Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter Two 1
Chapter Two 1
Normative Ethics
•Normative ethical theories are concerned with ethical action: in other words, with what
people ‘ought’ to do in general. This section provides a brief overview of the main types
of normative ethical theories and it introduces key, recurring terms and concepts.
•Normative ethics;
Offers 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.
Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue 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:
Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can nurture, in
order to behave well?
Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)
•It is referred as “the end justifies the means”. It believes in purpose, ends
what is morally right, wrong, obligatory, etc., is the non-moral value that
and only if it does not do so. An act ought to be done if and only if it or the
produce a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
• Deontological theories deny what teleological theories affirm. They assert
that there are other considerations that may make an action or rule right
certain features of the act itself other than the value it brings into
existence,
• for example, the fact that it keeps a promise, is just, or is commanded by
God or by the state. Teleologists believe that there is one and only one
into being.
• Deontologists either deny that this characteristic is right-making at all or
good over evil, no matter for whom, is either not a moral criterion or
standard at all, or, at least, it is not the only basic or ultimate one.
• This view was held by Epicurus, Hobbes, and Nietzsche, among others. Ethical
universalism, or what is usually called utilitarianism, takes the position that the
ultimate end is the greatest general good -- that an act or rule of action is right if and only
if it is, or probably is, conducive to at least as great a balance of good over evil in the
universe as a whole as any alternative would be, wrong if it is not, and obligatory if it is or
probably is conducive to the greatest possible balance of good over evil in the universe.
Utilitarianism: Producing the best consequences
• That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the
teleological ethics: ethical egoism, the view that the act that produces the
goodness for the greatest number—and not merely the good of the agent.
Classic Utilitarianism
• In our normal lives we use utilitarian reasoning all the time. As a formal
ethical theory, the seeds of utilitarianism were sewn by the ancient Greek
philosopher Epicurus (342–270 BCE), who stated that “pleasure is the goal
that nature has ordained for us; it is also the standard by which we judge
everything good.”
• According to this view, rightness and wrongness are determined by
pleasure or pain that something produces. Epicurus’s theory focused
largely on the individual’s personal experience of pleasure and pain, and
to that extent he advocated a version of ethical egoism. Nevertheless,
Epicurus inspired a series of eighteenth-century philosophers who
emphasized the notion of general happiness—that is, the pleasing
consequences of actions that impact others and not just the individual.
• The classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the writings
1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). They were the nonreligious
human nature and our ability to solve our problems without recourse to
God.
• Engaged in a struggle for legal as well as moral reform, they were
and nineteenth-century Great Britain and tried to make the law serve
• 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).
• There is something appealing about Bentham’s utilitarianism. It is simple
• It was to meet these sorts of objections and save utilitarianism from the
as in terms of minimal suffering. That is, there are two types of pleasures.
gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged in. The higher
are the kind of creatures who require more to be truly happy. They want
the lower pleasures, but they also want deep friendship, intellectual ability,
culture, the ability to create and appreciate art, knowledge, and wisdom.
• Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the concept of “pleasure” by
friendship, love, and health. In fact, one might even say that his litmus test
for happiness really has little to do with actual pleasure and more to do
that ideally, we ought to apply the principle to all of the alternatives open
utilitarian rule, to do the act that maximizes utility, is too general for most
purposes. Often, we don’t have time to decide whether lying will produce
more utility than truth telling, so we need a more s pecific rule prescribing
with a potential answer for every situation: Do what will promote the most
and that morality is not so much about rules as about helping people and
commonsensical.
• A third strength of utilitarianism is that it is particularly well suited to
do not yet exist. Expressed rhetorically, the question is “Why should I care
duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and
(2) duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might
oneself.
•Concerning our duties towards others; Pufendorf divides these
•Absolute duties are of three sorts: (1) avoid wronging others; (2) treat
• According to one view, called the divine command theory (DCT), ethical
principles are simply the commands of God. They derive their validity
existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary.
Rights Theory
right to not be harmed by you. Rights and duties are related in such a way
that the rights of one person imply the duties of another person.
• For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a
duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties.
• The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century
British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature
possessions.
Cont --
• For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke,
other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property,
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
“categorical imperative.”
• A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from
For example, “If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to
good intension. Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except a “good
will.”
• Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends. They
dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are "right" (e.g., helping
practical reason.
• Kant's theory is hinged by his beliefs on autonomy and his formulation of categorical
imperatives.
• He believed that, unless a person freely and willingly makes a choice, their action
self.
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Sir William David Ross
(15 April 1877 – 5 May 1971), usually cited as W. D. Ross, was a Scottish
philosopher, known for work in ethics. The term prima facie means “at a
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.
• 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.
and psychologically.
Virtue Ethics
consequentialism.
Cont--
• . 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
• The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.) first wrote a detailed
strengths of character. But, many years after Aristotle’s death, virtue theory came
• In the past fifty years, however, virtue theory has resurfaced as a major moral theory.
But why is that so? Virtue ethics has been restated and reinvigorated in the years since
Anscombe. They and many others became disillusioned with the promises of
mainstream theories. They argue that how we ought to live could be much more
A. Good is that which all things aim. Something is good if it performs its proper
o A right action is that which is conducive to the good, and different goods correspond to the
o Moral virtue is not the end of life for it can go with inactivity, misery, and unhappiness
o Happiness, the end of life, that to which all aims, is activity in accordance with reason
between acts which create good dispositions and acts which flow from the good
capacity.
o Habits are developed through acting; a person's character is the structure of
habits and is formed by what we do.
o Phronesis or practical wisdom is the ability to see the right thing to do in the
circumstances.
• In the ontological dimension, virtue is a mean; in the axiological dimension, it is
an extreme or excellence
• E.g., Hartmann's Diagram:
Pleasure and pain are powerful determinants of our actions.
• III. Pleasure is the natural accompaniment of unimpeded activity. Pleasure, as such, is
neither good nor bad.
A. Even so, pleasure is something positive and its effect is to perfect the exercise of
activity. Everything from playing chess to making love is improved with skill.
C. The good person, the one who has attained eudaemonia, is the standard as to what is
truly pleasant or unpleasant.
•IV. Friendship: a person's relationship to a friend is the same as the relation to
oneself. The friend can be thought of as a second self.
A. In friendship a person loves himself (egoism) not as one seeks money for himself,
but as he gives his money away to receive honor.
Utility
Pleasure
The Good--endures as long as both retain their character.
•V. The Contemplative Faculty--the exercise of perfect happiness in intellectual or
philosophic activity.
I. Eudaimonia: the state of personal wellbeing, having self-worth; exhibiting a zest for
life; radiating energy; achieving happiness, "good spirit," or self-presence.
II. Hence, happiness is activity of the soul in accordance with areté (excellence or
virtue).
A. I.e. Living well and doing well in the affairs of the world.
B.Picture yourself at your best. Compare Maslow's self-actualizing person or
Jung's individuation of a person with Aristotle's description of eudaimonia.
I. Good is that to which all thing aim; i.e., the good is that which performs its proper
function.
A.What constitutes a good wrench or a good coffee cup? The peculiar areté of
excellence is established by its purpose. The peculiar excellence is teleological.
B. What constitutes a good person?"
1) Activity of the soul in accordance with reason (that capacity which is unique
to us as persons).
2) This activity is both moral (doing the right thing at the right time)
and intellectual areté (practical wisdom or phronesis).
1)Aristotle notes that some external goods are necessary for the exercise of that
activity.
I. Moral Virtue is not the end of life, for it can go with inactivity, misery, and unhappiness.
II. What is good for a person cannot be answered with the exactitude of mathematics.
A.Ethics attempts to formulate general principles whose application is dependent upon
the circumstances at hand (i.e., initial conditions). (Note that Aristotle's theory does
not imply ethical relativism)
Cont-----
A.The doctrine of the mean is not a doctrine of relativism but doctrine applied to
specific circumstances. E.g., what and how much one eats differs for a weight-
lifter and a ballerina--even so, proper diet has guidelines and standards which
apply differently according to different initial conditions.
I. Pleasure, itself, is a side-product of activity; pleasure results from activity without
hindrance.
1) As Aristotle expresses it, pleasure is the natural accompaniment of unimpeded
activity.
1) Pleasure, as such, is neither good nor bad, but is something positive because the
effect of pleasure perfects the exercise of that activity.
2) Even so, Aristotle emphasizes that pleasure is not to be sought for its own sake.
(Cf., the hedonistic paradox.)
Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics
• What is Meta-ethics?
• Suppose I am debating with a friend the question whether or not we ought to give
to famine relief, whether or not we are morally obliged to give to famine relief.
The sorts of questions philosophers raise about this kind of debate fall roughly
into two groups. First, there are first order questions about which party in the
• In metaethics, 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:
answer to the question 'Should we give to famine relief?' we also look for some
insight into why the right answer is right. It is in their answers to this latter sort of
'why?' question that the classic theories in normative ethics disagree. Examples of
action, of those possible, contributes most to the greater happiness of the greatest
• Normative ethics thus seeks to discover the general principles underlying moral
practice, and in this way potentially impacts upon practical moral problems:
different general principles may yield different verdicts in particular cases. Meta-
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
can we know whether our moral judgements are true or false? How can we ever
agent making a moral judgement? Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?
• Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational state of someone
•[Metaethics] is not about what people ought to do. It is about what they are doing
• Consider a particular moral judgement, such as the judgement that murder is wrong.
What sort of psychological state does this express? Some philosophers, called
cognitivists, think that a moral judgement such as this expresses a belief. Beliefs can
be true or false: they are truth-apt, or apt to be assessed in terms of truth and falsity.
So cognitivists think that moral judgements are capable of being true or false.
• On the other hand, non-cognitivists think that moral judgements express non-
cognitive states such as emotions or desires. Desires and emotions are not truth-
• A strong cognitivist theory is one which holds that moral judgements (a) are apt
for evaluation in terms of truth and falsity, and (b) can be the upshot of
cognitively accessing the facts which render them true. Strong cognitivist theories
state of affairs, and it is this natural state of affairs to which a true moral
characterization: “By 'nature', then, I do mean and have meant that which is the
natural properties. The Cornell realists (e.g. Nicholas Sturgeon, Richard Boyd, and
David Brink) think that moral properties are irreducible natural properties in their
own right. Naturalist reductionists (e.g. Richard that moral properties are reducible
to the other natural properties that are the subject matter of the natural sciences and
psychology.
Strong Cognitivism: Non-Naturalism
• John Mackie has argued that although moral judgements are apt to be true or false,
and that moral judgements, if true, would afford us cognitive access to moral
• This is because there simply are no moral facts or properties in the world of the
(b)cannot be the upshot of cognitive access to moral properties and states of affairs.
Moral judgements are thus capable of being true or false, even though they are not based
on a faculty with a tracking, accessing or detecting role - in other words, even though
true moral judgements are not the upshot of cognitive access to moral states of affairs.
• This view thus rejects moral realism, not by denying the existence of
moral facts (like the error-theory), but by denying that those facts are
• Non-cognitivists deny that moral judgements are even apt to be true or false. Non-