1.

INTRODUCTION

The essay discusses the main arguments for and against result based, duty based and character
based ethics. This will be accomplished by a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of each of the
ethical theories. It will further explain the practical application of the ethical theories in the
public sector in Zambia. But before that, the essay shall first briefly define what ethics are, so as
to have a clear picture of what the essay discusses, or talks about. Lastly, a conclusion will be
drawn on what the essay discusses.

2. DEFINITION OF ETHICS

Ethics proceed in a dialectic manner, that is, it uses rigorous analysis to reveal the flaws of logic
and the contradictions of the reasoning and seeks to go beyond them. It also deals with what we
should or should not do, but it does so by applying reasoning, for or against, in order to decide on
the conduct to be taken when faced with a moral problem. It is in fact a critical examination of
morals, questioning its rules and seeking orientations which are well thought out and correct. In
addition to this, it can be said that ethics is the study of what is wrong and what is right. Good-
evil, right-wrong, virtue- vice, justice and injustice are some ethical concepts. Ethics is divided
into two parts: theoretical ethics and applied ethics. Theoretical ethics includes normative ethics,
descriptive ethics and met ethics. Applied ethics refers to professional ethics (Ainley. K, 2008).

Ethics are the standards by which behaviours are evaluated for their morality, that is, their
rightness or wrongness. Imagine a person who has a strong value of achievement and success.
Knowing only that this value is important to them gives us a general expectation of their
behaviour, that is, we would expect them to be goal oriented, gaining the skills necessary to get
what they want, and so on. However, it cannot be known whether they will cheat to get what
they want or "do an honest day's work each day". The latter dimension is a matter of ethics and
morality. Take another example, a person has a high priority value or research/knowledge/insight
(Ainley. K, 2011).

Furthermore, ethics does not impose rules in an authoritarian manner; it is not prescriptive as are
morals. The rules of morals having been defined, the questions and problems which come up are
the domain of ethics. For example, in the domain of ethics when faced with the above-mentioned
injunction, “do not kill”, one will analyse the situation to see how the problem should be

1
examined, what values are in conflict, and what the alternatives are, in order to decide how to
orient judgment (Ainley. K, 2015).

3. RESULT BASED ETHICS

Result based ethics are also known as consequentialist ethics. According to result based ethics,
the moral content of an action is determined by the real and expected consequences of that
action. An action is morally good if its consequences or end results are desirable and bad if they
are not. Result based ethics employ a certain standard against which the consequences of an act
are judged. As a result it is also referred to as teleological ethics (from the Greek word telos,
“end”). Actions are taken to achieve a certain target or result, often with a view to a more distant
goal. When ends are a means to a more distant goal, they are referred to as instrumental ends
(Brown, C. 2001).

Result based ethics are particularly interested in the latter kind of ends. One or more of such ends
are chosen as a standard for judging the moral content of actions. The ends that function in
teleological theories are not moral in itself. They become morally right in their use as a standard
for the moral content of actions (Ibid, 2001).

Furthermore, depending on the number of intrinsic ends that a teleological theory employs, they
call it either monistic or pluralistic. Monistic theories believe that there is only one intrinsic end
to which all other ends lead, and on the basis of which all actions can be morally evaluated.
Pluralistic teleological theories hold that there is more than one such intrinsic end. Teleological
theories are also subdivided according to the nature of the end employed. Hedonism, for
instance, holds that this end is pleasure or delight. This criterion for action dates back to the
beginning of classical antiquity (Dewey, J. 1972).

There are a number of arguments for result based ethics. First, result based ethics give people a
sense of duty. It is usually believed that people will make the right decisions when they know
what they want to achieve as this will give them a natural sense of what to do to achieve an end
or simply an end (Ibid, 1972).

Secondly, it gives people a criteria of determining what is right or wrong. This means that people
should act with a view of maximizing the common good of society as a whole and not just for

2
personal interests. The consequences for all people, directly and indirectly involved, need to be
factored into their actions. This drive is towards maximization and the emphasis on efficiency is
an essential feature of dominant Western economic theories. Lastly, it considers interests of all
persons equally (Evans, G. 2009).

There are a number of arguments against result based ethics. First, the consequentialists have had
a problem with how to rank the different dimensions of pleasure. For example, how is it possible
to compare a brief, yet, intense, pleasure with one that lasts longer but that is not quite so
intense? Epicurus (342/341-270/271 BC) the Greek philosopher draws the conclusion that the
end is not physical pleasure but the satisfaction of the needs of the spirit. Physical pleasure, as
powerful as it may be remains short-lived (Ibid, 2009).

Secondly, the pursuit of physical pleasure as an end to determine whether an act is right or wrong
would lead to all kinds of evil and wrong doings. For example, if killing someone will stop them
from doing something bad, to the result based ethics that is acceptable, but killing is just not
acceptable. To Epicurus, feeding one’s spiritual pleasure is, to his mind, significantly more
valuable and leads to a lasting sense of well-being. This theory therefore permits bad acts, which
is not ideal for society (Foot, P. 1958).

Thirdly, result based ethics revolve around this targeted end, which can differ from person to
person. What a person considers to be right, may not be so to the other person. As peoples ends
often conflict with one another, the question arises as to which end should be employed as the
criterion for moral action. This question subdivides the result based ethics once again. Fourthly,
not all outcomes can be predicted. Lastly, the interests of the majority can override those of the
minority (Foot, P. 1958).

4. DUTY BASED ETHICS

Duty based ethics are also referred to as deontological ethics. The word “deontological” comes
from the Greek deon, “one must.” Duty based ethics or deontological ethics solves a number of
problems associated with the consequentialist ethical theories such as utilitarianism. According
to duty based ethics, all individuals in society have certain obligations. These obligations are
non-negotiable and they cannot be bought off or disposed of by either the individual or a third

3
party. Different kinds of inalienable rights as well as duties form the basis of these obligations
(Ibid, 1958).

All duty based ethics place the emphasis on the decision or action itself, on the motivations,
principles, or ideals underlying the decision or action, rather than being concerned with the end
result, outcomes or consequences of that action or decision. This explanation is propounded on
the desirability of principle to act or do something in a given situation. The two main non-
consequentialist theories are ethics of rights and justice and ethics of duties (Gaskarth, J. 2012).

These are both rooted in assumptions about universal rights and duties, as well as wrongs. This
simply entails that persons that promote these ethical principles usually believe that they should
be applied to everyone and everywhere in the world, regardless of a person’s race, colour or
creed. If a child or person in one country has a right to an education or to health, then all children
and people, everyone in the world, must have a right to an education and health (Ibid, 2012).

Rights, obligations and justice are concepts that result based ethics has no explanation to. In a
duty-based ethic, however, this is the focal point. Duty based ethics believe that an action is
morally good if it honors a given obligation (which does not depend on the consequence of the
action). As a result, if an act is a duty, the outcome is not important. As such, this theory entitles
certain people or groups to rights or a claim to justice. Deontological theories stipulate duties that
must be observed irrespective of their consequences. These may include the fact that legitimate
rights must be respected and unjust action is prohibited. The essential difference between
deontological and teleological theories lies in the role that is attributed to the consequences of the
action in casu (Geach, P. 1977).

The mere fact that an act’s outcome does not determine its moral character does not mean that
deontologists never take consequences into consideration. For example, an act that violates a
moral obligation is immoral without doubt. Furthermore, acting in accordance with moral
obligations does not necessarily mean that such actions are morally right. In other words, the
consequences of a given act taken could very well be factored into the obligation itself. With that
said, a deontologist would not go as far as committing themselves to a specific, superior
consequence. The action’s correspondence with certain principles is primarily what determines

4
whether it is morally right or wrong. Such as, keeping a promise is important because it is a
moral duty, and not because of the actions’ end result (Ibid, 1977).

Most people believe that all human beings have some duties to other human beings. Duties can
be positive, such as the duty to look after one’s children, or negative, such as the duty not to
murder another human being. When people use the language of duties, they usually do so in a
way that implies that the duty is universal to all human beings (or at least to all adult humans of
sound mind). The foundation of theories of duties is the theory developed by the German
philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Rather than relying on religion to tell us what our
duties are, Kant believed that we can rely on our powers of reason to do so.

It must be noted that at the center of Kant’s theory of duty is what he termed categorical
imperatives. Some actions and decisions are founded on our personal desires. For example, you
could say, ‘If you want to live in a beautiful house, you ought to work hard’. However, this is not
a categorical imperative, as it is based simply on fulfilling our desires. A categorical imperative
tells us that we must do something, irrespective of our personal desires: for example, ‘You ought
to look after your parents’ (Geach, P. 1977).

There are a number of arguments for the duty based ethics theory. First, it offers consistent set of
rules for people to follow. This is achieved by the fact that people have a sense of duty that they
rely upon before acting, and where there is a duty, there are rules that see the completion of that
particular duty. This entails that people who believe in this theory, have before them the dos and
don’ts, thereby providing a consistent set of rules for individuals to follow. In other words, duty-
based ethics says that some things should never be done, no matter what good consequences they
produce. This seems to reflect the way some human beings think (Ibid, 1977).

Secondly, duty based ethics recognizes role-related duties in society. In other words, it
recognises the fact that different people with different duties have different roles to play in the
functionality of society as a whole. For example, they have a sense that not all people in society
can be doctors or lawyers. This is because even the least looked at job such as garbage collection
needs someone for society to function. As such, they emphasize the value of every human being.
Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings. This in

5
turn provides a basis for human rights as it forces due regard to be given to the interests of a
single person even when those are at odds with the interests of a larger group (Held, D. 2004).

Thirdly, on one hand duty based ethics deals with intentions and motives of given actions. On the
other hand, consequentialist theories don't pay direct attention to whether an act is carried out
with good or bad intentions most people think these are highly relevant to moral judgments (Ibid,
2004).

Lastly, duty based ethics provide 'certainty'. Consequentialist ethical theories bring a degree of
uncertainty to ethical decision-making, in that no-one can be certain about what consequences
will result from a particular action, because the future is unpredictable. Duty-based ethics don't
suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself. For example, if an
action is a right action, then a person should do it, if it's a wrong action they shouldn't do it.
Furthermore, providing there is a clear set of moral rules to follow then a person faced with a
moral choice should be able to take decisions with reasonable certainty (Kant. I. 1996).

There are a number of arguments against duty based ethics. First, Duty-based ethics sets absolute
rules that people must follow or do. The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is
to build a list of exceptions to the rule. As earlier stated, where there are is a duty, there are rules,
and people are not allowed to question their duty as they are written in black letter, or simply put,
cast in stone (Ibid, 1996).

Secondly, duty based ethics allow acts that make the world a less good place. This is simply
because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that
produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world. For example, if a certain duty leads to
death, it does not matter to them as long as it is a duty. Most people would find this didn't fit with
their overall idea of ethics (Lang, A. 2007).

Lastly, it is hard to reconcile conflicting duties. Duty-based ethics do not deal well with the cases
where duties are in conflict. Questions may arise as to which duty a person is supposed to uphold
between the two conflicting duties. An example of a situation where there are a set of conflicting
duties would be in a situation where a Christian individual finds themselves in a situation where
they have to for instance take a life to save their own life or the life of those that they love. On

6
one hand, there is written civil law that allows the individual to kill in such a situation as self
defence. On the other hand, there is a commandment in the bible, ‘thou shall not kill’ that
prohibits such an individual from taking the life of another person. In such an instance, the
person has two duties that need to be performed by them (Ibid, 2007)

5. CHARACTER BASED ETHICS

Virtue ethics is person-based rather than action based. It simply looks at the virtue or moral
character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules unlike duty
based ethics, or the consequences of particular actions unlike result based ethics. Virtue ethics
not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides guidance as to
the sort of characteristics and behaviours a good person will seek to achieve. In that way, virtue
ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than particular episodes or actions. A
good person is someone who lives virtuously and simply who possesses and lives the virtues. It
is a useful theory since human beings are often more interested in assessing the character of
another person than they are in assessing the goodness or badness of a particular action (Lang, A.
2007).

Simply put, this suggests that the way to build a good society is to help its members to be good
people, rather than to use laws and punishments to prevent or deter bad actions or prevent people
from doing some particular things. But it would not be helpful if a person had to be a saint to
count as virtuous. For virtue theory to be really useful it needs to suggest only a minimum set of
characteristics that a person needs to possess in order to be regarded as being a virtuous
individual or person (Ibid, 2007).

Unlike duty based ethics and result based ethics, virtue ethics, in contrast, emphasizes the
importance of moral character. To be specific, the possession of some combination of ‘virtues’,
including practical wisdom or the reasonable man test, in determining the right action, and
understanding right action with reference to concrete conceptions of the good, or human
flourishing. Virtue ethics focus on individual character traits rather than on the kinds of ethical
concepts more familiar to the society and political theory, such as rights and obligations, rules
and norms (Machiavelli, N. 1965).

7
Most virtue theorists say that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would
benefit from, rather than different sets for different sorts of people, and that these virtues are
natural to mature human beings even if they are hard to acquire. This poses a problem, since lists
of virtues from different times in history and different societies show significant differences. An
action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the same
circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who acts virtuously, person acts virtuously if they
"possess and live the virtues", and in the end a virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs
to live well (Hall, R.B. 1999).

There are a number of arguments for virtue, or character based ethics. First, virtue ethics is
plausible because it enables society to talk about human lives with a sense of time that extends
beyond ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Using ‘thick concepts’ to guide action, such as what counts as just or
unjust, loving or cruel, kind or mean, wise or foolish and so on, can significantly improve the
quality of our ethical understanding within and between cultures or traditions (Williams 1985:
140-143).

Secondly, the principal argument for the approach is that all people and their whole lives are
understood as relevant to ethics as a whole and not just the narrow range of choices or actions
judged to be within the field of ‘morality’ or governed by the language of obligation. This
rhymes more accurately with people’s everyday sense of flourishing. For example, living well is
not just about doing right or wrong, but includes all of the areas of life that form a person’s
character (that is relationships with others, participation in social practices and politics,
performance in social roles and so on). Flourishing, including the development of virtues or
excellences of character is a life-long task not just a one off thing, and the need for narrative
unity in human lives is taken seriously within a virtue-based approach, because “the good life
cannot be discussed if the sense of that life is lost in its atomization into a series of unrelated
acts” (Cafaro, 1998).

Thirdly, it centers ethics on the person and what it means to be human. Duty based ethics for
instance concentrate on what a person or an individual is expected to do, as it has laid down rules
that make up the duties. Virtue ethics on the other hand, looks at a specific individual and what

8
that person may do in a given situation, as it is up to the person to do right or wrong in a given
situation that may come their way in life (Ibid, 1998).

It includes the whole of a person's life. It focuses on a person’s character which is expected to
last for the entire life span of a given individual. If a person is making right decisions, if they are
virtual, their reputation will be that they are morally and ethically right. Duty based ethics for
instance, focusses just on what a person will do in time of duty. This is looked at as an advantage
as it looks at what a person is expected to do throughout their life (Hall, R.B. 1999).

There are a number of arguments against virtue ethics. First, one of the most striking
consequences of a rejection of the Enlightenment moral tradition in favour of virtue ethics is the
recognition that there is no natural justice or underlying harmony to human life. Human
flourishing is vulnerable to events outside our control and luck plays a profound role in ethical
life: bad things can happen to good people and acting virtuously cannot by itself guarantee
happiness. Our vulnerability and interdependence mean that we need the protection of some form
of society: the good life is only possible within a good polis, with social arrangements that are
just and favourable to flourishing (Ibid, 1999).

Secondly, it does not provide clear guidance on what to do in moral dilemmas although it does
provide general guidance on how to be a good person presumably a totally virtuous person
would know what to do and we could consider them a suitable role model to guide us (Swanton,
2003).

Thirdly, there are many people who find it hard to accept that ethics is so all-encompassing, that
there are no right answers to abstract moral questions and that moral life can be hostage to luck,
time and opportunity. In other words, virtue ethics place a heavy burden on the individual person
to develop ethical skills rather than obey moral rules, and ethics ends up as central to life rather
than a side constraint upon the pursuit of interest. The ‘action-guiding’ objection tends to
overestimate the level of agreement within modern traditions on what the morally right action in
any given circumstance is, and underestimate the power of the language of vice to guide us not to
be lazy, impatient, unkind, hypocritical, and dishonest and so on (Schneewind, 1990).

9
Furthermore, it is, however, certainly true, and, advocates would contend, absolutely to be
preferred, that virtue ethics do not proffer responses to moral questions before they have been
asked, nor offer shortcuts to moral maturity. The response to the problem of moral luck is
similarly plain: we may wish that life was ordered by a benevolent creator, and our flourishing
under our control, but wishing cannot make it so. The good life is precious in part because it is so
fragile and our fundamental vulnerability cannot be reasoned away (Louden, 1984).

Lastly, virtue-based ethics assume that once a person has developed virtues, these dispositions
will be constant and fixed, driving their bearer’s actions even in the most difficult circumstances.
Social psychologists argue, in contrast, that behaviour is determined more by situational factors
than by stable character traits or virtues (Doris 2002). More recent research builds on this
particular critique to argue that even if stable character traits do exist, they are developed not
because agents strive to develop them, but in response to cultural norms, personal tastes or self-
perception. If this is true, then virtues cannot have the kind of normative status required by virtue
ethics - they have no more moral value in driving behaviour than a sweet tooth or an appreciation
of jazz music (Prinz 2009).

6. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE ETHICAL THEORIES IN THE

In line with result based ethics, as earlier stated, this theory does not care about the action taken,
whether it is bad or good, right or wrong, as long as it shall bring about the completion about
something desirable and morally right. In other words, they only care about the end result of an
act, and not the act itself. In the public sector in Zambia, an example of the occurrence of result
based ethics would be for instance, were lecturers at the University of Zambia go on strike and
stop teaching the students. The act in itself is not good as it will derail the students from attaining
their education in a right manner. However, the lecturers are not concerned about this, they are
only concerned about being paid the money, which is the end result of the strike.

With reference to duty based ethics, as earlier stated duty based ethics is not concerned with the
outcome of an action, but only the action itself. An example in the public sector in Zambia
would be the police that shoot protestors, or rioters. It is the duty of the police to maintain order
in society and that includes stopping riots and violent protests. In the performance of that duty,

10
they sometimes shoot people dead, believing in that duty. They are not concerned with the end
result, but the performance of their duty, that is stopping the protests.

With reference to character based ethics, it has been stated that they are only concerned with the
character of the person and not the duty or the end result of that duty. In the public sector in the
Republic of Zambia an example would be in a situation where there is a job vacancy for a sales
agent, the recruiters will need someone with a certain character such as an individual that is
capable of convincing customers to buying their product.

7. CONCLUSION

The essay has discussed the main arguments for and against result based, duty based and
character based ethics. This has been accomplished by a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of
each of the ethical theories. It has further explained the practical application of the ethical
theories in the public sector in Zambia. But before that, the essay firstly defined ethics as being
the standards by which behaviours are evaluated for their morality, that is, their rightness or
wrongness.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ainley, K. (2008) “Individual Agency and Responsibility for Atrocity”. In R. Jeffery (ed.)
Confronting Evil in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 37-60.

Ainley, K. (2011) “Excesses of Responsibility: the Limits of Law and the Possibilities of
Politics”. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (4), 407-431.

Ainley, K. (2015) “The Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court:
Counteracting the Crisis”. International Affairs, 91 (1), 37-54.

Brown, C. (2001) “A qualified defence of the use of force for 'humanitarian' reasons.”
International Journal of Human Rights 4 (1/2), 282-8.

Cafaro, P. (1998) “Virtue Ethics Not Too Simplified”, paper delivered at the Twentieth World
Congress of Philosophy, in Boston, Massachusetts from August 10-15, 1998. Available at:
http://www.reonline.org.uk/ks5/tt_nframe.php?tt_alinks.php&24&http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.bu.edu%2Fwcp%2FPapers%2FTEth%2FTEthCafa.htm

Dewey, J. (1972). Reconstruction in philosophy. In: Graaf, J. de 1976. Elementair Begrip van de
Ethiek. Haarlem: Callenbach, p.46.

12
Evans, G. (2009) The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All.
Brookings Institution Press.

Foot, P. (1958) “Moral Arguments”. Mind LXVII 268, 502-513.

Gaskarth, J. (2012) “The virtues in international society” European Journal of International

Geach, P. (1977) The Virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, R.B. (1999) National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington
Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kant. I. (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals. M. Gregor (trans). Cambridge: Cambridge

Lang, A. (2007) “The Violence of Rules? Rethinking the 2003 War with Iraq”. Contemporary
Politics 13 (3), 257-276.

Machiavelli, N. (1965) The Chief Works and Others. A. Gilbert (trans.). Durham: Duke
University Press.

Solomon, B. (1999). A Better Way to Think about Business: How personal integrity leads to
corporate success. New York: Oxford University Press: p.40.

13