e te “12 . UVA-E-0020 ‘Notall ofthe test questions suggested by these theories will be appropriate for every ethical decision, and some ethical decisions may require formulation of new test questions. However, these questions may provide a framework for analyzing some of the recurrent types of ethical choices.i ale 7 UVA-E-0020 and treat general principles simply as guides to whatis probably right. Other rule utilitarians regard an action as right ifit conforms to a justifiable general rule, regardless of the actual consequences of that zction. In either case, the critical issue ftom a practical point of view is identifying and following the appropriate general rule, 7 How would a person of character behave in your situation? Alllthe preceding approaches to ethical decision-making emphasize the moment of decision and the choice of a course of action to satisfy the immediate situation. A somewhat different approach, which was highly developed by Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics and which bas received relatively litle attention from contemporary thinkers, focuses instead on the virtues, certain desirable character traits or dispositions of the actor. Aristotle divided the virtues into two categories: the intellectual virtues, such as prudence, understanding, and knowledge of how to achieve one’s goals; and the moral virtues, such as courage, truthfulness, temperance, and friendliness. ‘The emphasis on character draws attention to the importance of how we act, as well as what wedo, Aristotle believed thet virtuous action proceeds from the right motive, in the right way, and atthe right time. Thus, neither a grudging donation to charity nor a true statement made-to inflict» harm is virtuous. Neither fulfills all the conditions of virtous action despite the fact that both conform to conventional rules of moral conduct. Aristotle believed that individuals can cultivate desirable character traits by habitually acting as someone who genuinely has the character traits would act. Thus, one can become courageous in the full sense—that is, with the right attiudes and motives—by doing courageous acts. For. Aristotle, at least part of the point of acting courageously, or in accordance with any other virtue, is to cultivate that virtue in oneself. Aristotle did not try to give reasons for trying to become virtuous, but he did believe that virtiGus actions are in themselves satisfying, Considering particular ethical issues from the point of view of the character traits involved may not provide much guidance for someone who lacks a developed conception of the virtues, comparable in fullness to that of Aristotle, After all, even if one wants to act courageously, the difficult part of some choices is deciding which action would in the circumstances be more courageous. To make that decision, one needs a conception of courage. Nevertheless, one can think of people whose lives and actions exemplify certain valuable character traits, and when in difficulty itmay be fruitful to reflect on what thet person of wisdom, of integrity, or of courage would do in the situation one faces. In addition, focusing on the character traits which created a situation necessitating moral choice can lead to long-term solutions. Analyzing the-likely consequences of the available alternative courses of action may lead to 2 right decision under the circumstances, but an understanding of how to avoid the necessity of meking some difficult decisions can come from understanding the circumstances, including the behavior and character traits, that gave rise to the situation.- = 10 : UVA-E-0020 believe that the consequences’of following general rules or principles are paramount—aot the consequences of individual getions. Accordingly, rule utilitatians are concerned with determining which general rules ‘or principles would, if widely accepted, have best consequences, and with applying those rules in particular cases. - : : ‘The different orientations 6f the act and rule utilitarian result in iffereit views ofthe process of making moral decisions. Act utilitarians believe that making moral decisions is a matter of ‘anticipating the likely consequences of the available alternative actions, and selecting the action tmost likely to have best results, taking into account the interests of all those concemed. Rule utilitarians tend to rely on general rules which have survived utilitarian sorutiny as a reference point formiaking moral decisions. Typicaly, rule utilitarian find that many conventional moral rules ae justifiable on utilitarian grounds and thus provide sound guidance in the ordinary case.” Thus, for instance, the rule utilitarian rarely needs to decide whether to tell the truth by considering the various alternatives to doing so. Since the general principle of truth-telling has a sound rule utilitarian basis, ‘one simply follows the rule in practice Theoretically, it would appear thet the act utilitarian is required to do a utilitarian analysis of every particular instance where lying is a possibility. ‘The rule utilitarian approach of following justifiable general rules breaks down when those rules conflict or when-a. situation falls outside their scope. In such situations two altemative approaches are possible: Act utilitarian reasoning may be applied directly, or a new general rule may be formulated, Itis critical to notice again that act utilitarian reasoning is not unprincipled. Its principles, however, are of a very high degree of specificity. The principles of rule utilitarianism are, in contrast, usually relstively general. : ‘One rationale behind the rule utilitarian preference for general, as distinct from specific, principles is seen in situations where codperation is required to accomplish a desired result. For cexatnple, suppose that five people ere riding in a car which stalls at the foot of @ hill. In addition, suppose that all five passengers want to get the car up the hill and that at least four people are required physically to move the car. Under these circumstances the general rule “Everybody push” ig likely to be the only effective rule.” If each potential pusher applies act utilitarian reasoning to his choice between pushing and not pushing, it could well work out that not enough people would push. More than one person might in isolation determine that he is nat required to push under a ‘more specific principle excluding, say, the tired, the sleepy, the hungry, orthe frail. Of course, tis example Is contrived. ‘The group is so small that no one would in fact be deciding whet to do in isolation. Someone who felt hisnon-patticipation was justifiable could present his caseto the group for consideration. In larger groups, howevér, such interaction may be impossible, and strict adherence to the general rule might be the most feasible way of achieving the coordination necessary for the desired result. Rule utilitarians have differing approaches to evaluating the morel worth of individual actions. Some rule utilitarians judge an action’s moral value on the basis ofits actual consequences 28 g,,G. E Moore, Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903, Ch. V. 237his example is borrowed from David Lyons, Forms and Limits of Usitarfanism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.