LESSON 2

Moral Theories
Introduction
A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain or predict a set of
facts or concepts. A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong or
why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine
right and wrong conduct.Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which
we think and discuss in a reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues.
For the strategist, a useful theory provides a way of understanding the
dynamics of the complex strategicenvironment,recognizableindicators or warning
signals of change, and agreed-upon means of dealing with change. Simply put,a
theory is one's notion of cause and effect.
Moral Theories
Through the ages,there have emerged multiple common moral theories and
traditions. We will cover each one briefly below with explanations and how they
differ from other moral theories.
Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories, unlike virtue and deontological
theories, hold that only the consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter morally.
According to this view, acts are deemed to be morally right solely on the basis of
their consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong.
But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it's the
right thing to do.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even
impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no
one'can know the future with certainty. Also, in certainsituations, consequentialism
can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are
arguably good.
Consequentialism is based on two principles:
1. Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act;
2. The better consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.
It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: A person should
choose the action that maximizes good consequences and it gives. this general
guidance on how to live:People should live so as to maximize good consequences.
Moral Subjectivism. Right and wrong is determined by what you, the
subject, just happens to think or 'feel' is right or wrong. In its common form, Moral
Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind,
and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and
＇wrong' Iose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist,
you cannot object to anyone's behavior assuming people are in fact acting in
accordance with what they think or feel is right. This shows the key flaw in moral
subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on
moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree
about moral issues (Brandt, 1959).
Moral Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and
that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable
truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or
conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude,
opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement
to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the
person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human
conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
There are different types of Moral Subjectivism:
1. Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.
2. Individualist Subjectivism: the view originally put forward by Protagoras,
that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals
in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every
human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
3. Moral Relativisn (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be
morally right is for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion
that different things are right for people in different societies and different
periods in history.
4. Ideal. Obseroer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the
attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational,
imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and David Hume
espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory,,and Roderick Firth
（1917-1987) is responsible for a more sophisticated modern version.
5. Ethical Egoism. Right and wrong is determined. by what is in your self-
interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism- that we, by
nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought
to aim for at least some 'higher' goods example, wisdom, political success, but
Moral Subjectivism. Right and wrong is determined by what you, the
subject, just happens to think or 'feel' is right or wrong. In its common form, Moral
Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind,
and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and
＇wrong' Iose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist,
you cannot object to anyone's behavior assuming people are in fact acting in
accordance with what they think or feel is right. This shows the key flaw in moral
subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on
moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree
about moral issues (Brandt, 1959).
Moral Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and
that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable
truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or
conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude,
opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement
to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the
person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human
conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
There are different types of Moral Subjectivism:
1. Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.
2. Individualist Subjectivism: the view originally put forward by Protagoras,
that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals
in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every
human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
3. Moral Relativisn (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be
morally right is for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion
that different things are right for people in different societies and different
periods in history.
4. Ideal. Obseroer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the
attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational,
imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and David Hume
espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory,,and Roderick Firth
（1917-1987) is responsible for a more sophisticated modern version.
5. Ethical Egoism. Right and wrong is determined. by what is in your self-
interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism- that we, by
nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought
to aim for at least some 'higher' goods example, wisdom, political success, but
decide which actions shóuld be governed by rules:"Act'only according to that
maxim by which you'can also wil that it would become a universal law."In
other words,people should only do things that they would be happy to see
everyone does.For example,people shouldn't lie,because if everyone lies al
the time then society would collapse.
Deontology is simple to apply.It just requires that people follow the rules
and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition
about what is or isn't ethical.
＇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.
8. Virtue Ethics. A virtue is an excellent trait of character. It is a disposition,
well entrenched in its possessor-something that,as we say,goes all the way
down, to notice, expect, value, feel, desire, choose, act, and react in certain
characteristic ways. Virtue ethics emphasizes an individual's character as the
key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves
（Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).
To possess a virtue is to be a certain sort of person with a certain complex
mindset. A significant aspect of this mindset is the wholehearted acceptance
of a distinctive range of considerations as reasons for action.
Virtue ethics states that only good people can make good moral decisions.
Therefore,the best way to be moral is to constantly seek to improve oneself.
Virtueethicists lista number of qualities that they believe are universal,and are
appreciated in all cultures. They include wisdom, prudence, loyalty, honesty,
temperance,bravery, magnanimity, and justice. Virtue ethicists argue that ifa
person tries his best to emboy these traits, then by definition he will always
be in a good position to make moral judgments.
There are three main elements of. Virtue Ethics:
1. Eudaimonism. It is the classical formulation of Virtuie Ethics. It holds that the
proper goal of human life is eudaimonia (which can be variously translated as
＂happiness","well-being" or the"good life"), and that this goal can be achieved
byalifetimeofpracticing"arête" (thevirtues)inone'severydayactivities,subject
to the exercise of "phronesis"(practical wisdom) to resolve any conflicts
or dilemmas which might arise. Indeed,such a virtuous life would in itself
constitute eudaimonia,which should be seen as an objective,not a subjective,
state,characterized by the well-lived life,irrespective of the emotional state of
the person experiencing it.
the foundation of civil society. For example,they argue that without the right
to own property,there is no incentive to create property and therefore there is
no mechanism by which society can advance (Pangle, 1988).
Locke believed thatthe mostbasichuman law of natureis the preservation
of mankind.To'serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right
and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right
to life since they act outside the law of reason.
Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about
how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty
of others.Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.
By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could
be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain
circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which
included a right to personal well-being. Jefferson, however, substituted the
phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe
freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.
The purpose of governmënt, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the
God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people
must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between
the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes
its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people
have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new
political system.
3. Moral Relativism. Moral relativism is a theory which states that no one
person's morals are better or worse than any other. Relativists argue that a
person's moral code is shaped by the society in which he is raised, and that no
society is inherently better or worse than any other.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept
each other's differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral
principles.
Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral
absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical
question. Indeed,those who adhere to moral relativism would say, “When in
Rome, do as the Romans do."
Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only
within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of
individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different
concept is that of Moral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there
are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in
conflict with each other example, the moral life of a nun is incompatible with
that of a mother,yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable
（Rachels, 1999).