Theories of Ethics – Tenets, Strengths & Weaknesses

Normative ethics are “theories of ethics that are concerned with the norms, standards or criteria
that define principles of ethical behavior.” The most common examples of
normative ethical theories are utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics (deontology), and divine
command theory, which are described. 
Normative ethics is the study of how people ought to behave. It is an argumentative discipline
aimed at sorting out what behaviors (or rules for behavior) would be best. Descriptive ethics is
the study of how people do behave, and how they think they should behave. It is grounded in
observation of some sort — looking at people as they are, not necessarily as they should be.

The main difference between normative ethics and descriptive ethics is that normative

ethics analyses how people ought to act whereas descriptive ethics analyses what people think
is right.
In general, a positive theory is a theory that attempts to explain how the world works in a value-
free way, while a normative theory provides a value-based view about what the world ought to
be like or how it ought to work; positive theories express what is, while normative theories
express what ought to be.

Individuals should use at least one of the following six ethical theories to reason their
ethical decisions within organizations: ethical egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, ethics of
care, rights theory, and the theory of justice.
Ethical theory is absolutely necessary because general rules are not always sufficient, moral
decisions must be justified, and conventional morality is not always correct. ...
This theory values each individual person, while the teleological approach can sometimes allow
individuals to be used as means to an end.

Teleology vs Deontology
The word “teleological” comes from the Greek telos (τέλος), which means end,
goal, or purpose. Deontological ethics focus on the motivation for undertaking an action and is
sometimes referred to as “duty-based” ethics; the word “deontological” derives from the Greek
deon (δέον), meaning “duty.”
Deontology is an approach to ethics which adheres to the theory that an end does not justify
the means while teleology is an approach to ethics that adheres to the theory that the end
always justifies the means. ... Deontology is also known as duty-based ethics
while teleology is also known as results-oriented ethics.

1
Teleology is a common practice in ethics. ... Some might consider stealing bad, but
a teleological thinker may say, “but in the end, I'm stealing to feed my family, which is good, so
the action is good.” In other words, an action's “goodness” is based off the outcome. A
second example of teleology is in philosophy.
Deontology is defined as an ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on
whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the
consequences of the action. An example of deontology is the belief that killing someone is
wrong, even if it was in self-defense.
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.

The most common form of consequentialism is utilitarianism (social

consequentialism) which proposes that one should act in such a way to produce
the greatest good for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that
maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. Although different varieties of
utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some
sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts. For
instance, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as "that property in
any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness...[or] to
prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is
considered." Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the
consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of
consequentialism, such as egoism and altruism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all
humans equally.
Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions
should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism) or whether agents should
conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to
whether total (total utilitarianism), average (average utilitarianism) or minimum utility should be
maximized.
Though the seeds of the theory can be found in the hedonists Aristippus and Epicurus, who
viewed happiness as the only good, the tradition of utilitarianism properly began with Bentham,
and has included John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, R. M. Hare, David Braybrooke and Peter
Singer. It has been applied to social welfare economics, the crisis of global poverty, the ethics of
raising animals for food and the importance of avoiding existential risks to humanity.

2
 Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on
the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such,
it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.
Utilitarianism. A system of ethics according to which the rightness or wrongness of an action
should be judged by its consequences. The goal of utilitarian ethics is to promote the greatest
happiness for the greatest number.
There are three principles that serve as the basic axioms of utilitarianism.
 Pleasure or Happiness Is the Only Thing That Truly Has Intrinsic
Value. ...
 Actions Are Right Insofar as They Promote Happiness, Wrong Insofar as
They Produce Unhappiness. ...
 Everyone's Happiness Counts Equally.

Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in

proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain.
Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and political radical. He is primarily known today
for his moral philosophy, especially his principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions
based upon their consequences. ... Happiness, according to Bentham, is thus a matter of
experiencing pleasure and lack of pain.
There are two types of utilitarians --rule utilitarians and act utilitarians--and both strive to
maximize the utility of actions for the good of humankind. They only differ in the way they
approach this task. Rule utilitarians believe that a set of rules or moral codes should be used to
standardize behaviors.
What are examples of utilitarianism in society?
These are some of the examples for utilitarianism in a society.

1. Higher taxation for tobacco and alcohol.

2. Free basic education.

3. Affordable social housing for low income families.

4. Free detox center for drug addicts.

5. Free temporary shelter.

6. Free sterilization.

7. Social welfare assistance for less fortunate.

3
8. Vaccination.

9. Taxation.

10. Maintaining parks and tree plantation

Weaknesses / Critiques
It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for
the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is
increased
A further and harsh criticism of utilitarianism is that the theory would justify slavery. This is as
long as the slaves were happy or the overall happiness gained by the beneficiaries of the slavery
was calculated as than the slave's unhappiness enough, it can justify making one (or a few)
miserable in service of the rest.
The one disadvantage that Utilitarianism cannot escape is that it focuses on the outcome of a
choice instead of the act itself. There is no moral judgment on the actual actions that a person
chooses to take. The only consequences occur if the outcome that happens does not maximize
happiness in some way.

Virtue Theory
Virtue ethics (or aretaic ethics /ˌærəˈteɪ.ɪk/, from Greek ἀρετή (arete)) are normative
ethical theories which emphasize virtues of mind, character and sense of honesty. Virtue
ethicists discuss the nature and definition of virtues and other related problems that focus
on the consequences of action. These include how virtues are acquired, how they are
applied in various real-life contexts, and whether they are rooted in a universal human
nature or in a plurality of cultures.

Key concepts
The western tradition's key concepts derive from ancient Greek philosophy. These theories
include arete (excellence or virtue), phronesis (practical or moral wisdom),
and eudaimonia (flourishing).
A virtue is generally agreed to be a character trait, such as a habitual action or settled
sentiment. Specifically, a virtue is a positive trait that makes its possessor a good human
being. A virtue is thus to be distinguished from single actions or feelings. Rosalind
Hursthouse says:
A virtue such as honesty or generosity is not just a tendency to do what is honest or generous,
nor is it to be helpfully specified as a “desirable” or “morally valuable” character trait. It is,
indeed a character trait—that is, a disposition which is well entrenched in its possessor,
something that, as we say “goes all the way down”, unlike a habit such as being a tea-drinker—

4
 but the disposition in question, far from being a single track disposition to do honest actions, or
even honest actions for certain reasons, is multi-track. It is concerned with many other actions as
well, with emotions and emotional reactions, choices, values, desires, perceptions, attitudes,
interests, expectations and sensibilities. To possess a virtue is to be a certain sort of person
with a certain complex mindset. (Hence the extreme recklessness of attributing a virtue on
the basis of a single action.)

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral
philosophy rather than either doing one's duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences.
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach to morality assumes that we
acquire virtue through practice. ... So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be
a virtuous human being.
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are
all examples of virtues.
This decision would satisfy the virtuous person because it harmonizes motives and reasons. Virtue
ethics allows people to maintain personal and interpersonal connections important for the good
life. Virtue ethics does not fall victim to moral schizophrenia, which is one advantage it has over most
other moral theories.
Virtue, by definition, is the moral excellence of a person. Morally excellent people have
a character made-up of virtues valued as good. They are honest, respectful, courageous, forgiving,
and kind, for example. ... Virtues need to be cultivated to become more prevalent in life.

Strengths of Virtue Ethics

Character Traits. Virtue Ethics deals with a person's virtues and how he or she uses them in making the
lives of other people better. If a person has virtues, he or she can act morally and will be able to treat
others with respect, compassion and love.

Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics

 Without Focus. Critics of virtue ethics say that this theory lacks focus when it comes
to determining the types of actions that are morally acceptable and permitted from the ones that
should be avoided. ...
 Nature of Virtues. ...
 Self-centeredness. ...
 Misguidance. ...
 Limited.

5
Rights Theory of Ethics
The concept of rights-based ethics is that there are some rights, both positive and negative,
that all humans have based only on the fact that they are human. These rights can be
natural or conventional.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the
fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people. according to
some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in
such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, for they are regarded as established
pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of
each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights
structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is
currently perceived".

Definitional issues

Rights are widely regarded as the basis of law, but what if laws are bad? Some theorists
suggest civil disobedience is, itself, a right, and it was advocated by thinkers such as Henry
David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has
been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and
sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having
something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.
One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to consider
different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights:

“ A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one
phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment
before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an
offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a
distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple
husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way. ”

There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights, such as:

“ Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, ”
states' rights, the rights of peoples. What actions or states or objects the asserted
right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to
remain silent; property rights, bodily rights. Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the
right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the

6
 society, customary rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be
affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right
to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community,
particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, political science,
and religion.

Examples of Rights Based Ethics

The concept of rights based ethics is that there are some rights, both positive and negative, that
all humans have based only on the fact that they are human. These rights can be natural or
conventional. That is, natural rights are those that are moral while conventional are those
created by humans and reflect society's values.
Rights Based Ethics System: Examples
 The right to life
 The right to liberty
 The right to pursue happiness
 The right to a jury trial
 The right to a lawyer
 The right to freely practice a religion of choice
 The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
 The right of individuals or organizations to express opinions or share information freely
in written medium
 The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
 The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested
 The right to call witnesses to speak on one's behalf if accused of a crime
 The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after beign found guilty
of a crime
 The right to freely live and travel within the country
 The right to work
 The right to marry
 The right to bear children
 The right to free education
 The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of choice
 The right to be free from slavery
 The right to not be tortured
 The right to be treated as equal to others
 The right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty
 The right to personal privacy
 The right to own property

7
Understanding Rights Based Ethics
The United States is founded upon a Rights Based Ethics System in which citizens are believed
to have certain unalienable rights. John Locke was one of the primary supporters of this type of
system as it takes the perspective of what the ideal world looks like and creates a rights system
based upon those ideas.
 The United States of America's Bill of Rights is a document that epitomizes the type of
rights that are embraced by Rights Based Ethical Systems.
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is another document that embraces and
exhibits the values of a Rights Based Ethical System.

Beauchamp and Childress, authors and ethical theorists, have defined the term "right" to
be a "justified claim that individuals and groups can make upon other individuals or upon
society; to have a right is to be in a position to determine by one's choices, what others
should do or need not do."

Justice Theory of Ethics

A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by the philosopher John
Rawls, in which the author addresses the problem of distributive justice (the socially
just distribution of goods in a society). The theory uses an updated form of Kantian
philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is
fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other
disciplines and contexts.
The resultant theory was challenged and refined several times in the decades following its
original publication in 1971. A significant reappraisal was published in the 1985 essay "Justice
as Fairness", and a subsequent book under the same title, within which Rawls further developed
his two central principles for his discussion of justice. Together, they dictate that society should
be structured so that the greatest possible amount of liberty is given to its members, limited only
by the notion that the liberty of any one member shall not infringe upon that of any other
member. Secondly, inequalities – either social or economic – are only to be allowed if the worst
off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution. Finally, if there is such a
beneficial inequality, this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to
occupy positions of power – for instance, public office.[1]
First published in 1971, A Theory of Justice was revised in 1975, while translated editions were
being released in the 1990s it was further revised in 1999. In 2001, Rawls published a follow-up
study titled Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.

Objective
8
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality that is
meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society.[2] Central to this effort is an
account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for
parties facing such circumstances, similar to some of Immanuel Kant's views. Principles of
justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face
moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends
which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on
mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original
position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually
acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find
his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives,
including utilitarian and 'right wing'-libertarian accounts.

Justice is a concept on ethics and law that means that people behave in a way that is fair, equal
and balanced for everyone.
Justice is a complex ethical principle, with meanings that range from the fair treatment of
individuals to the equitable allocation of healthcare dollars and resources. ... In light of the
challenges inherent in defining Justice, it is fair to say that it is a concept involving fairness,
equality, and equitable treatment. The principle of justice could be described as the moral
obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims. As such, it is linked
to fairness, entitlement and equality. ... (2009) describe two elements of the principle of justice,
namely equality and equity.
Rawls developed a theory of justice based on social contract theory, holding that the natural
state of human beings is freedom, not subjugation to a monarch, no matter how benign or well
intentioned. Rawls's theory views human beings as inherently good and, echoing Kant, inclined
toward moral rectitude and action.
An example of justice is someone being set free from prison after dna evidence shows they are
innocent.

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each
person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used
interchangeably. ... In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and
fairness.

Problems with Rawl's Theory

PROBLEMS:
Because there has been such extensive discussion of the Difference Principle in the last 30 years,
there have been numerous criticisms of it from the perspective of all five other theories of
distributive justice. Briefly, the main criticisms are as follows.
1. Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principle are
unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged. The problem for these advocates is to

9
explain in a satisfactory way why the relative position of the least advantaged is more important
than their absolute position, and hence why society should be prevented from materially
benefiting the least advantaged when this is possible. The most common explanation appeals to
solidarity : that being materially equal is an important expression of the equality of persons.
Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have over others, if they are better
off materially. Rawls’ response to this latter criticism appeals to the priority of his first principle:
The inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do
not result in unequal liberty. So, for instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income
are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty, even if they increase the
material position of the least advantaged group.
2. The Utilitarian objection to the Difference Principle is that it does not maximize utility. In A
Theory of Justice, Rawls uses Utilitarianism as the main theory for comparison with his own,
and hence he responds at length to this Utilitarian objection and argues for his own theory in
preference to Utilitarianism (some of these arguments are outlined in the section on Welfare-
Based Principles)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Welfare
 3. Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on
liberty. For instance, the Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation to the poor, and
Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings.
(see Libertarian Principles)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Libertarian
4. The Difference Principle is also criticized as a primary distributive principle on the grounds
that it mostly ignores claims that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their
actions. Advocates of Desert-Based Principles argue that some may deserve a higher level of
material goods because of their hard work or contributions even if their unequal rewards do not
also function to improve the position of the least advantaged. They also argue that the Difference
Principle ignores the explanations of how people come to be in the more or less advantaged
groups, when such explanations are relevant to the fairness of these positions.
5. The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance may exclude some morally relevant
information. the theory excludes in order to promote rationality and is biased in favor of
rationality.  
6. Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles could
permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well off.
7. Like Desert theorists, advocates of Resource-Based Principles criticize the Difference
Principle on the basis that it is not ‘ambition-sensitive’ enough, i.e. it is not sensitive to the
consequences of people’s choices. They also argue that it is not adequately ‘endowment-
sensitive’: it does not compensate people for natural inequalities (like handicaps or ill-health)
over which people have no control.
8. There is also the difficulty in applying the theory to practice.  It is difficult if not impossible
for people to place themselves under the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to
formulate what conduct would be required of them by the MAXI MIN Principle.  

10
9. Some question whether or not people are rational enough to assume the veil of ignorance and
operate under the two principles.
10. The theory was developed more to handle problems within society and there are difficulties
in applying the principles to individual decision-making involving specific others.

Comparisons of Ethics’ Theories – Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Utilitarianism
1. Encourages Efficiency and productivity
2. Consistent with profit maximization getting the most value (benefit) for the least cost.
3. Looks beyond the individual to assess impact of the decision on all who are affected.
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
1. Virtually impossible to quantity all variables.
2. Can result in biased allocations of resources, especially when some who are affected lack
representation or voice.
3. Can result in ignoring the rights of some people to achieve a utilitarian outcome.
Upgrade to remove ads
Only $1/month
What is utilitarianism?
The greatest good for the greatest number

Strengths of Rights-based ethics

1. Protects the individual from injury; consistent with rights to freedom and privacy.
Weaknesses of Rights-based ethics
1. Can encourage individualist selfish behavior that, if misinterpreted, may result in anarchy.

Strengths of Duty-based ethics

1. Absolute rules or principles help us determine what is our duty toward others.
2. Who determines what our duty toward others.
3. A mandate for respect and impartiality.
Weaknesses of Duty-based ethics
1. Hard to identify who should determine the rules and principles of moral behavior.
2. People are not treated as a means to an end.
What is Duty-based ethics?
Based on absolute moral rules

Strengths of Justice-based ethics

1. A democratic approach
2. Based on a "veil of ignorance"
3. No one person is advantaged or disadvantaged
Weaknesses of Justice-based ethics
1. Some believe it is unfair for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy.

11
What is Justice-based ethics?
Fair distribution of benefits and burdens.

Strengths of Virtue-based ethics

1. Based on premise that our actions are universal
2. Virtuous behavior includes perseverance, courage, integrity, compassion, humility, and
justice.
Weaknesses of Virtue-based ethics
1. Concern that people can be taken advantage of if they are too complacent or trusting.
What is Virtue-based ethics?
Based on belief that we have a duty of responsibility to others.

12