ethical decision
on the consequences
They relate to the motives of
the participant and can be
discussed under two
headings
Acts and omissions
Intentions and foresight
 Acts and Omissions
The acts and omissions doctrine holds
that, there is an ethical difference
between doing something with a known
bad consequence and not doing
something with the same bad
consequence.
The reasons usually given in support of
the acts and omissions doctrine are that
acts tend to generate harmful by-
products which omissions are not likely
to generate.
It has also been argued that agents
have a greater degree of moral
responsibility for the consequences of
their acts than they do for the
consequences of their omissions.
 For example, in the debate on
voluntary euthanasia it has been
argued that it would be ethically
unacceptable to actively kill
someone while it might be all
right to refrain from providing life-
sustaining treatment.
Arguably the consequences of
actively killing a dying patient and
the omission of providing life-
sustaining treatment to that
patient could be the same,
namely the death of the terminally
ill patient.
 Intentions and foresights
Similarly it might be argued that there
is a difference between intending
something bad and foreseeing that
something bad will happen as the
unintended outcome of an action

For example you might foresee the

death of a terminally ill patient as a
consequence of too high a dosage of
painkillers without intending their death.
The genuine intention may well have
been to relieve the suffering, without
wanting to terminate the patient's life.
Yet, the patient's death was a foreseen
consequence of our action.
The net outcome of both actions is
identical, hence the moral question is
whether the fact that one merely
foresees a certain outcome but does
not intend it, should make a difference
for the ethical evaluation of the action.
 Focusing on consequences II
Utilitarians do not consider
that motivations matter
only the consequences
matter so they reject the Acts
and Omissions doctrine and
the distinction between
Intentions and Foresight
They judge a person who
could, but didn't act to save
the life of a starving child, in
the same manner as
someone who actively killed
a child.
DEONTOLOGY OR KANTIANISM

Emphasis is on moral rules and duty.

Emphasis on autonomy, justice and kind acts.
People treated as ends, never means.

It says nothing about other

It provides a special moral living things.
status for humans. BUT
Rules can be rather abstract and
Moral rules are universal. have unintended
consequences
The emphasis on human rights and the use of international courts to
establish right and wrong and justice stems from a deontological
approach
 Immanuel Kant 1724-1804.
Kant the German philosopher, arguably the greatest philosopher since
Aristotle, was very important in establishing the deontological approach.
Kants moral theory is stated in his book The Groundwork for the Metaphysics
of Morals.
 The Categorical Imperative
Kantianism is a deontological
moral theory which claims
that the right action in any
given situation is
determined by the
categorical imperative.

Act only from moral rules

that you can at the same
time will to be universal
moral laws.
 The Golden
Rule
Do unto others what you would
have them do unto you
- A summation of and Jesus
beatitude
All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do
ye even so unto them.
Or from Moses
Whatever is hurtful to you, do
not to any other person.
 Morality and imperatives:
What does it mean for one's duty to be determined by the
categorical imperative?

What is an imperative?
An imperative is a command.
"Pay your taxes!"
"Stop kicking me!"
"Don't kill animals!"

What is a categorical imperative?

A categorical imperative is a command that applies to

everyone and is impossible to opt out of.

A categorical imperative is contrasted with a hypothetical

imperative, which is a command that applies to only
some people.

An example of a hypothetical imperative, someone says to

you, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you
aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command.
 The categorical imperative
The categorical imperative asks you to perform two tests on a maxim in order to find out if an
action (done from that maxim) is permissible.
First, you must try to imagining that the maxim is a universal law of nature, just like gravity or
other natural laws. If there is some contradiction in trying to imagine this, then the action is
impermissible.
Second, you must be able to consistently will that it be a law of nature (it must not conflict with
other maxims).

Anything which fails either of these tests is immoral and contrary to duty.

Kant's example is this:

Can one act on the maxim, I will refuse to give aid to those who are in need.
I can imagine this being a universal law of nature, because there is no contradiction in no one ever
giving anyone else aid.
However, I cannot consistently will that it be a law of nature, because it conflicts with other goals
which I will (specifically with my goal of happiness, which all humans share).
I could not expect to be happy without the help of others, so I cannot consistently will both that I be
happy and that not giving aid be a law of nature. Thus, acting on the maxim of not helping others
is impermissible.
 Morality and categorical
imperatives:
Morality must be based on the categorical imperative
because morality is such that you are commanded by it,
and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it
does not apply to you.

The categorical imperative states, crudely, that you are not

allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be
willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not
allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if
you expect other people to keep their promises, then you
are obligated to keep your own promises.
 It denies that the morally right action is
determined by its consequences (this
contrasts with Utilitarianism). Kantian ethics
An action may be right even if it leads
to a situation that is not the best
possible situation (it may be right even
if it leads to one of the worst situation).

A deontological theory claims that the

right action is determined by what the
persons duty is.

It further claims that one should

always do what it is one's duty to do.

According to Kant a good person is someone

who always does their duty because it is
their duty. It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but
it must be the case that they would do it
even if they did not enjoy it. The overall
theme is that to be a good person you must
be good for goodness sake (but this focus
on duties contrasts this with virtue ethics).
Every maxim (moral rule) you act
on must be such that you are
willing to make it the case that
everyone always act on that
Kantian maxims
maxim when in a similar
situation.

For example, if you wanted to lie to

get something you wanted, you
would have to be willing to
make it the case that everyone
also lied to get what they
wanted - but if this were to
happen no one would ever
believe you, so the lie would not
work and you would not get
what you wanted.

So, if you willed that such a maxim

(of lying) should become a
universal law, then you would
thwart your goal - thus, it is
impermissible to lie, according
to the categorical imperative. It
is impermissible because the
only way to lie is to make an
exception for yourself.
 The Kantian
idea of moral
worth
This distinctions
here are based
largely on the
motivation.
 Kant is not concerned with
intentions or outcomes
In some ethical systems
intended consequences
are contrasted with actual
consequences but Kant
thought that neither
actual nor intended
consequences are
relevant.

Both types of
consequences are
irrelevant to moral worth.
 Intentions are not motivations
Kant claims that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is
properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action, which may
be selfish even if the intended consequences are good.

Consider the case of the US led invasion of Iraq. The stated motivation has
changed over time
1. The moral case
to wage war on international terrorism
arguably the consequence has been to greatly magnify the danger from
international terrorism but this is irrelevant to the morality of the invasion.

2. An alternative (real?) motivation is immoral

- to gain control a major source of oil and establish a powerbase in the Middle
East if a good consequence is that the tyrant Saddam Hussein was
deposed and (hopefully) democracy comes to Iraq, that is irrelevant the
invasion was morally wrong.
 Why consequences don't matter:
A reason why Kant is not concerned with consequences can be seen in
the following example.

Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one night, and
each of them decides to drive home very drunk. They drive in
different directions through the middle of nowhere. One of them
encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without incident
regardless of totally reckless driving. The other drunk is not so lucky
and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian
with the car.

Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally
bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not make them any
better than the other drunk. After all, they both made the same
choices, and nothing within either one's control had anything to do
with the difference in their actions.

The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons. If
both people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy,
even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad
consequences by bad luck.
 Kantian ethics explains how people with greatly differing
moral opinions can still have respect for each other as
people.
Kant's theory has the advantage that a
person is totally in control of whether
they are a good person.

A person does not have to be in a

position of power and be able to bring
about good consequences in order to
be a good person, all that they need to
do is to act for the right reasons. This
makes Kant's theory fairly egalitarian.

There is a resonance here with

religious teaching do unto others as
you would be done by and celebrating
the repenting sinner, the returning
prodigal son as active do-gooders
more than the good person who is
good out of habit.
 The case against Kantianism

Sometimes no single rule fully

characterizes an action
For example a father steals food to feed his starving children. He sgould not
steal but he should feed his children

There is no way to resolve conflicts

between rules
Which is more important not stealing or feeding children

Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral

laws
Lying is unethical but what about lying so as not hurt someones feelings
 Differences between Kantian and
Utilitarian bioethical decision
making.
Is it ethically justifiable to let one "innocent" human being die in order to
save ten similar others who are in need of organ transplants?

All other things being equal, a Kantian would argue that it

utilitarians would conclude that it is is unacceptable to kill
right to kill one person to save the
lives of ten others,.

Kantians are not concerned with the consequences of actions, but rather with
the question of whether one can consistently wish to be treated by other
rational agents in the same manner as one desires to act in a comparable
situation.
Kantian bioethicists tend to defend absolutist positions, such as the rejection of
some kinds of medical rerseach, irrespective of the continued suffering this
may allow
 The Social Contract

Ideas developed by
Thomas Hobbes
 Social Contract Theory
Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people
are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to
accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that
others follow those rules as well.
It is based on universal moral rules that can be derived by
a rational process like Kantianism but emphasizes what
rules rational people are willing to accept as binding
It is unlike cultural relativism because it is based on facts
and values plus logical reasoning
It is based on rights and duties it recognizes the tension
between self-interest and common good
 The case against social contract
theory
No-one signed up to it
Some problems can be viewed
in various ways
It does not explain how to
solve a moral problem when
analysis reveals conflicting
rights
It may be unjust to people who
find it difficult to conform
 Distinguishing between ethical
systems
A test example:
A champion athlete finds it increasingly
difficult to maintain his position. He
knows that many of his competitors
are using performance enhancing
drugs. He asks for advice from a(n)

ETHICAL RELATIVIST (SUBJECTIVE AND

CULTURAL)
DIVINE COMMAND THEORIST
UTILITARIANIST (ACT AND RULE)
DEONTOLOGIST (KANTIANISM)
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORIST
VIRTUE ETHICIST
Which one of these said each of the following quotations.

Everybody else is doing
it. It's expected that
athletes use steroids
especially for increasing
strength.
The Bible says that your body
is the temple of the Lord and
God certainly wouldn't want you
to abuse it. Besides, if you're on
steroids it's like you're lying
because it's not your true
performance.
You are a valuable human
being and you shouldn't take
a chance on risking your
health just for a championship
and the glory to the school.
How could you even think of
doing such a thing? The
action of taking steroids is not
the right or good thing to do.
How could you live with your
conscience?
Its against the rules
to take steroids
2Its expected for body builders to
take steroids2
Maintaining your top position
means additional years of
sponsorship. You will also
encourage young athletes and give
the country something to be proud
of. The end justifies taking the
drug. Anyway they haven't really
proved that the steroids will affect
your health that much.
 How could you even think of
doing such a thing? The
action of taking steroids is not
Everybody else is doing the right or good thing to do.
it. It's expected that How could you live with your
athletes use steroids conscience?
especially for increasing DEONTOLOGIST
strength. ETHICAL
Maintaining your top position
RELATIVIST means additional years of
The Bible says that your body sponsorship. You will also
is the temple of the Lord and encourage young athletes and give
God certainly wouldn't want you the country something to be proud
to abuse it. Besides, if you're on of. The end justifies taking the
steroids it's like you're lying drug. Anyway they haven't really
because it's not your true proved that the steroids will affect
performance. your health that much.
DIVINE You are a valuable human UTILITARIANIST
COMMAND being and you shouldn't take
THEORIST a chance on risking your
health just for a championship
and the glory of the country.
VIRTUE ETHICIST
Another example

Its cheating to pretend you

have been fouled

Everyone else pretends If you pretend to be fouled we

to be fouled and takes will get a free kick and will win
a dive its expected of the game and get promoted to
you near the penalty the Premier league
box
No-one will know that you
are pretending The referee and
linesmen are looking
the other way and only
Its against the rules to your team mates will
pretend to be fouled know
 Ethical Systems
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
- No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural
tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
- Moral standards depend on God who is all-knowing. Any act that conforms to the law
of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.
UTILITARIANISM
- Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are
those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each
person's happiness is equally important.
DEONTOLOGY /KANTIANISM
- Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If not willing for everyone to follow the rule,
then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis on autonomy, justice and kind acts.
People treated as ends, never means. The word "deontological" comes from the root
"deon" which is a Latin word meaning duty, or obligation
VIRTUE ETHICS
- Morals are internal. It seeks to produce good people who act well out of
spontaneous goodness. It emphasizes living well and achieving excellence.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
- There are rules that have been agreed by society and if everyone follows them
everyone gains rights that are to their own benefit
Theory Motivation Criteria Focus
Kantianism Dutifulness Rules Individual
Act Utilitarianism Consequence Actions Group
Rule Consequence/Dut Rules Group
Utilitarianism y Rules Individual
Social Contract Rights
 Ethical standards of public bodies
Codes of ethics mention only
certain ethically significant
actions, and not all the
moral rules that would apply
to their member's actions
(The codes focus on matters
related to the responsibilities
and temptations specific to a
their profession.)
Professional societies are
concerned not only with
responsibility for the public
good, but with promoting
cooperation and goodwill
among members of their
profession.