Transcript How Actions Can Be Morally Evaluated

How Actions Can Be Morally Evaluated
Motive/Intention
(Character)
Teleological Ethics
Consequences
ACT
Deontological Ethics


Teleological Ethics: morality is defined in
terms of the consequences of actions
Deontological Ethics: morality is defined in
terms of intention (e.g., doing one’s duty)
Natural Law Theory

Our consciences (informed by reason
and experience) reveal our obligations: Samuel
Pufendorf
to God (e.g., obedience), ourselves
(e.g., development), and others (e.g., respect)
 Objection: consciences conflict; doing one’s
duty is not always natural or obvious
 Reply: our intention should be to do our
duty (which should be properly informed)
Kant’s Ethics (Formalism)
 Morality is not based on character or
consequences, for virtues or happiness are
morally good only if informed by a good will–
the intent to act for the sake of doing your duty
 Morality is about obligation (for everyone):
the form of moral obligation is its universality,
its categorical (vs. hypothetical) character
 Humans can act for the sake of doing their
duty, so treat them as ends-in-themselves
Kant: The Categorical Imperative
 Always act only on maxims (rules) that you
could will everyone universally to adopt
 Tests for universalizing a maxim: consistency
(universalizability without contradiction) and
acceptability (can be accepted if universalized)
W. D. Ross: duties sometimes conflict; this
shows how they are valid only prima facie
T. Regan: duties to animals are not indirect