CHAPTER 3

APPROACHES AND PARADIGMS OF MORAL

PHILOSOPHY
General Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Evaluate the different the two major approaches in the study of Moral
Philosophy
2. Learn the two major moral paradigms in Normative Approach in the study of
Moral Philosophy.
3. Gain basic information about the theories under Consequentialist Ethics and
Non-Consequentialist Ethics.

Specific Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Explain the difference between Descriptive and Normative Ethics.
2. Differentiate Consequentialist Ethics from Non-Consequentialist Ethics.
3. Identify the theories under Consequentialist and Nonconsequentialist Ethics.

INTRODUCTION

Generally, we can study Moral Philosophy in two ways. One, is describing the
kinds of principles people use in making moral judgments (for example, a sociologist
who describes a particular African tribe as an interesting group of people which considers
all forms of kissing to be unethical); and the other way is by formulating norms or
principles by which we may prescribe how we ought to act in a particular situation (for
instance the moral principle which states that “act only in such a way that it promotes the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons” hence, following this prescription,
we should only perform acts that will make many people happy). This shows that the
study of ethics may be done either through descriptive or prescriptive approaches. Hence,
Ethics falls under two general categories: Descriptive and Normative. Under each of
these categories are paradigms and theories of morality.

In this chapter we will discuss the approaches used in the study of ethics, and
briefly, some ethical theories. It is important to take note that our goal in this chapter is
only to introduce the general approaches and major paradigms in the study of Ethics.
Comprehensive discussions on moral theories are presented in Chapter 5.
DESCRIBING HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY ACT: THE DESCRIPTIVE
APPROACH

When we make description of something (for instance, when we describe how

people act or behave, or how people usually make moral judgments, etc.), we don’t tell
how things should be (or how people should act or behave), but rather, we simply report
how things actually are (or how people are actually acting or are behaving). In this way
we study moral philosophy as objectively as possible. Describing how people actually act
in moral situations is the scientific way of studying human morality. This approach in
studying Human morality is what we commonly call as Descriptive Ethics. In this
approach, we don’t impose pre-existing Principles when we study moral cases – but
rather, we aim to get an objective analysis of the case. If for instance, a cross-cultural
study shows that 98% of 200,000 respondents claim that they act only if acting serves
their self-interest – the study simply reports that people tends to be self-regarding or
selfish. Descriptive approach ignores the issue whether the subjects of the research have
acted unethically or whether selfishness is unethical. All it has to say is the result of the
study that people tends to be selfish. Because of its empirical or scientific approach to the
study of morality, it clearly suggests that descriptive approach is suited more to the social
sciences, like sociology, psychology or political science as these disciplines aim to
discover what moral beliefs are held in a given society, group or organization. It does not
prescribe, nor attempt to assess the moral soundness of any ethical systems, but rather it
objectively describes what kind of values people come to have.

An example of theory under descriptive ethics is Psychological Egoism.

Psychological Egoism is not an ethical doctrine but a theory concerning human
motivation. The theory says nothing about what is good or bad or right or wrong, but
rather, it simply declares that basing from various scientific studies, everyone is
fundamentally selfish, that everybody always does what pleases them, that the only thing
people ever want is their own satisfaction, and everyone always does what is to his own
interest.

Another good example of an ethical theory under Descriptive approach is

Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism does not prescribe how people should act, but
rather describes how people, when grouped and observed in their own cultural realities,
actually differ in their moral behavior. What is good or bad, moral or immoral, according
to this theory, is relative to people’s own culture or sets of cultural beliefs and practices.
To cite an example, we usually perceive pre-marital sex between two adolescent couple
to be immoral. But for some tribes in Africa, adult people take pride in encouraging their
sons and daughters to have pre-marital sex as early as sixteen years old! For most cultural
relativist, this proves that there are no objective or discoverable moral imperatives but
only sets of arbitrarily determined moral rules which differ from one culture to another.

Even though descriptive approach has its own advantages (one is its objectivity in
studying human behavior), it is very limited in many ways. One of its obvious limitations
is its inability to provide us with a clear standard of morality. It simply describes how
people act and not with how people should act. To put it simply, descriptive approach
does not, because it cannot, give us practical advice on how to solve moral problems. Let
us consider a case to make this point clearer. Consider the case of a female teenager who
found her self pregnant and who is considering whether or not to take the option of
abortion. Relying on descriptive approach of Ethics for a good advice on what to do, the
teenager will discover none. What she could possibly get from this approach is perhaps a
study showing that 95% of Filipino teens believe that abortion is wrong. But what should
the teenager do? The study will not tell. The study only reports that most teens are
against abortion and it does not tell why abortion should not be performed. And it is here
where the problem lies. If the purpose of our study of Ethics were to understand the
principles underlying our idea of right and wrong in human affairs, that is, how we
should fashion our existence vis-à-vis the existence of other human beings, then
descriptive approach would be insufficient. We need something more – we need to know
the basis why something is good or bad, right or wrong. Normative Approach in the study
of Ethics properly addresses this insufficiency.

PRESCRIBING HOW PEOPLE SHOULD ACT:

THE NORMATIVE APPROACH

Should I tell the truth? Why should I tell the truth? What makes telling the truth
better than lying? Ethics in order to remain significant and relevant, should be able to tell
people why or what makes something good or bad, right or wrong or why a particular act
is better that the other. It shows that the main business (or the reason of existence) of
Moral Philosophy or Ethics is to help people by providing them with good advice on
what to do in morally perplexing situations. Ethics advises us to do something, why we
should do it, and it explains why it is better to do it rather than not doing it. If this is so,
then Ethics is for the most part a normative study. It prescribes how people should act,
rather than simply describing how people act on particular occasions.

Ethics, as a normative study, is not merely a description of what people find

morally good and morally bad, but it seeks to discover norms or principles that ought to
guide our actions. It tries to discover what really makes good action good and bad actions
bad. In short, Ethics as a normative study, tries to produce practical knowledge about
how we should conduct our lives by understanding better our own moral assumptions.

But Normative Ethics does not come handy with a clean system of right or wrong.
If Ethics is to be viewed like an automated teller machine where we could get what we
want in a push of a button, then we should prepare ourselves to be frustrated. There is
no automatic answer in Ethics. True that Ethics can give answer to moral questions or it
can advice us on what to do if we are “morally” confused – the problem is, it gives many
answers and too many advices. Worst, the answers and advices are most of the time
conflicting and contradictory that they will leave us more confused than before. Take for
instance the case of abortion – One normative theory of Ethics will claim that if abortion
will make many people happy than it is moral. But another theory will claim the opposite
– abortion is killing an innocent human being, hence, regardless whether or not it
promotes happiness to many people, abortion is inherently wrong. Here we can clearly
see that the confusion that arises from normative ethics is essentially caused by its various
theories concerning the morality of moral actions. In short, normative ethics complicates
things because it has many theories concerning doing the good thing in the right way.
And here lies another problem with the study of Ethics in general. If it makes things more
complicated rather than simplifying it, or if Ethics makes people more confused rather
than enlightened – then what is the point of studying Ethics?

The reply to this objection is simple; Ethics does not make people really
confused. The apparent confusion is just our initial impression to our experience of
choosing from a wide array of moral options that are made available to us for the very
first time. Unlike before, normative theories help us recognize other factors in our
situation that we previously missed to consider (for instance the moral status of the fetus
in the case of abortion). They present other salient reasons which we previously failed to
think about in the past. Though it makes deciding a little more complicated, it is
undeniable that these various theories afford us with better alternatives to choose from–
and better reasons for accepting them. In this way Ethics enlightens us. With Ethics we
have the opportunity to make a choice in a more enlightened environment. It allows us to
make a more informed decision. Ethics forces us to think critically, to weigh our options
wisely, and to exercise our autonomy and our sense of objectivity in making moral
decisions. This explains the value of studying Ethics.

MORAL PARADIGMS OF NORMATIVE ETHICS

We said in the previous section that Normative Ethics has various theories each
explaining differently what makes an act good or bad, right or wrong. These various
normative theories can be generally categorized under two schools of thought or moral
paradigms. One is the Consequentialist (or Teleological) Ethics, and the other is the
Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) Ethics.

Consequentialist (or Teleological) Ethics and Nonconsequentialist (or

deontological) Ethics are called “schools of thought” or “paradigms” because they are
not simply theories – but rather, they are systems or bodies of different theories. What
groups the different theories into two distinct moral paradigms is their common feature
in evaluating moral acts. Theories under Consequentialist ethics accentuate the
consequences of acts: if the consequence of the act is good it is morally good, while, on
the other hand, theories under Nonconsequentialist ethics emphasizes the motive of the
act: if the act is well intended (or performed out from the sense of duty), then regardless
of the consequence, the act is good. Let us study the other main features of these two
schools of thoughts in Normative Ethics.
 ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

Motive Means Consequences (Probable and actual)

NONCONSEQUENTIST ETHICS CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS

Figure 1 shows the basic difference between non-consequentialist ethics and consequentialist q
ethics in terms of their emphasis on a particular element (s) of Human Acts.

Consequentialist Ethics. Consequentialist or Teleological Ethics is a body of

normative ethical theories that tries to measure the morality of an action based solely by
its consequences. If the consequence is good, regardless whether or not the motive is
good, the act is always morally good. There are various forms of consequentialist ethics,
though they vary in their determination of what consequences are relevant and in how the
value of the consequences is to be determined, they all depend on value theory, meaning
they interpret moral judgments as dependent on what benefits or good an act actually
brings either to the doer or to other people. The following are its major examples:

1. Hedonism or the view that only pleasure (regardless if the pleasure is

mental or physical, but favorably sensual) is the only good as an end. Hence,
eating all you can till you can, drinking all you can till you drop, and doing
sexual intercourse from dusk till dawn are few examples of good that should
be pursued.

2. Utilitarianism, it claims that the greatest happiness or good of the

greatest number of persons is the test of right and wrong. For instance, if
stealing will enable me to help many poor people, then stealing is good.
Utilitarianism is the best known consequentialist theory. We will discuss this
theory in more details in our Chapter dealing with Moral Theories (see
Chapter 5).

3. Perfectionism or self-realizationism, a rival of utilitarianism, which

holds that the ultimate end is the full development or perfection of the self. To
study hard, to exercise daily, to be moral, etc. are examples of things that are
considered good because they are good for the perfection of the self.
Perfectionism is concerned only with the self, and it has little concern for
others – simply because it is other’s duty individually to perfect themselves.

4. Ethical Egoism, as the name implies, maintains that an action is good

only if it promotes the good or the best interest of the one performing the act.
As we can observe, this theory is consequentialist but unlike most of the
consequentialist theories, egoism views the good exclusive to the interest of
the doer. If the act brings me more good than bad, then it is good. It is
 important not to confuse Ethical egoism with Psychological Egoism
(discussed previously in Descriptive Ethics), because unlike the latter, the
former prescribes a particular set of moral behavior. Ethical egoism does not
describe but prescribes how men should be motivated to act. If we look
closely, ethical egoism poses a difficult challenge to Ethics itself. It raises the
most important single question of Ethics, which is the question why we need
to be moral at all. That is, if we don’t benefit from being ethical (for instance,
Ethics does not make us wealthy) why should we be ethical? (this book
provides an answer, read Chapter 2 on the significance of studying Moral
Philosophy).

Non-Consequentialist Ethics. Non-Consequentialist or Deontological Ethics, on

the other hand, is a body of ethical theories that tries to measure the morality of an action
based on the nature of its motives and not on its consequences. If the motive or the
intention of the act is good, and as long as the means employed is good, regardless
whether or not the consequence has resulted to good, the act is always good. Major
examples of Deontological or Nonconsequentialist Theory are the following:
1. Kantian Ethics. Kantian Ethics or Kantianism holds that for an action to be
morally right it must satisfy two requirements, first, it must be willed to be a
universal law, that is, it must be willed to be done by everyone under the same
condition (that is, an act is good if I don’t mind everybody doing it) and
second, it has respected person’s dignity, that is, it did not use person as a
means to achieve selfish ends. Moral goodness of an act depends therefore on
motives or intention, and not on the consequences of what is actually done.
More will be said about this theory in the chapter concerning Moral Theories.

2. Theological Ethics. Theological or divine command theory of morality holds

that the will of God is what determines the rightness and wrongness of an act.
The will of God is expressed through the Holy Scriptures (e.g. the Ten
Commandments) and through the dictates of reason inspired by faith (e.g. the
Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church). If an act violates any of the
provisions of these sacred sources of morality, then the act is unethical and it
should be condemned regardless of its perceived or actual consequences. For
instance, a man who murders a tyrannical ruler has still acted immorally even
if killing the tyrannical ruler brings relief to many people. This is because the
man has committed murder – an act that violates the commandment of God
not to kill. Hence, what determines the moral worth of an act is based solely
on whether it is performed in accordance with the will of God or not.

Aside from Consequentialist and Non-consequentialist Ethics, there are other

normative theories that tell a different account about what determines the morality of
moral actions. Remember that these are theories and not paradigms – that is, they are
theories that neither belong to Consequentialism nor Non-consequentialism but are not
comprehensive enough to be a paradigm or a system of theories. We will consider one
major example of these theories here: Situational Ethics.
 Situational Ethics claims that the morality of an action depends on the situation
where and when it is being performed. What is good in one situation may not be good in
another. For instance, telling the truth when a perfect stranger asks for direction is good –
but when a mad man asks for the whereabouts of your friend in order for him to you’re
your friend, telling the truth in this case will be gravely immoral. Clearly, the act of
telling the truth, is perfectly ethical in one case but not in another different case. Hence,
situational ethics asserts that for every moral case there is a duty to perform, and the
nature of the condition where we find ourselves into determines what we ought to do in
that particular case. After discussing some major theories of Ethics, which theory
impressed you best? Have you found yourself a theory to adopt as your theory of life? If
you already have one, then congratulations! But for now, keep your theory because we
will have much more to say about it when we come to Chapter 5. Will you cling to it?

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Consequences – The outcome or the result of an action; an event (e.g. imprisonment) that
follows and is caused by some previous event (e.g. stealing)

Dogma - A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; a doctrine or code
of beliefs accepted as authoritative

Empirical - Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; or anything that
is verifiable or perceivable by the five senses (Trees, chairs, tables, etc. are
empirical things).

Ends – The result that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates
behavior intended to achieve it

Imperatives – Rules or commandments enforced by an agent’s sense of duty.

Means - Instrumentality or the medium used to achieve an end (exercising regularly is a

means to achieve the desired end of good health)

Moral agent – refers to an individual who performs a moral act.

Motives - The reason for the action or that which gives purpose and direction to behavior
(for instance, the act of going to mass is based on the motive of
performing a religious duty)

Paradigm –A collection of theories sharing a common attribute (for instance a collection

of theories sharing a common feature of measuring the moral worth of an
act based solely on its consequences or exclusively based on its motive)
Universalizability – The first formulation or principle of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives
stating that “Act only on maxims that you can and at the same time will to
become a universal law.”
 WORK SHEET
NO. 7

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________

A. Make your answers brief and direct.

1. Differentiate Descriptive Approach and Prescriptive Approach as two

distinct approaches to the study of Ethics.

2. Ethical Egoism raises the most important single question of Ethics,

which is the question why we need to be moral at all. Why do you think we
need to be moral? Personally, what benefits do we get from being moral or
Ethical? Recall our discussions in Chapter 2.

3. In your own words differentiate Consequentialist and Non-

Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Which do you personally prefer?
Explain your answer.

4. What is the problem concerning the descriptive approach to the study of

human morality? Do you agree? Why?

5. If Ethics complicates things and it makes people more confused then

what is the point of studying Ethics? Do you think Ethics is not worthy to be
studied? Why?

B. Identify the paradigm and the theory of Normative Ethics which the following
statements best refer to:

For example:

“ If it feels good, then it must be good” : Consequentialist Ethics, Hedonism

1. “Foods, Wines, and Sex are the only good

that should be pursued.” :
2. “The motive determines the goodness of an
act” :

3. “I don’t care whether that man is innocent or

not – the people want him hanged, so let the
will of the majority prevails – I will hang
him.” :
4. “Developing my potentials to the fullest is
good” :
5. “The Ten Commandments is the Greatest
Moral Rule” :
6. “What is good in this situation may not be
good in another” :
7. “There is no point for being good, why
should I be good?” :
8. “If an act respects the dignity of the human
person, then the act is good” :
9. “The greatest good is that which makes the
greatest number of people happy.” :
10. “If helping makes me feel good, then
helping is good.” :
11. “The Pope being the Christ’s vicar is always
true, since he said that eating raw peanuts is
bad, then it must be bad!” :
12. “Before I think about feeding you, I should
think about feeding myself first!” :
13. “If I make money in helping people, then I
will always help people!” :
14. “That man has intended to save me – even
though he broke my neck in the process of
helping – that man still deserves my
gratitude.” :
15. “Since I cannot will that other people lie,
then it follows that lying is wrong!” :