Normative Theories of Ethics

(Originally written February 7, 2006)

Topic 2: Christian Ethics

3 Types of Mosaic Law
1) Moral - continued and emphasized in New Testament
2) Ritual/Ceremonial - Made obsolete by the resurrection
3) Judicial - ??/Debated

Divine Command Theory

Human morality is ultimately based on the character of God.

Problems with Divine Command Ethics:
1) Competing commands
- Differing moral duties conflict with each other so you choose the lesser evil and ask God to forgive you for your sin
-Some state there is no conflict
-Some believe in a hierarchy of God's laws

Are the following Biblical commands absolute or relative?
- Do not murder
- Do not slander
- Do not rape
- Do not steal
- Kill all the Amalekites
- Greet one another with a holy kiss
- Do not lie

Christian revelation: God is absolute. Jesus' most important commandment is absolute. All other of God's laws are subject to the situation. Case in point: Corrie ten Boom

S&P Ethics: Chapter 1: Normative Theory of Ethics

2 Kinds of normative systems:
1) Consequentialist
2) Non-Consequentialist

Consequentialists decided what is right by the good effects outdoing the bad effects

Non-consequentialists decide what is right by the consequences and other factors. The nature of the action is taken into consideration as well as the consequences of the action (deontological).

Egoism

Egoism believes that an act is only morally right if it is in the best interest of that individual's long-term interests.

2 Types of Egoism:
1) Personal Egoists believe for themselves but are indifferent to others
2) Impersonal Egoists believe everyone should do what is in their best interests.

Misconception haunt both versions of egoism:
1) Egoism is not "eat, drink and be merry" it is concerned with long-term best interest
2) All egoists do not endorse hedonism (belief that only happiness is of intrinsic value)
3) Egoism is not always agains tower's needs or wants. Egoism requires those who are egoists to act in the best interest of others, if it will produce the best long-term outlook for us.

Egoism states that we have no moral obligation to others.

Psychological egoism states that people are inherently selfish. Truly unselfish acts are impossible.

There are strong (and obvious) objections to egoism:
1) Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Self-interest is not the only thing that governs us.
2) Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all
3) Ethical egoism ignores blatant wrongs

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism states we should always act to produce the greatest possibility of good for everyone affected by our actions.

Utilitarianism promotes the happiness of the society above all else.

Bentham held that pleasures and pain are merely sensations.

Utilitarianism's basic form (act utilitarianism) states that we are compelled to ask ourselves what the particular consequence of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. The morally right act is the one that will produce the most happiness in all who are affected.

Acts should be decided based on their being the one which produces the most quantitative happiness.

The rightness of the act is determined by the ratio of happiness to unhappiness in all parties affected through quantitative measure (which is based on the qualitative feeling of happiness/unhappiness)

Utilitarianism is a case by case ethical standard (no absolute)

Utilitarianism is focused on long-term happiness.

Utilitarianism must forecast to come at a decision of what is going to happen: happiness vs. unhappiness.

An utilitarian has a moral duty to maximize happiness.

Personal happiness is a part of utilitarianism but is an equal part of all parties (no special favor).

Utilitarianism isn't really workable.

"Some critics of act utilitarianism have contended that... to follow the basic utilitarian principle would not promote happiness because of the difficulties in applying utilitarianism accurately" (20).

Utilitarianism is not just and does not always distribute happiness to everyone.

Kant's ethics

Non-consequentialist

Moral rules can be known as a result of reason alone, no observation is needed.

Morality is an a priori knowledge to Kant.

Nothin is good in and of itself, save good will.

Moral acts spring from acting upon our duty to be moral.

Duty is determined by the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative states that we should always act in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to become a universal law.

Kant defines maxim as a subjective principle of an action that people formulate in determining their conduct.

A categorical imperative is universally binding.

Universal acceptability

The categorical imperative can be stated also as each person, through their own acts of will, legislate moral law.

Moral beings give themselves moral laws through the use of reason. All rational beings will give themselves the same moral law because they too use reason.

To check if an act is moral we simply ask if other rational beings would do the same. It is important to look at the act both from the actor's point of view and who the act is done to. If you are comfortable with doing the act and having it done to you then it is moral.

Humanity as an End, Never as a Means

According to Kant's categorical imperative rational beings should always treat other rational beings as ends, never solely as means.

Kant maintained that an act can only be deemed moral if we can will it to be a universal law.

Critical inquiries of Kant's ethics

What has moral worth?

Kant believed that only an act done out of a sense of duty is moral. If the act is done in self-interest it is not moral (which seems plausible). But Kant also maintained that if an act is done out of habit, instinct or sympathy it is not moral (this is where many ethicists believe Kant was too harsh and severe with his interpretation of moral acts).

Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right?

Kant leaves no room for exceptions. A qualified rule such as "never steal unless you are starving" seems as universal as "never steal" but Kant would probably have rejected it because the implications could have spread to justifying rule breaking.

What does it mean to treat people as means?

It is difficult to discern when people are being used solely as means and not the end. Presumably all employers use workers as a mean to accomplish an end, but are the employers acting immorally?

Other Non-Consequentialists Perspectives

Prima facie Principles (W.D. Ross 1877-1971)

This is where we have moral obligations that stem from relationships. We have differing moral obligations to all the differing people we encounter.

Obligations can conflict, overtly, or just through a time-space issue. Obligations must be weighed to their importance and then acted upon.

A prima facie obligation is an obligation that can be overridden by a more important obligation.

Prima facie obligations can be divided into seven categories
1) Duties of fidelity
2) duties of reparation
3) duties of gratitude
4) duties of justice
5) duties of beneficence
6) duties of self-improvement
7) duties not to injure others

Assisting others

Utilitarianism makes us slaves to the betterment of others. Non-consequentialists hold a principle that states that actions would be good to do, but not immoral not to do them, these are called supererogatory action.

-The entitlement to do something is the right
-Legal right is the entitlement to do something under the law
-Moral rights are human rights.
-Human rights are universal; they re equal rights, not transferable or relinquish able, they are natural rights

Human rights can be divided into two categories
1) Negative Rights - rights to be free of interference
2) Positive Rights - rights to receive benefits

Once moral rights have been established they are in individual's hands, not society's

Critical inquires of Non-Consequentialism

How well justified are these non-consequentialist principles and moral rights?

They seem self-evident in context of culture or history