Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
CHAPTER 2
Normative Theories of Ethics
Learning Objectives
After completing this chapter students should be able to:
Identify, describe, and compare the major normative theories undergirding moral judgments.
Carefully consider the critiques offered of each of the theories and test their validity.
Consider the subtleties of Kant’s main formulations of the categorical imperative including his
emphasis on moral motivation and respect for persons.
Glossary
1. act utilitarianism: The utilitarian theory that right and wrong are determined by the effects that
our actions actually produce (or what we should expect them to produce). A simple version of act
utilitarianism states that acts are right if they maximize the good and wrong if they don't.
2. categorical imperative: An moral imperative that applies to everyone no matter what their
personal interests or desires are. The word 'categorical' refers to overriding and inescapable
standards. The word 'imperative' refers to a commandment or requirement. Kant's categorical
imperative is his theory of right and wrong—that an action is right if it's something we can
rationally will everyone to do in the relevant situation. We say everyone morally ought not kill
people unless they are in unusual circumstances and their personal interests and desires can't
2-1
9. maxim: A subjective principle of action, such as “I will never lie” or “I will only lie when it
benefits me.”
10. negative rights: We have a negative moral right when no one should interfere with us in certain
ways. For example, freedom of speech is a negative right and no one should interfere with us to
limit our speech (unless it conflicts with other people's rights).
11. normative theories: Theories that tell us when something is right or wrong. Epistemic normative
theories tell us when we ought to believe something and ethical normative theories tell us when we
ought to do something.
12. positive rights: We have a positive moral right when others should do certain things for us. For
example, a moral right to education requires that society somehow gives people an education even
if they can't afford to pay for it.
Chapter Summary Points
1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of
their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently
bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant
to the determination of right and wrong.
2. Egoism is the consequentialist theory that an action is right when it promotes the individual’s
best interests. Proponents of this theory base their view on the alleged fact that human beings
are, by nature, selfish (the doctrine of psychological egoism). Critics of egoism argue that (a)
psychological egoism is implausible, (b) egoism is not really a moral principle, and (c) egoism
ignores blatant wrongs.
3. Utilitarianism, another consequentialist theory, maintains that the morally right action is the one
that provides the greatest good for all those affected. In an organizational context, utilitarianism
provides an objective way to resolve conflicts of self-interest and encourages a realistic and
result-oriented approach to moral decision making. But critics contend that (a) utilitarianism is
not really workable, (b) some actions are wrong even if they produce good results, and (c)
utilitarianism incorrectly overlooks considerations of justice and the distribution of happiness.
2-2
reversed. The second is that one must always act so as to treat other people as ends, never
merely as a means to an end (a way to accomplish our goals).
7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic
element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a
sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b)
the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing
between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in
practice.
8. Other nonconsequentialist theories stress other moral themes. Philosophers such as Ross argue,
against both Kant and consequentialists, that we are under a variety of distinct moral obligations.
These are prima facie, meaning that any one of them may be outweighed in some circumstances
by other, more important moral considerations. Nonconsequentialists believe that a duty to assist
others and to promote total happiness is only one of a number of duties incumbent on us.
Teaching Suggestions
Chapter 2 deals with several important normative theories of ethics (that is, with several rival theories of
right and wrong). Note that ethical relativism and the divine command theory, which were discussed in
chapter 1, can also be seen as normative theories and thus contrasted with the theories of this chapter.
Students should be reminded that the main purpose of normative theories of ethics is that we apply them
to our reasoning process. Students can be expected, encouraged, or required to apply these theories when
they write essays and present arguments. Each normative theory is ideally supposed to be (a) complete
(maximally comprehensive)—it should be able to explain why everything is right and wrong, and (b)
accurate—it should correctly identify which actions are right and which are wrong.
2-3
Consequentialist theories, nonconsequentialist theories, and virtue ethics will all be briefly described
below and applied to explain some of our considered moral beliefs.
1. Consequantialist theories: For the consequentialist, the key to determining whether an action or rule is
ethically appropriate is a determination of the consequences of performing the action or following the
rule. Here you should distinguish between egoism, where the scope is very narrow—viz. the individual—
and utilitarianism, where the scope is broad—namely, all those affected by performing the action or
following a rule. Once this is done, there are at least two different important issues that you can raise for
the students to discuss:
a. In considering the consequences, we are considering the effects that performing an action or
following a rule can have. But the effects on whom or on what? On humans On all sentient creatures? On
ecosystems?
b. What sorts of consequences should we be interested in? For instance, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy
Bentham focused on pleasure and pain, which they equated with happiness and suffering. But is this what
we want to focus on? If so, is there only one kind of pleasure?
(When discussing utilitarianism, bear in mind that the Shaw and Barry defer discussion of rule
utilitarianism until later in the chapter and that they also discuss utilitarianism in chapter 3 in the context
of justice and economic distribution.)
c. killing people is wrong whenever it causes more suffering than the happiness it brings. Killing
people can not only cause pain to the person that dies, but it can cause people grief. The loved ones of the
person who dies are especially relevant. Nonetheless, killing people might be necessary for the “greater
good” in some situatios. For example, it might be justified when defending a country in war time or when
necessary to protect innocent people with law enforcement.
2. Nonconsequentialist theories: Turning to nonconsequentialist theories, you will want to discuss
Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, and a rights-based ethical approach. In the case of Kant, you can focus on the
notions of duty and intention, and how they figure into determinations of what is morally permissible.
This will lead to a discussion of Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative. You can then move on to
Ross and contrast Kant with Ross. Whereas for Kant duties can never conflict, for Ross they are prima
facie and we often have to choose between them. Here, you can ask how you are supposed to decide
between competing, prima facie duties. Finally, you can discuss the notion of human rights. Many people
talk about human rights (e.g., the right to life, the right to liberty), but there are lots of questions about
such rights. You can, for instance, ask how we decide which rights are human rights (and in so doing,
contrast them with legal rights), whether such rights are exceptionless, and what exactly it means to call
them “human” rights (what about animals, for instance -- a topic that will come up again in chapter 11 of
Shaw and Barry).
2-4
How can a nonconsequantialist theory apply to our considered moral beliefs? Consider the first
formulation of Kant's categorical imperative that states that we must act using principles that we can
rationally will all people to obey. In that case:
a. charity is morally permissible whenever we give to charity to help people (out of respect for their
humanity) because we can rationally will that everyone would give to charity to help each other in this
way. Kant might not say charity is “good” or “supererogatory” but it is certainly permissible.
3. Virtue ethics: Shaw and Barry don't discuss virtue ethics, such as Aristotle's ethical perspective. The
focus of virtue ethics is what makes a good person rather than when an action is right or wrong, and some
philosophers think it is important to discuss virtue ethics as an alternative to both consequetialism and
nonconsequentialism. It can be a good idea to at least briefly discuss virtue ethics with the students.
Aristotle's virtue ethics is taught in many ethics classes in particular. I will briefly discuss Aristotle's
virtue ethics here.
First, Aristotle argues that the main goal in life is to attain personal happiness (flourishing). This is what
he calls our “most final end” or “ultimate end.” A 'final end' is a goods that we understand to be worthy of
seeking for its own sake (or ills we understand to be worthy of avoiding for its own sake). When someone
seeks happiness, we don't want to say that such a goal is irrational. We don't think we should only seek
happiness if it helps us get rich (or attain some other good). In fact, happiness might be something that
can't be used to achieve anything greater than itself at all. This is why Aristotle thinks happiness is the
greatest good or “most final end.”
Final ends should be contrasted with instrumental goods and can be taken to be synonymous with
'intrinsic value.' However, final ends are not necessarily good just for existing, and many philosophers use
the word 'intrinsic value' in that way.
Second, Aristotle argues that we have habits and skills that help us attain greater happiness or constitute
the highest form of happiness by being attained. In particular, these skills should emphasize what we are
(i.e. human beings) because what we are will determine how we can be happy. In particular, becoming the
best kind of person will make us the happiest kind of person by developing distinctly human capacities:
(a) our ability to reason well because we are rational animals and (b) our ability to cooperate and socialize
2-5
incredibly complex. Aristotle would be skeptical of (a) the idea of using a decision-procedure to
determine right and wrong, and (b) boiling right and wrong down to a set of rules.
Fifth, Aristotle's main concern is what makes a good person and what we need to do to become ethical
human beings. This requires us to know how to actually behave ethically and be motivated to do what we
believe is right.
Aristotle's virtue ethics can apply to our considered moral beliefs in the following ways:
a. charity is exemplifies a virtue whenever it's done out of moderate generosity rather than wasteful
forms of generosity. We have to look out for our own needs and interests to be happy, but it's appropriate
to share our wealth with others when we have more than we need because we are political animals and we
care for others. Additionally, we are happier when we get along with others and make friends, and charity
can help us achieve that goal.
Questions for Discussion
Introduction
What are the appropriate principles to rely on when making moral judgments?
Consequentialist and Nonconsequentialist Theories
In considering the consequences, we are considering the effects that performing an action or following a
rule can have. But the effects on whom or on what? On humans? On all sentient creatures? On
ecosystems?
What sorts of consequences should we be interested in? For instance, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy
Bentham focused on pleasure and pain, which they equated with happiness. But is this what we want to
focus on? If so, is there only one kind of pleasure?
Other Nonconsequentialist Perspectives
2-6
Consider an example that Kant himself discussed. Imagine that a murderer comes to your door, wanting to
know where your friend is so that he can kill her. Your friend is in fact hiding in your bedroom closet.
Most people would probably agree that your obligation to your friend overrides your general obligation to
tell the truth and that the right thing to do would be to lie to the murderer to throw him off your friend’s
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics
Aristotle raises many questions for us: Is he right that happiness is the most final end? What other final
ends are there? Is he right that we're rational and political animals? Is he right that being happy requires
us to develop our uniquely human capacities – our ability to get along with others and become more
rational? Is he right to be skeptical of moral rules and decision procedures?
Objections
Additional Resources for Exploring Chapter Content
Further Reading
Essays by Bernard Williams [see footnote 2]
Consequentialist and Nonconsequentialist Theories [see footnotes]
Jeremy Bentham texts
John Stuart Mill texts
Immanuel Kant texts [see footnote 10]
W.D. Ross texts
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Aristotle texts
Internet Resources
Virtue Ethics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Arsitole's Ethics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
2-7
2-8
