Ethics

Consequentialism is a generic term used to describe moral theories which hold

that the consequences of an action are the basis for valid judgments of that
action\. It can be understood as a stance that holds that ends justify means. It
holds that a good action is one that produces a good outcome. There are basic
questions that define various kinds of consequentialism:
What consequences are good?
What instances should be focused on? (E.g. just family, just nation, all
humanity, all living things, etc)
Who and by what means judges the consequences?
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its
utility in providing happiness or pleasure (which is symmetrical to pain or
suffering) as summed among all sentient beings (e.g. persons). The guiding
principle of utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people
which known as the greatest happiness principle. It can be understood as 'social
hedonism'.
The most influential contributors were Bentham and Mill who
Politically, proponents of utilitarianism range from communists and fascists to
libertarians.
Against utilitarianism:
The scope of the utility is not defined.
Some actions can be useful in the short run but disastrous in the long run.
Utilitarianism can be used to justify pretty much everything. (This is
evidenced in the fact that there is an extremely wide range of utilitarian
camps in political philosophy. Socialists as well as libertarians, the left as well
as the right, use the utilitarian framework to argue for their policies).
Does not ensure personal freedom, e.g if a group of people want to silence
one person because they think differently, they would be justified in doing
that. That one persons freedom is breached.
It lacks principles, which results in the subject having to calculate whether
an action is good or evil, which is impossible in many circumstances and not
practicable in every situation. In fact, if treated exact, it is impossible to be
sure one acts moral since every action (every step, every word) would have
to be carefully evaluated against all possibilities.
Utilitarianism assumes that we can predict future events, which might not be
true.
It is only seemingly intuitive. If the intentions are bad and the consequences
good, we still do Dance turn around and you Andynot, intuitively, think that
the action was good (while utilitarianism, being consequentialist, would).n
does not ensure personal freedom, there is nothing to prevent my being
silenced on the grounds that my views will reduce happiness. There is no
definition of what happiness actually is.
Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism can be thought of as a hybrid of utilitarianism and deontology. It

holds that actions are moral when they conform to the rules that lead to the
greatest good. E.g. It is normally not useful (it creates suffering or pain) to steal,
thus one can assume that it is never good and not re-calculate each time one has
the choice to steal. Hence, rule utilitarianism is a method to create a structure of
judgment. Unlike utilitarianism of the consequentialist type, rule utilitarianism
focuses on duties or rules.
Teleological ethic
Teleological ethics is an ethical theory that holds that the end (i.e. the intended
consequence) is what matters.
Deontology
Deontological (from Greek deon, duty) ethics judges actions morally by use of
rules.
Natural law
Aristotle
Stoics
Locke
Hobbes
Aquinas combined virtue ethics, deontology and teleological ethics. He believed
that a virtuous, or good, action is one that is both, good in intentions and good in
consequences.
Virtue ethics
Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas
Egotism: Ayn Rand
Meta-ethics
Divine command theory
(Christianity)
Moral universalis
Ethical subjectivism
Normative ethics: what is right practically, examining consequences and actions
Metaethics: the study of the ideas of good and bad [the nature of ethical properties]
1. VIRTUE ETHICS
QuestionAre some virtues more important than others?
Eudaimonia;- Roughly translated: happiness. The basis of all Virtue Ethics. A state
achieved by reason, the souls most proper and nourishing activity Plato/Aristotle.
All virtue ethics is aimed at reaching a state of eudaimonia.
Aristotle then observes that where a thing has a function the good of the thing is
when it performs its function well. For example, the knife has a function, to cut, and

it performs its function well when it cuts well. This argument is applied to man: man
has a function and the good man is the man who performs his function well. Man's
function is what is peculiar to him and sets him aside from other beings--reason.
Therefore, the function of man is reason and the life that is distinctive of humans is
the life in accordance with reason. If the function of man is reason, then the good
man is the man who reasons awell. This is the life of excellence or of eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is the life of virtue--activity in accordance with reason, man's highest
function.
Question:Is reason the highest function? Have we got a function?
Versus Utilitarianism: The importance of this point of eudaimonistic virtue ethics
is that it reverses the relationship between virtue and rightness. A utilitarian could
accept the value of the virtue of kindness, but only because someone with a kind
disposition is likely to bring about consequences that will maximize utility. So the
virtues notes is only justified because of the consequences it brings about. In
eudaimonist virtue ethics the virtues are justified because they are constitutive
elements of eudaimonia, i.e. human flourishing and wellbeing, which is good in
itself.
What is a Virtue? A virtue is a habit or quality that allows the bearer to succeed at
his, her, or its purpose. There are 2 categories of virtue: moral and intellectual.
Aristotle found 9 intellectual virtues, for example theoretical wisdom, practical
wisdom. Examples of moral virtues include prudence, justice, fortitude, and
temperance.
Each virtue is a mean between 2 vices. The virtues are dispositions. A right action
will express morally good traits of character (or virtues), and that is what will
justify it. E.g. telling the truth expresses honesty. Virtues could also be translated
as excellences so any problems with things like humour/wittiness not otherwise
being considered virtues therefore overridden. (Not that these were part of the
Aristotelian model...!)
Aristotle vs Hume Aristotle says virtue is out there. Hume says virtue is
something which exists only in viewers appreciation of it. They cannot be found in
the nature of behaviour, but only in our feelings about it.
Anscombe & morality vs immorality
The argument that things can be either moral or immoral is fundamentally flawed
as immoral only applies to things when taken from the subject base of there being a
deity. The deity decides (Euthyphro question aside) what is moral vs what isnt.
Using immoral and moral as terms creates rigid rules based on a sense of obligation
implying that there is a lawgiver (i.e. a god). No universal principles are necessary
in virtue theory, so it solves this question very neatly. Bernard Williams was also
concerned that such a conception for morality rejects the possibility of luck. If
morality is about what we are obliged to do, then there is no room for what is
outside of our control.
Summary of Virtue Et0hics:
- Virtue ethics concentrates on how one should be a good person instead of the
sorts of actions which are good. How should I live? instead of What should I do?
- Aristotelian theory is a theory of action as virtuous inner dispositions incline us to
respond in accordance (eg the kindly disposed will act kindly)
- Virtue is a settled disposition. It is also a purposive disposition. A virtuous actor
chooses virtuous action knowingly and for its own sake.
- Virtue requires the right desire and the right reason. To act from the wrong reason
is to act viciously. On the other hand, the agent can try to act from the right reason,

but fail because he or she has the wrong desire. The virtuous agent acts effortlessly,
perceives the right reason, has the harmonious right desire, and has an inner state
of virtue that flows smoothly into action.
snotes
QuestionIs such a perfect virtuous agent realistic?
- The virtuous response cannot be captured in a rule or principle, which an agent
can learn and then act virtuously. Knowing virtue is a matter of experience,
sensitivity, ability to perceive, ability to reason practically (whole idea of the mean),
etc. and takes a long time to develop. The idea that ethics cannot be captured in
one rule or principle is the "uncodifiability of ethics thesis." Ethics is too diverse
and imprecise to be captured in a rigid code, so we must approach morality with a
theory that is as flexible and as situation-responsive as the subject matter itself. As
a result some virtue ethicists see themselves as anti-theorists, rejecting theories
that systematically attempt to capture and organize all matters of practical or
ethical importance.
Problems with Virtue Ethics; 1. What is and what isnt morally permissible,
then? Some virtue theorists might respond to this overall objection with the notion
of a "bad act" also being an act characteristic of vice. That is to say that those acts
which do not aim at virtue, or stray from virtue, would constitute our conception of
"bad behaviour". Although not all virtue ethicists agree with this notion, this is one
way the virtue ethicist can re-introduce the concept of the "morally impermissible".
2. What sorts of ACTIONS are morally permissible and which arent?
Another objection to virtue theory is that the school does not focus on what sorts of
actions are morally permitted and which ones are not, but rather on what sort of
qualities someone ought to foster in order to become a good person. As virtue
ethics isnt action guides its pretty useless as a model for making decisions. 3.
Moral Luck. Some people are luckier in life than others so it is easier for them to
live virtuously eg. the right sort of education can promote flourishing of virtues etc.
snotes
2. UTILITARIANISM
What is Utilitarianism?
* Consequentialist branch of thought (what matters is the consequence of an
action). * Maximising happiness = good. The action is right only if it leads to the
greatest number of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Total happiness = total pleasure total pain.
* Egalitarian the happiness of any person affected by an action cannot be less or
more important than the happiness of any other affected personage. * Positive &
Negative Utilitarianism can exist in one of two forms. They are an increase in
happiness vs a decrease in unhappiness. The negative one has a fundamental flaw
though, as if we wanted to totally eliminate unhappiness, it would be better to just
kill everybody.
* Scale is needed, however, to decide what counts as pleasure versus pain versus
happiness. After all, if an action has one of two outcomes, and they both result in
happiness, which do you choose? If an action will generate both happiness and
unhappiness simultaneously, then how do you choose to generate unhappiness?
Benthams Scale A suggestion for the way in which pleasures can be rated.
Bentham chose his criteria to be: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity,
fecundity (domino effect), purity, number of people sharing in it.

Stuart Mills Scale in terms of quality, pleasures can be divided into higher
(mind/spirit) vs
lower (body). Problems: 1. We dont always pick Mills higher pleasure.
2. We need both. 3. Higher and lower can be inaccurate terms. 4. Youd need a
competent judge with no bias towards either kind to really ascertain whether mental
pleasures beat bodily pleasures.
Ideal Utilitarianism we should promote things which are intrinsically good.
G.E.Moore: intrinsically good things are friendships and aesthetic pleasures. We
have to promote these ideals. Problems:
1. Some thing s, like random facts, are not valuable in themselves. 2. The theory
does not give us a reason why we ought to promote intrinsic good, just says its
good and then leaves us. Consequently Ideal Utilitarianism gives us no real
motivation to behave ethically.
snotes
Advantages of Utilitarianism;
1. It is secular. 2. It connects with human nature (common sense). 3. It s
egalitarian. 4. It focuses on human well-being. 5. Very good practical method of
ethics in terms of decision making.
Disadvantages: 1. Things can have meaning without pleasure. 2. Peoples desires
not always fit with their welfare, 3. The Classical version of Utilitarianism doesnt
take into account quality. 4. We cannot always see consequences of our actions. 5.
Utilitarianism is too personally demanding (you could be worse off than the
person you are helping). 6. Too impartial (special ties usually very influential in our
decision making such as
family and friendship are overlooked) 7. Doesnt allow for fulfilment of obligations or
duties. 8. Uses individuals as a means (contrast with Kantian Ethics). 9. Innocent
person could be wrongly accused to placate angry people (as this would
given an overall greater net gain in happiness). 10. Theres no distinction between
doing and allowing to happen. In the words of
Williams, it can cause a person to lose ones integrity.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
Are all pleasures of equal value? John Stuart Mill said quality of pleasure
important. It doesnt account for the hidden qualities within a pleasure for
example, the pleasure of love includes the pain of longing, the worry of breaking up
etc. Utilitarianism doesnt rule out any kind of action. Happiness is not always
good, eg sadism! With an unequal distribution of happiness it runs the risk of
failing to provide for the vulnerable few. Doesnt account for individual needs e.g.
buying music for oneself vs giving to charity. Makes morality very demanding.
3. KANTIAN ETHICS
Principles of Kantian Ethics;
Moral action is performed from a sense of duty. The motive for an action is more
important than its consequences. Ought implies can- i.e. we can only be held
morally responsible for things over
which we have some control. Categorical Imperative we must act in a certain way
regardless of consequences. Only one basic categorical imperative: act only on
maxims which you can at
the same time will to be universal laws. One should never use people as the
means to an end everything you do should

be an end.
Problems with Kantian Ethics;
It doesnt actually aid anybody in a moral dilemma. It produces no help when
there is a conflict of duty (e.g. duty not to lie versus duty to keep a secret). The
theory gives no weight to emotions, except for duty. Emotions being removed
from morality is just ignoring a central aspect of moral behaviour. Does not
account for consequences well intentioned idiots causing deaths
through incompetence would be morally just in doing so!
notes