Ethics - Major Ethical Theories

7/27/2019 Ethics - Major Ethical Theories

1/4

Major Ethical Theories

The following is a brief explanation of the major ethical theories that have influenced modern thinking inthe United States. The four major theories covered are:

Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good Kantian Ethics: Duties and Rights Rawlsian Ethics: Justice or Fairness Aristotelian Ethics: The Virtuous Life

Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good

Utilitarianism argues that the consequences of an action make that action either moral or immoral. An

action that leads to beneficial consequences is right or moral; one that leads to harmful consequences iswrong or immoral. Utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist theory.

What consequences count? Utilitarianism holds that an action is morally justified to the extent that it

maximizes benefits and minimizes harms or costs. Thus, the one moral thing to do in any situation is thataction that can be reasonably seen to provide the greatest net benefit, when the expected costs are

subtracted from the expected benefits. To do something else is to behave unethically. The more an action

maximizes net costs or net harm, the more immoral it becomes. Thus, utilitarianism calls for the greatest

good for the greatest number of people.But what is the "good" that we are trying to maximize? Utilitarians usually state that the greatest good

means the greatest happiness. Your moral duty is to maximize human happiness and to minimize

unhappiness. They back up this claim by pointing out that everybody wants to be happyit is the one

universal thing that everybody desires and agrees as good.Jeremy Bentham, an 18th century English philosopher, equated happiness with pleasure and

unhappiness with pain. A life of pleasure is a happy life, and a life of pain is an unhappy one. Some have

objected that the good life is more than simply a life of simple pleasures. John Stuart Mill, a 19th Centuryutilitarian philosopher, answered this objection by making qualitative distinctions between different types

of pleasures.

Most utilitarians agree with Mill, and believe that happiness means a type of fulfillment that goes

beyond simple pleasure. However, they insist that the goal of morality is to maximize human happiness (or

human benefits) and minimize human unhappiness (or human harms, or costs).It is important to note that utilitarianism does not say that the moral action is the one that maximizes

the benefits or happiness of the person doing the action. It must be the benefits and happiness of alleach

person counts equally. Any attempt to use utilitarianism to justify selfish behavior at the expense of the

greatest good for the whole society would be a misuse of the doctrine. Another common misconception isthe belief that utilitarianism takes into account only the immediate consequences of an action. This is

wrongutilitarianism clearly states that all consequences must be counted, and this includes both short-

term and long-term consequences, to the extent that these can be foreseen.

Kantian Ethics: Duties and Rights

Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century German philosopher, argued that the consequences of an action are

irrelevant to a moral evaluation of that action. Instead, it is the motivation behind an action that matters.

Actions that are moral are those that are undertaken out of a sense of duty, which means you do it because

you know that it is "the right thing to do."How do we know what is our duty? Kant argues that this can be derived from our unique nature as

human beings. As human beings we are uniquely rational in a way that all other living creatures on earth

are not. We alone can reason, and our ability to reason requires us to be logical and consistent. Logic and

consistency demands that we make the basic rules by which we operate into universal rules that everyone


2/4

could and should follow. If you cannot do that, you are being illogical and inconsistent, and you are being

immoral, because you are not granting to other human beings the same freedom and the same status as a

rational human being that you are claiming for yourself.

From this Kant derives the basic rule of morality, which he calls the categorical imperative. The

categorical imperative must be followed no matter what (as a category), not only if it is convenient or onlyif it has a certain set of consequences. It is the rule, or command, that we all must follow at all times in all

places under all circumstances if we wish to act morally.

Kants first formulation of the categorical imperative suggests that for you to act morally you must actin such a way that you would want the rule you are following to be a universal one that everyone should

follow. For example, if you want to cheat, you have to be able to "will it" (or want it) that everyone cheats.

If you want to break a promise, you must will it that everyone breaks promises.

Kant would argue that you cannot will it to be the case that such actions be universally undertaken. Itwould be self-contradictory and impossible to actually make these into universal practices. Universal

breaking of promises would undermine the very meaning of making a promise, and thus it would destroy

the entire practice of promise-making, and thus it is self-contradictory. The same is true for cheating, for

deceptive practices, etc.The categorical imperative is very close to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them

do unto you. It is not identical, because the golden rule depends on consequences unlike the categorical

imperative, but the two are so close that the difference in practice is minuscule, if it exists at all.Kants second formulation of his categorical imperative highlights another aspect of it. Remember that

human beings are unique among the animals. We alone have reason and, therefore, we alone are able (andrequired) to act rationally, making us truly free. Animals that live according to instincts are not free in the

same way that we are, because they are not rational or able to use reason. As free beings, only human

beings have unconditional worth, unlike mere objects, other animals, or tools. We feel free to use tools and

objects with little regard to the impact on them. A tool itself has no moral claims on me, and I have notcommitted an immoral act if I use the tool merely as a means to accomplish some other end or purpose, and

then discard it.

Kant asserts that it would be immoral to treat another human being that way. If I fail to see eachhuman being as an end-in-himself or end-in-herself, I am denying that human being the freedom that he or

she has by virtue of being a rational (and therefore free) being. I have degraded that person from the status

of a human being to the status of a "thing," and I have "used" them in a manner that is both immoral andcontrary to the categorical imperative, since we could not will it to be the case that all human beings

degrade and use each other in this manner.

Therefore, Kant comes up with a second formulation of the categorical imperative which states thatyou must never use a person just for your own purposes. Instead, you must treat every human being as

someone of independent moral worth, with an equal claim to freely decide his or her own life choices. Todeny this freedom to all is to violate a fundamental duty we have to one another. It would be immoral, and

it would be a violation of the first formulation of the categorical imperative since it would be impossible to

will it to be the case that everyone universally "used" each other this way. Practical life would beimpossible, and it would be a self-contradictory negation to further human (free, independent) life by

denying a human being a free, independent life.

Rawlsian Ethics: Justice or Fairness

Justice is another important ethical standard. Justice involves protecting individual rights, or preventing an

injustice to an individual. Justice also requires us to compare cases to avoid discriminating or treatingpeople differently who are alike in relevant respects. It means treating people fairly.

Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher (384-322 BC), divided the concept of justice into three types:

1) distributive justice, 2) retributive justice, and 3) compensatory justice. Distributive justice, perhaps the

most basic kind, concerns the division of benefits and burdens among individuals. These must bedistributed fairly. Retributive justice concerns what form of "retribution," or punishment, should be

imposed on someone who has done wrong. When we say, "The punishment must fit the crime," we are

calling for retributive justice. Finally, compensatory justice refers to what kind and amount ofcompensation someone should receive if they have been wronged. Again, we tend to think that


3/4


4/4

should. He or she displays the virtues and avoids the many vices by which we are so frequently tempted.

A lifetime of virtuous living and avoidance of vice forms a morally virtuous character.

For Aristotle, a moral virtue is the disposition or tendency to do the right thing and avoid doing wrong.

We develop this disposition over time and through training. In other words, a good character is an

achievement, not a natural endowment. Doing right becomes second nature to us, if we have developedour moral character properly. This is not something that is naturally bred into us; we must strive to achieve

a virtuous character, and we do this by constantly practicing the virtues and thereby developing a good

character.What exactly is a moral virtue? For Aristotle, moral virtues follow from our nature as human beings.

Virtues enable human beings to act in accordance with our essence or human nature. The thing that

distinguishes humans from all other creatures is our ability to reason. Therefore, the virtues are those traits

or characteristics that enable us to act according to reason. We must act in a reasonable fashion.We act in a reasonable fashion when we choose to act in a way that neither goes to excess nor

deficiency. Excess and deficiency always designate a vice. The middle ground, neither going too far or not

far enough, is where virtue lies. Thus, virtue is a golden mean between the vice of deficiency and the

vice of excess. A person who leads a life of moderation, avoiding deficiencies and excesses, leads avirtuous life, and therefore will be happy or fulfilled in his or her life. This is the best that human beings

can be to live according to the virtuous middle path between the errors or vices of going too far or not

going far enough.The four fundamental moral virtues according to Aristotle are courage, temperance, justice and

prudence. Courage is the golden mean between the vices of cowardice (deficiency) and recklessness orfoolhardiness (excess). A courageous person shows just the right amount of bravery and displays a

virtuous character. The coward has too little bravery; a reckless individual has too much. Only reason can

tell us what is exactly the right amount of bravery, and once it does, a person must practice and develop the

virtue of courage so that acting courageously becomes habitual.Regarding the desire for food and other bodily pleasures, the virtue is temperance. Temperance is the

golden mean between gluttony (excess) and extreme self-denial, sometimes called asceticism or austerity

(deficiency). Virtuous men or women, according to Aristotle, will neither over-indulge nor denythemselves the bodily pleasures that come from things like good food and drink. Missing the mark and

going to either excess or self-denial makes one a less happy, less fulfilled human being. Both lead to a less

virtuous life.Justice is the virtue of giving other people exactly what they deserve, neither more nor less. It is the

golden mean between two forms of injustice: either giving them less than they deserve, or giving them

more than they deserve. Aristotle would say that only reason can tell us what is just, and only constantpractice in treating others justly can build a virtuous character, so that we habitually treat others in a just

manner.Prudence, or wisdom, is the virtue that helps us to know what is reasonable in different situations. It is

an extremely important virtue, because it enables us to avoid excess and deficiency in other areas, and thus

is fundamental to avoiding a life of vice and immorality. Only a prudent or wise person will know how toavoid extremes. Imprudence is the vice in opposition to prudence, and it can err in both directions. It is

possible to imprudently or unwisely over-do (or under-do) virtually any action, emotion, or desire. An

imprudent or unwise person then becomes a slave to his or her emotions or desires and misses the mark of

moderation, thereby living a life of vice.There are numerous other virtues that could be mentioned, although the four mentioned above are the

most central ones to Aristotle. Additional moral virtues include: trustworthiness, honesty, generosity,

civility, sincerity, gentleness, reliability, warmth, dependability, cooperativeness, empathy, tact, kindness,

tolerance, benevolence, etc. There is rather widespread agreement across many differing cultures andreligions on a number of basic virtues and vices. Virtually no one, for instance, finds cruelty, arrogance,injustice, cowardice, self-centeredness, dishonesty, insensitivity, etc., to be virtues.

Documents

Ethics - Major Ethical Theories