Transcript Ethical Theories and Major Moral Principles

Theory of Consequences
and Intentions
There are two traditional ways of
looking at the “rightness” or
“wrongness” of an act.
1. Look at the consequences of the act,
judging the outcome we value to be
good and that we find evil to be
bad.
2. Ignore the consequences of the act
and seek the good in the intention
of the actor rather than the
consequences that are brought
about.
Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism:
This is an ethics of consequences
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
“ Actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness”
an action is good if it produces the greatest good
for the greatest number
Types of utilitarianism
It can be either Act or rule
utilitarianism.
In both , ”rightness” or “wrongness” is
determined by the actual
consequences achieved.
In Act utilitarianism, the rightness of
the act is judged by the consequences
of the act.
In Rule utilitarianism, the rightness of
the rule is judged by the
consequences the rule brings about.
Ethical Theories
Deontological Theory:
an ethics of duty or obligation
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
This theory ignores the consequences of the act,
judging, that in any event, the outcome is far
from completely under our control, and good
is sought in the intention of the actor rather
than the consequences.
The consequences here are not ignored but
rather are the intended consequences, not the
actual consequences.
Limitations of
Utilitarianism and
Deontology
Utilitarianism makes any action which
either produces maximal “ good” in itself
( act utilitarianism)or any action which
conforms to a rule seem to maximize the
“good” ( rule utilitarianism), good only
because of the consequences.
Both Utilitarian and deontological ethics
fails to define the “good” except in the
most general terms.
Limitations of
Utilitarianism
By relying purely on consequences in
judging an act and it’s actor,
utilitarianism, like all consequentialist
theories, ignore fallibility and the
unpredictability of events in assessing
praise or blame.
An action that turns out badly, no matter
the unforseeable cause, is bad.
e.g. carrying out dangerous experiments
on helpless people to benefit a large
number of people.
Limitations of Deontology
Deontological theories are accused of
being inflexible and are said to be
deficient in their ability to guide our
daily decisions.
Kant’s ethic is said to be lacking in
content.
However, Kant did not set out to give
specific answers in concrete situations
but rather provide a framework within
which decisions affecting concrete
situations could be made.
Ethical Theories
pluralists = many duties
W. D. Ross, duties of:
* non-maleficence: do not harm
* beneficence: do good, benefit
* justice: treat equals equally
• autonomy: respect individuals
• fidelity: be faithful
* reparation: return good for good
Virtue Ethics
 John Dewey
Virtue ethics tries to base itself on an
appreciation not as much on the
rightness or wrongness of an act
depending on duties and obligations but
on the goodness of persons who select
such obligations or rules.
It inquires into what attributes are
characteristic of persons we consider “
virtuous” rather than selecting rules
then deciding that persons who follow
those rules , are by virtue of rule
following, virtuous.
“Virtue” is regarded as a sense of moral
competence in the pursuit of moral
excellence.
It is said to carry an unfortunate baggage
of moralism in common usage.
To Plato, virtue was synonymous with
excellence in living a good life, and such
excellence could be attained by practice.
Plato saw virtue as an intellectual trait.
To Aristotle and later Aquinas, virtue was
a disposition to act in the right way.
Aristotle saw that in practical terms virtue
was a result of balance among intellect,
feeling and action.
The Problem with virtue ethics, is that “
goodness” and “virtuousness” are
defined on each other’s terms: the
virtuous man does good things, and
good things are what those acts a
virtuous man does.
Situation Ethics
 Professor Fletcher
He states that this approach would judge
each situation purely on it’s own merits ,
aiming for the most “loving” result that
could be brought about.
It is sometimes called “Agapism” or
situationism.
Agapism is a form of utilitarianism in
which each act is judged by its outcome.
Agapism breaks down when one considers
that what is “ right” is not merely
determined by the “goodness”( or the
lovingness) of the outcome.
Ethical Theories
Natural Law Theories:
There are certain natural tendencies or purposes
in things
What is natural is, in general, to be followed
Natural goals are to be achieved
E.g., there is a natural tendency of things to
continue their existence
Abortion is not allowed
Embryonic or fetal research is not allowed if it
results in destruction
Ethical Theories
Natural law theories (cont.):
Natural law and suicide
Natural law and sexuality
Two principles:
Natural vs. artificial treatment
Principle of double effect
Ethical Theories
Right Theories:
What basic rights do we have?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
to life, not to be harmed, to thrive or develop,
etc.?
Where do rights come from? God, natural
rights, social contract, etc.?
What do rights entail?
Fundamental rights?
Positive and negative rights
What other rights are there? Education? Health
care?
Are there limits on rights?