Basic Theories (Deontology, Utilitarianism, Virtue Theory, Rights Theory,

Casuist Theory)

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that implements fair choices in an effort to

ensure the least amount of harm is done to all parties involved. The
utilitarianism approach requires that you decide what course of action
needs to be done and evaluate the outcomes of each action. By focusing
on the outcome of each action, utilitarianism demands that you decide on
what course of action based on the benefits or harm of the actions
without regard to the cost of the action. For example, Julie walks into a
hostage situation. There are 20 hostages and she is told that if she shots
one hostage, she will save the lives of the other 19. Utilitarianism would
support Julie’s killing of one of the hostages because the other 19 lives
are a greater benefit, regardless of the fact that the cost would be one
person’s life.

The first ethical system in normative ethics, utilitarianism, is often

equated with the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
The idea is that ethical decisions are made based on the consequences of
the action, which is why it is also sometimes called consequentialism.
Interestingly, Curtin, Gallicano and Matthew found that, when faced with
ethical situations in public relations, “Millennials will use utilitarian
reasoning to avoid confrontation and achieve consensus.” The attraction
of this ethical perspective may lie in the fact that it appears to be a way
to weigh out the impact of behavior and determine the greatest good for
the greatest number.

While this idea initially may seem appealing, particularly with a field that
has a core duty to the public, it does not provide a solid ethical framework
for decision-making. There are three main concerns that seem to arise
when public relations professionals rely on utilitarian ethics to make
decisions.

First, rather than looking at the choice or action itself, decision-makers

are forced to guess the potential outcomes of their choice in order to
determine what is ethical. Grunig believes this is a faulty line of reasoning
when he suggested that: “We believe, in contrast, the public relations
should be based on a worldview that incorporates ethics into the process
of public relations rather than on a view that debates the ethics of its
outcomes.” In other words, ethics should be about the decision-making
process, not just the outcome, which can’t be guaranteed.

Second, utilitarian ethics also “presents questions of conflict with regard

to which segment of society should be considered most important” in
weighing the “good” or outcome. In other words, if a solution drastically
harms a minority group, would it be ethical if the majority benefited from
that decision? This seems to contradict the goal of public relations to build
mutually beneficial relationships, regardless of the number of people in a
particular stakeholder group.

The third objection is that it is not always possible to predict the outcome
of an action. Bowen points out that “consequences are too unpredictable
to be an accurate measure of the ethics of a situations.” In other words,
consequences of actions can be highly volatile or impossible, even, to
predict. Using outcomes as a measurement of ethics will not, therefore,
provide an accurate way for professionals to measure whether decisions
are ethical. Professionals must be able to evaluate decisions and choices
with concrete ethical guidelines instead of hoping that certain outcomes
will result in them having made an ethical choice.

Many scholars in public relations identify these issues, as well as others,

as evidence that utilitarianism, sometimes called consequentialism due
the concept relying on the consequence of a decision, is not as strong of a
fit for public relations professional ethics.

Deontological Ethics or Rights Approach

The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos,

“science.” Deontology focuses on the consequences of your actions and
believes that when faced with life choices, you should operate according
to responsibility and obligations. A deontologist believes that morality is a
responsibility for everyone as well as a duty. For example, if a man steals
three loaves of bread and a gallon of milk to feed his family, it would be
supported by deontology because of the moral responsibility and
obligations of the man to care for his family. Sometimes deontologists are
unable to determine certain courses of action as moral or not. A coffee
shop owner who requires his employees to dress in black cannot be
identified with the deontology theory simply because the requirement is
the owner’s preference and whatever governs such preference is neither
moral nor immoral.

The second prominent concept, deontological ethics, is associated with

the father of modern deontology, Immanuel Kant. He was known for the
‘Categorical Imperative’ that looks for transcendent principles that apply
to all humans. The idea is that “human beings should be treated with
dignity and respect because they have rights.” Put another way, it could
be argued that in deontological ethics “people have a duty to respect
other people’s rights and treat them accordingly.” The core concept
behind this is that there are objective obligations, or duties, that are
required of all people. When faced with an ethical situation, then, the
process is simply one of identifying one’s duty and making the
appropriate decision.

The challenges to this perspective, however, include 1) conflicts that arise

when there is not an agreement about the principles involved in the
decision; 2) the implications of making a “right” choice that has bad
consequences; and 3) what decisions should be made when duties
conflict. These challenges are definitely ones that should be considered
when relying on this as an ethical system.

However, despite these concerns, many have found that deontology

provides the strongest model for applied public relations ethics. Bowen,
for example, suggests that “deontology is based on the moral autonomy
of the individual, similar to the autonomy and freedom from
encroachment that public relations seeks to be considered excellent. That
ideological consistency gives the theory posed here a solid theoretical
foundation with the practice of public relations as well as a normative
theory function.” Similarly, Fitzpatrick & Gauthier suggest, “practitioners
need some basis on which to judge the rightness of the decisions they
make everyday. They need ethical principles derived from the
fundamental values that define their work as a public relations
professional.” A key thought in this concept is the assumption that there
needs to be some objective morals that professionals rely on in order to
determine ethical behavior.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue is very distinct from other ethic theories in that it looks at a

person’s individual character, not necessarily his actions. When observing
an unethical position, the virtue theory considers the person's reputation
and purpose for committing the act. If a high school student is temperate,
modest, witty and intelligent and plagiarized on a class writing
assignment, the virtue theory would analyze the student's past
personality traits and interpersonal skills in order to determine whether
the student is truly guilty.

Finally, a third and growing area of philosophical reasoning with ethics is

known as virtue ethics, one that has gained more attention in public
relations scholarship in recent years. This philosophy stems from Aristotle
and is based on the virtues of the person making a decision. The
consideration in virtue ethics is essentially “what makes a good person,”
or, for the purpose of this discussion, “what makes a good public relations
professional?” Virtue ethics require the decision-maker to understand
what virtues are good for public relations and then decisions are made in
light of those particular virtues. For example, if the virtue of honesty is
the of utmost importance to a good public relations professional, then all
decisions should be made ethically to ensure honesty is preserved.

While this theory is growing in popularity, there are several objections

that can be made. First, in terms of the public relations profession, the
focus on virtues of the professional themselves seems to miss the
importance and role of obligations to clients and publics. The industry is
not simply about what public relations people do themselves, but
ultimately the impact to society. Additionally, it also can face the same
obstacle as deontological ethics when having conflicting virtues. If there is
a virtue of loyalty to a client and honesty to the public, what happens
when they conflict? To which one should a professional defer?

These three theories of ethics (utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics,

virtue ethics) form the foundation of normative ethics conversations. It is
important, however, that public relations professionals also understand
how to apply these concepts to the actual practice of the profession.
Ethical discussion that focuses on how a professional makes decisions,
known as applied ethics, are heavily influenced by the role or purpose of
the profession within society.

Casuist Theory
Casuistry
ethics
WRITTEN BY
David P. Schmidt
Associate Professor of Business Ethics, Fairfield University. His contributions to SAGE
Publications's Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society (2008) formed the basis of his
contributions...
See Article History

Casuistry, in ethics, a case-based method of reasoning. It is particularly employed in field-

specific branches of professional ethics such as business ethics and bioethics. Casuistry
typically uses general principles in reasoning analogically from clear-cut cases,
called paradigms, to vexing cases. Similar cases are treated similarly. In this way, casuistry
resembles legal reasoning. Casuistry may also use authoritative writings relevant to a
particular case.

Practitioners in various fields value casuistry as an orderly yet flexible way to think about
real-life ethical problems. Casuistry can be particularly useful when values or rules conflict.
For example, what should be done when a business executive’s duty to meet a client’s
expectations collides with a professional duty to protect the public? Casuistry also helps
clarify cases in which novel or complex circumstances make the application of rules unclear.
Should e-mail receive the same privacy protection as regular mail? If someone develops an
idea while working for one employer, is it ethical to use that idea to help a subsequent
employer? Casuistry seeks both to illuminate the meaning and moral significance of the
details in such cases and to discern workable solutions.

History

Greek and Roman philosophers, Jewish rabbis, Christian preachers and teachers,

and Islamic jurists (see also Sharīʿah) are among those who have used casuistry to solve real-
life moral puzzles. The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero wrote the first known “case
book” on situations in which duties seem to conflict.

In Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, members of the Jesuit religious order of
the Roman Catholic Church produced an extensively developed form of casuistry that
became known as “high casuistry.” Les Provinciales (1657; The Provincial Letters), by the
17th-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal, criticized the misuse of
casuistry as sophisticated excuse making. Following Pascal’s critique, casuistry fell into
disrepute.
Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription.Subscribe
today
The rise of professional ethics led to renewed interest in casuistry in the early 20th century.
Although contemporary casuists recognize the potential of self-interest and other forms of
bias to corrupt casuistry, many authors affirm its usefulness in helping people
with diverse beliefs reach workable agreements in difficult moral cases.

Application Of Casuistic Reasoning

The basic elements of casuistic reasoning may be illustrated in the following scenario. A
maintenance supply vendor visits the manager of a large apartment building and demonstrates
the advantages of switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs. The vendor adds, “We’re having a
special promotion right now. Everyone who orders 10 cases of bulbs gets a free emergency
radio.” Is it ethical for the manager to order 10 cases and accept the gift?

A casuist might approach the scenario by identifying its morally significant features. Those
features might include the value of the gift, the quality of the product being offered for sale,
the availability of similar products from other vendors at a lower price, and the timing of the
gift offer relative to the timing of the manager’s decision about whether to buy. The casuist
might next identify any generally accepted rules or values involved in the case. A rule in the
case of the manager might be, “Get the best value for the building owner’s money.”

At that point the casuist might look for analogous paradigm cases. One paradigm would
involve a clearly unacceptable gift, such as an expensive piece of luggage offered to promote
an overpriced shoddy product. A second paradigm would involve a generally acceptable gift,
such as an inexpensive ballpoint pen given as a token of appreciation for purchasing a
competitively priced high-quality product.
The casuist would compare the building manager’s case with the two paradigms. A closer
resemblance to the paradigm involving an acceptable gift would argue in favour of letting the
manager accept the radio. A closer resemblance to the opposite paradigm would argue against
accepting the radio.

Casuistry’s attention to the details of cases can help open up a range of options for those
caught in ethically murky situations. In the case of the building manager, the possibilities
might include demanding a discount instead of the radio, asking for a delay to allow
competitors’ products to be evaluated, or simply rejecting the radio. The moral and practical
advantages and disadvantages of the options would then be discussed.

When examining complex issues, casuists may arrange and sort many cases to create a
resource called a taxonomy. Treating similar cases similarly, casuists use taxonomies to
develop general guidelines or policies.

Casuistry And Other Ethical Methods

Casuistry departs from ethical approaches that work deductively from rules thought to have
clear applications in all circumstances. Casuistry takes rules into account but begins with the
moral and practical features of each case.

Casuistry also departs from approaches to ethics that rely solely on good character or virtuous
motives. Instead, casuistry demands deliberation about how to put good character and
virtuous motives into practice.

Some authors classify casuistry as a subset of applied ethics, or practical ethics. That is the
branch of ethics that is concerned with the application of moral norms to practical problems.
Others restrict the term applied ethics to deductive reasoning from principles to cases.
Accordingly, those authors view casuistry as an alternative to applied ethics.

Like casuistry, “situationism” or “situation ethics” focuses on cases. Unlike casuistry,

however, situationism uses no paradigm cases and views principles as, at most, guidelines.
Situationism also departs from casuistry by viewing circumstances as unique and isolated
rather than as continuous with broader moral experience.

David P. SchmidtThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

https://www.learnreligions.com/deontology-and-ethics-249865#:~:text=%20Some
%20examples%20of%20deontological%20ethical%20theories%20are%3A,that%20rational
%20moral%20agents%20would%20agree...%20More%20

Deontology and Ethics

Ethics as Obedience to Duty and God
By 
Austin Cline


Updated June 25, 2019

Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is the branch of ethics in which people define
what is morally right or wrong by the actions themselves, rather than referring to the
consequences of those actions, or the character of the person who performs them.
The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty,
and logos, which means science. Thus, deontology is the "science of duty."

Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon and strict adherence
to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, one must
understand what those moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate
those duties. When the deontologist follows his or her duty, he or she is by definition
behaving morally. Failure to follow one's duty makes one immoral.

In a deontological system, duties, rules, and obligations are determined by an

agreed-upon code of ethics, typically those defined within a formal religion. Being
moral is thus a matter of obeying the rules laid out by that religion.

The Motivation of Moral Duty

Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are
performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead,
one must have the correct motivations as well. A deontologist is not considered
immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, as long as they were motivated
to adhere to some correct moral duty (and presumably made an honest mistake).

Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a

deontological moral system. It cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as
morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct
duty to follow.

Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not

subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings. On the
contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.

The Science of Duty

In most deontological systems, moral principles are absolute. In particular, that
means that moral principles are completely separate from any consequences which
following those principles might have. Thus, if the set of values includes the proviso
that it is a sin to lie, then lying is always wrong—even if that results in harm to others.
A deontologist following such strict religious principles would be acting immorally if
she or he lied to Nazis about where Jews were hiding.
Key questions which deontological ethical systems ask include:

 What is the moral duty?

 What are my moral obligations?
 How do I weigh one moral duty against another?

Examples of Deontology
Deontology is thus a theory of moral obligation, and it encompasses moral theories
that emphasize a person's rights and duties. The term was coined by Jeremy
Bentham in 1814, and he believed that deontology was a way to marshall self-
interested reasons for agents to act for the general good, but Bentham believed that
following a strict moral code of behavior was in fact for the general good of
humankind. Modern deontologists focus more attention on individual rights and
duties. In these fairly simple-minded examples, decisions that might be made by a
hypothetical Deontologist are compared to those of a hypothetical Consequentialist.

 A group of terrorists is holding two hostages and threatening to kill them both
unless you kill a third person.

The Consequentialist would kill the third person because by doing so you minimize
the outcome (fewer dead people). The Deontologist would not kill the third person
because it is never right that you should kill anyone, regardless of the outcome.

 You are walking in the woods and you have snake venom antidote in your
backpack. You come across a person who has been bitten by a snake and
you recognize the person as one proven to be responsible for a series of
rapes and killings.

The Deontologist gives the antidote to the person because it saves a life; the
Consequentialist withholds the medication because to do so potentially saves many
others.

 Your mother has Alzheimer's disease and every day she asks you if she has
Alzheimer's disease. Telling her "yes" makes her miserable for that day, then
she forgets what you told her and asks you again the next day.

The Deontologist tells her the truth because lying is always wrong; the
Consequentialist lies to her because they will both enjoy that day.

 You love to sing show tunes at the top of your voice, but your neighbors
complain about it.

The Deontologist stops singing because it is wrong to impinge on other people's right
to not hear you; the Consequentialist stops singing to avoid retaliation.

These arguments are what ethics professor Tom Doughtery calls "agent-based"
arguments by the Deontologist and Consequentialist because they are set up for one
person's actions: moral ethics for the deontologist may instead make one prevent
anyone else from killing the third stranger, withholding snake venom, lying to your
mother, or singing show tunes at the tops of their voices. 

In addition, notice that the consequentialist has more options: because they weigh
what is the cost of a particular choice.

Types of Deontological Ethics

Some examples of deontological ethical theories are:

 Divine Command—The most common forms of deontological moral theories

are those which derive their set of moral obligations from a god. According to
many Christians, for example, an action is morally correct whenever it is in
agreement with the rules and duties established by the Christian God.
 Duty Theories—An action is morally right if it is in accord with a given list of
duties and obligations.
 Rights Theories—An action is morally right if it adequately respects the
rights of all humans (or at least all members of a given society). This is also
sometimes referred to as Libertarianism, in that people should be legally free
to do whatever they wish so long as their actions do not encroach upon the
rights of others.
 Contractarianism—An action is morally right if it is in accordance with the
rules that rational moral agents would agree to observe upon entering into a
social relationship (contract) for mutual benefit. This is also sometimes
referred to as Contractualism.
 Monistic Deontology—An action is morally right if it agrees with a single
deontological principle which guides all other subsidiary principles.

Conflicting Moral Duties

A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way
to resolve conflicts between moral duties. A purely deontological moral system
cannot include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm.

In the situation involving Nazis and Jews, how is a person to choose between those
two moral duties? One response to that might be to simply choose the "lesser of two
evils." However, that means relying on knowing which of the two has the least evil
consequences. Therefore, the moral choice is being made on
a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis.

According to this argument, duties, and obligations set forth in deontological systems

are actually those actions which have been demonstrated over long periods of time
to have the best consequences. Eventually, they become enshrined in custom and
law. People stop giving them or their consequences much thought—they are simply
assumed to be correct. Deontological ethics are thus ethics where the reasons for
particular duties have been forgotten, even if things have completely changed.

Questioning Moral Duties

A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for gray
areas where the morality of an action is questionable. They are, rather, systems
which are based upon absolutes—absolute principles and absolute conclusions.

In real life, however, moral questions often involve gray areas rather than absolute
black and white choices. We typically have conflicting duties, interests, and issues
that make things difficult.

Which Morals to Follow?

A third common criticism is the question of just which duties qualify as those which
we should follow, regardless of the consequences.

Duties which might have been valid in the 18th century are not necessarily valid now.
Yet, who is to say which ones should be abandoned and which are still valid? And if
any are to be abandoned, how can we say that they really were moral duties back in
the 18th century?

Sources
 Brook, Richard. "Deontology, Paradox, and Moral Evil." Social Theory and Practice 33.3
(2007): 431-40. Print.
 Dougherty, Tom. "Agent-Neutral Deontology." Philosophical Studies 163.2 (2013):
527-37. Print.
 Stelzig, Tim. "Deontology, Governmental Action, and the Distributive Exemption: How the
Trolley Problem Shapes the Relationship between Rights and Policy. " University of
Pennsylvania Law Review  146.3 (1998): 901-59. Print.
