Chapter 2 Homework Stealing Notonly Likely Make People Suffer Emotionally

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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