Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics) is the branch of ethics concerned with establishing how things

should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or
wrong. It attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action.

Normative ethical theories are usually split into three main categories: Consequentialism, Deontology
and Virtue Ethics:

Teleological/Utilitarian Perspectives (Consequentialism)

2. Deontological/Duty-Based Perspectives

Teleological ethics: The rightness or wrongness of an action or policy is assessed by its consequences,
specifically by looking at the comparative balance of positive versus negative results. Utilitarianism is the
dominant version of teleological ethics.

For example, cost-benefit analysis is a type of teleological decision-making, where the ratio of the “cost”
of an action is weighed against the outcome or benefit.

Deontological ethics: There is an inherent rightness or wrongness to an action or choice, regardless of

the outcome or consequence. Certain obligations are considered an ethical duty, and should not be
subject to utilitarian reasoning.

In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action
itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts
are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.

Expressions such as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though
the heavens fall” are descriptive of the deontological approach.

Perspectives

Some Teleological/Utilitarian Perspectives: (Slide 8)

• Maximizing welfare/Utility as the ultimate goal

• Market values on land and environment are paramount

• “Price” is the common metric: highest and best economic use

• Value is determined through personal preferences and casting of dollar votes

• Benefit-cost analysis/contingent valuation

• Present discounting (i.e., the present is given moral priority)

Compare to some Deontological perspectives: (Slide 9)

• Individual rights and respect for personal autonomy

• Culpability and prevention of harm

• Social justice and equity

• Duties to future generations

• Duties to keep promises

• Duties to larger geographic publics/communities

Objective 4.2 Identify some plausible ethical quandaries that may confront emergency managers in
the catastrophe setting; discuss the relevance of applied ethics to catastrophe response actions as well
as planning and policy-formation.

The Utilitarian Approach

Utilitarianism - maximizing good for the greatest number of people -- was conceived in the 19th century
by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best.
Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of
good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available
to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived
from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm.
The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

2. The Rights Approach

The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker
Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or
himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that
people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they
have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be
manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.
Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an
incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we
choose.

• The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters
that significantly affect our choices.

• The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our
personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

• The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and
knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

• The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we
have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, ‘Does
the action respect the moral rights of everyone?’ Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the
rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

3. The Fairness or Justice Approach

The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral
question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it
show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out;
discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not
imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

4. The Common-Good Approach (slide 14)

This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked
to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and
goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato,
Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as
"certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and
environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include
affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an
unpolluted environment.
Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting
on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that
society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the
common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

5. The Virtue Approach

The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive,
which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful
reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest
potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion,
generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a
person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral
principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I
be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Deontic" redirects here. For the linguistic term, see Linguistic modality.

"Deontology" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the opposite of Ontology.

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is
the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.[citation needed]

It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to
your duty".[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[3] virtue ethics, and
pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his
book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[4] Older usage of the term goes back to
Jeremy Bentham, who coined it in c. 1826 to mean more generally "the knowledge of what is right and
proper".[5] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de
déontologie "ethical code", in the context of professional ethics.

Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a moral obligation may arise from
an external or internal source, such as a set of rules inherent to the universe (ethical naturalism),
religious law, or a set of personal or cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal
desires).

Deontology is the study of that which is an "obligation or duty", and consequent moral judgment on the
actor on whether he or she has complied.[citation needed] In philosophy and religion, states Bocheński,
there is an important distinction between deontic and epistemic authority.[6] A typical example of
epistemic authority, explains Anna Brożek, is "the relation of a teacher to his students; a typical example
of deontic authority is the relation between an employer and his employee".[7] A teacher has epistemic
authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and
appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey; in contrast, an employer has deontic authority in
the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or
appropriateness.[7]

Deontological philosophies[edit]

There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

Kantianism[edit]

Immanuel Kant

Main article: Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[8][9] First,
Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[10] Second, Kant
argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of
the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an
argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[11]
Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the
addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that
are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either
intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without
qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the
situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could
be called good without qualification except a good will.[11]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the
person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated
by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that
was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the
moral law'.[11] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they
have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only
good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for
the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love".[12]

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a
universal kingdom of ends.

Moral absolutism[edit]

[hide]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. (March 2014)

This section may stray from the topic of the article. (March 2014)

This article needs attention from an expert in Philosophy. (October 2014)

Some deontologists are moral absolutists, believing that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong,
regardless of the intentions of the moral agent or the resultant consequences. Immanuel Kant, for
example, argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor
of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a
bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it.

Divine command theory[edit]

Main article: Divine command theory

Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the 'divine command theory'. The divine
command theory is a cluster of related theories that state that an action is right if God has decreed that
it is right.[13] William of Ockham, René Descartes and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted
versions of this moral theory, according to Ralph Cudworth, as they all held that moral obligations arise
from God's commands.[14] The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to
it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not
because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on
Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they
do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly
speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to
covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides
the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that
Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine
command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

Consequentialism

This is the ethical theory that most non-religious people think they use every day. It bases morality on
the consequences of human actions and not on the actions themselves.

Consequentialism teaches that people should do whatever produces the greatest amount of good
consequences.

One famous way of putting this is 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'.

The most common forms of consequentialism are the various versions of utilitarianism, which favour
actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness.

Despite its obvious common-sense appeal, consequentialism turns out to be a complicated theory, and
doesn't provide a complete solution to all ethical problems.

Two problems with consequentialism are:

• it can lead to the conclusion that some quite dreadful acts are good

• predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very difficult

Non-consequentialism or deontological ethics

Non-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the consequences. It's the
theory that people are using when they refer to "the principle of the thing".

It teaches that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences, and people
should act accordingly.

CONSEQUENTIALISM

I. Ethical Egoism
A. Ethical egoism defines a morally right act as one that produces the greatest utility for oneself.
 Egoism is a prejudicial version of consequentialism because it considers consequences only
for oneself, not all individuals.
B. Isn’t ethical egoism ridiculously self-centered?
 It doesn’t prohibit acts that serve others as well as oneself.
 It still may require us to sacrifice our immediate interests for something better in the long
run.
 In fact, egoism calls us to do a great deal that helps others and promotes their good since
the good of others often ensures our own good as well.
C. Problems with ethical egoism
 The egoist’s motivation still appears to be entirely self-centered.
 Egoism does seem to prescribe morally wrong acts where these are truly to one’s own
advantage.
 Rachels: Moral equality is fundamental to morality, yet egoism considers only
one’s own interests, treating all others as of no moral worth compared with oneself.
 Egoism offers no reason for treating oneself as more valuable than others.
 Egoism generates practical inconsistencies.
 In the example of two men competing for a job, the more each tries to promote
only his own interests, the more likely the other’s interests will be undermined.
 While requiring each individual to promote his own interests in a
competitive situation, egoism effectively requires each to undermine
everyone else’s interests.
 It is in each person’s interests to enter into relationships of love and friendship.
But genuine love and friendship require us to sometimes sacrifice our own
interests for those of the other. Egoism thus requires us to act in relationships in
ways (sacrificially) that egoism forbids.
II. Psychological Egoism**
A. Psychological egoism maintains that all human beings, as a matter of psychological necessity, can
choose only what we think is best for ourselves. 
 Thus, ethical egoism is the only realistic moral theory—we couldn’t make choices against
our own interests and solely for the sake of others even if we tried!
B. Does the evidence support the egoist’s claim that all human choices are self-serving, selfish choices?
 All of my choices are guided by my values—and so dictated by my interests.
 But just because I must make my choices, it doesn’t follow that my choices must
be self-serving.
 My values don’t have to be self-serving.
 The choices that look best to me don’t have to be what I think are
best for me.
 Sincere evaluations of our own motives suggest that our intent is
sometimes to benefit others, even when this goes against our own
interests.
 We can readily distinguish the difference between self-serving and other-
serving choices.
C. If psychological egoism is maintained against all evidence, then it becomes empty.
  If we were to accept psychological egoism as true, then we couldn’t call any choice
“unselfish.”
 Both “unselfish” and even “selfish” would disappear from use.
 All choices would be “selfish” by definition.
 “Human choice” and “selfish choice” would come to mean the same thing.
 Thus, the psychological egoist’s claim that “All human choices are selfish
choices” would mean the same as “All human choices are human
choices.”
 This is true but empty.
D. Psychological egoism thus appears to be either false or empty.
E. Even if it were true that we always make selfish choices (psychological egoism), that wouldn’t
support the conclusion that we ought to make selfish (self-centered) choices (ethical egoism).

Some Helpful Hints

 Utility: in its most general sense, utility is whatever is to be
promoted by a consequentialist theory and is based on
something desirable. Traditional consequentialists thought of
utility as pleasure (highly measurable) or happiness or some
equivalent.
 Disutility: usually the opposite of the utility concept—for
traditional consequentialists, that would be pain and
unhappiness.  
 To arrive at the resulting utility, reduce the sum of utility by
whatever amount of disutility there is in the consequences.
 To determine what is right according to ethical egoism, you
must consider all of the utility and disutility resulting from a
given choice and compare that with your other choices. The
choice that yields the greatest resulting utility is the morally
right choice; all other choices are wrong. Be sure to take long-
run considerations into account. Do not consider effects on
others unless those will benefit you!
 **Don’t confuse ethical egoism with psychological egoism.
Ethical egoism is about what makes something morally right or
wrong—what choices we ought to make. Psychological egoism
is about human psychology—what determines our choices.
Psychological egoism is a descriptive psychological theory;
ethical egoism is a normative moral theory.**

Chapter Summary
Everything we do has consequences. Consequentialism defines what is morally good or right in terms of effects or
consequences. Sometimes consequentialists define the good and right prejudicially, in terms of desirable consequences
for certain individuals but not for others. In most consequentialist accounts, however, all individuals are treated
impartially. Another issue has to do with what should count as a desirable or undesirable consequence. Following
common practice, we will describe any desirable consequence as having positive utility or, more simply, utility. An
undesirable consequence has disutility.
What, then, is our definition of utility? Hedonistic theories define utility as pleasure/happiness, disutility as pain.
Hedonists view pleasure as the only fundamental good, which should always be promoted. But there are morally bad
pleasures; also, there are other sorts of things that seem to be as good (or better) than pleasure. Further, although it is
true that people do pursue pleasure, it doesn’t follow that they ought to. Finally, pleasure and happiness are not really
the same. In response to such points, some consequentialists understand utility to include happiness rather than mere
pleasure.
In his attempt to make utility encompass happiness while remaining something we can measure, Mill introduced the
notion of different qualities of experience and proposed that we give greater moral weight to higher quality pleasures.
To determine which experiences are of higher or lower quality, we should ask those who are sufficiently familiar with
both kinds of experiences. The problem is that this strategy ultimately seems to require that we already have an ethical
theory to refer to. Other consequentialists have moved beyond traditional hedonism by defining utility as merely the
absence of pain or as whatever takes every individual’s personal preferences into account or as that which is in our
best interests. Fortunately, we don’t need to settle on a specific concept of utility to proceed with our examination of
several particular consequentialist theories.
Our first consequentialist theory, ethical egoism, requires that a person always act so as to promote the greatest utility
for himself. Although this prejudicial account may initially appear extremely selfish, egoism nevertheless can require
that we make personal sacrifices and help others. Still, it can also require us to act in ways that can greatly harm
others. In addition to this problem with moral confirmation, egoism has problems with practicability. For instance, it
can require two people to act in ways that undermine each other’s interests; further, although egoism requires egoists
to seek love, it appears to preclude genuine love.
**Psychological egoism claims that human beings are capable of making only self-centered and self-serving choices.
More simply, it maintains that all human choices are selfish choices. If this is true, then ethical egoism may be the
only realistic moral theory—a compelling reason (egoists maintain) for accepting ethical egoism. Nevertheless,
psychological egoism appears to be either false or empty. Yet, even if it were true, it is doubtful that it could provide
any actual support for ethical egoism.** 

VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or consequences
of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits and behaviours that will allow a
person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good life), counsels practical wisdom to resolve any
conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect
constitutes, happiness and the good life.

Eudaimonism is a philosophy originated by Aristotle that defines right action as that which leads to "well
being", and which can be achieved by a lifetime of practising the virtues in one's everyday activities,
subject to the exercise of practical wisdom. It was first advocated by Plato and is particularly associated
with Aristotle, and became the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval
periods. It fell out of favour in the Early Modern period, but has recently undergone a modern
resurgence.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics looks at virtue or moral character, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the
consequences of actions - indeed some philosophers of this school deny that there can be such things as
universal ethical rules.

Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the way individuals live their lives, and less concerned in
assessing particular actions.

It develops the idea of good actions by looking at the way virtuous people express their inner goodness
in the things that they do.

To put it very simply, virtue ethics teaches that an action is right if and only if it is an action that a
virtuous person would do in the same circumstances, and that a virtuous person is someone who has a
particularly good character.

DEONTOLOGY

Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves,
as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues that decisions
should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights (the Greek 'deon' means
'obligation' or 'duty').

Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is right if God has
decreed that it is right, and that an act is obligatory if and only if (and because) it is commanded by God.
Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands, and the rightness of any action depends upon that
action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that
action. William of Ockham, René Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all accepted versions of this
moral theory.

Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke), which holds that
humans have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights that are inherent in the nature of
ethics, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs). This eventually developed into what we today
call human rights.

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational capacity and asserts
certain inviolable moral laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in that he argues that to act in the
morally right way, people must act according to duty, and that it is the motives of the person who
carries out the action that make them right or wrong, not the consequences of the actions. Simply
stated, the Categorical Imperative states that one should only act in such a way that one could want the
maxim (or motivating principle) of one's action to become a universal law, and that one should always
treat people as an end as well as a means to an end.

Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is right if God has
decreed that it is right, and that an act is obligatory if and only if (and because) it is commanded by God.
Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands, and the rightness of any action depends upon that
action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that
action. William of Ockham, René Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all accepted versions of this
moral theory.

Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke), which holds that
humans have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights that are inherent in the nature of
ethics, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs). This eventually developed into what we today
call human rights.

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational capacity and asserts
certain inviolable moral laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in that he argues that to act in the
morally right way, people must act according to duty, and that it is the motives of the person who
carries out the action that make them right or wrong, not the consequences of the actions. Simply
stated, the Categorical Imperative states that one should only act in such a way that one could want the
maxim (or motivating principle) of one's action to become a universal law, and that one should always
treat people as an end as well as a means to an end.

Contractarian Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism) claims that moral norms derive their
normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. It holds that moral acts are those that
we would all agree to if we were unbiased, and that moral rules themselves are a sort of a contract, and
therefore only people who understand and agree to the terms of the contract are bound by it. The
theory stems initially from political Contractarianism and the principle of social contract developed by
Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, which essentially holds that people give up
some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive, or jointly preserve, social order.
Contractualism is a variation on Contractarianism, although based more on the Kantian ideas that ethics
is an essentially interpersonal matter, and that right and wrong are a matter of whether we can justify
the action to other people.

The deontological view of ethics differs from the teleological view in that actions are not evaluated as
moral or immoral based solely on their consequences. Rather, those who advocate deontological
theories believe that the morality of an action is grounded by some form of authority independent of
the consequences that such actions generate. Accordingly, on deontological accounts people must obey
the actions prescribed by morality not because of the consequences that will follow from such actions
but rather because they are duty bound to do so. Often deontological theories have used a god as the
authority which grounds morality and the Judaic and Christian conceptions of divine law are believed to
be the original inspiration for deontological ethics. However, it should be noted that not all
deontological theories of ethics make use of a supernatural being.

Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the
action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or
consequence. Consequentialist theories must consider questions like "What sort of consequences count
as good consequences?", "Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences
judged and who judges them?"

Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the greatest
number of people ("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of
pain). The origins of Utilitarianism can be traced back as far as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but its
full formulation is usually credited to Jeremy Betham, with John Stuart Mill as its foremost proponent.

Hedonism, which is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind, and that
individuals should strive to maximise their own total pleasure (net of any pain or suffering).
Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines
happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure).

The Ethical Question: Should we (i.e., George and I) hack into Danny’s computer, just to see if we can do
it (i.e., but not harm Danny’s computer)?

YES Me George Danny Total Grand Total

Amount of Pleasure +8 0 0 +8

Amount of Pain 0 -6 0 -6

YES: +2

NO
Amount of Pleasure 0 +2 0 +2

Amount of Pain -4 0 0 -4

NO: -2

EGOISM

Egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. Thus, Egoism may license
actions which are good for the individual, but detrimental to the general welfare. Individual Egoism
holds that all people should do whatever benefits him or her self. Personal Egoism holds that each
person should act in his own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do.
Universal Egoism holds that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.

Asceticism, which is, in some ways, the opposite of Egoism in that it describes a life characterized by
abstinence from egoistic pleasures especially to achieve a spiritual goal.

Altruism, which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone
except for himself, according to Auguste Comte's dictum, "Live for others". Thus, individuals have a
moral obligation to help, serve or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self-interest.

UTILITARIANISM

Result: More pleasure results from doing the action; therefore, we should do the action.

4. It is not true that certain acts are just intrinsically wrong, or wrong in their nature, so Act
Utilitarianism is a situational ethics. Lying, killing, etc., may be right, depending on the situation.

5. One must not allow one’s interests to weigh more heavily than the interests of others in the
calculation.

6. Questions: How do I weigh anxiety v. inconvenience? How can I predict what will happen? How can
I spend so much time on this stuff? Answers: there’s no escape from a consideration of probabilities in
rational decision-making, predict as best you can and weigh as best you can, considering the time you
have available for deliberation.

7. Three biomedical examples:

a. Severely impaired newborn has contracted pneumonia won’t survive more than 2 weeks. Should
you treat it with antibiotics, or let it die (withhold treatment)? The infant has nothing to gain, something
to lose in living longer; the parents will not stop suffering no matter what, hospital resources would be
better used elsewhere.

b. Biomedical researcher researching a new drug, knows it has prolonged nausea as a side effect – if
prospective volunteers know about the side effect, she won’t get volunteers to sign up, but if they don’t
know about it, there will be volunteers. Don’t deceive, because you’d ruin the integrity of
experimentation ethics.

c. Kidney dialysis: There’s room for one patient, two candidates. One is a woman, married, civic-
minded, 4 kids; the other is a man, unmarried drifter, alcoholic. It is clear that the woman is the right
choice. Based on social usefulness?

8. Assessment of Act Utilitarianism:

A. In favor of Mill’s ethical theory:

1. Intuitive in general: It links happiness with morality, instead of possibly pitting happiness
against morality (such

as Kant’s view). We think it makes sense with common beliefs about morality. For instance,
in general, it backs up

murder's being wrong, lying, rights. So Utilitarianism gives us a system to our intuitions.

2. Common sense that pain is bad, pleasure is good: Everything being equal, though people
have many

different and conflicting moral beliefs, people agree that pain is bad, and pleasure is good.

3. Impartial, fair, & promotes social harmony: Utilitarianism requires us to balance our
interests with those of

others.

4. Practical, clear-cut procedure: Act utilitarianism doesn’t rely on vague intuitions or abstract principles.
It allows psychologists and sociologists to determine what makes people happy and which policies
promote the social good [Warning: Do not use this as your main reason why you like this theory -
flipping a coin as Two Face in "The Dark Knight" is a simple ethical decision procedure, but that by itself
does not make it a good theory].

5. Flexible and sensitive to circumstances: Act utilitarianism tries to maximize happiness for each set of
people in their situation. Different actions will be right or wrong depending on the people involved and
their happiness or lack thereof with each option.

B. Against Mill’s ethical theory:

1. Negative Responsibility [STRONG]: According to Utilitarianism, you're morally responsible for:

a. The things you didn't do but could have done to maximize happiness; and

b. The things that you could have prevented others from doing that decrease overall happiness; as

well as for:
 c. What you actually do to maximize/increase happiness.

EX: if you go out and play tennis, you could be doing something (almost certainly) to increase the
overall happiness of the world instead. Therefore, Utilitarianism is an excessively demanding theory: You
need/may need to give up a lot, if not everything, in order to do the moral thing.

2. Lack of autonomy/integrity of the moral agent [STRONG]: Utilitarianism takes moral responsibility out
of the realm of personal autonomy. The agent must choose the one act that will maximize happiness, as
opposed to his/her own moral projects that rank second or below that, which technically would be
immoral to do, even if they create a lot of happiness. If you like the idea of choosing your own moral
projects, act utilitarianism is not for you.

3. Can people not be wrong about what is pleasurable? [STRONG] Does everyone always accurately
decide for him or herself what is pleasurable? Can I mistake what in fact will really bring me pleasure
and what will not? Would we think this is a good theory with which to handle or raise children? EX:
should we ask them what they would like to eat or drink and maximize their pleasure, especially if they
outnumber us and are much more excited about having something than we parents or adults are about
their having it? Mill cannot ignore what “ignorant” people are wanting or (think they will) find
pleasurable.

4. Hard Cases: Act Utilitarianism may require us to commit morally reprehensible acts, according to
other ethical theories [WEAK or STRONG - see each example]:

a. Prisoners of War [WEAK]: You, as one of many prisoners, are told, "If you don't give me the name of a
prisoner to shoot in 5 minutes, then I will shoot 10 myself." What should you do? Utilitarianism requires
you to choose the prisoner who is the least useful or happiness-producing. [Note: This is weak, only
because a staunch utilitarian will not flinch at this objection, but just nod his/her head. To other
theories, such as Kant's, choosing someone to kill is not permissible, because the person holding you
captive should not kill any prisoners, and perhaps should not even have them as prisoners. Moreover,
the prisoners have no reason to believe that the captor will keep his/her word (e.g., the captor might kill
10 anyway, or just make this same offer every hour until everyone is dead anyway), so why play the
game? It's not as if everyone will get to leave once one person is killed, right? The fact that the captor
has a bad will to use the prisoners only as a means does not allow you to do the same.]

b. Torture a terrorist’s child? [WEAK]: You have access to the child of a ruthless terrorist who has a
nuclear weapon aimed at your city. If you torture the child, you can get the terrorist to stop the
bombing action. Should you torture the child? Utilitarianism might require you to torture the child to
ensure the safety of the whole city. [Note: Again, Kant would say that we should not torture people in
this way or ever, because we'd be using the child only as a means to an end, and you could not and
could never know that torturing anyone ever will give you the outcome you desire. The fact that the
terrorist has a bad will to use everyone in the city only as a means does not allow you to do the same.]

c. Rotten Professor example [STRONG]: Suppose there's a really ornery, mean professor who has no
living relatives (or if he does, they all don't like him!) and who happens to be very healthy! Suppose
you're his doctor who knows that there are 5 people looking for organs, and the professor is a good
match for all of them. The question is, if no one would know about it, should you kill the professor to
donate the organs for transplants? There would be happiness created by every “donee” and his/her
family and friends, plus the students of the rotten professor! Therefore, act utilitarianism says you
should murder the rotten professor. [Now imagine thinking of homeless people as organ donors ...]

5. Utility Monsters? [STRONG]: Robert Nozick proposed that there could be creatures ("Utility
Monsters") that experienced more pleasure than the average human, so if we assume that they
experienced 100 times the pleasure of a human when eating a cookie, e.g., then we would have to do
what pleased the utility monster, eventually doing everything we do in order to please the monster.

VI. RULE UTILITARIANISM

A. RULE UTILITARIANISM = A person ought to act in accordance with the rule that if generally followed,
would produce the greatest balance of good over evil, everyone considered.

B. To use Rule Utilitarianism:

1st step: Develop an articulation of a set of moral rules that are justified by utilitarian
considerations (i.e., they maximize happiness.

2nd step: Follow the rules!

B. Rule Utilitarianism may endorse common sense rules of morality (which were just “rules of thumb”
for Act Utilitarianism), such as do not kill, steal, lie, and do keep promises.

C. Also, Rule Utilitarianism may endorse rights (but may not – see examples below).

EXAMPLE OF RULE UTILITARIANISM:

The Ethical Question (Simple Example): I have made a promise to meet a friend who is on his deathbed;
should I keep my promise?

Step 1: Think about the KIND or type of action that the action is.

Step 2: Ponder different rules, considering whether they maximize happiness in general.

Step 3: Do that action based on a rule that maximizes happiness in general (not necessarily for this
action right now).
This action involves promise keeping, and the rule of keeping promises in general maximizes happiness.

Result: Since the rule of keeping promises IN GENERAL maximizes happiness (whether or not it does do
that today in this action), I should keep my promise.

The Ethical Question (Complex Example): I have made a promise to meet a friend who is on his
deathbed; on my way to meet him, I find a woman who is wounded (but curable) and needs my help (no
one else is around). Should I keep my promise?

These actions involve either promise keeping or helping others, and both keeping promises and helping
others maximize happiness in general. Thus, we are faced with a dilemma (see below).

Result: EITHER: One can argue that, since helping the woman is an immediate matter of life and death,
and the rule of helping others maximizes happiness IN GENERAL, I should help the woman. OR: One
could argue that the rule of keeping promises maximizes happiness, and keep his or her promise.
Problem: If we pick the action that maximizes happiness IN THIS CASE, aren't we back to Act
Utilitarianism, which makes Rule Utilitarianism pointless? And if we can just pick either rule and be a
rule utilitarian, then Rule Utilitarianism is arbitrary - it allows you to do whatever action you wish, as
long as you can come up with a rule that seems to maximize happiness in general.

D. Biomedical examples:

1. Is it ever right as a physician to lie to a patient? Probably not. It shouldn’t be an exception to the
rule of not lying, since it would erode the trust between patient/physician.

2. Voluntary (Active) Euthanasia? Killing in self-defense is permissible to a Rule Utilitarian – there are
good arguments on both sides – stop pain, but increase anxiety of older people, worried they’d be killed
for will?

3. Violate patient/physician confidentiality if patient threatens to kill? Well, you’d save lives possibly v.
get good treatment for the patient, if they don’t want to talk to you anymore.

F. Assessment of Rule Utilitarianism:

In favor:

1. Rule utilitarianism is less demanding of individuals than Act Utilitarianism.

2. Rule utilitarianism is fine with close relationships, since these tend to maximize happiness.
3. Rule utilitarianism is flexible to circumstances, if the rules conflict [Note: this turns into an objection –
see below.]

4. Intuitive in general (to max happiness in general).

5. Impartial, fair, & promotes social harmony (to think about what max’es happiness in general).

Against:

1. Negative Responsibility [STRONG]: According to Utilitarianism, you're morally responsible for:

a. The things you didn't do but could have done to maximize happiness; and

b. The things that you could have prevented others from doing that decrease overall happiness; as well
as for:

c. What you actually do to maximize/increase happiness.

EX: You need to think of every rule that you could be following right now, that would max happiness in
general, and follow that right now.

2. Can people not be wrong about what is pleasurable in general [STRONG]? This is a problem for Rule
Utilitarians because we could be wrong about what causes pleasure in general as well.

3. Conflict of Rules? [STRONG] What if rules conflict in a moral situation (as in the complex example
above)? EX: Since both helping someone in need and keeping promises maximizes happiness, what
should I do?

• OBJ1: If we should maximize the happiness of these people affected by this action, then the rule
utilitarian has changed their ethical theory to act utilitarianism.

• OBJ2: If we should pick either rule and follow it, then the theory is arbitrary and/or does not provide
effective guidance, because you get to just choose whatever you feel like doing, as long as you can cite a
rule that maximizes happiness in general, that is relevant in this situation.

KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY

Kant's deontology, sometimes called deontological ethics, starts by acknowledging that actions and their
outcomes are independent things. Basically, there are things you have to do, even though you know
they are wrong, such as shooting that intruder to protect your family. According to deontology, you
need to focus on the act, such as protecting your family, and not the likely death it will mean for the
intruder. Kant wrote several books about the topic, including The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals in 1785, Critique of Practical Reason in 1788, and Metaphysics of Morals in 1797.
The categorical imperative has three parts. First, it includes acting according to your expectations of
others. Basically, your actions should be independent of you and a reflection of the moralistic way in
which everyone should act. For example, if I borrow money from you and tell you I'm paying my rent,
but then you look on my social media page and you see pictures of me in the Bahamas, I have lied. By
lying to you I am making it okay to lie, and I should expect you to lie to me in the future. What that
means is when you act, you should act in the way you want others to act and not in the way you want to
act because it will benefit you. This sounds a little like utilitarianism, but it isn't. In the sense of
deontology you are still acting for you, and you alone. In utilitarianism, you would be acting for the good
of the group.

A. The Categorical Imperative: Instead of utility, the categorical imperative is the supreme principle of
morality, from which all duties derive. There are two formulations:

1. First Formulation: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law." Maxim = a description of action in imperative form. E.g., “Help this
person in dire need.”

2. Second Formulation: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." Some
explanation of the second formulation:

a. Rational beings (people) are ends in themselves; non-rational beings (non-human animals) and
anything else (chairs, dirt) are things.

b. What actions fail Kant’s test? Treating people simply as a means, or treating a person solely as an
instrument to obtain something for yourself. EX: Slavery, rape, industrialists (sweatshops), & lies to
further yourself. You're treating people not unlike hammers. According to Kant, you will always have a
moral duty not to treat others only as a means.

c. What actions pass Kant’s test? Actions that will routinely pass the test of universalizability: treating
people as ends in themselves or both as means and as ends. Treating people only as an end: Treating
them with respect, but not necessarily getting any huge benefit from it. EX: not punching students on
your way to class. Treating people both as a means and an end: EX: My teaching you - I receive money,
you receive an understanding about philosophy and maybe a degree, so we’re each treating other as a
means; but, we are treating each other with respect while doing this, so we’re also treating each other
as an end.

d. Respect for Rational Beings: The Second Formulation of the principle has respect for persons at its
core, which is easier to understand than universalizability. Every person, by virtue of his/her humanity
(i.e., rational nature) has an inherent dignity. From this, we need to respect ourselves and others too.
3. Comparison of Categorical Imperative v. Golden Rule: Golden Rule = Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you. The Golden Rule is more permissible/lenient than Kant's categorical imperative
because the Golden Rule relativizes its principle to passions, inclinations, etc. Paradigm case: A sadist
and masochist - they want to be around each other to dispense/ receive violence, but this doesn't make
it morally right to do what they're doing.

B. Perfect duties v. Imperfect duties:

1. Perfect Duties: Duties that require that we do or abstain from certain acts. There are no legitimate
exceptions to a perfect duty. E.g., certain actions which are inconsistent / incompatible with respect for
persons. Notable perfect duties: Duty not to kill an innocent person, duty not to lie, duty to keep
promises. It’s intrinsically wrong to do the opposite of these. No matter how beneficial the
consequences, the action is strictly impermissible. There is a perfect duty to oneself to avoid getting
drunk (20) or committing suicide- no exceptions to the suicide rule.

2. Imperfect Duties: Duties that require us to promote or pursue certain goals (e.g., welfare of others).
Actions due to these duties can never be at the expense of perfect duties.

3. We transgress perfect duties by treating a person merely as a means. “We transgress imperfect
duties by failing to treat a person as an end, even though we do not actively treat him as a means”
(Paton, 19).

C. Applying Kant’s Theory to Biomedical issues:

According to Kant’s theory, physicians cannot lie to patients – may not issue placebos, researchers must
have voluntary, informed consent. And: physician-assisted euthanasia is morally impermissible
according to Kant’s theory, since it is a form of suicide.

D. Assessment of Kant’s Theory:

A. In favor of Kant’s ethical view:

1. Rational, consistent, impartial: Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency,
impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our lives. If Kant is correct that moral absolutes
cannot be violated, then he prevents any loopholes, self-serving exceptions, and personal biases in the
determination of our duties.

2. Intrinsic worth of a human being: In virtue of being a human being, you have rights, dignity, and
intrinsic moral worth/value. Every human being is like a unique artistic creation, such as a Ming vase.

3. A moral framework for rights: As a culture here in the U.S., we are interested in and fond of rights.
Kant’s theory helps us to see where we get them. Duties imply rights, and rights imply legitimate
expectations. If every human has intrinsic worth (as Kant believes), then every human should have the
same rights, other things being equal.
4. Non-relativistic rights and duties: These moral rights and duties transcend all societies and all
contexts, so Kant’s view doesn’t have the problems of cultural relativism, or individual relativism. No
empirical appeal will have any effect against Kant's view. You need to point out inconsistencies within
his system.

5. Autonomy and ability to choose your moral projects: You have a duty to pursue your happiness
through the use of reason, as long as you’re not lying, breaking your promises, or committing suicide (or
any other duty as determined by the categorical imperative formulations).

6. Alternative: Consequences? Can we ever be completely sure about the consequences of our
actions? Haven’t there been times when you thought you were doing the best thing, based on the
anticipated consequences, but the results turned out badly? Kant’s view avoids consequences in making
ethical decisions, so it doesn’t have such a problem.

B. Against Kant’s ethical view:

1. Is the good will always good without qualification? [STRONG] Can’t I be a do-gooder who always
tries to do my duty but creates misery instead? For example, say that I’m running around campus taking
cigarettes from the mouths of students, passing out anti-smoking pamphlets. I'm only trying to help
people. It doesn't matter if I get restraining orders against me, beaten up, fired, etc. - I'm supposed to
have a good will even if I'm annoying. Does this sound ethical?

2. How can Kant deal with these hard cases? [STRONG]

a. Nazi Case: It's 1939, and you're hiding Jews in a cellar. The Nazi's come to the door and ask you if
you're hiding Jews in a cellar. Should you lie to Nazi's? Is this a good objection to Kant? [See this link "On
a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives," by Kant, to read his answer to this objection.]

b. Suicide Case: Joe is terminally ill (with some nasty cancer) in the opinion of two doctors, and is in a
lot of pain, at the legal limit of painkillers. Why can't Joe take a pill that will kill himself? [NOTE: This case
is not identical to someone who is merely depressed and doesn't think life is worth living, as he
addresses in the reading.]

3. Two objections from David Hume [STRONG]:

a. Hume's first objection: Reason doesn't discover moral rules. Morality is feeling, affect, or
sentiment.

b. Hume's second objection: Reason doesn't motivate moral action. Suppose Kant is right that reason
discovers moral duties. So what? What happens then? We need to have action. Is reason sufficient to
motivate us to do our duty? Suppose reason discovers Action A is a duty. In order to do Action A, do I
need something else, such as a desire or an inclination to decide to do Action A, or is it enough to know
that Action A is my duty? Hume says we need to have a desire or an inclination to do the right action,
even if we know that it's the right action. In fact, for Hume, first we need a desire or an inclination to do
something, then we look to reason to fulfill it. "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions,
and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Treatise concerning Human
Nature (Bk.II, Part III, Sec. III, p. 415)

4. Akrasia (weakness of will or moral conviction) [STRONG]: You see/know what the right action to do
is, you want to do the good action, but you do the bad action instead. Is akrasia possible? If it exists,
then reason does not simply force us to do the right thing.

5. What about non-human animals? [WEAK] According to Kant, we only have a duty to treat rational
moral agents as ends, not animals. What about chimps that have 99.4% of our DNA structure? What
about senile people or the comatose? Are these people things as opposed to ends in themselves, as
"normal" people are, according to Kant? [This is weak because he could just say animals can be ends in

themselves due to their reason (updating his view), but, more importantly, this does nothing to the way
in which we should treat humans.]

Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

Deontology is sometimes best understood when you try to compare it to another social theory. Are you
familiar with utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism. Utilitarianism is the idea that
the action that is the most moral (or seems the most right) is the one that creates the most good for all
parties involved. The idea isn't fully spelled out until the 19th century. Social theorists John Stuart Mill
and Jeremy Bentham, both British and classical utilitarians, identify the idea of good with pleasure and
believe that people should attempt to achieve the most good for everyone. In utilitarianism, everyone's
happiness counts the same.

So, you should consider the rights and needs of that intruder before you shoot him, according to
Bentham and Mill (and maybe tie him up and call the cops, or shoot him in a non-fatal location). On the
other hand, deontology considers what benefits you and the people you care about, not necessarily
what is good for society or anyone else. Kant tells you to shoot the intruder with the intent to kill, even
though it is morally wrong, because it is your duty to protect your family.

To compare the two philosophies, we can say that utilitarianism says that any act that achieves
happiness through consideration of all sides should be considered good (not killing the man in your
living room, but also making sure your family is safe). While deontology states that some actions are still
morally wrong even if the outcome is good, but you should do them anyway because of your sense of
duty to others (kill the man in your living room because it is your duty to protect your family and not
your problem what happens to him). In deontology, actions and outcomes are measured separately,
which is not the case in utilitarianism. Deontology states that an act that is not good morally can lead to
something good, such as shooting the intruder (killing is wrong) to protect your family (protecting them
is right).

According to Kant, morality is affected by rational thought moreso than by emotion. Human nature
(which might tell you to protect your family) has nothing to do with morality (which tells you killing is
wrong) because human beings are rational enough to make case-by-case decisions. Remember, this is
the era of the Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, where thinkers of the time were moving
away from the societal confines and morality-based teachings of the Catholic Church toward thinking
and acting for themselves. Ideas of the time included studies of the role of the citizens in government
and society, advances in science, and the development of an overall belief in man's self-reliance, as
opposed to reliance on God. In our example, that means protecting your family is the rational thing to
do—even if it is not the morally best thing to do.

ANALYSIS OF KANT’S ETHICS

Kant, like Bentham, was an Enlightenment man. Morals must come not from authority or tradition, not
from religious commands, but from reason. Kant also thought he had it sorted. The funny thing is that
his answers were almost the opposite of Bentham’s.

Kant started not with pain and pleasure but rather with the fact that mankind’s distinguishing feature is
our possession of reason. Therefore, it follows that all humans have universal rational duties to one
another, centring on their duty to respect the other’s humanity. To Kant, all humans must be seen as
inherently worthy of respect and dignity. He argued that all morality must stem from such duties: a duty
based on a deontological ethic. Consequences such as pain or pleasure are irrelevant. (Well, he was
German).

To Kant some duties are absolute. These are the obligations to do certain types of actions. Kant calls this
general type of obligation a categorical imperative, that is, the action is imperative because it falls within
a certain category.

Kant has three formulations of his categorical imperative. The most famous is ‘Act only by that maxim by
which you can, at the same time, will that it be a universal law’. In other words, when working out what
you should do you must ask yourself ‘would it be OK if everyone took this type of action?’ So if one day
it would be convenient to tell a lie I should ask myself ‘would it be OK if everyone lied?’ Clearly the
answer is no, as if everyone lied then no one could have any meaningful dealings with anyone else.
Therefore for Kant I must never lie. The act of lying is morally wrong.
Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is to ‘So act as to treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as a means only’. Other
people should never be seen just as a means to an end. A useful reminder to us on a hard day!

The ethos of medicine is generally Kantian: who would deny that a doctor has duties? The GMC
publication Good Medical Practice is a prime example of duty-based guidelines. It spells out my specific
duties to behave only in certain sorts of ways to my patients. Kant would approve.

Kant is good at telling me how I should usually behave. But most ethicists would feel he is less useful in
difficult circumstances. So, I must never lie. As the patient starts to drift off under the anaesthetic to
repair his critically ruptured aneurysm he asks me ‘will I be OK doc?’ or the relative asks me ‘did he
suffer much at the end?’ Must I always tell nothing but the truth? And Kant would be useless at triage:
he cannot tell me which duties I should prioritise over others, as all my duties are absolute. So I don’t
think he would be much good at public health.

In many ways Kant represents the voice of a parent: ‘you must always keep your promises’ or ‘you must
never lie’. This is normally good advice. But in a complicated world sometimes it is not enough.

REFLECTIONS:

Are there times when our duties to our patients seem to conflict? How do you manage this?

‘Never treat others only as a means to an end’. How does QOF fit in?

Is lying to patients ever justified?

VIRTUE THEORY

A. distinctives of a virtue-based theory

 Primacy of character: Our primary moral responsibility is to develop a virtuous
personal character. Right actions are derived from virtue—being the sorts of things
a virtuous person would typically do.
 Character motivation: A virtuous person is motivated to act morally by her own
personal character—not by duty or an obligation to moral principles.
 A virtuous person will find it relatively “easy” to act virtuously because
she is acting in keeping with her own nature or character.
 A vicious person has vices—morally bad character traits—and finds it
similarly easy to act badly but hard to act virtuously.
 Many right choices: Different choices can count as equally right in the very same
situation.
 A right choice is what a virtuous person would do, and different virtuous
people might choose differently in the very same situation.
  Virtue theory gives us no controlling moral principles that define the
uniquely right act in all situations; thus, there can be more than one moral
option.
 Still, virtue theory is not necessarily subjectivist.
 Virtue theory can be considered objectivist in that the right act
depends on circumstances, namely, the actor’s personal moral
character.
 Virtue theory doesn’t allow just anything at all to count as morally
right; even if there are several right choices, many other choices
will still be ruled out as morally wrong.
II. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
A. Happiness—eudaimonia—involves our being fulfilled and complete as human beings.
 We can find fulfillment only when we achieve the purpose or function of human
existence.
B. The purpose or function of human beings must be unique to human beings.
 This function is to order and direct our lives in accordance with reason.
C. A virtuous person does the best at living in accordance with reason.
 Living virtuously is necessary for attaining fulfillment as a human being and thus for
attaining happiness.
D. There are two kinds of virtues.
 Intellectual virtue is attained from teaching.
 Moral virtue is attained by practice.
 One develops the virtue of courage by acting courageously.
 After enough practice, a virtue becomes second nature—part of one’s
essential character.
 Vices are also developed by practice.
E. To count as having attained virtue, one must . . . 
 Know what the right thing is
 Intend to do the right thing, precisely because it is the right thing
 Do that thing as a result of one’s own “firm and unchangeable” character
 If I have such a character, then that will be demonstrated by my regularly
and dependably acting virtuously.
F. No one is born virtuous (nor is anyone born vicious).
 Virtue can be developed only by years of practice.
 Everyone is born with the potential for developing virtue (and vice).
G. Virtue lies at the golden mean—the proper balance between excess and deficiency.
 This mean can be achieved in both how we act and how we feel.
 The virtuous balance is not simply a matter of degree.
 The proper balance may not be exactly the same for everyone.
H. Practical implications of Aristotle’s virtue theory
 Virtue is not achieved by talking or thinking about virtue but rather by practice.
 Developing virtue requires transforming one’s personal character and so
needs to begin as early as possible.
 Our virtues or vices reflect what we have made ourselves; nearly every choice we
have made has contributed toward our developing either some virtue or some vice.
 An individual’s development of virtue is also influenced by that person’s society,
which can make developing virtue much easier or much harder.
 Bad laws and bad leadership in society make virtue harder to develop.
III. Classifying the Virtues**
A. Although we can conceptually distinguish various virtues, a virtuous person does not have a
collection of unrelated and disconnected character traits. 
 A virtuous person fully integrates all virtues into a single undivided character.
 In a virtuous person, the particular virtues are all manifestations of one undivided
character, which includes intellectual virtues as well.
B. Although virtues can be differentiated only in the abstract, there is still philosophical value in
distinguishing different classes of virtues. Hunt distinguishes three:
 Obligation virtues fulfill general moral obligations—the kinds of obligations
deontological theories are good at identifying (keeping one’s promises, being just,
being truthful).
 With respect to our most basic moral obligations, it doesn’t seem to matter
whether we take a principle-based or a virtue-based approach.
 Good-promoting virtues serve to promote specific values or goods—the kinds of
values consequentialist theories might seek to promote (being kind, generous,
sociable).
 Someone’s failing to have these virtues doesn’t seem to violate any moral
obligations, though such a person seems to be less than morally complete.
 Limiting virtues help us control and manage our inclinations and feelings (being
courageous, self-controlled, loyal).
  Such “virtues of the will” seem morally neutral in themselves because
they can help us both to exercise virtue and to exercise vices.
C. Hunt’s categorization helps us . . .
 See that virtue ethics includes moral considerations besides those of principle-based
ethics
 Since most principle-based theories center on moral obligations and on
promoting some values but tend not to address every aspect of those values
or how to control our inclinations
 Reconcile the importance of impartiality (stressed by principle-based theories) and
the value of personal feelings (emphasized by virtue theory)
 Impartiality is most important for the obligation virtues (in fulfilling our
obligations, it doesn’t matter how we feel).
 Personal feelings play a larger role in the good-promoting and limiting
virtues.
IV. Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
A. Attaining virtue: Virtue theory calls upon us to transform our very characters to become
virtuous persons. Do we actually have this ability to transform ourselves?
 Aristotle assumes that we are born with a morally neutral character; however, it may
be that human nature includes an innate inclination toward selfishness, violence,
lust, and other vices.
 If these inclinations are actually innate, then no amount of effort can
ultimately change our natures.
 Genuine virtue requires knowledge of the right; it is thus not possible to have virtue
if one’s moral beliefs reflect any serious moral error or ignorance.
 It is highly unlikely that all of our moral beliefs are exactly correct—we
most likely accept certain moral beliefs and values that are in fact incorrect.
 Thus, it is doubtful that any human being can actually attain genuine virtue.
B. Explanatory power: A satisfactory ethical theory can explain what makes things right or
wrong, good or bad. How does virtue theory explain what makes the virtues morally good? 
 A virtue theory may simply treat each virtue as morally primitive—as a moral good
that cannot be further explained. This approach has the least explanatory power.
 A virtue theory may partly explain what makes something a virtue in terms of certain
general features of all virtues, such as that which accords with reason and reflects a
balance between extremes.
 These explanations still don’t explain what gives virtues moral value.
 A virtue theory may explain the virtues by maintaining that they all promote some
important nonmoral value (such as human flourishing).
 Other nonmoral skills and abilities can also contribute to human flourishing.
 More seriously, there is the danger that this turns virtue theory into a
consequentialist theory that aims at promoting human flourishing.
 This would amount to our abandoning the distinctive approach
offered by virtue theory.
C. Incompleteness
 Virtue theory tells us that we can learn what is right by seeing what a virtuous person
would do.
 But how can we determine that someone is virtuous unless we can know that
he regularly does the right thing?
 To solve this problem, we may have to appeal to a separate set of
moral principles. But this implies that virtue theory is incomplete
and needs to be supplemented by such principles.
 Virtue theory is unable to address certain kinds of moral problems.
 Some moral questions and problems don’t involve an individual’s choices or
actions (e.g., questions about how a nation or corporation should act).
 Because virtue theory pertains to an individual’s personal
character, it doesn’t seem able to address moral problems that reach
beyond the actions and choices of individuals.
 Other moral questions and problems can arise for individuals, but it is hard
to see how character traits can give us answers to these questions (e.g.,
would it be wrong for me to have a late-term abortion?).
 These sorts of moral problems require us to consult moral principles. If this
is indeed true and virtue theory is not adequate to answer these sorts of
moral problems, then virtue theory incomplete.

Some Helpful Hints

 In a principle-based theory, principles are the starting
points. So we might start with the principle “All people
should be truthful when they speak.” Because the theory
asserts that this principle holds, we can then speak of
 honesty being a “virtue” or of people acting
“virtuously” when they are honest. But all this means
is that it would be wrong to lie and that it is right to tell
the truth. Mention of virtue is just a convenient way of
referring back to the principle about truth-telling. The
virtue is derived from and simply reflects the principle. 
o On this approach, a “virtuous” person is
simply someone who keeps the rules.
 In a virtue-based theory, the most fundamental starting
points are virtues—e.g., character traits that a person can
have, such as honesty. Because virtuous people are honest,
we can derive a useful general principle that people ought
to tell the truth. But this principle is true only because
honesty is a virtue. That is why character has primacy in
virtue theory.
o Virtue theory, furthermore, may have things to say
about moral persons and moral character that
cannot be summed up by any principle.
o Thus, a virtuous person is much more than
someone who just keeps rules.
o On this approach, any moral rules reflect how a
virtuous person would typically act.
 A person is not virtuous simply because she happens to act
virtuously in a given situation. As Aristotle’s analysis
makes clear, being a virtuous person requires that one
fulfill several conditions: having right knowledge, right
intentions, and having a firm and unchangeable character
that acts the same way again and again.