Lectures 6-7: Deontological &

Consequential Ethics
 Consider these quotes:

“The remarkable thing is that we really

love our neighbor as ourselves: we do
unto others as we do unto ourselves.
We hate others when we hate
ourselves. We are tolerant toward
others when we tolerate ourselves. We
forgive others when we forgive
ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice
others when we are ready to sacrifice
ourselves.” ~ Eric Hoffer
 Consider these quotes:

“We can discover this meaning in life in

three different ways: (1) by doing a
deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and
(3) by suffering.” ~ Victor Frankl.
 Consider these quotes:

“ Never let your sense of morals get in

the way of doing what's right.” ~ Isaac
Asimov.

“When morality comes up against

profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” ~
Shirley Chisholm
 Consider these quotes:

“Actions are right in proportion as they

tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure and the absence of pain.” ~
John Stuart Mill
 Major Ideas:
 Virtue Ethics: An action is right iff it is
what the virtuous agent would do. 1. An
action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent
would do in the circumstances; 1a. A
virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously,
i.e., one who has & exercises the virtues.
2 A virtue is a character trait a human
being needs to flourish or live well. What is
essential is to note the conceptual link
between virtue & flourishing (living well or
eudaimonia).
 Major Ideas:
 Deontological Ethics: An action is right iff
it is in accordance with a moral rule or
principle. A moral rule is one that is(a) laid
on us by God, (b) required by natural law,
(c) laid on us by reason, (d) required by
rationality, (e) would command universal
rational acceptance, or (f) would be the
object of choice of all rational beings.
What is essential is the link between right
action, moral rule, & rationality.
 Major Ideas:

 Consequential Ethics: An action is right iff

it promotes the best consequences. The
best consequences are those in which
happiness is maximized. What is essential
to note is that it forges a link between
consequences & happiness.
 Major Ideas:

Before we consider
consequential and
deontological
ethics, let’s explore
some other basic
terms that are
important to know:

Good ideas have good

consequences, bad ideas
have bad consequences.
Let’s now explore
Deontological
Ethics:
 Deontological Ethics
We should choose actions based on their inherent,
intrinsic worth; evangelical approaches to ethics are
deontological because it presupposes Scripture as
revelation.

“Deontological” comes from the Greek word

“deon”, meaning that which is binding, in particular
a binding duty. So, you are bound to your duty.
 Deontological Framework:
 An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in accordance with a
moral rule or principle.

 This is a purely formal specification, forging a link

between the concepts of right and action and moral rule,
and gives one no guidance until one knows what a moral
rule is.
 Deontological Framework:
 Therefore, the links between right action,
moral rule, and rationality based upon
moral rule + given by God or required by
natural or laid on us by reason or required
by rationality or would command universal
rational acceptance or would by the object
of choice of all rational being—are all
essential aspects to any deontological
framework.
 Deontological Framework:
 So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise about that: A moral rule is
one that would have been historically:

A. Theistic:
1. Given to us by God;
2. Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);

B. Secular (though can still be connected to God):

1. Is laid on us by reason.
2. Is required by rationality;
3. Would command universal acceptance;
4. Would be the object of choice of all rational beings.
 Deontological Ethics
It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of
themselves because of the kinds of acts they are and
not simply because of their ends or consequences.

- The ends do not justify the means.

- A good end or purpose does not justify a bad
actions.
- You are duty-bound; binding is not dependent
on consequences, no matter if it is painful or
pleasurable.
 Deontological Ethics
For example:

1. You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be

faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive
person comes along.

2. You are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even

if it cost you a job.

Duty is not based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather

upon the obligation itself.
 Deontological Ethics
For example, a deontologist might argue that a
promise ought to be kept simply because it is right
to keep a promise, regardless whether the doing so
will have good or bad consequences.

In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we should

keep our promises only when keeping them results
in better consequences than the alternatives.
Overview of Ethical Systems: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
. To act morally you must be motivated exclusively
by rational commitment to the universal moral law or the categorical
Imperative: “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only,
that you can will at the same time be a universal law.”
Right actions flow out of right principles

Do the act that To act To act Second form of

is motivated morally morally categorical
by the sincere requires the requires the imperative:
belief that rational power of
“Act in such a
what you are power to the will to
way that you
doing is the recognize rise above
always treat
right thing not absolute all natural
humans not
merely for moral laws feelings and
merely as a
you, but for that inclinations.
means to an end
anybody transcend This raises
but also as an
seeking to act our natural us above
end.”
properly in world. our natural
any situation. world.
 Basic Terms to Know:
1. Deontological Ethics: "rule or duty-based
morality; ...emphasizes right action over good consequences“

2. a priori: "not in any way derived from experience or dependent

upon it"; concepts derived a priori are universal rules that
determine, in advance, the conditions for knowledge in a
particular domain

3. maxim: rule of conduct;

4. Hypothetical imperative: an action that is good only as a means

to something else;

5. Categorical imperative: an action that is good in itself and

conforms to reason; categorical imperatives act as universal rules
governing a situation regardless of circumstance
 Summary:
 Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right iff it
is in accord with the Categorical Imperative (the
supreme principle of morality). Right actions
flow from right principles.

 From using our capacity to reason Kant believes

the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in
at least three ways; they are all equivalent with
the first formulation being the basis. Though
they bring out various aspects of the moral law,
they cannot tell us more than what the first
formula does.
 Categorical Imperative:
 The CI does not depend on a logically prior condition though it
assumes the predisposition that one wishes to be rational and will
follow what rationally determined duty dictates (in contrast to
hypothetical imperatives which means that the consequent depends
upon the antecedent: If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of
human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic. Q.E.D., to be
irrational is to be inhuman. To be sure, there are perfect and
imperfect duties. Actions are characterized as perfect because they
follow directly from an application of the universalization of the
Categorical Imperative in contrast to imperfect duties that follow
from CI only after considering other factors (e.g., seeking our own
happiness). An imperfect duty is just as strong in its action guiding
force as a perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin highlights their
differences.
 Three Formulations of the
Categorical Imperative:
 First formulation: “Act in conformity with the maxim and the maxim
only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.” This
means that what I consider doing, it must be something that I can
will or accept that all do (universal); it is replacing individual
preferences with purely universal terms.

 Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity,

whether in your own person or in that of another, always an end and
never as a means only.” In essence, every person has intrinsic
value and that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.

 Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must act as if he

were through his maxim always a legislating member in the
universal kingdom of ends.” In other words, we have to will what is
consistent with the operations of the kingdom as a whole. In sum,
all people should consider themselves as both members and heads
 Major Points to Consider:
1. What gives an act moral worth is our motives because we
can’t necessarily control the consequences of our act or/and
things do not always turn out as we want. He calls this
motive “the good will.” Therefore, we are responsible for
our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we
are held morally accountable.

2. What is the right motive is acting out of a will to do the right

thing; only an act motivated by this concern for the moral
law is right.

Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration:

 Major Points to Consider:
3. Kant’s Shopkeeper illustration: A shopkeeper charges her customers a fair
price and charges the same to all. But what is the shopkeeper’s motive?

A. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves

her own best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.

B. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is because she is

sympathetic toward her customers, then this motive is still not
praiseworthy.

C. If the shopkeeper’s motive is to do the right thing because it is the

right thing, then her motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that which
is morally right is praiseworthy.

We do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest,

inclination or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed
motives. However, we are certain that the motive is pure when we do
what is right regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.
 Major Points to Consider:
4. In order for our action to have moral worth we must not
only act out of a right motivation but we must also do
what is right.

Right Motive Right Act

The motive and the act must be morally right!

We must not only act of duty (have the right motive) but also
“according to duty” or as “duty requires” (do what is right).
5. How we are to know what the right thing to do is to test our
motives and actions against the categorical imperative. If our
motive and acts meets the criteria of the categorical imperative
we are obligated to do it. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
“Oughts” that tell us what we
ought to do no matter what,
under all conditions, and are
Right Motive universally binding (categorical
imperative).

1st form of Categorical

Imperative:

“Act only on that maxim

which can will as a
universal law.”
This means that what I consider
Right Act doing, it must be something that I
can will or accept that all do
(universal).
 According the first formula:
According to the first formula: the agent
must be willing to eliminate all individual
reference from the maxim of her action.
The most significant exclusion from the
maxim is oneself. Therefore, in order to
pass the test of the categorical imperative
in the first formulation, one must be
prepared to go on willing even if it contains
no reference to oneself.
6. Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can
will or accept all do.

A law by its very nature has a degree of universality. Act only on

that maxim which you can will as a universal law.

Maxim: is a description of the action that I will put to the

test.

7. How do I know what I can and cannot will as a universal practice?

As a rational being I can only will what is non-contradictory

8. First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative:

1st form of Categorical 2nd form of Categorical

Imperative: Imperative:
“Act only on that maxim “Always treat
which can will as a humanity, whether in
universal law.” your own person or that
of another, never simply
This means that what I consider as a means but always
doing, it must be something that
I can will or accept that all do at the same time as an
(universal); it is replacing end.”
individual preferences with
purely universal terms. This means that every person has
intrinsic value & that humanity
is a limit or constraint on our
action.
 1 Categorical Imperative:
st

 1st Categorical Imperative is a decision procedure for

moral reasoning. 4 Steps:

1. Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reasoning

for acting as you propose.

2. Recast maxim as universal law of nature

governing all rational agents-all people will act upon.

3. Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable

in a world governed by this law of nature.

4. Ask whether you would or could rationally will to

act on this maxim in such a world.
9. Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives:

Explains how we ought to

treat ourselves. 2nd Categorical
Imperative:
Treat ourselves & other as “Always treat
ends rather than merely as humanity, whether in
means. your own person or
that of another, never
simply as a means but
The moral conclusions always at the same
should be the same whether time as an end.”
we use the 1st or 2nd form of This means that every person
has intrinsic value & that
the categorical imperative. humanity is a limit or
constraint in our action.
 10. Third Formulation of the Categorical
Imperative: Hypothetical Kingdom of Ends
Key Points:
“All maxims as 1. Think of ourselves as members of a society of beings
proceeding from whose permissible ends are to be respected.

our own law- 2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing the
maxims were natural laws, there would be a society
making ought to of that kind. In other words, we are obligated to act
only by maxims which would harmonize a possible
harmonize with a kingdom of ends.
possible kingdom of 3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
ends as a kingdom create incoherent or impossible states of natural
affairs when we attempt to universalize them;
of nature." We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that
promote unstable or greatly undesirable states of
Grounding for the affairs.

Metaphysics of “Kant seems to assume that those who apply the categorical
imperative to their maxims will come out with answers that
Morals, 4:436/104. agree when the maxims tested are alike.” J.B. Schneewind,
“Autonomy, Obligation, & Virtue,” pg. 338.
Third Categorical Imperative introduces a
social dimension to Kantian Morality
The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the
maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible
kingdom of ends” (4:439).

It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions
to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down
universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that
those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members
equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence
must be treated always as an end in itself.

The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral
obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a
community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in
legislating these principles for their community.
 Summary of first three categorical
imperatives:
 The Categorical Imperative requires that I act
only on maxims that I can will as universal law.

 The categorical imperative is supposed to give us a

test for maxims.

 Maxim is the is “subjective principle of an action.”

The principle of an action is that prescription from
which the action follows.

 If the maxim meets the test, the action that follows

from it has moral worth; if the maxim does not meet it,
the action does not have moral worth.
 1 Categorical Imperative:
st

 1st Categorical Imperative requires

willingness to continue to the subscription
to the maxim of an action even if all
individual or singular reference is excluded
from it. Eliminating individual or singular
reference requires eliminating reference to
me. In other words, think of replacing
individual references with purely universal
terms.
 1st Categorical Imperative:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our action, he presupposes
that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.

This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection with the first formula, the
Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be willing to eliminate all individual reference
from the maxim of her action. The most significant exclusion here is that of herself. Therefore, be
prepared go on willing the maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.

The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action must be such that any
other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant,
respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am
constrained, according to this first formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being
equal, to impede the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore
the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and deception.
For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my class and with it I strike the neighbouring
student’s face, I have bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as a means, as
though she were merely an organic hitting implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody,
because if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to make a free and rational choice
for that situation.
 1st Categorical Imperative:
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of
an action must be such that any other free and rational person can
adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting
our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting
our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by
the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede
the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a
means is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases
here are those of coercion and deception.

For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my

class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I
have bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely
as a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting
implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because if I
conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to make a
free and rational choice for that situation.
 What is the connection between the
categorical imperative is the following:
 If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then I am
acting for reasons that it is not possible for everyone to
share. But to act toward people on the basis of reasons
they cannot possibly share is to use them, to treat them as a
mere means to my goals. In fact, all people should
consider themselves both members and heads because we
have a perfect duty not to act in maxims that create
incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs for it will
lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs.
See, the truly autonomous will is not subject to any
particular interest. Kant’s idea here is that one should not
treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.
 10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties:

Perfect Duties: Imperfect Duties:

Perfect duties are Are those duties that don’t whole
absolutes & heartily conform to the
necessary; they categorical imperative.
conform to the e.g., If I were an egoist and concerned
categorical imperative. only about myself, no one could accuse
me of using other people; I would
eg., We can and should simply leave them alone. But this
absolutely refrain from attitude & practice is inconsistent with
making false or lying the duty to treat others as persons. As
promises. persons, they also have interests and
plans, and to recognize this I must at
least sometimes and in some ways seek
to promote their ends and goals.
The following are 4 examples
famously used by Kant.
 1st example: Suicide
“Whenever continuing to live will bring
more pain than pleasure, I shall
commit suicide out of self-love.”

1. Suicide can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that

would be universal will.

2. Remember, suicide would be morally right if and only

if the person who is thinking about suicide can
consistently will that suicide be a universal law.
 1 Example: Suicide:
st

 A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied

of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask
himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to
take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action
could become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: 'From self-
love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer
duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It is asked then
simply whether this principle founded on self-love can become a
universal law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature
of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very
feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life
would contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of
nature; hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of
nature and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent with the
supreme principle of all duty." (Quoted from the Fundamental
Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
 2nd example: Lying & Not Keeping Promise:

“Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow

the money and promise to repay, even
though I know I will not repay.”

1. Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one
can’t will that would be universal will.

2. Remember, lying and not repaying would be morally right if

and only if the person who is thinking about lying and not
keeping promise can consistently will that lying and not keeping
promise be a universal law.
3rd Example: Developing One’s Habits

 "A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture
might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in
comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather
than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural
capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his
natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence,
agrees also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of
nature could indeed subsist with such a universal law although men
(like the South Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve to
devote their lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation of
their species- in a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will that
this should be a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as such
by a natural instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that
his faculties be developed, since they serve him and have been given
him, for all sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental
Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
 3rd example: Developing One’s
Habits
“When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my
talents rust.”
1. Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.

2. If everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed,

then no one can consistently will that his non-use of talents to be a
universal law.

3. Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about
non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a
universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)

4. Therefore, allowing one’s talents to rust is morally wrong.

 4 Example: Helping Others.
th

 A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend

with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: 'What
concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as
be can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only
I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in
distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law,
the human race might very well subsist and doubtless even better than in a
state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes
care occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats
when he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But
although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in
accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle
should have the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which
resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur
in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in
which, by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would
deprive himself of all hope of the aid he desires." (From the Fundamental
Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
 4th example: Helping Others:
“When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall
give nothing to charity.”
 Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be helped in desperate
circumstances.

2. If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that
non-help be a universal law.

3. Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking
about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be
a universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)

4. Therefore, not helping others is not morally right.

 11. Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:

Fairness, Consistency, and morally equal treatment of all

people for they are intrinsically valuable.

Emphasizes the Law of Non-contradiction; we would not

will anything that is not rational.

Emphasizes doing what is morally right (it is our duty).

It is universally binding and Impartial-in order for an action to

be morally permissible, we should be able to will it for all.
 12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to rules,
as opposed to result-centered or utilitarian ethics.

1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each
other.

2. Deontological ethics are consequential moral systems in disguise enshrined

in customs and law have been known to give the best consequences.

3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.

4. Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?

5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what
is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.

6. Rule worship: The refusal to break a generously beneficial rule in those

areas in which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.

7. Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human
beings.
 There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts
consider the following:

a. Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask
for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must
tell the truth (illustration by Kant).
But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is
given in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we
cannot will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat
persons as persons.

Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral
conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth
and preserve life are moral obligations.
 Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:

b. Kant’s moral philosophy is its belief in impartiality; in order

for an action to be rally permissible, we should be able to will it
for all.

However, persons do differ in significant ways (gender, race, age, and

talents). In what way does morality require that everyone be treated equally
and in what does it perhaps require that different person be treated
differently (e.g., gender).

c. Kant’s stress on rationality may be considered to be too male-

oriented, too Westernized. It is subject to the continental
critique of structure (Foucault).
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in
fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390)
This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with
classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.

 First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty

already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character
traits as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct,
Kant takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of
moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a
good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought
to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct
based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on
that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these
principles.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence
does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’
by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act
and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but
a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions,
feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature
that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the
disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior
that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human
nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what
Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz.,
continence or self-control.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral
principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral
law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what
he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean
between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed,
assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of
degree rather than in terms of the different principles
each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice,
for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose
enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal
acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole
intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the
principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of
possessing them.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Fourth, in classical views the distinction between
moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly
significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of
the soul , but one finds classical theorists
treating wit and friendliness along side courage
and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be
a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary
between non-moral and moral virtues could not
be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a
remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed,
much of Anthropology is given over to
discussing the nature and sources of a variety of
character traits, both moral and non-moral.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since
it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in
them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a
constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses.
Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is possible (and we
recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run
counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be
trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually
requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that
morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not
change the fact that each and every desire and interest could have
run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they can conflict
with moral law, not the fact that they actually do conflict with it, that
makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait
concerned with constraint.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's
system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of
virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one
acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite
compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome
contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge
at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will,
who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply
fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack
of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he
also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth,
it must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable
only through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution”
in the orientation of the will of the sort described in Religion.
 Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice
 Kant here describes the natural human condition as one
in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of
morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent
change in the will's orientation in this respect, a
revolution in which moral righteousness is the
nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of
one's actions that are in accordance with duty are
nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may
be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will
must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong
strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into
practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is
that a good will is a will in which this revolution of
priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one
with the strength to overcome obstacles to its
manifestation in practice.
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:

1. How do decide between two principles?

2 What about moral conflict between two

morally right principles.

3. From where or whom do we get our

principles? Nature? God?

4. If from nature, that assumes that what is in

nature is actually good? How do we define
nature?
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come
into conflict with one another.
2. They are consequential moral systems in disguised-
enshrined in customs and laws that have been known
to promote the best consequences.
3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are
based on absolutes.
4. Which duties qualify given time and location. Are old
duties still valid?
5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may
result in a clash with what is best for human welfare
and prescribe actions which cause human misery.
6. Rule worship: Refusal to break a rule because it is
rule, even if it is not beneficial.
 Let’s now
explore
consequential
ethics:
 Consequential Ethics:

We choose the actions that bring about the best

outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential
forms of ethics. Let’s consider the following:

- Egoism: we should always act to maximize

our own individual interests.
 A. Consequential Ethics:

We choose the actions that

bring about the best outcomes:

- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our

own individual interests.

- Utilitarianism: we should act to maximize the

happiness of all affected by the action.
 A closer look at Utilitarianism:
 This theory that holds that an act is
right or wrong according to the
utility or value of its consequences.

 An act that produces more good

than harm has greater value than
act that produces more harm than
good.
 A closer look at Utilitarianism:
 Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical laws in
helping people determine which action will
probably bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.

 While they are not against laws or values

(antinomians), they are not absolutists either.

 Every act is judged by its results, not by it intrinsic

and universal value.
 A closer look at Utilitarianism:
 In order to do determine the best consequence,
some argue that you must add up the happiness
in one person and then multiply the total
happiness in the total number of people and
subtract the total pain.

 If the result is positive then the action is good.

 If the result is negative then the action is bad.
 A closer look at Utilitarianism:
 Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure vs.
Pain (Peter Singer):

1. When we testify the safety of a new

shampoo, we drip the shampoo in concentrated
form into the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible
pain. But does shampoo leaving your hair
lustrous and manageable, sufficient to justify the
infliction of so much suffering?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

2. The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy and

tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But can
this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential to
sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten our
lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify the
infliction of suffering on cattle that are raised on
crowded feedlots, and then herded into slaughter
houses?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
3. It must be delightful to live in an elegant home, richly
equipped with a Jacuzzi and sauna in addition to having a master
bedroom suite with an entire wall-covered entertainment system. But
is it really right to spend that much on luxuries that add only a small
increase to our pleasure when the same resources could be used to
care for impoverished children living in hunger? For example, $21.00
US dollars can feed over 150 elementary students in Ghana for two
weeks (rice mixed with yams).
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

4. I purchase another
expensive “GQ suit” to
add to my already stuffed
closet-for it will bring me
pleasure. But is that small
increment of pleasure
even remotely comparable
to the pleasure and relief
of suffering that would
result if I took that same
money and purchased
clothes to orphan children
or a threadbare family?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

5. A tummy tuck will certainly improve

sagging appearances and make some of us feel
better. But the cost of a tummy tuck can be used
to drill a water well and provide clean and pure
water to an entire village in most third world
countries.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
6. Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy:

If we are trying to decide whether a new football

stadium with luxury boxes for the very rich is a
better investment than decent inner-city schools
and health care for the poor, is utilitarian
calculations a better guide for making such
decisions than deontological ethics?
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
1. The end does not justify the means.

An act is not automatically good simply because it

has a good goal.

The road to destruction is paved with good intentions

(Prov. 14:12).

Ex. President Nixon’s goal of national security was

noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate was not
justified.
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
2. Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.

Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically

valuable act.

No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any value

unless it happens to have good results.

Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical

doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire,
one is obligated to save the medical doctor.
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
3. People are subject to the greater good of
statistics:

Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical

doctor or a poor child from a destructive
house fire, one is obligated to save the medical
doctor because we know he is able to help
people; we don’t know the future of the child.
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
4. The need for an absolute standard:
Relative norms do no stand alone. They
must be relative to something which is not
relative. So, unless there is a standard,
how can they know what is the greater
good.
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
5. The “end” is an ambiguous term:

If the utilitarian contends that ethics

should be based on what will bring the
best results in the long run, how long is
“long?” A few years? a life-time?
Eternity? Anything beyond the immediate
present is outside of the human range.
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
6. Ambiguous as well in determining
whether the “end” means “for the greatest
number” or for “all individuals.”

Could good could be achieved for the most

people if basic rights were denied to some
people? Is this intuitively right?
 Problems with Utilitarianism:
Pleasure vs. Pain:

 Pain and Pleasure are not exact

opposites. Is this true?

 How do you measure pain and

pleasure?

 Can pain be beneficial over and

against pleasure?
 Conclusion to Consequentialism:

Consequentialists believe that

consequences are the only things that
matter:

A. We do not necessarily know the

outcome.

B. The consequences of our own action

may be unpredictable.
 Conclusion to Consequentialism:

C. he consequences of other people’s actions

which impact on our actions may also be
unpredictable.

D. We do not know what the consequences

will be of our action in the long term.

E. We can’t necessarily control the

consequences.
 Concluding thought to Consequentialism:

Dostoyesky’s Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists:

“Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me: imagine that you are

charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim
of which is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and
contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and
unavoidable to torture just one speck of creation, that…little child
beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has
to be erected on her unexpiated [suffering for having done nothing
wrong] tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those
conditions? Tell me honestly!”

~ The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1994).
 Overview of Ethical Systems: Utilitarianism:
A theory of moral reasoning within teleological ethics or consequentialism
that looks to the principle of utility, i.e., the degree to which an act is helpful
or harmful in order to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act.

R.M. Hare’s 2-level J.J. C. Smart: Negative Utilitarianism by K.

J. Bentham: utilitarianism: The Popper in The Open Society & Its
Only 2
logic of moral Preference Enemies (1945): Promote the least
terms & facts
intrinsic about human
Utilitarianism: amount evil or harm; prevent the
values: nature & Maximize the greatest amount of harm for the
condition) leads to achievements greatest number:
“Good is
a 2 level version of people’s
whatever whereby both rule
bringsS.the & act priorities; it is Motive Utilitarianism (Robert
John Mill: for each
greatest utilitarianism are Adams): Inculcate motives
Cultural,
happiness to
bridged: intuitive person to within ourselves that will be
level (simple,
intellectual,
the greatest & general rules) &
decide what generally useful across the
spiritual
number.” critical level (act counts as being spectrum of the situations we
pleasures are utilitarianism. happy. are likely to encounter.
of greater
John S. Mill: Though still hedonistic
values than Mill argues that cultural, Ideal Utilitarianism by G.E. Moore: The
utilitarianism
mere physicaland spiritual pleasures are of rightness or wrongness of acts is determined
intellectual,
pain or
greater values than just mere physical pain
by their actual consequences; our duty:
pleasure. or pleasure. produce the best possible consequences.
A Closer look at Consequentialism:

Classic utilitarianism is a complex

combination of many distinct claims,
including the following claims about the
moral rightness of acts (even though it
reduces all morally relevant factors to
consequences):
 Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be
defined and whether it can be measured in the
way utilitarians requires:

1. Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends

only on consequences (not circumstances, the intrinsic
nature of the act, or anything that happens before the act).

2. Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right

depends only on the actual consequences (not foreseen,
foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).

3. Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right

depends only on the consequences of that act itself (not
consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice
that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
 Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether
it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:

4. Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the

value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the
consequences).

5. Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the

pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods,
such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).

6. Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which

consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement
over the status quo).

7. Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some

function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to
rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).
 Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether
it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:

8. Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net

good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per
person).

8. Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the

consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the
individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).

9. Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one

person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all
who count count equally).

10. Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others

does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the
perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).
Issues of Formulation: How utility is to be defined and whether
it can be measured in the way utilitarians requires:

These claims could be clarified, supplemented, and subdivided further.

What matters here is just that these claims are logically independent, so a
moral theorist could consistently accept some of them without accepting
others. Yet classic utilitarians accepted them all. That fact makes classic
utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight.

It also makes classic utilitarianism subject to attack from many angles.

Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism.
Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims
of classic utilitarianism. By dropping one or more of those claims,
descendants of utilitarianism can construct a wide variety of moral
theories. Advocates of these theories often call them consequentialism
rather than utilitarianism so that their theories will not be subject to
refutation by association with the classic utilitarian theory.
 John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Greatest Happiness Principle: “Acts are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness
(intended pleasure), wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pain and privation of
pleasure). Cultural, intellectual, & spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure,
because the former would be valued more highly by competent judges than the latter. A competent
judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher.

Pleasures differ from Qualitative differences Mill was an advocate of rule

Mill reaffirmed each other qualitatively
though as well as quantitatively,
easily recognizable utilitarianism: you obey those
whereas quantitative
developed the a “higher” pleasure
differences are
rules which experience has shown
hedonistic being intrinsically better difficult to determine. will produce the greatest happiness
theory of than a “lower”
pleasure.” He also differed with of the greatest number. When you
Bentham from
“It is better to be a Bentham by denying always know what people will do
strict hedonistic human being dissatisfied that human
path by saying you get predictability and security.
than a fool satisfied.” motivation implies
that some kinds Bentham treats all forms egoism. Even though We ought to choose the action which
John S. Mill:
of pleasure, of happiness as equal: we are by nature looks most likely to produce most
whatever their “a pushpin is as good as pleasure-seekers, we
can be trained through
happiness. In order to do so we should
opera.” Some desires
Cultural,
quantity, are
are primitive: others the proper development of usually be guided by those general rules
intrinsically &
intellectual, result of experience, our feelings to find which have been formulated as a result of
superior to training, self-discipline, pleasure in the the long experience of men in society:
spiritual
others. & special associations. pleasure of others.
pleasures are The beliefs that have come down are the
. rules of morality for the multitude, and
of greater
The only justification society has in interfering with the or the philosopher, until he has
values than
liberty of action of an individual is self-protection; succeeded in finding better.”
mere physical
People should be allowed to think & do whatever they A rule is valid only because it passes the
pain
like. or
Mill was worried about the “tyranny of the utilitarian test: and it is difficult to
pleasure.majority” in his Essay On Liberty. believe
 John Stuart Mill:
Essential Terms:

1. higher pleasures: "pleasures of the intellect, ...relating to our feelings

and imagination"; also those relating to our moral values.

2. lower pleasures: bodily and physical pleasures

3. inferior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the lower

pleasures (88-89)

4. superior type: persons who find enjoyment by indulging in the higher

pleasures

5. altruism: personal sacrifice; "putting other's interests before one's

own"

6. incommensurable: (in this case) two things that are incomparable

because they are essentially different. Mill uses this word to describe
the comparison of pleasure and pain.
 John Stuart Mill:
7. Although Mill was heavily influenced by Bentham, there are two
specific points of the latter's utilitarian theory that are rejected in Mill's
version:

 Mill did not regard all pleasures equally. He made a distinction between
higher and lower pleasures.
 Mill rejects Bentham's hedonic calculus because he believes that
pleasures and pains are incommensurable.

8. Higher pleasures are such because they:

 offer a sense of human dignity,
 offer greater permanency, safety, and un-costliness, and
 challenge us to develop our intellectual capabilities.

9. The only persons qualified to judge the relative merit of

pleasures are those acquainted with the higher pleasures. Mill inserts
this qualification so that his ethics can overcome the charge the it is
an ethics for pigs and because he argues that anyone who is
acquainted with both types or pleasures will certainly affirm the
superiority of the higher type.
Egoism vs. Altruistic Utilitarianism:
 Enlightened self-interest is rejected in favor of consider
the greatest happiness of all concerned.

 Persons responsible for making ethical decisions should

do so from a disinterested, benevolent perspective.

 The value of personal sacrifice or altruism takes center

stage over that of psychological egoism.

 If one can see that personal interests are bound up with

communal interests, then the conflict between ego and
community will be minimized.
 Other Points on Mills:
10. Human Suffering: Mill argues that "we have ... a moral duty to prevent or to
reduce to human suffering.“

 Selfishness and a want of mental cultivation are the greatest causes of

unhappiness.

 Individuals who have not taken the time to develop their intellectual capabilities are
unlikely to share the view that the improvement of the human condition is of
paramount importance.

11. On Democracy:

 Although he favored democracy, Mill sees the possibility for domination of the
minority by the majority under a strict system of "mob rule.“

 Accordingly, Mill argues that safeguards be put in place to protect the interests and
viewpoints of minorities in the political process. Note that the term minority is not
meant to denote racial minorities, but rather all types of political and social
minorities that do not share majority/mainstream views.
 Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics:

Utilitarian Ethics: Deontological Ethics:

1. Consequential Outcomes- 1. One universal law for each
Based. situation.
2. Case-by-Case. 2. All times, all places, & all people.
3. Hypothetical Imperative. 3. Categorical Imperative (Maxim-rule)
4. Happiness (Greatest 4. Duty, Obligation, & Good will.
Happiness Principle)
 Other Ideas:
 Though you are not going to be tested on
these issues, it would be in your best
interest to understand both pluralism and
relativism.
 What is Pluralism?
There are definite standards of right behavior but
that more than one right standard exists.

- There are several right course of action.

 What is Relativism?
The theory that there are no absolute standards and
that all truth is relative to a person or culture.

- No universal moral law or norm of goodness

or rightness exists.

- What seems right to a person or group is right;

there is no higher court of appeal.
A. Relativism assumes the following:

1. The context or situational setting in which

any talk occurs influences its outcome or the
conclusions that arise from it.

2. Relativism leads to the conclusion that the

situational character of all conversations have
no access to a standpoint from which we
could reach conclusions about what is
absolute or universally right or wrong, good
or evil, just or unjust.
Relativism assumes the following:

3. Moral relativism declares that

assertions about the right and the good,
as well as laws or principles that guide
human moral behavior are contextually
determined.
 3a. Cultural Relativism:
A form of pluralism, this theory holds that different
standards of right and wrong arise in different
cultures. Within a given culture there are distinct
standards, but these standards may vary from culture
to culture.

- No culture is in a position to make ethical

judgments about the behaviors of other cultures.

- Ex. One culture may have a prohibition against

slavery, whereas another culture does not. In this
view, slavery is right for the one culture but wrong
for the other.
 3b. Individual Relativism:
A form of pluralism, individual relativism is the
doctrine that states that what is right depends on the
view of a specific individual.

Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital affairs are

morally permissible but her husband does not, then
extramarital affairs are right for her, but wrong for
him.
In contrast, what is Absolutism?

There are definite and universal standards of

ethical behavior, that we can know what they
are, & that all people have an obligation to
act on them.
a. Believed to be standards which are dictated or
generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).

b. These ethical standards are either “religious” in

nature (e.g., special revelation; the Bible.).
3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
A. They seem unable to account to how strongly
people feel about certain immoral acts.

Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing Jewish

children is morally permissible, can we only say that
such behavior is right for him but that it is not right for
us?

B. They are unable to offer a strong account for

justice vs. injustice; good vs. evil, right.
vs wrong; it is counter-intuitive.
3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
C. Unlivable and inconsistent with
reality.
 Criticisms made against Relativism:
 Relativism commits treason against legitimate
authority.
 Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty).
 Relativism conceals certain defects.
 Relativism cloaks greed with flattery.
 Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility.
 Relativism enslaves people.
 Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism.
 Relativism silences personal identity.
 Relativism poisons personal character.