Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy
Morality:
“Morality is a system of principles and values that determine what is considered right or
wrong, good or bad, and just or unjust in human behavior.”
In general, it is the morality which determines:
➢ How the world ought to be?
➢ What we ought/ought not to do?
➢ What is right or wrong?
Theories of Morality

Theories of Morality

Nihilism Emotivism Objectivism Relativism Subjectivism

Deontology Consequentialism

Imperatives
Divine Utilitarianism Egoism
Categorical Commands
Imperatives

Hypothetical
Imperatives

Nihilism
“Nihilism is a philosophical belief that denies the existence of inherent meaning,
purpose, or value in life and the universe.”
• Its main proponent was Fredrick Nietzsche.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 1
Moral Philosophy

Explanation:
Nihilism argues for the meaninglessness or lack of inherent value in existence. It propagates
that life, morality, and the universe have no objective or inherent purpose, and therefore, there
is no ultimate truth or significance to be found. It also propagates that reality is only what’s
termed as Physical, there is no such thing as Meta-physical. There are no such things as
thinking, will, aesthetic truths and last but not the least, there are no emotions. Nihilism rejects
traditional moral and social values, and it leads to a sense of existential despair or the belief
that nothing ultimately matters.

Criticism
Self-Refutation:
Nihilism shoots itself in the foot by claiming life has no inherent meaning. The act of
making this statement implies a meaning—rendering the theory self-contradictory.
Metaphysical Values:
Nihilism dismisses the existence of metaphysical values, but we all know there are
transcendent values beyond societal constructs, exposing a blind spot in its perspective.
Failure to Provide a Moral System:
Nihilism, for all its bold claims, fails miserably in providing a constructive moral system
for guiding individuals or society. For example, if someone says, "Raping a small innocent girl
is right," from a Nihilist’s perspective, the claim in not wrong as they believe that nothing is
fundamentally right or wrong. It is just a reaction of matter with some other matter, nothing
more than this.

Emotivism
“It is a philosophical theory that suggests moral statements are expressions of personal
emotions and attitudes rather than objective facts or truths.”
• Its main proponent were A.J. Ayer and Charles Stevenson.

Explanation:
Emotivism propagates that ethical statements are expressions of individual emotions,
attitudes, or preferences rather than objective facts. It also believes that there are no ultimate
truths and there are no inherent values or purposes behind anything. Unlike Nihilism, it believes
that emotions do exist. According to emotivism, when someone makes a moral claim such as
"lying is wrong," they are not making a statement about the inherent moral quality of lying
itself. Instead, they are expressing their own emotional response or subjective approval or
disapproval of lying. For example, if someone says, "Stealing is bad," from an emotivism’s
perspective, they are not claiming that stealing has an inherent moral quality of being bad.
Instead, they are expressing their own negative emotional response or disapproval of stealing.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 2
Moral Philosophy

They propagate that moral statements are nothing more than the expression of speaker’s
feelings about an issue.

Criticism
Expression of Emotions:
If actions find expression through emotions, the fundamental question arises: what
underlies these emotions? It is evident that emotions are rooted in the notions of good and bad.
This straightforwardly suggests that the existence of emotions implies the existence of a moral
framework based on good and bad.
Failure to Provide a Moral System:
Emotivism lacks backbone by not offering a solid moral system. It leaves society
hanging, devoid of clear ethical guidance.

Relativism
“Relativism is the belief that truth, morality, or knowledge are not fixed or absolute, but
rather depend on individual, cultural, or historical perspective for their validity and
meaning.”
• Some notable figures who have discussed relativism include Protagoras in ancient
Greece and Richard Rorty in contemporary philosophy.

Explanation:
It suggests that there are no objective or universally valid standards or principles to
judge or evaluate beliefs, values, or practices. For instance, in some cultures, homosexuality is
accepted and embraced as a natural and valid expression of human sexuality. In contrast, other
cultures may hold negative views or consider it morally wrong based on religious or cultural
norms. Relativism acknowledges that societal perspectives on homosexuality can differ, and
there is no universal standard for evaluating the morality or acceptability of same-sex
relationships. It recognizes the diversity of cultural beliefs and values, emphasizing that moral
judgments on homosexuality are influenced by cultural, historical, and individual perspectives.

Criticism
Cultural Boundaries:
Relativism falters in clearly defining cultural boundaries. How we draw the lines around
a culture remains a puzzling aspect, with the theory lacking practical guidance.
Determining Boundaries:
The theory is silent on who decides these cultural boundaries. It avoids addressing the
crucial question of authority, leaving a significant gap in its foundational principles.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 3
Moral Philosophy

Relativity of Cultural Definitions:

Relativism's claim that “defining a culture is relative” creates a confusing loop. If the
definition itself is subjective, how reliable can it be as a basis for moral judgments? This
introduces a paradox within the theory.
Cultural Shifts and Moral Dilemmas:
When someone shifts between cultures with different moral norms, relativism offers
little guidance. It doesn't provide a clear path for individuals facing conflicting moral
frameworks, leaving them in ethical uncertainty.
Evolving Culture and Moral Relativity:
Relativism struggles with the evolving nature of culture. How do we determine right
from wrong within the same culture that keeps changing? The theory lacks a solid approach to
address the dynamic nature of societal evolution.

Subjectivism
“Subjectivism is the philosophical view that truth and morality are subjective and based on
individual perspectives, opinions, or preferences, rather than objective or universal
standards.”
• It has been advocated by philosophers such as David Hume and Jean-Paul Sartre,
among others.

Explanation:
Subjectivism holds that truth and morality are subjective, meaning they vary from person
to person. An example of subjectivism can be found in the following: According to
subjectivism, the nature of “raping a woman”, whether it is right or wrong, is completely
determined by individual preferences and interpretations. What one person finds beautiful or
meaningful in raping a woman may differ from what another person finds appealing. In
subjectivism, there is no objective standard for determining whether raping a woman is right
or wrong; it is based solely on the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals.

Criticism
Social Consequences:
Subjectivism's entanglement with fluid morality is a recipe for disaster in society. Who
decides the limits, and who gave them the authority?
Survival of the Fittest:
Subjectivism seems like it's paving the way for a chaotic "survival of the fittest"
scenario. Anarchy, anyone?

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 4
Moral Philosophy

Failure to Provide a Moral System:

Subjectivism falters yet again by not offering a concrete moral system. The example of
incest highlights its inability to guide us through real-life moral dilemmas.

Objectivism
“Objectivism is a perspective that holds that objective reality exists independently of
individual perception or belief.”
• The main proponent of Objectivism was Ayn Rand.

It emphasizes the objective nature of reality and the importance of reason as the primary means
of acquiring knowledge. It holds that reality exists independent of human perception and that
individuals have the capacity to understand and navigate the reality through rational thinking.
In Objectivism, individuals are seen as independent and self-interested beings who have the
right to pursue their own happiness and well-being. It rejects the notion of sacrificing oneself
for others or being obligated to serve the needs of society at the expense of individual values
and goals. Ethically, Objectivism advocates for rational self-interest, asserting that individuals
should act in accordance with their own values and pursue actions that enhance their own lives.
It rejects the idea that selflessness or altruism should be considered the highest moral virtues,
asserting that genuine benevolence should be based on rational choice rather than sacrifice.

Consequentialism
“Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges the morality of actions based on their
outcomes. It holds that an action is morally right if it leads to good or desirable
consequences, regardless of the means used.”
• The main proponent of consequentialism is the philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.

Explanation:
The central idea of consequentialism is that the morality of an action depends solely on
its consequences. It holds that the ends justify the means, meaning that the rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined by the overall outcome it brings about. Imagine you're
in a situation where you can save either one person or five persons. The one person offers
5000$ if he gets saved, while the five persons offer nothing, provided that both are strangers.
According to consequentialism, the morally right action would be to save the person who has
offered 5000$. Consequentialism assesses the morality of an action based on its outcomes. In
this case, saving the person who offered money would produce a greater overall good or utility
compared to saving the persons who offered nothing even though they were five in number.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 5
Moral Philosophy

Utilitarianism
“Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that prioritizes maximizing overall happiness or utility.
It holds that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest amount of happiness for
the greatest number of people.”
• Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill are its main proponents.

Explanation:
The central idea of utilitarianism is that the consequences of an action, specifically the
overall happiness or utility it generates, are what ultimately matter. The principle of utility
states that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes
suffering. Imagine you are a doctor with limited resources and you have to decide between two
patients. Patient A is in critical condition and requires immediate medical attention and
maximum effort to survive, but the treatment is expensive and will exhaust a significant portion
of your available resources. Patient B has a less severe condition and can be treated with
minimal effort. According to utilitarianism, the morally right action would be to prioritize
treating Patient B because it requires less effort and resources, although patient B’s condition
is far better than patient A’s condition.

Criticism
Majority Decision Issues:
Utilitarianism raises eyebrows with its problematic majority rule. What about the
minority? Are their interests just collateral damage?
Hedonistic Society:
Pleasure as the compass for morality? Utilitarianism seems poised to lead us straight
into a hedonistic void. How is that a reliable moral guide?
Determining the Area:
Choosing the majority is tough, but defining the area impacted by moral decisions is
equally misty. Utilitarianism needs a GPS for its moral territory.

Egoism
“Egoism is an ethical theory that prioritizes self-interest as the basis for determining
morality. It asserts that individuals should act in a way that maximizes their own well-
being.”
• The main proponents of egoism include philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn
Rand.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 6
Moral Philosophy

Explanation:
Egoism is a theory that places self-interest as the ultimate basis for determining the
morality of actions. It asserts that individuals should act in a way that maximizes their own
self-interest, focusing on personal benefits, desires, and long-term well-being. In egoism, the
focus is primarily on the consequences and benefits to oneself rather than considering the well-
being of others or adhering to moral duties or principles. Imagine you are offered a job
promotion that comes with a significant increase in salary and benefits. However, accepting
the promotion would mean that a colleague who is more capable of that promotion and who
also aspired to the position would be passed over and miss out on the opportunity. An egoist
would prioritize their own self-interest and choose to accept the promotion. From an egoistic
perspective, the increased salary and benefits would directly benefit you and contribute to your
own well-being and financial security. The potential harm or missed opportunity for your
colleague would be secondary to the personal gain you would experience.

Criticism
Fluid Morality:
Egoism's notion of morality tied to self-interest is like chasing a moving target. Moral
values change with every shift in individual interests. How is that a stable foundation?
Paradox of Self-Interest:
Egoism stumbles into a paradox. What if someone's self-interest involves suppressing
yours? It's a recipe for societal chaos.
Tendency Towards Anarchy:
Egoism seems to be whispering sweet nothings to anarchy. Trusting everyone to
prioritize their own interests—what could possibly go wrong?

Deontology
“Deontology is an ethical theory that emphasizes the inherent rightness or wrongness of
actions, regardless of their consequences. It focuses on following moral principles or
duties, considering them as absolute and universal.”
• Immanuel Kant is considered the main proponent of deontological ethics.

Explanation:
Deontology is a moral and ethical theory that focuses on the actions themselves rather than
the consequences of those actions. It is derived from the Greek word "deon," meaning "duty"
or "obligation." According to deontological ethics, certain actions are inherently right or wrong,
regardless of their outcomes. Deontologists believe that moral decisions should be based on a
set of principles or rules that prescribe how individuals ought to act. In deontology, the morality
of an action is determined by its conformity to moral rules or duties. For example, telling the

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 7
Moral Philosophy

truth is considered a moral duty, regardless of the consequences it may bring. Deontologists
argue that it is the intention behind an action and the adherence to moral principles that make
an action morally right or wrong. Suppose you're faced with a moral dilemma where you have
promised to keep a secret for a friend, but revealing that secret could prevent harm to others.
In a deontological framework, the morality of your action would be determined by the
principles or duties involved. From a deontological perspective, if you believe that keeping
promises is an absolute moral duty, regardless of the consequences, you would choose to keep
the secret. In this case, the moral rightness is derived from fulfilling your duty to keep your
word, even if it may lead to some negative outcomes.

Kant's Imperatives
“Kant's imperatives refer to the ethical principles proposed by the philosopher Immanuel
Kant in his moral philosophy.”
• These were presented by Immanuel Kant.

Kant formulated two main types of imperatives: categorical imperatives and hypothetical
imperatives.

Categorical Imperative
This is the central concept in Kantian ethics. Categorical imperatives are unconditional
moral commands that apply universally, regardless of personal desires or circumstances.
According to Kant, moral actions should be guided by principles that can be universally applied
without contradiction. One of the most well-known formulations of the categorical imperative
is the principle: "Whenever you're about to take an action, consider whether you would be okay
with everyone else in the world doing the same thing."

Hypothetical Imperative
Unlike categorical imperatives, hypothetical imperatives are conditional and context-
dependent. They prescribe actions based on achieving specific goals or desires. These
imperatives are dependent upon personal preferences or individual aims. An example of a
hypothetical imperative is: "If you want to succeed in your career, you should work hard."
Explanation:
Suppose you're considering whether to lie to a friend who is asking for your opinion
about a new outfit they are wearing. The lie would spare their feelings and avoid hurting them,
but it would also involve deceiving them. Kant's categorical imperative would guide your
decision-making process. According to Kant, you should apply the principle of
universalizability, which states that you should only act in a way that you can will to be a
universal law. In other words, ask yourself whether lying in this situation could be universally
applied without contradiction. Applying the categorical imperative, you would consider the
maxim or principle behind your action. In this case, the maxim might be: "It is permissible to
lie to spare someone's feelings." However, if this maxim were universalized, it would lead to a
contradiction. If everyone lied whenever it was convenient, trust and meaningful
TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 8
Moral Philosophy

communication would break down. Therefore, Kant would argue that lying in this situation
would be morally wrong because it involves a contradiction when applied universally. Instead,
Kant would propose telling the truth, as honesty is a moral duty that can be consistently applied
without contradiction. Kant's categorical imperative emphasizes the inherent moral worth of
actions, irrespective of their outcomes. It prioritizes universal principles and the consistency of
moral rules in guiding ethical decision-making.

Criticism
Flaws in Universalizing Principles:
Kant's imperatives stumble on universalizing principles. How can one size fit all when
it comes to moral values across diverse contexts?
Timing of Application:
Understanding values is all well and good, but Kant fumbles on when to actually apply
these values. Talk about leaving us in the dark.
Inherent Values:
Kant's absolute values clash, leaving us in a moral quagmire. Speaking the truth might
kill someone—now what? It lacks the clarity needed for real-world moral decisions.
Absolute Moral Values:
Who crowned Kant the king of absolute moral values? Questioning his authority to
dictate these absolutes exposes a weakness in the foundation of his moral framework.

Divine Commands
“It is the view that moral obligations and principles are based on the commands or will of a
higher power i.e. God. It states that, moral truths and duties are ultimately grounded in
the authority of a Divine Being.”
• The main proponents of divine command theory include historical figures such as
Socrates, Plato, and medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas. In contemporary philosophy,
Robert Adams, William Lane Craig, and Philip Quinn.

Explanation:
Divine command theory proposes that moral values and ethical guidelines are not inherent
in the nature of actions themselves or derived from human reasoning, but instead depend on
the commands of a supreme being i.e. God. This perspective asserts that what is morally right
or wrong is determined by God's commands or prohibitions. As it provides a solid foundation
for moral objectivity. The claim that without a transcendent authority to establish moral norms,
there would be no objective basis for distinguishing between right and wrong, as it is
impossible for the human intellect which is limited and in-trustable to decide what should be

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 9
Moral Philosophy

wrong or right, and it is the Right of the creator of everything to decide for the creation what
they should ought/not ought to do, as it suits only to Him, is the main proposal of this theory.
In this view, morality is ultimately derived from the will of a Divine Being, and it is our duty
to follow those commands.

TEC asserts no copyright claims, allowing readers unrestricted use of this content. 10