ETHICS REVIEWER

Consistency principles
There may be moral consistency principles that make sense from various perspectives and give powerful
tools for moral reasoning.
These principles are:
- logicality (consistency in beliefs)
- end-means consistency
- conscientiousness
- impartiality
Does consistency guarantee truth?
We might be consistent but wrong. However, consistency often points us toward the truth.
Uncovering inconsistencies may be the best way to discover the truth about something.
Consistency may not guarantee truth, but it can point us toward the truth.
Consistency in beliefs
Logicality is the requirement that we be logically consistent in our beliefs. We violate this if we accept
incompatible beliefs--or if we accept a belief without also accepting its logical consequences.
Logicality would require us to give up one belief or the other if we have a pair of inconsistent beliefs.
Moreover, if we accept a principle but reject its consequences, then we are inconsistent--and we have to
change something.
End-means consistency
End-means consistency is the requirement that we keep our means in harmony with our ends. You violate
this if you
(a) have an end (goal)
(b) believe that to fulfill this end, you need to carry out certain means. and
(c) do not carry out the means.
Ex. you want change in our government system, as you see it as corrupt and abusive. You believe that the
only way for that to happen is to elect worthy public officials. However, you did not register for the
upcoming 2022 elections.

Inconsistencies
End-means inconsistency is very common. We have a strong tendency to do what is easy or brings
immediate satisfaction, instead of what is needed to fulfill--our deeper goals. This is because we are
imperfectly rational beings.
Conscientiousness
It is the requirement that we keep our actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with our moral beliefs.
It simply forbids an inconsistency between our beliefs and our actions. We violate this if our moral beliefs
clash with how we live and want others to live.
Suppose that you hold the belief that corruption is wrong. If you are conscientious, then
(a) you will never be involved in any form of corruption, and
(b) you do not want others to be corrupt.
In short, conscientiousness means, "practice what you preach:" Do not combine these two:
I believe that everyone ought to do A. I do not act to do A myself
Avoiding inconsistencies
Logicality is a general requirement to avoid inconsistencies. It does not presume that our principles are
correct--so that if we preach racism then it becomes correct. Instead, it tells us to avoid inconsistencies
between our principles and our actions. If the two clash, then something is wrong with one or the other.
Impartiality
Logicality is a general requirement to avoid inconsistencies. It does not presume that our principles are
correct--so that if we preach racism then it becomes correct. Instead, it tells us to avoid inconsistencies
between our principles and our actions. If the two clash, then something is wrong with one or the other.
If we judge that an act is right for one person to do, then we will judge that the same act would be right
for anyone else to do in the same situation.
You violate impartiality if you make conflicting evaluations about actions that you regard as relevantly
similar. For example, you condemn others for their sexist remarks, but you remain silent when the
president catcalls a news reporter.
Golden rule
Impartiality can also be treated as the "golden rule." What is all right for me to do to another has to be all
right for the other to do to me in an imagined exactly reversed situation.

CM 9
CONSEQUENTIALISM
There are three aspects that are generally regarded as relevant when deciding what action, we ought to
carry out:
a. their consequences
b. the rules that they follow or violate, and
c. the character of their doer.
Consequentialism, one of the well-known ethical theories, generally, argues that the consequences of an
action are the ones that ultimately matter in determining the principles of how we ought to live.
In consideration of the consequences of an action, one ought to carry out an action when it results in
something good or desirable. Good consequences may refer to those that bring about pleasurable
experiences, fulfillment of desires, promotion of well-being, or improvement of the quality of life.
Intrinsic good
The good consequence that consequentialism regards as its basis is not just any kind of desirable
consequence, but one that is good in itself--usually referred to as intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is
desired for its own sake, not in order to achieve something else that is also desired. A standard example of
an intrinsic good is happiness. It can be said that one desires to be happy just to be happy or just to
experience it.
Happiness as an intrinsic good
If we take happiness as an intrinsic good, then following consequentialism, it is our duty to maximize
happiness. In this consideration, it is not enough that we should strive to be happy through our actions.
We should strive to attain the greatest possible happiness through our actions.
Varieties of consequentialism
While many consequentialists recognize happiness as an intrinsic good, there are also some who do not.
There are those who do not believe that happiness is the only intrinsic good and those who believe that
happiness is not the only intrinsic good. These disagreements have given rise to the different versions of
consequentialism.
Questions to ponder
Is pleasure (or happiness) the only intrinsic good?
Is pain the only intrinsic bad or evil?
Is the agent's own intrinsic good the only one that matters?
Answers to the above questions lead to the two general distinctions
of consequentialism: (1) distinction between hedonistic and non-hedonistic
consequentialism, and (2) the distinction between agent-relative
and agent-neutral types of consequentialism.
Hedonism and non-hedonism
Hedonism
Thus, pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad.
Non-hedonism
The first version, known as exclusive non-hedonism, excludes pleasure from the list of intrinsic goods.
The intrinsic good is something else that some believe to be power or desire-satisfaction. On the other
hand, the second version, known as inclusive hedonism, rejects the view that pleasure is the only intrinsic
good. There are other intrinsic goods which include knowledge, power, beauty, freedom, and healthy
relationships.
Agent-relative
If we take happiness as the intrinsic good, agent-relative consequentialism would only consider the
happiness brought by an action to its agent
Agent- Neutral
agent-neutral consequentialism would consider the happiness of all persons affected by an action.
Complex forms of consequentialism
Agent – relative hedonism: one ought to do whatever gives him/her maximum pleasure.
Agent-neutral Hedonism: one ought to do whatever gives maximum pleasure to all the persons
involved.
Agent-relative non-hedonism: one ought to do whatever gives him/her maximum benefits.
Agent-neutral non-hedonism: one ought to do whatever results in the maximum benefits for all the
persons involved.
Utilitarianism
we ought to do whatever results in the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Though it
seems to suggest something similar to the majority rule, utilitarianism is not a numbers game in terms of
persons who will benefit from an action. Rather, it is a calculation of which action maximizes aggregate
welfare for all the persons involved.
Hedonistic utilitarianism
Pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad.
Non – hedonistic utilitarianism
rejects the view that pleasure and pain are the only intrinsic good and bad, respectively. The two most
influential representatives of non-hedonistic utilitarianism are preference utilitarianism and pluralistic
utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism
argues that the utilitarian principle should be applied to the act itself
Rule utilitarian
it should be applied to the rule governing the act. one ought to carry an action if it follows an optimific
rule.

CM 10
Non- consequentialism
theories place special emphasis on the rules that govern our actions. Deontological ethics generally claims
that certain acts are intrinsically right or wrong, irrespective of their consequences.
Kantian Ethics
one should do the right thing for only one reason--because it is his or her duty to do so.
What duties to follow?
Kant does not provide us with a list of concrete rules such as "do not steal," "keep your promises," and
"do not lie." Instead, Kant provides us with properties that any rule must live up to. To consider a maxim
(general rule) as a legitimate duty, it should have the following properties:
universalizable
respect a person's dignity
freely chosen
Universizability
includes the element of impartiality. We must consider our duties, obligations, and responsibilities equal
to those of everyone else, and no one should be exempted

Moral duties should respect a person’s dignity

One should not use a person as a means to an end, even if it produces more good for society
Moral rules should be freely chosen
The moral rules that we follow must emanate from us rather than be imposed on us by others.
Natural Law Theory
This theory holds that morality is part of the natural order of things. Certain actions are right by nature
and should be done. Natural inclinations or things that we are inherently inclined to do.
Seven basic goods
Aquinas believes that there are seven basic goods:
Self-preservation,
Procreation,
Educate offspring,
Seek God,
Live in society,
Avoid offense, and
Shun ignorance.
From these seven basic goods, the laws of morality are derived.
Aquinas argues that in order to discover the natural laws, one should exhibit rationality in all its forms.
Hence, one should rely on reason to discover the natural laws.
Virtue Ethics
It is primarily concerned with answering the question, " What kind of person should I be?" This
normative ethical theory is more interested not in what should be done, but in what a person should be or
become.
One must develop virtues
Live life in moderation