MORAL THEORIES

NORMATIVE THEORIES OF ETHICS

Are meant to help us figure what actions are right and
wrong
…
It is the frames of our moral experiences
 THREE MAJOR APPROACHES IN NORMATIVE
ETHICS
• Consequential Theories (Teleology)
• Consequentialism:  It judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences
are.
• Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. 
• Utilitarianism judges consequences by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard.
• Hedonism says something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.

• Non-Consequential Theories (Deontology)

• Deontology is a theory that suggests actions are good or bad according to a clear set of
rules like Ten Commandments and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Deontology believes the consequences of our actions have no ethical relevance at all.

• Alternative Approaches (Virtue Theories)

• Virtue Ethics is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character.
 SPECIFIC MORAL THEORIES

1. Utilitarianism
2. Categorical Imperative
3. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
4. Stoic Virtue Ethics
5. Ross’s Intuitionism

Philosophers have found ethical theories useful because they help

us decide why various actions are right and wrong.
 1. Utilitarianism

• Right and wrong can be determined by a cost-benefit analysis.

• An action will then be said to be right as long it satisfactorily causes good

consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be wrong if it
doesn’t.

• It does not encourage egoism: It is wrong to harm others to benefit yourself

because everyone counts.

• It is often wrong to do something that will produce good results but harm
other people.
 To conclude, in order to know if something is morally preferable for a
utilitarian, we must ask,

“Will it lead to more benefits and less harms than the alternatives?”

If the answer is, Yes, then it is morally preferable.

Always watch out the difference of Right Action and Right Moral Action. Right
Moral Action is emphasized in Utilitarianism.
 Applying Utilitarianism
• Killing people – Killing people is usually wrong either because people have
value (and they might not exist after dying), because everyone has a desire to
stay alive, or because killing people makes other people unhappy.

• Stealing – Stealing is usually wrong because it makes people unhappy to lose

their possessions, they might need their possessions to accomplish certain
important goals, and because the right to property makes it possible for us to
make long term goals involving our possessions.
• Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior does not automatically cause
harm and it is something many people find pleasurable and part of living a
happy life. Therefore, it is not always wrong. Homosexuality can cause
someone harm from discrimination, but to blame homosexuality for the harms
of discrimination is a form of blaming the victim just like blaming a woman who
gets raped for being too weak.

• Atheism –Atheism does not necessarily cause people harm other than through
discrimination, but blaming atheists for discrimination is also a form of blaming
the victim. Additionally, atheism is often a position one believes in because of
good arguments, and it is appropriate for people to have beliefs based on good
arguments. Being “reasonable” is “right” because it tends to have good results.
 2. Categorical Imperative
• It asks us to act in a way that we can will to be a universal law.

• It asks us to behave in a rational way that would be rational for everyone.

• If it is right for me to defend myself when attacked, then it is right for everyone
to defend themselves in self defense.
• Homosexual behavior – If having sex for pleasure can be rational for
heterosexuals, then having sex for pleasure can be rational for homosexuals.
Doing something to attain pleasure is not irrational as long as there’s no
overriding reason to find it problematic.

• Atheism – Someone can rationally believe in atheism if it is found to be a

sufficiently reasonable belief just like all other beliefs. If it is rational to believe
in theism if it is found to be sufficiently reasonable, and it can be rational to
believe in atheism for the same reason.
3. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
• It has two parts:
• our personal happiness (or “flourishing”) is the ultimate goal
that we should promote.
• we should learn to have habits and behave in ways that lead
to our personal happiness. 

• To have the right habits and feelings is to be virtuous.

• Happiness is distinct from pleasure and means
something more like “good life”.
 Applying Aristotle’s virtue ethics

• Killing people – It might be necessary to kill people in self defense because
living is necessary to be happy (and we must promote goods that are necessary
for our personal happiness), but killing people makes us unhappy because we
are social animals and we care about people. We don’t like horrible things to
happen to others.

• Stealing – Stealing is necessary if it is necessary for our personal happiness, but

stealing makes us unhappy insofar as we care about people.
• Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior is wrong when done
immoderately (in an overly-dangerous way likely to lead to unhappiness),
but it is right when done in a way that leads to one’s personal fulfillment.

• Atheism – Atheism is right as long as the belief is not under our control or
as long as the belief does not lead to our unhappiness. Atheists often
can’t control their atheism just like they can’t believe in many other things
that they find implausible (ghosts, ESP, bigfoot, etc.).
 4. Stoic Virtue Ethics
• It is a theory that true moral beliefs and thoughts tend to lead to
appropriate emotions and actions.

• In order to determine if something is morally acceptable for a Stoic

philosopher we need to ask, “What emotions are being felt and what
beliefs are held? If the emotions are caused by rational beliefs, then it is
morally acceptable.
• It has five parts:

1. virtue is the ultimate value that overrides all other values.

2.Evaluative beliefs are value judgments, such as “pleasure is preferable.”

3. true (or well reasoned) evaluative beliefs and thoughts tend to give us appropriate
emotions and actions. 

4. we can know what is “preferable” from our instincts, which was given to us from God
(Universal Reason).

5. Everything that happens is for the best because it was preordained by God (Universal
Reason)
 Applying Stoic virtue ethics

• Killing people – It is wrong to kill people insofar as killing people is

motivated by inappropriate beliefs and thoughts, such as, “This person
committed atrocities and deserves to die.” Such a belief could motivate rage
and we could lose rational control of ourselves. Instead, we should
dispassionately consider why killing could be appropriate based on rational
preferences. For example, it might be appropriate to kill in self defense if
necessary for our preference for survival despite the fact that we ought to
care about all people and prefer for good things to happen to others.
• Stealing – It is wrong to steal insofar as it is motivated by inappropriate
beliefs and thoughts, such as, “I need to have more money.” It might be
necessary to steal to act on sufficiently important rational preference, such
as a preference to survive when stealing is needed to survive; but pleasure
would not be an important enough preference worth promoting to warrant
theft. For one thing we care for others and don’t like others to suffer theft,
and the expectation of pleasure would not override the importance of
helping rather than harming others.
• Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior insofar as it is based on a
preference for pleasure is appropriate as long as it is compatible with our
care for others. An inappropriate love of pleasure could cause inappropriate
lust that would cloud our judgment whether we are talking about
homosexual or heterosexual sex.

• Atheism – Atheism is appropriate insofar as the belief is probably true

based on the information available to us. For the Stoic philosopher, true
beliefs are of primary importance. We should have a belief because it is
true, not because it is pleasurable or because of our emotions.
5. ROSS’S INTUITIONISM
• We can make moral progress one step at a time by learning more and
more about our moral duties, and do our best at balancing conflicting
obligations and values.

• W.D. Ross proposed that we have:

• Self-Evident prima facie moral duties.
• Some Things that have intrinsic value.
 Prima facie duties
• Whatever we ought to do all things considered will override any other conflicting
duties. 

• Five Duties:
• Duty of fidelity – The duty to keep our promises.

• Duty of reparation – The duty to try to pay for the harm we do to others.

• Duty of gratitude – The duty to return favors and services given to us by others.

• Duty of beneficence – The duty to maximize the good (things of intrinsic value).

• Duty of non-injury – The duty to refuse to harm others.

Self-Evidence and Intuition

• Duties must be self-evident which means that we can contemplate

the duties and know they are true based on that contemplation.

• Intuition is the way contemplation can lead to knowledge of self-

evidence. We consider it sometimes as common sense