Virtue Ethics

Theory in detail

Aristotle
Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia, or 'happiness', is the supreme goal of human life. Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose - the good for a
knife is to cut, and a good knife is one that cuts well. In the same way, Eudaimonia is the 'good' for a person.

Aristotle draws a distinction between superior and subordinate aims. Why do I study ethics? Maybe to get a qualification. I get
the qualification to get a good job, and I want a good job because... These are subordinate aims. At some point you stop and say
'because that would make me happy' - and this becomes the superior aim. 'Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind
everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake.

Moral Virtues

The good life involves developing a good character. Moral virtues are cultivated by habit. To become a generous person, I must
get into the habit of being generous. Put another way, it is not enough to be told that I should be patient. To become patient, I
need to practice patience.

It is very difficult to translate some of Aristotle's moral virtues. 'Liberality' and 'Magnificence' (popular in many translations) both
seem to mean generosity. The following list is an attempted translation:

courage, temperance, big-heartedness, generosity, high-mindedness, right ambition, patience, truthfulness, wittiness,
friendliness, modesty, righteous indignation

Intellectual Virtues

Intellectual virtues are qualities of mind developed through instruction. They are:

practical skill, knowledge, common sense, intuition, wisdom; resourcefulness, understanding, judgement, cleverness

Cardinal Virtues

The cardinal virtues are temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. These virtues work together, and it would not be enough to
have one of these alone. Temperance and courage are moral virtues - we get into the habit of acting bravely. We learn self-
control by practicing restraint. Developing right judgement requires training - we are educated in the skill of weighing up a
situation. In out courts, judges don't just learn on the job, they require years of training before they earn the title
'Justice'. Wisdom sits above all of the other virtues, the culmination of years of learning.

The Doctrine of the Mean

Aristotle said that it is good to be courageous, but that you can have too much courage. For example, defending your land
against invaders is courageous, but if you're outnumbered fifty to one, that's just foolhardy. Each of the moral virtues is a
midpoint between excess and deficiency, the 'golden mean'.

Aristotle did not say what the midpoint was, and it was clearly not a numerical middle. In other words, you don't need to have a
specific amount of, say, generosity. It was more about being generous at the right time. For example, giving a few pounds to a
beggar is not a good thing - it keeps them trapped in dependency. It's much better to give to a charity like Shelter.

Virtue ethics is criticised for not giving clear answers to ethical dilemmas, but it allows us each to make our own responses to
situations life throws at us. You might respond to the beggar by stopping and giving some time, talking and listening to them and
maybe even sharing lunch with them. This would be a virtuous response, but it doesn't require everyone to do the same thing.

Friendship and the community

Our relationships are an important part of the 'good life'. Aristotle is very different from, say, Kant here. Kant says we should
work out moral rules rationally, ignoring our feelings or what the outcomes of our actions would be. Aristotle says that our
friendships are a very important part of who we are and how we should behave.

We should each aim at acheiving eudaimonia in our own lives. Clearly it is therefore a much better thing to acheive the greatest
good for a whole society. You can put this another way and say that the society we live in helps to form and shape us as
individuals. Sociologists will tell you the difference between living in a close-knit community or a big city, but we can see it for
ourselves. People in cities often get 'lost', not belonging to anything and turning to drugs, crime etc. There is far less crime and
drug abuse in smaller, rural communities. Aristotle sees our communal relationships as an essential part of our moral growth and
flourishing.

You may argue that there is still a sense of community in the city you live in - Aristotle's on your side here - he lived in
Athens, one of the greatest cities of the world. Whether you live in a village or a city, the important thing is to develop
good relationships with those around you.

MacIntyre
Ethics in context

Morality has lost it's way. "Imagine a terrorist has taken your children, the Prime Minister and an atomic bomb. He threatens to
use the bomb unless..." These sorts of moral dilemmas force us to choose between keeping absolute rules that we want to live by
(such as 'do not kill') and preventing serious harm to many. We end up not knowing what to do, either abandoning our principles
or allowing terrible things to happen. Ethics has become a bizarre 'lose-lose' game that many of us have simply stopped playing.

MacIntyre urges us to remember where ethics came from. We need to understand the historical context of ethics. He wouldn't
like this website, because it's summarise everything without explaining where the theories came from and how they developed.
Students of ethics should immerse themselves in the past masters before looking at recent ethical theories - you need to
appreciate the 'narrative context' (seeing the development of ethics as a story).

The context is also important for understanding issues. MacIntyre doesn't like 'quandry ethics' where theories are tested by
looking at implausible dilemmas. However, he does want ethics to do its job and tell us how we ought to live our lives. To better
understand what sort of people we should be, and which decisions to make, we need to look at our own context.

Put another way, if we are talking about an ethical issue, such as the Nicaraguan 9-year old who became pregnant and had an
abortion, we have to find out about the context of the issue. In this particular case, the girl came from a Catholic country where
abortion is illegal in all circumstances. The doctors who carried out the abortion were condemned by the Church, and
excommunicated themselves (kicked themselves out of the church). Following this, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans
excommunicated themselves from the church.

Finding out about the context of an issue helps us understand the decisions people make.

Relative Values

It follows from this that different societies have different values. For MacIntyre, virtues change over time. This can be seen by
looking at different societies, and MacIntyre explains the reasons why virtues change. The Homeric virtues included physical
strength, courage, cunning and friendship. In small tribal communities that could be attacked at any time, cunning, strength,
even ruthlessness may be virtuous. As villages developed into large cities, these virtues changed. The Athenian virtues included
Justice and Temperance, and physical strength was no longer so important. Whereas cunning used to be prized, more value
would now be put on Wisdom, the sort of understanding of human behaviour that could navigate through complex conflicts that
might arise with so many people living together.

Christianity adopted the cardinal virtues, but added faith, hope and love (charitable love) to these.

Internal and External Goods

MacIntyre calls the virtues or qualities of character 'internal goods'. He says we also place value on 'external goods'. Aristotle
would have agreed here. The idea that we could be 'penniless but happy' did not come from Aristotle. He would have said that
having good food, a decent place to live and clothes to wear is all part of the eudaimon life. Put another way, Aristotle would
ask if the house, clothes and food would make a poor person happier. If they would, they must be part of eudaimonia, as
eudaimonia is as good as it gets. Physical well-being, food, clothing, housing etc. are called 'external goods'.
MacIntyre also talks of 'practices'. He says that certain activities, such as painting, the opera etc., are good in and of themselves
and not merely because of the pleasure (i.e. other goods) that they lead to.

To summarise MacIntyre in one sentence (which is exactly the sort of thing he hates), he says that we value different qualities of
character, practices and physical things, and that by understanding historical and social context, we can understand ethical
issues that arise.

Ben Franklin
Franklin was a utilitarian virtue theorist. He believed that we should try to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number
(the principle of utility). However, he thought that the best way to bring about the greatest good was by developing the virtues.

Philippa Foot
Foot is a contemporary British philosopher who is trying to modernise Aristotle. She believes that goodness should be seen as the
natural flourishing of humans as living beings. She believes that ethics should not be about dry theorising but about making the
world a better place (she was one of the founders of Oxfam). The virtues are beneficial to the individual and the community -
they contribute to the good life.

Elizabeth Anscome

Before MacIntyre wrote After Virtue (1981), GEM Anscome wrote a paper entitled "Modern Moral Philosophy". She was critical of a
'law conception of ethics' where the key focus was obligation and duty. Many trace the modern development of Virtue Ethics back
to this paper. The reason why MacIntyre gets more attention is that he actually developed a theory of Virtue Ethics rather than
merely criticising other forms of ethics.

Martha Nussbaum

Nussbaum interprets Aristotle's virtues as absolutes - she claims that Justice, Temperance, generosity etc. are essential elements
of human flourishing across all societies and throughout time. This is a sharp contrast to the general attitude among modern
virtue theorists. Although it may be too much to describe all of the above as moral relativists, Nussbaum is clear that she
believes a relativist approach is incompatible with Aristotle's virtue theory.

Free Will Vs. Determinism

Theory in detail
Hard Determinism

Hard determinists argue that all human action is causally determined, and that therefore we never act freely and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. The
different arguments for determinism come from a number of perspectives:

Philosophy

The theory of Universal Causation maintains that everything in the universe (including human action) has a cause which precedes it.

e.g. A = friction, B = heat occurs

or A = rubbing hands together, B = hands warmer

This is the basis of science - if it wasn't the case that one event or set of circumstances lead to another, scientific observation, and the conclusions drawn, would be
pointless and meaningless.
If a doctor cannot explain the cause of a set of symptoms, he doesn't presume that they have no cause, but that the cause is unknown.

John Locke

Locke gave the example of a man who wakes up in a room that, unknown to him, is locked from the outside. He chooses to stay in the room, believing he has chosen freely.
In reality, he has no option. However, his ignorance of this gives him an illusion of freedom.

Hospers

Let us suppose it were established that a man commits murder only if, sometime during the previous week, he has eaten a certain combination of foodssay, tuna fish
salad at a meal also including peas, mushroom soup, and blueberry pie. What if we were to track down the factors common to all murders committed in this country
during the last twenty years and found this factor present in all of them, and only in them? The example is of course empirically absurd; but may it not be that there is
some combination of factors that regularly leads to homicide?

Someone commits a crime and is punished by the state; he deserved it, we say self-righteouslyas if we were moral and he immoral, when in fact we are lucky and he is
unluckyforgetting that there, but for the grace of God and a fortunate early environment, go we.

Ted Honderich

Honderich claims that everything is determined, both internally and externally. He denies that we have any choice, and therefore disagrees that we have any moral
responsibility. Whatever I do, I could not have done otherwise - I was determined. If I could not have done otherwise, I cannot be held responsible for my actions, and
should not be punished just for the sake of it (although it does make sense to punish people as a deterent or to protect society from someone who is dangerous).

Honderich sounds like an incompatilist, but he actually claims that the very idea of free will is meaningless, so it doesn't make any sense to claim that free will is
incompatible with determinism. He says both compatibilism and incompatibilism are incoherent and meaningless.

Physics

Since Newton, a 'scientific' view of the world has been one of 'universal laws' - of motion, thermodynamics etc. A famous 'thought experiment' was put forward by La Place.
He imagined a demon capable of knowing the position and movement of every particle in the universe. He was seeing the world like a huge snooker table. As long as we
know the strength and direction of a shot, we could accurately predict in advance whether it would sink the pot.

Over the last century, quantum mechanics and chaos theory have thrown some doubt over this. Quantum Mechanics theorises an uncaused, or random, event. The Hard
Determinist would argue that a random event is no more free than a causally determined event. Quantum Mechanics also suggests that we cannot know the position and
movement of even a single particle (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). It is worth noting, however, that Einstein himself thought that we would one day find the laws
that govern quanta, and that 'God does not play dice'. The world he looked at, even from his unique perspective, was still one where every event was causally determined.

Psychology

Psychology makes two claims: to be able to predict (and explain) behaviour, and to be able to control behaviour. What we do is the result of the things that happen to us.

Classical conditioning

John Watson, a psychologist and behaviourist, famously boasted:

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any
type of specialist I might select doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities,
vocations, and race of his ancestors.

The theory is that humans will respond in a certain way to certain stimuli, and if you can control the stimulus, you can control the response. Hence the response is
conditional.

Operant conditioning

BF Skinner's approach is more credible than Watson's. Watson tried to show that you could control a child's behaviour using fear, but Skinner did not agree. Instead, we need
to use incentives. Many modern economists have followed in Skinner's footsteps, explaining human behaviour in terms of our response to incentives ('Predictably Irrational' is
a great example of this and a superb read).

Skinner showed that by rewarding certain behaviour, it is possible to control behaviour, as people will behave in ways that tend to lead to the reward. This is called 'Positive
reinforcement'. You can use 'negative reinforcement' as well, although Skinner found this less effective in controlling behaviour.

Libertarianism

Libertarians accept that universal causation would apply to a mechanistic world, but that this would not influence human choice. A kleptomaniac may be inclined to steal,
but has the choice not to.

There is a difference between the empirically analysable personality and one's moral self.
e.g. A youth in a ghetto may be likely to become a gangster because it is in his interests, however, his moral self may override this and he might become a policeman.

The act of decision making

All of our actions are based on the assumption that we are free. We can only make decisions about what to do if:

we do not already know what we are going to do

it is in our power to do what we are thinking of doing

Necessary and contingent truth

There are statements that are necessarily true. For example, analytic truths such as "All bachelors are unmarried". Other truths are no less true - it is sunny today. This is
true, but it is only contigently true, it could conceivably be false.

Michael Palmer, in 'Moral Problems', gives the example of three runners. A is faster than B, B is faster than C. What would happen if they raced? The answer is that we
cannot know for certain - when we say "A is faster than B" this is a contingent truth. It means that in the past, A has run faster than B. It doesn't mean that A will necessarily
run faster than B in the future.

The argument here is that contingent truths about the world make the future unpredictable. Something may actually happen in the future (A may actually beat B), but that
doesn't mean it necessarily had to happen. We cannot know the future from contingent predictions.

Soft Determinism/Compatibilism

Soft Determinism accepts that all of our actions are determined. However, there is a difference between Ghandi choosing to fast, and a man being locked up without food.
In both cases, the actions are determined, and the men could not do otherwise. However, what determines Ghandi's actions is internal, where as the man locked up has
been externally caused to be without food.

A compatibilist, who believes that determinism and free will are compatible, would draw a distinction between actions caused or determined by our personalities ('free'
actions) and actions with external causes (where we are 'co-erced')

Compatibilism, unlike hard determinism, allows for moral responsibility. If X does not save a drowning child because X cannot swim, he is not morally responsible. However,
if he chooses not to because of his personality, a combination of his conditioning, an event in his childhood etc, then he is to be held responsible.

David Hume

"All men have ever agreed in the doctrine both of necessity and of liberty... By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, accordingto the
determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may (1). Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to
belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of dispute.

It is universally allowed that nothing exists without a cause of its existence (2), and that chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real
power which has anywhere a being in nature (3)... Liberty, when opposed to necessity, not to constraint, is the same thing with chance; which is universally allowed to
have no existence...

Actions are objects of our moral sentiment, so far only as they are indications of the internal character, passions, and affections; it is impossible that they can give rise
either to praise or blame, where they proceed not from these principles (4). (read more here)

Hume is a soft-determinist. He is saying that all things are necessary (2). In the passage above he dismisses the idea that some things are uncaused or happen as the result
of mere chance (3). He also believes we are free (1). Hume goes on to say that we don't blame people for things they do ignorantly, and blame them less for things that are
not premeditated. In fact, any sense of moral blame can only come if something we do is the result of our character (4). Free will, and moral responsibility, require
determinism.

Environment
What is the Environment?What are the issues?Case studiesEthical
responsesChristian responsesResources

Find out more

BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself
InteractExam practice

Is the way we treat the environment an ethical issue?

Environmental issues can affect our lives in very serious ways, particularly if we live in developing countries. Many scientists
suggest things will get much worse in the next 50 years. There is general agreement that we should make changes to the way we
live our lives, and that governments should pass appropriate legislation, to reduce the damage done to the environment.

At the same time, many millions of people live without adequate access to education, healthcare, sanitation etc. They have a very
poor quality of life that could be improved with increased development. Some people would argue that they have a right to develop
to the same degree as westerners in Europe and North America.

Furthermore, to continue living as we do in the West means continued destruction of the environment and use of natural resources.
Even if the population of the world wasn't increasing, the world could not sustain our current standard of living indefinitely.

How do we balance the desires of people living in developed countries, the needs of the developing world, and the well-being of the
environment in which we all live? Can ethics help us to answer questions about the environment?

Christian Ethics
Introduction
OCR does not specify which religion you study, and the exam questions are open - they refer to 'the religion you have studied' or
'religious ethics'. However, most text books discuss Christian Ethics. This is partly because Christianity is, in terms of number of
adherents, by far the largest religion in the UK, and is to my knowledge the only religion that must be studied at school (locally
agreed syllabuses vary, but all must include Christianity). In discussing medical ethics, Christianity has had a greater influence on
the law in the UK than any other faith. The most influential politicians (Blair and Brown at the time of writing) are Christians. Also
three of the ethical theories studied (Natural Law, Situation Ethics and Virtue Ethics) originated with or were developed by
Christians.

For students of other faiths or no faith, studying Christian ethics gives a better understanding of the current legal position in the UK.
For Christian students, it gives the opportunity to challenge traditional views (for example about homosexuality) in an informed and
thoughtful way.

Natural Law [more]

The Roman Catholic Church accounts for the majority of Christians in the world, and is the largest religious organisation of any
religion. Within Catholic theology, Natural Law holds a dominant position. The Church encourages a range of different approaches,
but when it comes to offical church teaching, the vast majority of statements, encyclicals etc. are strongly in-line with Natural Law.

Within other denominations, Natural Law theology still has a significant impact. Many Christians adopt deontological positions and
think we should act according to God's design or purpose for our lives. They may be less influenced by Aquinas in this, and
Protestants tend to be less sure about moral absolutes. However, there is still a strong sense of following rules within most Christian
denominations.
Situation Ethics [more]
It is difficult to guage the influence of Situation Ethics. Even before Fletcher wrote his book, many theologists supported a 'love
ethic':

"There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". William Temple, 1917

"The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law." Paul Tillich, 1951

There is a tension within the Christian faith between the command to love, and the sense of duty towards other commandments and
obligations. Fletcher saw the need for rules, but he said we need to be ready to abandon them when love demands this.

Proportionalism
The challenge of situation ethics is so great that some Catholic theologians believe there needs to be a compromise between
Natural Law and Situation Ethics. 'Proportionalism' (the title of a book by Brtitish philosopher Bernard Hoose) accepts, as Natural
Law does, that certain acts are wrong or evil acts in themselves. However, it says that it might be the right thing to do, if there is a
proportionate reason, to perform such acts.

The arguments here get quite tricky, and proportionalism ends up looking a lot like situation ethics. Proportionalists claim that doing
a 'bad' action out of love makes an action morally good but not morally right. A 'bad' action is only morally right if it is proportionate.
This is familiar from Just War thinking.

Virtue Ethics [more]

Virtue ethics sits very comfortably next to Natural Law - Aristotle was a proponent of both theories, as was Aquinas. Within the
Christian traditions there has been great support for the 'cardinal virtues', listed on this site as wisdom, judgment, temperance, and
courage. It is common to see them called prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, although they refer to the same virtues.

Christianity added to the virtues. There are the theological virtues: faith, hope and love. There are also the 7 capital virtues (although
the accompanying 7 deadly sins are better known):

Virtue Vice

Humility Pride

Liberality Avarice

Brotherly love Envy

Meekness Wrath

Chastity Lust

Temperance Gluttony

Diligence Sloth

The Bible

The Bible clearly has a significant role in shaping Christians' ethical responses. Within the Catholic tradition, the Bible's authority is
the same as the church. In practice this means that Catholics tend to listen to the church on ethical issues as the church interprets
the Bible in the modern world.

Within Protestant churches, a much greater emphasis is put on the Bible. Without a God-given authority to put faith in, Christians
are expected to read the Bible for themselves and make their own decisions about important ethical issues. However, without the
ability to read scripture in the language in which it was written, Christians have to put faith in the translators. On issues such as
homosexuality, the translators' bias comes through in the translation, with words such as 'abomination' used with no justification.
Reading the Bible raises other issues. Is it the literal word of God, or merely inspired by God? Is it possible to dismiss large chunks
as having been written for people in an entirely different society?

The best way to read the Bible is to look at the context of any passage. What is that passage meant to mean to the person who was
going to read it? While parts of the Bible have a clear meaning, and are inspiring to many Christians, there will always be debate
about the true meaning of some difficult passages.

The Church
Catholics believe Jesus gave His authority to Peter, and it has been passed down ever since, currently lying with Pope Benedict.
The Catholic Church has a magisterium - its teachings have a God-given authority that is equal to the authority of scripture. The
Pope has even got the power (rarely used) to make infallible statements - statements that cannot be questioned.

Within Protestant churches, the church has an advisory role. It can recommend one action over another, it can condemn certain
actions entirely - you can even be kicked out of the church for certain actions. However, the individual is still left to decide where to
stand in relation to church teaching. In Protestant churches, the Bible has a much greater authority than the church.

The Holy Spirit, Conscience, Prayer, Religious Experience etc,

This is a large number of important factors to lump together. Christians can get inspiration from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Many Christians believe the conscience to be 'the voice of God'. The vast majority of Christians pray for guidance even when they
wouldn't pray for intervention (some Christians don't ask God to actually solve their problems, but those who pray tend to believe
that God responds or gives answers to prayer). Some Christians have had a direct, life-changing experience of God, which may
mean seeing a vision, hearing a voice or feeling God's presence.

All of these factors can have a profound effect on the individual and can contribute significantly to the ethical decision-making
process. However, because they are personal and individualised, there is very little to say other than to recognise their importance,
and that this can lead to a wide variety of different Christian responses.

Absolute and Relative Moralities

Theories
Introduction

Some ethical theories are teleological - what is right or wrong depends on the end or outcome of an action - for utlitarians, pleasure, happiness or 'the greatest good'; for
Aristotle, 'Eudaimonia'. Other theories are deontological - doing what is right means doing your duty or following the rules - for Kant, the categorical imperative; in Natural
Law, the secondary precepts. It is easy to think of teleological theories as relativist and deontological theories as absolutist, but it it not that simple. Apart from Kantian
Ethics (thoroughly absolutist and deontological) and Situation Ethics (clearly relativist and teleological), ethics seems to involve an uneasy mix.

Absolutist ethical theories

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Kant says that we should act according to maxims that we would want to see as universal laws. These laws are absolutist - we can work them out logically prior to
experience; they are not verified through experience (they are known 'a priori').

The consequences of our actions are irrelevant to whether they are right or wrong - evil actions may have unintended good consequences, and someone might act heroically
without any guarantee that the consequences will be good. No character quality is absolutely good (good without exception) - for example, it is possible to act kindly but do
the wrong thing. The only good thing is a good will that does what is logically the right thing to do.

Natural Law

Natural Law is often described as deontological because, in practice, it leads to a set of rules that people have a duty to follow. These rules are absolutist, because they
know of no exception. For example, using contraception to prevent conception is absolutely wrong, regardless of consequences such as the spread of AIDS, unwanted
pregnancies etc.

However, Aquinas' Natural Law Theory says we should try to fulfil our God-given purpose. This is teleological, as it is interested in our design or 'end'. The primary precepts -
worshipping God, living in an ordered society, reproducing etc. - are teleological: they are the ends to which all our actions should aim. The primary precepts are also
absolutist - Aquinas believed we were all made by God with a shared human purpose.
Moral relativism

Situation Ethics

This must not be confused with cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is a very weak moral theory that says things are right and wrong relative to our culture. The theory is
easily refuted.

Situation Ethics says that what is right and wrong is relative to the situation. In other words, if you asked "Is it wrong to abort a foetus?" I would ask "Under what
circumstances?" Clearly the outcome of my actions is of central importance here. Rules may be useful, but you may need to ignore the rules in order to do the right (loving)
thing - the thing that is in the best interests of the people affected.

Theories that can be either absolutist or relativist

Utilitarianism

When Bentham came up with his Hedonic Calculus, he had developed a theory that allowed you to work out what was right or wrong in any given situation. Euthanasia might
lead to the greatest happiness for one person and yet lead to greater unhappiness in another situation. What is right or wrong is relative to the situation, it is whatever has
the best consequences (teleological).

Mill, and many since, have adapted Bentham's 'act' utlitarianism, claiming that we need to make laws based on the principle of utility (choose the laws that lead to the
greater good) and then follow those laws. This means I have a duty to, for example, tell the truth because it generally leads to greater happiness, even if in this case it will
lead to more unhappiness. This is deontological, because it deals with the duty to follow rules. It can be seen as absolutist because there are no exceptions to the rules (if
you were allowed to break the rules, this would be act utilitarianism).

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle came up with a list of virtues that we need to acquire, through education and habitually, in order to have a 'Eudaimon' or happy life.

Some modern virtue ethicists, such as Martha Nussbaum, describe Aristotle's theory as absolutist. It is teleological, because it is about the ends or purposes of our actions.
However, Aristotle is saying (according to Nussbaum) that certain ends or goals are absolute - it is always good to be honest, kind, courageous etc.

Other modern virtue ethicists say that values change, and different societies hold up different virtues as desirable. What is virtuous, according to MacIntyre, is relative to
the context - relative to culture, varying throughout history. Virtue ethics is teleological, focussing on the ends or purposes of our actions. These ends or purposes vary
from one society to another throughout time.

Natural Law

Theory in detail
Everything has a purpose

Ethics is the struggle to determine what is right or wrong, or good and bad. Some ethical theories are hedonistic they say that pleasure (and the absence of pain) are the only ultimately
good ends towards which to aim. Some Christian ethicists argue that following Gods will as revealed through prayer, scriptures and prophecy is the ultimate good.

The theory of Natural Law was put forward by Aristotle but championed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Natural Law has elements of both of these approaches. Man desires happiness, but for
Aquinas this means fulfilling our purpose as humans. He said, in Summa Theologica, "whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good." Fulfilling our purpose is the only good for
humans.

We will see that Aquinas first asks what our human nature is, and then looks at the rules that can be derived from this.

The purpose of humans - the Primary Precepts

There is a single guiding principle that sums up our nature:

"good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this.

Aquinas looks at what is 'good' for humans, saying that humans share part of their nature with all natural things, part with animals, and part of our human nature is particular to us. Aquinas
said:

inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being... whatever is a means of preserving human life , and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law
 those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals" [Pandect. Just. I, tit. i], such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth
man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society

Although textbooks talk of five Primary Precepts, and some resources on this site reflect this, Bernard Hoose revealed, over lunch at an Ethics conference, his frustration with this tendency. He
felt there were only three, as can be seen above. Read Summa Theologica yourself, and you may feel that Aquinas is not giving an exhaustive list, but simply some examples of "self evident
principles" perceived by reason.

A mnemonic for these might be PREGS:

Protect and preserve human life

Reproduce and Educate your offspring
know God and live in Society

Teleology and Deontology

In 1930, CD Broad contrasted teleology and deontology in an attempt to categorise ethical theories. By teleology, he meant theories where "the rightness or wrongness of an action is always
determined by its tendency to produce consequences which are intrinsically good or bad". According to Broad, deontological theories hold that "such and such a kind of action would always be
right (or wrong) in such and such circumstances, no matter what its consequences might be". In essence, teleology is concerned with good and bad, deontology with right and wrong.

This distinction, and these definitions, are seen by many ethicists as unhelpful, but they are on most syllabuses. Broad admitted that "most theories are actually mixed", and we can see this in
Natural Law.

In defining the Primary Precepts, Aquinas was stating 'self-evident principles' that are universal and absolute - they are part of our very nature as humans. This sounds deontological. However,
looking at Aristotle's notion of telos as excellence, we see that the Primary Precepts are not concerned with actions themselves, but with our telos or purpose. As such, the Primary Precepts
are actually teleological. For Aquinas, man's final purpose (telos) is happiness with God (beatitudo), something for which we all have an innate desire. The Primary Precepts are our natural
inclinations that guide us towards this final purpose.

From the general principles, practical reason enables us to derive secondary precepts. These are rules that govern our specific actions. The secondary precepts are what makes Natural Law
appear deontological. They concern rules for our actions, for example "Goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner". If I am looking after your money, I should not give it
away to a charity, even if doing so would bring about some good. It would be the wrong sort of action. I have a duty to return to you what I was entrusted with.

However, this is not always an absolute duty, and this causes confusion in understanding Natural Law Using the above example, Aquinas says:

it is right and true for all to act according to reason : and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is
true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for
the purpose of fighting against one's country.

This doesn't mean that we do not have a duty to return goods entrusted to us, but that there may be conflicting duties that prevent us from doing so.

Secondary Precepts

Secondary Precepts are rules derived from Primary Precepts using practical reason. In some cases, they refer to an action that is unnatural, and is therefore always wrong. Certain actions were
seen by Aquinas to be contrary to human nature. Reason would then give us absolute secondary precepts that would always hold. For example, Aquinas felt that masturbation went against
the natural end (telos) of sex, which is procreation. This means that 'Do not masturbate' is an absolute secondary precept. However, in modern infertility treatment, masturbation might be
used to assist procreation through artificial insemination by a husband. On this issue, Natural Law theorists disagree about whether masturbation is unnatural, and therefore disagree about
the secondary precept 'Do not masturbate'.

Aquinas gives examples (in Summa Theologica) as illustrations of those actions that are wrong in and of themselves because they contradict the primary precepts of natural law:

theft
lying
fornicating
committing adultery
killing the innocent

These are all examples of deonotological, absolutist secondary precepts derived from the self-evident, universal teleological Primary Precepts. Other examples include the Ten
Commandments.

Some secondary precepts are deontological (concerning actions rather than ends, and related to our specific duties), but not absolutist. An example is given above.

Efficient and Final Causes

This is Aristotles distinction between what gets things done (efficient cause) and the end product (final cause). With humans, it is the accomplishment of the end product that equates to
good. An example is sexuality an efficient cause of sex is enjoyment: because humans enjoy sex, the species has survived through procreation. However, the final cause of sex (the thing
God designed it for) is procreation. Therefore sex is only good if procreation is possible.
Put another way, the efficient cause is a statement of fact or a description. If we ask why people have sex, we might talk about attraction, psychological needs etc. The final cause is a matter
of intent what was Gods purpose behind sex? The final cause assumes a rational mind behind creation, and as such moves from descriptive ethics (saying what is there) to normative ethics
(statements about what should or should not be the case).

Another example did the soldier shoot well? The efficient cause deals with the set of events around the shooting did he aim well, was the shot effective, did the target die? These are
descriptive points, and clearly dont tell us about the morality of the shooting. When we look into this area was it right to kill? - we are evaluating his intent, and are asking about the final
cause. We can then look at whether that cause is consistent with Gods design for human beings. We may decide that killing innocent people goes against Gods design for us, so it is always
wrong to kill innocent people.

Real and Apparent Goods

Aquinas argued that the self should be maintained. As a result, Natural Law supports certain virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) that allow the self to fulfil its purpose.
Similarly there are many vices (the seven deadly sins) that must be avoided as they prevent the individual from being what God intended them to be.

Following a real good will result in the preservation or improvement of self, getting nearer to the ideal human nature that God had planned. There are many apparent goods that may be
pleasurable (e.g. drugs) but ultimately lead us to fall short of our potential. Reason is used to determine the real goods.

God

Aquinas believed in life after death, which leads to a different understanding of Gods plan for humans. Natural Law can be upheld by atheists, but there seems no good reason for keeping to
Natural Law without God. Aquinas holds that the one goal of human life should be the vision of God which is promised in the next life. This is why humans were made, and should be at the
centre of Natural Law thinking.

Casuistry and Double Effect

Casuistry, from the Latin for 'case', refers to the process of applying principles to individual cases. In the Roman Catholic Church, this means applying the universal principles of Natural Law to
specific situations. This is done in a logical way, as some principles have logical consequences. For example, if it is in principle wrong to kill innocent human beings, it follows that bombing
civilian targets (such as Dresden in WW2) is wrong. However, if it is accepted that killing in self defence is okay, we could justify an air attack on Afghanistan on these grounds. Innocent
people might die, but that is not the aim of the action, so the doctrine of double effect comes in to play.

Double effect refers to situations where there is an intended outcome and another significant but unintentional outcome. According to Natural Law, it is our intentions that are important, not
the consequences of our actions. Double effect would not allow you to perform an action where an unintended outcome had devestating effects. The unintended effect has to be
PROPORTIONATE. What this actually means, critics say, is that Natural Law becomes like Utilitarianism.

Meta Ethics

Emotivism

AJ Ayer agreed with Moore (see Intutionism) that you cant get values or moral judgements from descriptions. Argument is
possible on moral questions only if some system of values is presupposed. Therefore to say that something is wrong is to say that
I disapprove of it or that it goes against my values. In other words, Abortion is wrong is the same as saying I dont like
abortion. Ayer argued that moral statements are merely subjective, sentimental statements based on personal values (personal
values because there is no absolute, objective value in the world we decide what we value). Statements of fact are either
logically necessary (true by definition) or observable moral statements are neither analytically or synthetically verifiable, so
there are no moral facts.

CL Stevenson said the purpose of a moral statement was to persuade someone of the rightness or wrongness of an action. Good
is a persuasive definition. He said that when we talk about moral issues, we express approval or disapproval. Unlike Ayer, he said
moral statements were not merely expressions of emotion, but were based on deeply held beliefs. This gives a better
explanation of why people disagree strongly about morality their ideas are based on fundamental social, political or religious
beliefs. However, Stevenson is an emotivist because he believes moral statements are the result of subjective opinions, views or
beliefs.

Intuitionism

Naturalism held that ethical terms could be explained in the same natural terms as science or maths. Ethics, they said, was
about observation and analysis.
GE Moore, in Principia Ethica (1903) famously refuted naturalism. He said that you cant move from is to ought. In other words,
any observation of how people actually behave cannot tell us about how people SHOULD behave. He called this the naturalistic
fallacy.

Moore went on to say that good is indefinable. In the same way as yellow is just, well, yellow, good is not a complex term
that can be broken down further, you just recognise that something is good by intuition. If good was a complex idea, we could
ask of it whether it was itself good. For example, Bentham defined good as pleasure (the greatest pleasure for the greatest
number). But you can ask Is pleasure good? Because the question makes sense, pleasure cant mean the same as good.

HA Prichard said there were two kinds of thinking: reason brought together the facts about a situation, and intuition perceived
the right thing to do.

WD Ross argued that moral principles cant be absolute, as they can contradict one another He said that we have prima facie
(at first appearance) duties: keeping promises, making up for harm done, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and
non-maleficence. Intuition identifies our prima facie duties, but when they conflict, we need to use our own judgment to
determine which obligation is our absolute duty.

Prescriptivism

RM Hare argued that moral statements werent merely descriptive (describing our beliefs) and persuasive, he said they were
prescriptive and universal. When I say Murder is wrong, I am writing a law which I believe others should follow. Hare thinks
that reason plays an important role in ethics. He agrees with Kant that moral rules should be universalisable, and that we should
do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

Morris Ginsberg

Main ideas
In his thesis on Malebranche, Ginsberg mainly argued against Mario Novaro's criticisms of Malebranche's theory of occasionalism, claiming that Novaro "entirely
ignored the main difference between Hume and Malebranche in regard to causality. Malebranche does not, in truth, deny a necessary connection between cause
and effect." Some of the major themes of his work were concerned with

1. The social responsibility of sociologists, which he saw as part of the more general problem of the ethics of knowledge. He believed that there was an urgent
need to undertake fuller investigation of the relations between questions of fact and questions of value particularly in the face of relativistic views that maintain
that social conflicts have their origin in fundamental differences of moral outlook.

2. The second main theme is the question of what he called "Reason and Unreason" in human nature and society. He criticised the traditional view widely
propagated from Aristotle through Hume to Bertrand Russell, that the main functions of reason in human affairs lie in the clarification, systematisation and control
of impulse and feeling, and the discovery of means to their fulfilment. He contended that reason and feeling should not be held to be in opposition, or reason as the
slave of the passions, but that reason could play a significant role in motivating action and directing feeling and conation. He sums up his view as follows:

"We have not to choose between Hume's view of reason as the slave of the passions and Kant's view of it as independent and over-riding them. We may conceive
of it rather as that in our personality which strives for integration, deeper than conscious thought, but the more effective the more it uses thought, working within
and through the basic impulses and interests and deriving its energy from them".
~ from: "Is Reason the Slave of the Passions" in The Plain View" Feb. 1955 [2]

Morris Ginsberg was continually preoccupied with examining the role of reason in ethics. His position on this has sometimes been misunderstood occasionally
strategically misunderstood. He charted and analysed the diversity of morals among societies, and between groups and individuals, but made a clear distinction
between that recognition and assumption that ethics must be entirely relative. In consequence he was ready to take issue with those who propounded emotive
theories of ethics, and those who were influenced, for example, by the work of cultural anthropologists to adopt the relativistic standpoint. Cultural relativism,
however, does not entail moral relativism, as its opponents often claim in a straw-man argument.

Ginsberg manifested an 'objectivist' theory of ethics in the tradition of Plato, Aristotle, Mill, Sidgwick and Hobhouse. This led him to maintain that 'value' and
'obligation', 'good' and 'bad' are terms not further reducible or analysable into each other or into terms not implying them. He also deals positively with the notion of
levels of moral development, and suggests criteria for assessing these. Using these criteria it is possible to detect unmistakable differences of level between
different societies in the modern world. He saw clearly that there is no finality in these matters, and that conditions, circumstances and societies change, involving
advances and regressions.

3. He was inevitably also concerned with the nature of Justice and its relationship to equality, and the associated question of Law as an increasingly important
agent of social change and reform. The ethics of punishment and the complex nature of individual moral freedom and its involvement with legal compulsion is
examined in "On Justice in Society" (1965), where he concludes as follows:- 'Three questions have to be asked (a) Is the use of force necessary or can the end
aimed at be secured by suasion or voluntary agreement? (b) Can the end in question be attained by compulsion or does its value depend on its being freely or
spontaneously pursued? These questions have to be faced in any effort to distinguish between the rights and duties which require and permit of legal
reinforcement and rights and duties which are best assured by moral means; that is, by inner conviction and free acceptance.'

4. Another pervading theme in his work was the advocacy of the liberal disposition of mind as a desideratum. He opposed this to fanaticism, impulsiveness,
'totalitarianism'. He was for sanity, coolness, reflection and restraint in judgement. His approach to problems was fundamentally Apollonian, and he mistrusted the
Dionysian temperament, though understanding its nature and its potency. As he said ("The Idea of Progress" 1953 pp 7273) 'The liberal mind is characterised by
an abhorrence of fanaticism, a greater readiness to count the cost in terms of human happiness and human lives, a profounder awareness of the effects of
violence, both on those who employ it and those who suffer it.'