Chapter Two: Approaches to

Ethics
 2.2. Normative Ethics

oOffers theories or accounts of the best way to live.

These theories evaluate actions in a systematic way,
i.e., they may focus on outcomes or duties or
motivation as a means of justifying human conduct.
oConcerned with developing rational moral rules,
principles or standards of conduct to govern the
activities of human beings.
 Cont’d
o Includes ethical theories or approaches such as
utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics,
principlism, narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
•Normative ethics poses questions of the following
kind:
 Are there general principles or rules that we could
follow which distinguish between right and wrong?
Or:
 Cont’d
Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can
nurture, in order to behave well?
The ultimate concern of the normative theory of obligation is to

guide us in the making of decisions and judgments about actions

in particular situations

Normative ethics involves an attempt to determine precisely

what moral standards are to follow, so that our actions may be

morally right or good.

 Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)


It is referred as “the end justifies the means”.


It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it stress that

the consequences of an action determines the morality or

immorality of a given action.


an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral

depending on what happens because of it.


One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral

principles but if the result, moral act is harmful, or bad it must be

judged as morally or ethically wrong act.

 Cont’d
• Teleological (Consequentialist) Ethical theory : assess moral
worth of particular action depend on the consequence or result
that it brings.
• i.e. if an action brings positive consequence, it is morally
correct and if not it is morally wrong action.
• whereas for deontological theories, stealing is wrong because
we have a duty to respect other’s property.
• Note: The Greece term Teleo means end, result purpose...
• Example, stealing can be judged on its effects.
• stealing may not be wrong depend on its consequence,
 Cont’d
•All that is necessary is that the teleologist have some view

about what is good or bad, and that he determine what is

right.

•obligatory by asking what is conducive to the greatest

balance of good over evil.

• In its pure form this would mean the individual actions

needs to be judged according to their actual consequences.

•Consequentialist theories are most often called Hedonistic.

 Cont’d

• It means that they identify the highest good with

pleasure, and a morally good act is defined as the
one which brings the greatest amount of pleasure
over pain.
• There are two main forms of consequentialist
ethics: Ethical egoism and Utilitarianism.
 A. Ethical Egoism
• Ethical egoism, considers an action to be good if it brings
about the best possible outcome for me as an individual (or
in your case, for you as an individual).
• Ethical egoism holds that I should always do what will
promote my own greatest good: that an act or rule of action
is right if and only if it promotes the greatest balance of
good over evil for me compared with any alternative.
• Greatest good for all will be served only if we all pursue
our own self- interest.
 Some important things to notice about ethical egoism:

• It does not just say that, from the moral point of view,

one’s own welfare counts as well as that of others. Rather,

it says that, from the moral point of view, only one’s own

welfare counts, and others’ does not, when one is making

a moral decision about how to act.

• Ethical egoism does not forbid one to help others, or

require one to harm others.

• Ethical egoism does not say that one ought always to do
 B. Utilitarianism (Social hedonism)
•The term utilitarianism stems from the idea of utility, meaning social
utility or welfare or good of society. The core standard of utilitarianism
is the principle of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people”. An action is best if it procures the greatest happiness for the
greatest numbers.

•Historically, social hedonism or social utilitarianism is identified with

the English philosophers Jermy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These
two thinkers, however, represent two different forms of utilitarianism,
though the difference reduces more to a matter of emphasis. One
emphasis on quantity of happiness whiles the other on quality of
happiness.
Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Quantity over
Quality
•According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
utility is the sole principle that we ought to live
and judge others by and we must follow a
moral system that invokes us to maximize
happiness and minimize pain for everyone in
society.
 Cont’d
•There are two main features of utilitarianism, both of which
Bentham articulated:

 The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect):

states that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by
the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it. It is the
end, not the means that counts; the end justifies the means. and

 The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect): states that the only
thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state (for
example, pleasure, happiness, welfare).
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: Quality over Quantity
• John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is also a greatly known
advocate of utilitarianism.
• For Bentham all pleasures are equal.
• Mill unlike Bentham differentiated between higher
pleasures and lower pleasures that human enjoyed and he
introduced quality and quantity in to the evaluation of
pleasures.
 Cont’d
• The pleasure of a fool and a wise person are not the same
even if their quantitative amount is similar. Based on this he
made two types of pleasures.
• The lower, or elementary, include eating, drinking,
sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation.
• The higher include scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and
creativity. Mental/intellectual pleasure for him is higher
pleasure and evaluating an act we have to consider this
distinction.
Altruism

•An action is right if the consequence of that action is favorable to all except
the actor. Some scholars argued that we have an inherent psychological
capacity to show benevolence to others. This view is called psychological
altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by
instinctive benevolence.

•Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people’s pleasure. They
will act for the sake of someone else even if it decreases their own pleasure
and causes themselves pain.

•Altruists argue that humans are instinctively benevolent. And instinctive

benevolence, they argue, is the feature of our human nature which is the
basis of our altruistic moral obligations.
 Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialist)
• Deontological theory assesses the moral worth of a
particular action, by looking to the action itself, and
whether it confirms to certain principles, rules and
commands.
• The Deontologists does not consider the consequence of
an act. The principles or rules of Deontology may be once
governing our motives for an action or they may simply
identify specific kinds of actions that are permitted and/or
forbidden, for example, Ten Commandments.
• Deontologists focused on making sure that our actions are
in accord with certain principles, rules or commands –
irrespective of the possible benefits or harms they might
bring as a consequence.
 The Divine Command Theory
• Ethical principles are simply the commands of God. They derive

their validity from God’s commanding them, and they mean

“commanded by God.” Without God, there would be no

universally valid morality.

1.Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God.
2.Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and moral
wrongness means “being against the will of God.”
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on
independently existing reasons for action, no further reasons for
action are necessary.
 Cont’d
We can express divine command theory by the following list of
four propositions:
1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the command of
God.
2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is commanded by God.
3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is permitted by the
command of God.
4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong, required, or
permitted.
Rights Theory

• A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights

theory. The most influential early account of rights
theory is that of 17th century British philosopher
John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature
mandate that we should not harm anyone's life,
health, liberty or possessions.
• For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us
by God.
 Cont’d
•There are four features traditionally associated with moral
rights/rights theory.

 First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created
by governments.
 Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from
country to country.
 Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all
people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.
 Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over
my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative

•The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

identified the moral theory known as deontology.

•Kant was adamantly opposed to the idea that the outcome of

an action could determine its moral worth.

•It is not consequences which determine the rightness or

wrongness of an act, but, rather, the intention of the person
who carries out the act.

•The emphasis is on the correctness of the action, regardless

 Cont’d
•The Categorical Imperative: A Kant’s duty-based theory is
emphasizes a single principle of duty. Kant agreed that we have moral
duties to oneself and others, such as developing one’s talents, and
keeping our promises to others.

•However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of

duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident
principle of reason that he calls the “categorical imperative.”

•A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from

hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we
have. For example, “If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go
to college.”
 Cont’d
•Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act in
such a way that the maxim or general rule governing our
action could be a universal law.
Examples: ☼ Always help those in need, just because it is your duty.
☼ Always respect your mother and father, just because it is your
duty.
Hypothetical imperatives: involves, when our action is depends on
certain ends or goals in mind i.e. if you want Y then you ought to do
X.
Example: - Always help those in need because then you will get to
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
•A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British
philosopher Sir William David Ross (15 April 1877 – 5 May
1971), which emphasizes prima facie duties.

•Ross’s interest in prima facie is to solve one of the problems that

Kant left unsolved.

•We have various duties that oftentimes come into conflict with
each other for instance; choosing either to speak a truth (it is
always wrong to lie) or to keep one’s promise.

•But, Kant’s deontology has no help when a person is in dilemma

of choosing.
 Cont’d
• For Ross, as in the case of Kant, moral rules without exception
should be obeyed, but when they are in conflict, we should
decide that the moral rules(moral duties of first blush) has to be
obeyed.

•According to Ross, there are moral rules that we should perform

in every situation, except that these rules themselves are in
conflict.

•These duties are called Prima facie duties. Ross identified the
following principles as a prima facie duties that every moral
action should obey always:
 Ross identified the following principles
Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation not to lie. Duties
of fidelity are duties to keep one’s promises and contracts and not to engage in
deception.
Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to
others. Ross describes this duty as "resting on a previous wrongful act". It is the
duty to compensate others when we harm them. If, for example, I damage
something that belongs to someone else, I have an obligation to make restitution.
Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us. Suppose, for example,
an especially good friend is suddenly in need of assistance, I am duty bound to do
all I can help this individual, who in the past had acted so selflessly toward me.
Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one
distributes benefits and burdens fairly.
 Cont’d
 Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others. The duty
to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness,
or happiness. This duty rests upon the fact that there are other beings in the
world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of
intelligence, or of pleasure.
 Duties of Self-improvement: The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to
promote one’s own good, i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral
goodness, virtue, intelligence and happiness.
 Duties of Non-maleficence: The duty of non-injury (also known as non-
maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to
avoid harming their health, security, intelligence, character, or happiness. We
are obliged to avoid hurting others physically, emotionally and psychologically.
 Virtue Ethics

•“Virtue ethics” is a technical term in contemporary Western analytical

moral philosophy, used to distinguish a normative ethical theory focused on the
virtues, or moral character, from others such as deontology (or contractarianism)
and consequentialism.

•Imagine a case in which it is agreed by every sort of theorist that I should, say, help
someone in need.

•A deontologist will emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be acting in
accordance with a moral rule or principle such as “Do unto others as you would be
done by”; a consequentialist will point out that the consequences of helping will
maximize well-being; and a virtue ethicist will emphasize the fact that providing
help would be charitable or benevolent – charity and benevolence being virtues.
 Aristotelian Ethics

•The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.)

first wrote a detailed discussion of virtue morality in the
Nichomachean Ethics.

• ‘Virtue’ he understood as strength.

•Correspondingly, specific virtues are seen as strengths of

character.

•But, many years after Aristotle’s death, virtue theory came to

be over-shadowed by the development of utilitarianism and
deontology.
 Cont’d
•According to Aristotelian Ethics, Virtue (arête)
or excellence is defined as a mean between two
extremes of excess and defect.

•The mean is relative to the individual and

circumstances.

For example, consider the following traits:

Aristotelian Virtues And Vice Of Deficiency Mean Or Virtue Vice Of Excess
Vices Sphere Of Action

Fear Cowardice courage foolhardiness

Pleasure and Pain Insensibility temperance self-indulgence

Acquisition (minor) tight wad liberality spendthrift or

prodigality
Acquisition (major) undue humility pride or proper undue vanity
ambition
Anger unirascibility patience or good hotheadedness
temper
Self-Expression Self-deprecating truthfulness boastfulness

Conversation boorishness wittiness buffoonery

Social Conduct cantankerous friendliness obsequiousness

Exhibition shamelessness modesty shyness

Indignation spitefulness righteous indignation envy

 Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics

What is Meta-ethics?
•In meta-ethics, we are concerned not with questions which are
the province of normative ethics like 'Should I give to famine
relief?' or 'Should I return the wallet I found in the street?' but
with questions about questions like these.
•Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as:
What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean?

What makes something good or right?

Is moral realism true?


Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding?
Do intrinsic values exist?

 Cont’d
act-utilitarianism (one ought to give to famine
relief because that particular action, of those
possible, contributes most to the greater happiness
of the greatest number); rule-utilitarianism

Kantianism (one ought to give to famine relief

because universal refusal to give to famine relief
would generate some kind of inconsistency).
 Meta-ethics, rather, concerned with questions about the
following:
Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is
the function of moral discourse to state facts, or does it have
some other non-fact-stating role?
Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are
they like? Are they identical or reducible to some other type of
fact (or property) or are they irreducible and sui generis?
Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral
knowledge? How can we know whether our moral judgments are
true or false? How can we ever justify our claims to moral
knowledge?
 Cont’d
 Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the
experience of an agent making a moral judgment? Do they
appear to be 'out there' in the world?
 Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational
state of someone making a moral judgment? What sort of
connection is there between making a moral judgment and
being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes?
 Objectivity: can moral judgments really be correct or
incorrect? Can we work towards finding out the moral
 Generally, Meta-ethics

 Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts

and the relationships between these concepts.

 Explores where moral values, such as ‘personhood’

and ‘autonomy’, come from.

 Considers the difference between moral values and

other kinds of values.

 Examines the way in which moral claims are justified.

 Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following kind

 What do we mean by the claim, ‘life is sacred’?

 Are moral claims a matter of personal view,

religious belief or social standard, or, are they
objective in some sense?

 If they are objective, what make them so?

 Is there a link between human psychology and the

moral claims that humans make?