Chapter Two: Approaches to Ethics

2.1. Introduction
Human beings ask questions about nature of morality. In the process of prescriptive inquiry, we
employ a specific vocabulary. We also invoke theories to explain the nature of morality. All
moral theories address the questions of what is Good, why it’s Good, and where the Good is
located? If there is anything “easy” about moral inquiry it’s the fact that there are only three
basic kinds of prescriptive moral theories: teleological theories, deontological theories, and
virtue-based theories. Unfortunately, they often (but not always) provide different and mostly
conflicting answers to these basic questions.

2.2. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics;
o Offers theories or accounts of the best way to live. These theories evaluate actions in a
systematic way, i.e., they may focus on outcomes or duties or motivation as a means of
justifying human conduct.
o Concerned with developing rational moral rules, principles or standards of conduct to
govern the activities of human beings.
o Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics,
principlism, narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
Normative ethics poses questions of the following kind:
 Are there general principles or rules that we could follow which distinguish between right
and wrong? Or:
 Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can nurture, in order to behave well?

2.2.1. Teleological (Consequentialist) Ethics

It is referred as “the end justifies the means”. It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it
stress that the consequences of an action determines the morality or immorality of a given action.
Which means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what
happens because of it. One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but
if the result, moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act.

1|Page
The final appeal, directly or indirectly, must be to the comparative amount of good produced, or
the comparative balance of good over evil produced. An act is right if and only if it produce a
greater balance of good over evil. Whereas an act is wrong if and only if it produces a greater
balance of evil over good. An act ought to be done if and only if it is intended to produce a
greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
There are two main braches of teleological ethical theory; ethical egoism and utilitarianism.

A. Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism, considers an action to be good if it brings about the best possible outcome for me
as an individual (or in your case, for you as an individual). Ethical egoism holds that I should
always do what will promote my own greatest good: that an act or rule of action is right if and
only if it promotes the greatest balance of good over evil for me compared with any alternative.
Greatest good for all will be served only if we all pursue our own self- interest.

Some important things to notice about ethical egoism:

 It does not just say that, from the moral point of view, one’s own welfare counts as well as
that of others. Rather, it says that, from the moral point of view, only one’s own welfare
counts, and others’ does not, when one is making a moral decision about how to act.
 Ethical egoism does not forbid one to help others, or require one to harm others. It just says
that whatever moral reason you have to help others, or not harm them, must ultimately stem
for the way in which helping them or not harming them helps you.
 Ethical egoism does not say that one ought always to do what is most pleasurable, or
enjoyable. It acknowledges that one’s own self–interest may occasionally require pain or
sacrifice.

B. Utilitarianism (Social hedonism)

The term utilitarianism stems from the idea of utility, meaning social utility or welfare or good of
society. The core standard of utilitarianism is the principle of “greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people”. An action is best if it procures the greatest happiness for the greatest
numbers.

2|Page
Historically, social hedonism or social utilitarianism is identified with the English philosophers
Jermy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These two thinkers, however, represent two different
forms of utilitarianism, though the difference reduces more to a matter of emphasis. One
emphasis on quantity of happiness whiles the other on quality of happiness.

 Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Quantity over Quality

According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) utility is the sole principle that we ought to live and
judge others by and we must follow a moral system that invokes us to maximize happiness and
minimize pain for everyone in society.

There are two main features of utilitarianism, both of which Bentham articulated:

 The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect): states that the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow
from it. It is the end, not the means that counts; the end justifies the means. and

 The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect): states that the only thing that is good in
itself is some specific type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness, welfare).

Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil. An act is
right if it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an act is wrong if it
either brings about more pain than pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring. Bentham
invented a scheme for measuring pleasure and pain that he called the hedonic calculus: The
quantitative score for any pleasure or pain experience is obtained by summing the seven aspects
of a pleasurable or painful experience: its intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fruitfulness,
purity, and extent.

 John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: Quality over Quantity

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is also a greatly known advocate of utilitarianism. For Bentham all
pleasures are equal. Mill unlike Bentham differentiated between higher pleasures and lower
pleasures that human enjoyed and he introduced quality and quantity in to the evaluation of
pleasures. The pleasure of a fool and a wise person are not the same even if their quantitative
amount is similar. Based on this he made two types of pleasures. The lower, or elementary,

3|Page
include eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation. The higher include scientific
knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity. Mental/intellectual pleasure for him is higher pleasure
and evaluating an act we have to consider this distinction. He expresses this by the following
paragraph:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: or it is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied .The pig and the fool know their own side but the other knows
both sides”.

However, both agree that, an action is right if, and only if, it produce pleasure or happiness or
satisfactions of needs, and this pleasure or happiness or satisfaction is to be distributed among as
many people as possible.

 Altruism
An action is right if the consequence of that action is favorable to all except the actor. Some
scholars argued that we have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others.
This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are
motivated by instinctive benevolence. Altruists are people who act so as to increase other
people’s pleasure. They will act for the sake of someone else even if it decreases their own
pleasure and causes themselves pain. Altruists argue that humans are instinctively benevolent.
And instinctive benevolence, they argue, is the feature of our human nature which is the basis of
our altruistic moral obligations.

2.2.2. Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialist)

Deontological theory assesses the moral worth of a particular action, by looking to the action
itself, and whether it confirms to certain principles, rules and commands. The Deontologists does
not consider the consequence of an act. The principles or rules of Deontology may be once
governing our motives for an action or they may simply identify specific kinds of actions that are
permitted and/or forbidden, for example, Ten Commandments. Deontologists focused on making
sure that our actions are in accord with certain principles, rules or commands –irrespective of the
possible benefits or harms they might bring as a consequence. The two most influential forms of
Deontological theories are Divine Command theory and Kantian ethics (Categorical Imperative).

4|Page
 A. The Divine Command Theory
Ethical principles are simply the commands of God. They derive their validity from God’s
commanding them, and they mean “commanded by God.” Without God, there would be no
universally valid morality. We can analyze the Divine Command Theory into three separate
theses:
1. Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God.
2. Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and moral wrongness means “being against
the will of God.”
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons
for action, no further reasons for action are necessary.

We can express divine command theory by the following list of four propositions:
1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the command of God.
2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is commanded by God.
3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is permitted by the command of God.
4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong, required, or permitted.

B. Rights Theory
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. The most influential early account of
rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of
nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke,
these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration
of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce
other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and
religious expression.

There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights/rights theory.

 First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.
 Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country.

5|Page
  Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of
gender, race, or handicap.
 Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another
person, such as by selling myself into slavery.

C. Kant’s Categorical Imperative

The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) identified the moral theory known as
deontology. Kant was adamantly opposed to the idea that the outcome of an action could
determine its moral worth. It is not consequences which determine the rightness or wrongness of
an act, but, rather, the intention of the person who carries out the act. The emphasis is on the
correctness of the action, regardless of the possible benefits or harm it might produce. There are
some moral obligations which are absolutely binding, no matter what consequences are
produced.

The Categorical Imperative: A Kant’s duty-based theory is emphasizes a single principle of

duty. Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one’s
talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more
foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident
principle of reason that he calls the “categorical imperative.”

A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives

that hinge on some personal desire that we have. For example, “If you want to get a good job,
then you ought to go to college.” By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an
action, irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as “You ought to do X.”

To understand Kant’s thought, note the emphasis he places on the idea of good intension. Kant
believed that nothing was good in itself except a “good will.” Intelligence, judgment and all other
facets of the human personality are perhaps good and desirable, but only if the will that makes
use of them is good. By will, Kant means the uniquely human capacity to act according to the
concepts behind laws, that is, principles presumably operating in nature. A good will, therefore,
acts in accordance with nature’s laws. For Kant a will could be good without qualification only if
it always had in view one principle: whether the maxim of its action could become a universal

6|Page
law. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act in such a way that the maxim or
general rule governing our action could be a universal law.

Examples: ☼ Always help those in need, just because it is your duty.

☼ Always respect your mother and father, just because it is your duty.

Hypothetical imperatives: involves, when our action is depends on certain ends or goals in
mind i.e. if you want Y then you ought to do X.
Example: - Always help those in need because then you will get to heaven.
- Always respect your mother and father because otherwise they will spend all your
inheritance money.
In these two examples the moral worth of an action depends up on the result of expected from it.
Helping those in need and respecting fathers and mothers is dependent upon certain aims and
goals. However, Kant is not interested in this sort of conditional or hypothetical imperatives.

According to Kant any action which we perform because we are trying to achieve some practical
or personal end is not moral. To be moral an action must have appropriate maxim i.e. general
principle of action, namely one which expresses our duty to perform the act. Kant claimed that
our basic moral duties are summed up in a principle he called the categorical imperative.

The genuine moral motive for action that is recognition of our duty, what Kant called the “good
will”? Kant believed nothing in the world is “good without qualification except a good will.”
“Will” means that part of a person that reasons about and decides what he will do. However, the
dilemma of choosing when a person is facing conflicting duties is yet unsolved by Kant.

 Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines

A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher Sir William David
Ross (15 April 1877 – 5 May 1971), which emphasizes prima facie duties. Ross’s interest in
prima facie is to solve one of the problems that Kant left unsolved. We have various duties that
oftentimes come into conflict with each other for instance; choosing either to speak a truth (it is
always wrong to lie) or to keep one’s promise. But, Kant’s deontology has no help when a
person is in dilemma of choosing. For Ross, as in the case of Kant, moral rules without exception
should be obeyed, but when they are in conflict, we should decide that the moral rules(moral

7|Page
duties of first blush) has to be obeyed. According to Ross, there are moral rules that we should
perform in every situation, except that these rules themselves are in conflict. These duties are
called Prima facie duties. Ross identified the following principles as a prima facie duties that
every moral action should obey always:

 Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation not to lie. Duties of fidelity
are duties to keep one’s promises and contracts and not to engage in deception.
 Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others.
Ross describes this duty as "resting on a previous wrongful act". It is the duty to
compensate others when we harm them. If, for example, I damage something that belongs
to someone else, I have an obligation to make restitution.
 Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us. Suppose, for example, an
especially good friend is suddenly in need of assistance, I am duty bound to do all I can
help this individual, who in the past had acted so selflessly toward me.
 Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one
distributes benefits and burdens fairly. The duty of justice includes the duty to prevent an
unjust distribution of benefits or burdens.
 Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others. The duty to do good to
others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, or happiness. This duty
rests upon the fact that there are other beings in the world whose condition we can make
better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure.
 Duties of Self-improvement: The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to promote one’s
own good, i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, virtue, intelligence
and happiness.
 Duties of Non-maleficence: The duty of non-injury (also known as non-maleficence) is the
duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their health,
security, intelligence, character, or happiness. We are obliged to avoid hurting others
physically, emotionally and psychologically.

8|Page
 2.2.3. Virtue Ethics
“Virtue ethics” is a technical term in contemporary Western analytical moral philosophy, used to
distinguish a normative ethical theory focused on the virtues, or moral character, from others
such as deontology (or contractarianism) and consequentialism. Imagine a case in which it is
agreed by every sort of theorist that I should, say, help someone in need. A deontologist will
emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be acting in accordance with a moral rule or
principle such as “Do unto others as you would be done by”; a consequentialist will point out
that the consequences of helping will maximize well-being; and a virtue ethicist will emphasize
the fact that providing help would be charitable or benevolent – charity and benevolence being
virtues.

A. Aristotelian Ethics
The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.) first wrote a detailed discussion of
virtue morality in the Nichomachean Ethics. ‘Virtue’ he understood as strength.
Correspondingly, specific virtues are seen as strengths of character. But, many years after
Aristotle’s death, virtue theory came to be over-shadowed by the development of utilitarianism
and deontology.

In the past fifty years, however, virtue theory has resurfaced as a major moral theory. But why is
that so? Virtue ethics has been restated and reinvigorated in the years since 1958 by philosophers
such as Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre and Elizabeth Anscombe. They and many others
became disillusioned with the promises of mainstream theories. They argue that how we ought to
live could be much more adequately answered by a virtue-based theory than in terms of
calculating consequences or obeying rules.

According to Aristotelian Ethics, Virtue (arête) or excellence is defined as a mean between two
extremes of excess and defect. The mean is relative to the individual and circumstances. For
example, consider the following traits:

Aristotelian Virtues And Vice Of Deficiency Mean Or Virtue Vice Of Excess

Vices Sphere Of Action
Fear cowardice courage foolhardiness

Pleasure and Pain insensibility temperance self-indulgence

9|Page
Acquisition (minor) tight wad liberality spendthrift or
prodigality

Acquisition (major) undue humility pride or proper undue vanity

ambition

Anger unirascibility patience or good hotheadedness

temper

Self-Expression Self-deprecating truthfulness boastfulness

Conversation boorishness wittiness buffoonery

Social Conduct cantankerous friendliness obsequiousness

Exhibition shamelessness modesty shyness

Indignation spitefulness righteous indignation envy

2.3. Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics

2.3.1. What is Meta-ethics?
In meta-ethics, we are concerned not with questions which are the province of normative ethics
like 'Should I give to famine relief?' or 'Should I return the wallet I found in the street?' but with
questions about questions like these.
Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as:
 What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean?
 What makes something good or right?
 Is moral realism true?
 Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding?
 Do intrinsic values exist?
It is important to be clear that in normative ethics we do not just look for an answer to the
question 'Should we give to famine relief?' we also look for some insight into why the right
answer is right. It is in their answers to this latter sort of 'why?' question that the classic theories
in normative ethics disagree. Examples of such theories include:

10 | P a g e
  act-utilitarianism (one ought to give to famine relief because that particular action, of
those possible, contributes most to the greater happiness of the greatest number); rule-
utilitarianism (one ought to give to famine relief because giving to famine relief is
prescribed by a rule the general observance of which contributes most to the greater
happiness of the greatest number); and

 Kantianism (one ought to give to famine relief because universal refusal to give to
famine relief would generate some kind of inconsistency).

Normative ethics thus seeks to discover the general principles underlying moral practice, and in
this way potentially impacts upon practical moral problems: different general principles may
yield different verdicts in particular cases. Meta-ethics, rather, concerned with questions about
the following:

(a) Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is the function of moral
discourse to state facts, or does it have some other non-fact-stating role?
(b) Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are they like? Are they
identical or reducible to some other type of fact (or property) or are they irreducible and
sui generis?
(c) Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral knowledge? How can we
know whether our moral judgments are true or false? How can we ever justify our claims
to moral knowledge?
(d) Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the experience of an agent
making a moral judgment? Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?

(e) Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational state of someone making a
moral judgment? What sort of connection is there between making a moral judgment and
being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes?
(f) Objectivity: can moral judgments really be correct or incorrect? Can we work towards
finding out the moral truth?

Generally, Meta-ethics:

11 | P a g e
  Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts and the relationships between these
concepts.
 Explores where moral values, such as ‘personhood’ and ‘autonomy’, come from.
 Considers the difference between moral values and other kinds of values.
 Examines the way in which moral claims are justified.

Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following kind:

 What do we mean by the claim, ‘life is sacred’?
 Are moral claims a matter of personal view, religious belief or social standard, or, are
they objective in some sense?
 If they are objective, what make them so?
 Is there a link between human psychology and the moral claims that humans make?

12 | P a g e