Ethical Theories compared

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 one’s 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 don’t 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)
—  Kant’s 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)
—  Kant’s 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 lying—though 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.