Moral Phil Full Document (New

WSU, COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES
Program Civics and ethical studies

Course code Cvet221
Course title Moral philosophy
Degree Program B.A in Civics and Ethical studies
Module name Ethics and Civic Virtues
Course Instructor’s Matusala Sundado,
name matusalasun@gmail.com
COURSE DESCRIPTION
M oral philosophy/ethics is not to be treated as remote; a discipline studied by

philosophers or scholars only. We are always involved in ethics and cannot avoid it
for what we do and what we do not do is always a possible subject of ethical evaluation.
When one thinks about what s/he ought to do, consciously or unconsciously, involves in
ethics. Thus, ethics plays vital role in social life since it deals with values, with good and
bad which are important in moral judgment.
When we begin to think more seriously about questions of what we ought to do and ought
not to do, we may begin by exploring our own underlying values but we will also be
traveling over roads that have been trodden by many others, in different culture, for well
over two thousand years. In this line we will discuss various ethical theories which allow
us to see moral issues in a critical and reflective manner. This course, therefore, designed
to introduce some of the major theories and schools of moral philosophy to students with
reference to the broad ethical concepts such as virtue ethics, action based ethics
(consequentialism), duty based ethics (deontology) and the great ethical traditions -
Christian ethics, Jewish ethics, Islamic ethics, Buddhist ethics and others.
Course objectives: at the end of this course, the students will be able to:
☺ Explain the need of moral philosophy/ethics in human social life

☺ identify the difference between the concepts of normative/non normative ethics,
teleological/deontological theories and their relevance in moral decision
making
☺ Investigate critically moral attitudes and principles of society
☺ Develop reflective morality by critically examining conventional morality
☺ Distinguish morality from law, religion, economics, prudence, obedience to
authority and mere opinion/bias/taste
☺ Exercise a sound judgments in evaluating moral failure in their social life
☺ Equip themselves with methods how to solve moral problems that arise in social
life
☺ Appreciate the complexity of ethical decision making in all walks of life
☺ apply moral reasons in moral issues
☺ Evaluate the rightness or wrongness of actions, decisions, plans and policies in
terms of relevant ethical theories and practices
1
week Lecture
(hrs) Conceptual Activities/tasks Readings
focus
1 3 Chapter one The teacher will provide
Introduction: What is moral philosophy? lecture
 Fields of ethics Students take notes on the
Normative Vs non normative lesson Barry(1983):pp.8
 Where does morality come Read assigned articles 9-93
from? Thiroux, pp.15-19
Some major distinctions and what Callahan(1988):p
morality is not p6-13
reflective morality vs conventional
morality; morality vs law, prudence, Thiroux, pp.2-6
economics, religion, obedience to
authority in general, and mere Thiroux, pp.19ff
opinion/ bias/ taste
2 3 Chapter one: Students attend
 Key terms in ethics -lecture
Ethical, moral, unethical, - take notes
Callahan(1988):p
Immoral,amoral,nonmoral p613-18
Moral skepticism Thiroux, pp.8-18
Relativism, subjectivism,
emotivism
absolutism,deontology,
teleology,consequetialism,
hedonism,egoism,virtue ethics
 To whom or what does morality
apply?
religious morality, natural morality,
Individual morality and social morality
 Why Ethics?
3-6 3 Chapter Two

Consequentialism (teleological) theories -attend lecture Barry(1983)pp:97
 Egoistic hedonism -Take the notes given by the -106
 Ethical and psychological egoism teacher Singer,pp.230-39
 Cyrenacism and Epicureanism -review articles
 Social hedonism(utilitarianism) -perform reading assignment Thiroux,pp.39-54
-forward question
2
3
Chapter Two: Consequentialism Barry, pp.107-10
(teleological) theories -Listen lecture
 Act utilitarianism -Take notes Titus,pp.155-59
 Rule utilitarianism -Review book
Stumpf pp.365-
 quantity based utilitarianism -Review articles
-forward questions 77
J. Bentham Barry(1983)pp:97
-perform home study
 quality based utilitarianism &reading assignment. -106
J. Mill -presentation
Chapter Three: Listen lecture

Nonconsequentialist(deontological)ethics -Take notes Munitz,p.218ff
7-10 3  .Intuitionism -Review articles
 Devine command ethics -forward questions Thiroux PP 63-
 Categorical imperative: -perform home study
76
Immanuel Kant &reading assignment.
 Prima facie duties: W.D. Ross -presentation
3 -attend Lecture
Chapter Four: Virtue ethics -take a note Titus,pp.477-87
11-13  Greek virtue ethics -reflect their views based on
 Socrates’ ethics the lecture. Thiroux,pp.77-83
 Plato’s ethics -Make a Book review
 Aristotle’s ethics -perform Reading
 Contemporary virtue ethics assignment
Alasdair MacIntyre
14-16 3
Chapter Five: ETHICAL IDEALS AND -Listen lecture
WORLD RELIGIONS
Titus,pp.533-53
Take notes
 Christian ethics -Perform presentation
 Islamic ethics -Discuss and debate on the
Singer, pp. 43-117
 Hindu ethics topics
 Buddhist ethics -presentation Munitz,p.305ff
ASSESSMENT METHODS
Test #1---------------------------------------------------------------------------20%
Mid Exam--------------------------------------------------------------------------30%
Individual assignment---------------------------------------------------------20%
Final exam----------------------------------------------------------------------30%
COURSE PROTOCOL/POLICY/
All students are expected to abide by the code of conduct of students and of the Senate
Legislation of WSU) throughout this course. Academic dishonesty, including cheating,
fabrication and plagiarism will not be tolerated and will be reported to the bodies for
action. All provided and review materials will be the main elements of the assessment
and grading of students to accomplished
3
Regular attendances, class activities (questions), doing assignments and submitting them
on time are indispensable vehicles for the successful accomplishment of the course.
Attendance, regular attendance is expected for all students who register for the course if
you miss more than 85% of the class attendance you will not sit for the final exam.
Cell phones are to be switched off so as to avoid distractions in the teaching learning
activities. Lastly, but not least, note that all issues discussed in the class will be
incorporated in quiz, mid or final exams.
Required reference books

Thiroux, Jacques (1995) Ethics: Theory and Practice, 5th ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall
Barry, V. (1983) Philosophy: A Text with Readings.2nd ed. Belmont, Wadsworth Publishing com.
Bonevac, D. (1999) Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives, 3rd ed.
California, Mayfield
Ward, L. R. (1965) Ethics a College Text. New York, Harper and Row Publishers.
Singer, P.(ed.) (1993) A Companion to Ethics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers
Gensler, J Spurgin,W & Swindal,C (2004) Ethics contemporary readings,New York and London.
Routhledge group publishers.
Titus, H. H. (1947) Ethics for Today. 2nd ed. New York, American Book Company
4
MORAL PHILOSOPHY: MEANING AND CONCEPT
INTRODUCTION
Moral philosophy/ethics is not to be treated as remote; a discipline studied by philosophers or

scholars only. We are always involved in ethics and cannot avoid it for what we do and what we
do not do is always a possible subject of ethical evaluation. When one thinks about what s/he
ought to do, consciously or unconsciously, involves in ethics. Thus, ethics plays vital role in
social life since it deals with values, with good and bad which are important in moral judgment.
When we begin to think more seriously about questions of what we ought to do and ought not to
do, we may begin by exploring our own underlying values but we will also be traveling over
roads that have been trodden by many others, in different culture, for well over two thousand
years. In this line we will discuss various ethical theories which allow us to see moral issues in a
critical and reflective manner. This course, therefore, is designed to introduce some of the major
theories and schools of moral philosophy to students with reference to the broad ethical concepts
such as virtue ethics, action based ethics (consequentialism), duty based ethics (deontology) and
the great ethical traditions - Christian ethics, Jewish ethics, Islamic ethics, Buddhist ethics and
others.
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term comes from the
Greek word ethos, which means "character". Ethics is a complement to Aesthetics in the
philosophy field of Axiology (the study of value). In philosophy, ethics studies the moral
behavior in humans, and how one should act. The following major areas are emphasized in
Ethics: Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how
their truth values (if any) may be determined; Normative ethics, about the practical means of
determining a moral course of action; Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be
achieved in specific situations; Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study
of people's beliefs about morality;
As introduction to moral philosophy, in this module we will attempt to discuss some of the basic
points that may give us some clues to have further discussion in various moral perspectives
related with different moral philosophers.
WSU, COLLAGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITY, CIVIC & ETHICAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT 5
(Instructor’s Name: Matusala Sundado, Ass. Professor)
Accordingly, in the first unit, we focus on meanings and concepts of ethics, morality and various
points related with ethics in general. In the second unit, we discuss one of the moral theories that
is teleological moral theory and emphasis on its strength and limitation. In the third and fourth
we discuss deontological moral theory and virtue ethics theory respectively. In the last unit we
attempt to discuss great ideals and ethical perspectives of great religions.
Dear students, as an introduction the module may introduce you various ethical perspectives. It is
not as such all-inclusive; hence, you have to refer the works of various philosophers so as to
understand moral philosophy in depth.
UNIT ONE: MEANING AND CONCEPTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY/ ETHICS

This part intends to introduce students with the basic concepts of moral philosophy and
terminologies used in it.
What is Moral philosophy/Ethics?
Activity 1: What is ethics’ relationship to philosophy?
Do you remember some of the major branches of philosophy?
Etymological definition of ethics and morality

The word ethics has its root in the Greek word ethos, meaning “custom” or “habit.” The Latin
word mores, from which we get the word morality, is basically synonymous with the word ethos.
In their common usage, the word ethics and morality appear to reflect their etymology.
Ordinarily, they refer to the social or cultural standards and principles by which we customarily
judge things as “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad.” Usually, we focus on human beings and
their actions as the main objects of our moral or ethical evaluation. We have an extensive
vocabulary for expressing such judgments about people and their conduct _ with terms such as
ethical, moral, unethical, immoral and amoral, to cite the most obvious.
The discipline called ethics or moral philosophy differs from the ordinary, commonsense
approach, for it begins with an explicit awareness of the moral dimensions of our lives. Rather
than assuming ethical or moral matters as given, it focuses on these with an attitude of
questioning, making deliberate efforts to reflect on the issues, problems and concepts involved.
In its pursuits, ethics searches for answers through rigorous methods of examination, and it
subjects its own claims to intense scrutiny.
Its ultimate aim is to provide systematic explanations and well-grounded arguments regarding
ethical questions.
Thus, ethics may be defined as the thoughtful analysis and evaluation of the standards and
principles by which we issue judgments in terms of moral values. It is the philosophical study of
values and what constitutes good and bad human conduct. It is concerned with questions of right
and wrong, of duty and obligation and of moral responsibility. Briefly, ethics, as a formal field of
philosophical inquiry, is the philosophical study of morality.
Activity 2: Is ethics the exclusive province of philosophers? Is it only a matter of abstract

theorization? What is its value in human life?
Although ethics is predominantly a philosophical field of inquiry, it is not the exclusive province
of philosophers. Writers, scientists, politicians, religious leaders, judges, educators, students and
laypersons – in short, people from all walks of life – have adopted the philosophical spirit in their
reflections on moral questions.
Nor is ethics a matter of abstract theorizing and sheer speculation having little or no relevance
for our real lives. But rather it offers us ways of thinking about the moral features of our own
existence – our assumptions, beliefs, judgments, ideas, concepts, values and conducts – in a
serious and careful manner. Significantly, then, such modes of thought always open up paths for
self-awareness and self reflection.
The word ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning something like ‘morals’. In fact, ethics is
defined as the systematic reflection on what is moral. In this definition, morality is the whole of
opinions, decisions and actions with which people express what they think is good or right. So,
in short, to think ethically, you need to systematically reflect on what people think is good or
right.
Activity 3: Can you discuss some of the major branches of ethics?
1.3. Major Branches of Ethics
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: normative
ethics, metaethics, and applied ethics.
1. NORMATIVE: Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and
wrong conduct. It involves an attempt to determine precisely what moral standards to follow so
that our actions may be morally right or good. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of
proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to
others what we would want others to do to us. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative
theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative
theories focus on a set of foundational principles, such as moral rights to life, liberty, and
happiness.
The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral
conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Unfortunately, philosophers do not
agree about what precisely that criterion is. Over the centuries, hundreds of theories have been
offered, each claiming to be the ultimate guide. Under normative ethics there are three theories
that will be focused in this module (a) virtue theory, (b) deontological theories, and (c)
consequentialist theories.
A.Consequentialist/ teleological theories: In teleological/consequentialism ethical theory,
human actions are judged good or bad, right or wrong, depending on the results of such actions
– a desirable result denotes a good action, and vice versa. There are three commonly discussed
types of consequentialism theory: egoism, altruism and utilitarianism. Dear students, teleolgical
theories will be thoroughly discussed in the next lesson.
B. Deontological (Duty) Theories: Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as
human beings, such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Deontological theories
base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are called
deontological theories, from the Greek word deon, or duty, given the foundational nature of our
duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are
obligatory, irrespective of the consequences of that might follow from our actions. For example,
it is wrong to abandon care for our children even if it results in some great benefit. Dear
students, deontological theories will be thoroughly discussed in the next lesson.
C. Virtue Theory: Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely
defined rules of conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I must learn these
rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue theorists, however, place
less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stress the importance of developing good habits of
character, such as benevolence. Once I've acquired benevolence, for example, I will then
habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is the oldest normative tradition
in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four
virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and
justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity.
In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid
acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity.
Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one's
youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in the young. Dear students, this
theory of ethics will be thoroughly discussed in the next chapter.
Normative ethics involves a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct. Should I borrow my roommate's book without first asking
him? Should I steal food to support my starving family? Ideally, these moral questions could be
immediately answered by consulting the moral guidelines provided by normative theories.
2. METAETHICS: The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of
metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define
metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to
normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of
moral philosophy. Three issues, though, are prominent: (a) metaphysical issues concerning
whether morality exists independently of humans; (b) psychological issues concerning what
motivates us to be moral; and (c) linguistic issues concerning the meaning of key ethical terms.
A. Metaphysical Issues in Metaethics.: "Metaphysics" is the study of the kinds of things that exist
in the universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks, and
perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The
metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values

are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions.
Moral realism is the view that moral principles have an objective foundation, and are not based
on subjective human convention. There are two main types of moral realism. The first is
commonly associated with Plato and is inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at
numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless concepts that
never change, and apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not invent numbers, and
humans cannot alter them.
A second type of moral realism is that moral values are divine commands issuing from God's
will. Sometimes called voluntarism, this view was inspired by the Judeo-Christian notion of an
all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and they become
reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills human life into existence and,
similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval
philosopher William of Ockham, believe that God wills moral principles, such as "murder is
wrong," and these exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands
by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture.
The opposite view of moral realism is called moral skepticism, which denies any objective status
of moral values. Technically moral skeptics do not reject moral values themselves. They simply
deny that moral values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God.
Moral skepticism is closely associated with a position called moral relativism, which is the view
that moral standards are grounded in social approval. With some moral values, social approval
seems to vary from culture to culture. For example, in Mainland China, abortion is recognized as
an important tool for population control. In the Republic of Ireland, though, abortions are not
readily available even when the life of a mother is at risk. Other moral values are more fixed
from culture to culture, such as prohibitions against stealing. Even these, though, are grounded in
social approval insofar as similar social needs give rise to similar moral rules.
B. Psychological Issues in Metaethics: A second area of metaethics involves the psychological

basis of our moral actions, particularly, understanding what motivates humans to be moral.
Moral philosophers commonly ask the general question, "Why be moral?" A variety of answers
may be given. We act morally to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be
dignified, or to fit in with society.
Moral psychology looks beneath the surface of these answers and attempts to identify the
internal psychological factors that are ultimately responsible for moral motivation. As soon as
philosophers began dissecting the human psyche and cataloging various human mental faculties,
philosophers also tried linking many of these with moral motivation.
C. Linguistic Issues in Metaethics: A large part of morality involves assessing people's conduct
and pronouncing judgments, such as "Teddy is a good person," "Betty did the right thing," and
"We should all donate to charity." When we make these assessments, we rely on key terms such
as "good," "right," "ought," and "should." In the early 20th century, British and American
philosophers argued that if we want to fully understand morality, we must analyze the meaning
of the key moral terms we use.
Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they
merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?
Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God,
the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
3. Applied ethics is another branch of ethics. The task in applied ethics is to resolve specific
moral issues and morally concrete cases which arise in different areas of life. It attempts to
explain and justify positions on specific moral problems such as capital punishment, euthanasia,
abortion, sex outside marriage, etc. Applied ethics borrows insights from metaethics and
theoretical normative ethics in an attempt to resolve specific moral problem (thus the name
‘applied ethics’). When, for example, applied to medicine, this form of applied ethics is called
“medical ethics” (sometimes expand to include biotechnology and called “bioethics”). When
applied to commerce, this becomes “business ethics”; when applied to the press, “journalism
ethics”; when applied to engineering; “engineering ethics and so on. As an area of enquiry
environmental ethics is one area of applied ethics. One thing is different about environmental
ethics, however. Many environmental ethicists, alone among various other applied ethicists,
envision that the scope of their field moves outside the human sphere.
Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide,
animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By
using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to
resolve these controversial issues.
Activity 4: What is the difference between normative ethics and non normative ethics? Discuss
some of the normative theories.
Activity 5: What is morality for you?
Lesson Two: Definition of Morality

Introduction
The term “morality” can be defined in two ways: descriptively and normatively.
Descriptive definition of “morality” refers to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior.
Normative definition of “morality” refers to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions,
would be put forward by all rational persons.
What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in
formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct
put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to
all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they
report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and
evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation
of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited
to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group
takes as most important.
Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of
conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the
normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral
prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality”
normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would
endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of
rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons
would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of
moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom
morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that
morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make
it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral
theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings,
even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God.
The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct
put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of
large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different
descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of
conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing
some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite
extensively.
“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the
normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put
forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that
society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has
no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational
persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a
code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of
“morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some
behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a
normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that

philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept.
Activity 6: Compare and contrast descriptive and normative sense of ethics?
Some major distinctions and what morality is not

(a) Etiquette is sometimes included as a part of morality, but it applies to norms that are
considered less serious than the kinds of norms for behavior that are part of morality in the basic
sense.
(b) Law: According to Webster’s Dictionary, law is a rule of conduct or an action recognized by
custom or decreed by formal enactment, community, or group. We tend to obey two types of laws:
the natural and conventional.
Natural law is unwritten but universal law. It is a theory that an eternal, absolute moral law can be
discovered by reason and is derivable form reason. It is distinct from the law of nature, applies to
all rational creatures, exists independently of human preferences and inclinations, and applied
cross culturally.
According to James Donald, natural law “follows from the nature of man and the world and
consists of rights like the rights of self- defense and the right to individual property. So naturally it
is ‘higher’ than any other conventional law enacted by a human authority like a government
because no conventional law has jurisdiction over natural law.”
The existence of natural law has been debated for centuries. In fact, there are many who do not
believe in natural law and are always advocating the supremacy of conventional law.
Conventional law is a system created by and for human beings usually in public deliberations like
a council of elders or representatives in national legislatures. It derives form that part of the moral
code which is enforceable and varies from society to society and from culture to culture. The
following are some of the major differences between morality and law:
Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written
rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is
often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are
often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law.
Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality.
In other words, morality is not reducible to law. This means that finding out what the law permits
or requires is not necessarily to find out what is morally right. For example, there were and are
many unjust laws which allow to do harm to others, e. g. Slavery law. We know that the law
permits many immoralities like breaking of promises that do not have the stature of legal contracts.
This points us that we cannot simply assume that law is the whole of the moral story, for the law
may permit or require immoral behavior. The law itself is always subject to moral scrutiny and
moral criticism; and the question of whether one should obey the law is always, in principle, an
open one.
(c) Religion differs from morality or a moral system in that it includes stories about events in the
past, usually about supernatural beings, that are used to explain or justify the behavior that it
prohibits or requires. Sometimes there is no distinction made between a moral code and a code of
conduct put forward by a religion, and there is often a considerable overlap in the conduct
prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality. But religions may
prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behavior that are explicitly
labeled as moral guides, and may allow some behavior that is prohibited by morality. Sometimes
morality is regarded as the code of conduct that is put forward by religion, but even when this is
not the case, morality is thought by many to need some religious explanation and justification.
However, just as with law, some religious practices and precepts are criticized on moral grounds,
e.g., discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
On some level that finding out a religious leader or a religious tradition says is not necessarily to
find out what is morally right. Religious leaders can make moral mistakes; they can do, and have
done, morally reprehensible things. The Roman Catholic Inquisition, which involved the
execution of religious heretics, is one of the moral errors committed by religious leaders.
Religious reasons are perfectly good reasons for deciding how one will conduct one’s own life
when one’s actions are self-regarding. But when the liberty and welfare of other persons are
involved, interfering with liberty or harming others requires a moral justification that must able
to stand on its own philosophical feet, independent to appeal to religious authority. One does not
have the right to violate the moral right s of others or to otherwise harm others for religious
reasons those others do not share.
Activity : Is it moral right to obey authorities when they request you to do actions which do
inflict harm to your fellow human being?
Morality is different from obedience to authority in general. A moral agent always retains the
right to question commands if there is any reason to believe that those commands involve an
unjustifiable infringement of rights or will lead to harm to persons or other sentient beings.
Genuine morality involves maintaining moral autonomy; it involves more than mere unreflective
obedience to external authority. Moral agents always retain not only the right but the obligation
to evaluate the moral appropriateness of any order they might be given as well as the right and
duty to resist if, after careful reflection, they are convinced that they are being instructed to do
something that will not bear moral scrutiny. In moral matters not to decide is equivalent to
deciding. To blindly obey orders is itself to make a decision in favor of what the order require.
And that is a decision for which one is morally accountable.
So, here we are pointing out how reflective morality is different from conventional or
traditional morality. Actually doing moral philosophy or actually developing a reflective
morality is different from just reporting, as social scientists do, the mores or morality of a
particular group or culture.
Morality that exists in various cultures and societies is usually based on custom or tradition and it
is presented to its members, often without critical evaluation throughout their childhood and
adult years. There is nothing necessarily wrong or bad about this approach to training the young
of a society and also its members as a whole. However, in order for customs and traditions to be
effective and continuously applicable to the member of a society, they must be critically
analyzed, tested and evaluated and this is where reflective morality comes in.
Following conventional morality is simply to be directed by traditional or customary rules or
practices without any examination or criticism of them. On the contrary, reflective morality
arises when an individual begins to reflect on what principles will govern his/her actions,
particularly when those actions involve the rights and interests of other persons (or other sentient
beings) or the integrity of the agent.
An individual acts as an autonomous moral agent when he/she acts on the basis of principles
which are not merely imposed from without (e.g. by peer pressure, by some authority) or which
have been internalized as a matter of mere habit, but rather when those principles have been
consciously evaluated and accepted by the individual as the correct principle to direct his/her
behavior. The autonomous moral agent has a clear sense of why he/she acts as he/she does and
deliberately accepts acting that way on the basis of a reasoned, reflective conviction that such
action is morally right.
It is important, then, all customs, traditions, systems of ethics, rules and ethical theories be
carefully analyzed and critically evaluated before we continue to accept or live by them.
2.3. To Whom or what does Morality Apply?

Dear students, when we discuss the application of morality, we may consider four aspects:
religious morality, morality and nature, individual morality and social morality.
Religious morality: it refers to a human being in relation to a supernatural being or beings. For
example, in the Jewish and Christian traditions the first three of the Ten Commandments pertain
to this kind of morality. These commandments deal with a person’s relation with God, not with
any other human beings. By violating any of these three commandments, a person could,
according to this particular code of ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally
toward anyone else?
Activity 8: Discuss what the Ten Commandments are and how they were delivered to both the
Jews and Christians?
The following are the Ten Commandments paraphrased from Exod. 20: 1-17.
1. I am the Lord, your God; do not worship false gods.
2. Do not take the name of God in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Do not kill.
6. Do not commit adultery.
7. Do not steal.
8. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. Do not covet your neighbor’s spouse.

10. Do not covet your neighbor’s belongings.
Morality and nature: it refers to a human being in relationship to nature. Natural morality has
been prevalent in all primitive cultures. More recently, the Western world has also become
aware of the significance of dealing with nature in a moral manner. Some see nature as being
valuable only for the good of humanity, but many others have come to see it as good in itself,
worthy of moral consideration. Somebody’s action could be moral or immoral depending upon
his/her actions toward the natural things around him/her.
Individual Morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of

morality that may or may not be sanctioned by any society or religion. It allows for a “higher
morality,” which can be found within the individual rather than beyond this world in some
supernatural realm. A person may or may not perform some particular act, not because society,
law, or religion says he may or may not, but because he himself thinks it is right or wrong from
within his own conscience. This area of morality can also refer to obligations individuals have to
themselves (to promote their own well-being, to develop their talents, to be true to what they
believe, and so on). Commandments 9 and 10, although applicable to social morality, are good
examples of at least an exhortation to individual morality. “Do not covet” would seem to be an
internal control of each individual not to even think of stealing a neighbor’s goods or spouse.
Social Morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the
most important aspect o morality in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in
more ethical systems than any of the others.
The most important human moral issues arise for most ethicists when human beings come
together in social groups and begin to conflict with ne another. For example, perhaps 70 to 90
percent of all of Jewish and Christian ethical systems’ admonitions are directed toward how one
human being is to behave toward others. Jesus stated this message succinctly when He said that
the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor. As we have seen I
the above list, three of the Ten Commandments are directed specially to God, while seven are
directed to ward other human beings – the social aspect taking precedence.
Non religious ethical systems, too, often stress the social aspect. Ethical egoism says in its most
commonly stated form, “everyone ought to act in his own self interest,” emphasizing the whole
social milieu. Utilitarianism emphasizes the good of all concerned. Deontological theories such
as Kantianism stress actions toward others. These and other moral theories will be dealt in detail
in units 3 and 4.
Activity 9: What is the source of morality or ethical system?
Activity 10: Who can be held morally or ethically responsible for their actions?
Have you ever judged the action of nonhuman beings moral or immoral? Why?
2.4. Who is morally or ethically responsible?

As the evidence gained so far compels us to say that morality say that morality pertains to human
beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. If one wants to attribute morality to
supernatural beings, on has to do so on faith. If one wants to hold animals or plants morally
responsible for destructive acts against each other or against humans, then one has to ignore most
of the evidence that science has given us concerning the instinctual behavior of such beings and
the evidence of our own everyday observations. Animals as well as plants are classified as either
amoral or nonmoral that is they have no moral sense or to be out of the moral sphere altogether.
Therefore, when we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in reference only to
human beings. There are, of course, limitations on when human beings can be held morally
responsible, but the question of moral responsibility should be not brought up where nonhumans
are involved.
2.5. Where does morality come from?

Dear students, this question will be discussed in depth in the unit two but for your information
here we will it see briefly. There always has been a great deal of speculation about where
morality or ethics comes from.
Just notice the following questions:
Has morality or ethics always been a part of the world, originating from some supernatural being
or imbedded within nature itself, or is it strictly a product of the minds of human being? Or is it
some combination of two or all three of these?
Because morality and ethics deal with values having to do with good, bad, right and wrong, are
these values totally objective that is, “outside of” human beings? Are they subjective or strictly
“within” human beings? Or are they a combination of the two?
Values as totally objective: there are three ways of looking at values being totally objective:
1. They come from some supernatural being or beings.
2. There are moral laws somehow embedded in and found in nature itself.
3. The world and objects in it have value with or without the presence of valuing human
beings.
The Supernatural Theory: some people believe that values come from some higher or
supernatural being, beings or principle – the Good (Plato), the gods (the Greeks and Romans),
Yahweh or God (the Jews), God and His Son, Jesus (the Christians), Allah (the Muslims), and
Brahma (the Hindus), to name a few. They believe that these beings or principles embody the
highest good themselves and that they reveal to human beings what is right or good and what is
bad or wrong. If human beings want to be moral, then they must follow these principles or the
teachings of these beings. If they do not, then they will be considered immoral and will usually
be promised some temporal or eternal punishment for their transgressions. Or if they believe in a
principle, they will be untrue to the highest moral principle.
The Natural Law Theory: according to the proponents of this theory morality is embodied in
nature and that there are “natural laws” that human beings must adhere to if they are to be moral.
For example, some people state that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against “natural
moral law”.
Values as total subjective: Contrary to the above arguments there those who would argue that
morality stems strictly from within human beings. That is they believe that things can have
values and be classified as good, bad, right, or wrong if and only if there is some conscious being
who can put value on these things. To put differently, if there are no human beings, then there
can be no values.
Activity 11: Are moral values objective or subjective?
2.6. WHY ETHICS

The following are reasons why we study ethics/moral philosophy:
1. We live in a world where we must not only make decisions but where there are right ways and
wrong ways of doing things. There are right ways and wrong ways of treating a sick man, of
building a bridge, and of making a will. There are also right ways to attain the value of life.
Ethics should make clear to us why one act is better than another.
2. In order to have any orderly social life, we must have agreements, principles or rules of
procedure. Any cooperative group activity is founded upon convictions, customs and
agreements. But, Ethics seeks the most intelligent principles of behavior, or the principle which
will make life most wholesome. To some persons morality seems to be mere convection and a
thing extraneous to their own desires. But morality must not be a mere matter of inheritance, of
convection or emotion. Human beings must come to see the naturalness and desirability of a
moral code which is the result of applying their intelligence to the facts of life and human
experience.
3. Moral conducts and ethical system, both of the past and of the present, must be intelligently
appraised and criticized. In the moral development of the race, guides and checks have been built
up for conduct. These have been expressed outwardly in convictions, customs, legal and
ecclesiastical laws and rules and codes of various kinds. This outward and inward guides and
checks must be intelligently criticized.
4. Ethics seeks to point out to men the true values of life. Ethics asks and attempts to answer
such questions: what values are most worthwhile? Why is one act better than another? Needless
to mention, no person can live a satisfactory life who ahs not set up for himself/ herself some
scale of values. Ethics is a study of human values. It attempts to stimulate the moral sense,
discover the true values of life and inspire human beings to join in the quest for these values.
2.7. Key terms in Ethics

Ethical, moral, unethical, immoral
In ordinary language, we frequently use the words ethical and moral (and unethical and immoral)
interchangeably; that is we speak of the ethical or moral person or act. What do these words
mean?
Ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning character. Morality comes from the Latin moralis,
meaning custom or manners. Ethics, then, seems to pertain to the individual character of a person
or persons, whereas morality seems to point to the relationships between human beings.
Nevertheless, in ordinary language, whether we call a person ethical or moral or an act unethical
or immoral does not really make any difference. However, in philosophy the term ethics is also
used to refer to a specific area of study – the area of morality, which concentrates on human
conduct and human values.
Amoral means having no moral sense, or being indifferent to right and wrong. This term can be
applied to very few people. Babies are considered amoral and, rarely, some adult human beings,
such as those severely mentally disturbed and those with no moral education. Amoral can also
mean not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Nonmoral is that which is out of the sphere of morality. Animals, plants and inanimate objests
are essentially nonmoral. For example, inanimate objects such as cars and guns are neither moral
nor immoral. A person using the car or gun may use it immorally, but the things themselves are
nonmoral.
Moral skepticism is one of the classical problems in ethics. The term skepticism is derived from
the Greek word skepsis, which means doubt. Skeptics may doubt the rationality, universality or
objectivity of morality. In this, they also may raise epistemological points concerning the
difficulty or impossibility of attaining knowledge and truth in ethics.
Moral skepticism most commonly takes the following forms:
(a) Relativism doubts the existence of universal, absolute moral values. Its basic claim is that
morality is created by humans. So, morality is relative to particular individuals, societies
or cultures.
(b) Subjectivism doubts the objectivity of moral statements. Its basic claim is that moral
statements are merely descriptions of our subjective states. Thus, morality is relative to
individuals and is really a matter of personal opinions.
(c) Emotivism doubts that reason plays a significant role in morality. Its basic claim is that
ethical judgments are just the expression of our emotion. Morality is subjective in a
radical sense because it is really a matter of personal feelings.
Other ethical theories respond to skepticism by claiming instead that morality is universal,
objective, or rational. Some of these responses will also affirm that moral knowledge and truth
are possible.
A classical debate in ethics revolves around the issue of whether the central point of concern is
the agent or his/her actions. The following are main perspectives:
Deontology (from the Greek word deon, meaning duty) assigns primary importance to the
concept of moral obligation or duty and focuses on our intentions in acting.
Teleology (from the Greek word telos, meaning end) concentrates on the ends or goals of our
actions.
Hedonism (from the Greek word hedone, meaning pleasure) and utilitarianism state that
behavior should be aimed at producing the good life, and they focus on such consequences of our
actions as pleasure, happiness, or utility.
Virtue ethics centers on the agent and attaches significance to the person’s character and traits.
It asks what the main virtues are, what characterizes a virtuous person and how we can become
virtuous.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you believe that morality should or should not be based solely on religion? Why? Is it
possible to establish a moral system without any reference to religion? If so, how? If not,
why not? What could be the basis of such a system if not religion? Discuss your position
in detail.
2. Do you feel that you should always be moral? Why or why not? Do you think that human
beings in general should be moral? Why or why not?
UNIT TWO: TELEOLOGICAL/CONSEQUENTIALIST MORAL THEORIES
TELEOLOGICAL/CONSEQUENTIALIST MORAL THEORIES

INTRODUCTION
Moral philosophy/ethics is an intellectual discipline that challenges you to formulate
reasons for why you believe what you believe on moral issues. You might find that you
have no good reasons for thinking what you think on one or more issues. So you might
change your mind. However, philosophy does not require you to do that. What it does
require you to do is to step back from what you believe and examine it. One common
way in which philosophers try to examine what think about morality is to construct
moral theories.
For centuries in different societies human actions have been judged good or bad, right or
wrong based on theories or systems of justice developed, tested, revised and debated by
philosophers and/ or elders in that society. Such theories are commonly known as ethical
theories. Codes of ethics have then been drawn up using and based on these ethical
theories.
Dear students, in this lesson we attempt to understand the significance of a good moral
theory giving explanation for moral issue that arise in one’s life. The word ‘theory’ comes
from the Greek word theoria meaning ‘contemplation’ or ‘sight’. This etymology helps us
understand what a moral theory is. A moral theory is a way of looking at morality.
In what way does a moral theory look at morality? It is noted that there are many different
kinds of phenomena that have to do with morality. This is so much the case that the whole
area might seem a terrible tangle and confusion. For example, some people think that the
treatment of animals is a very important and pressing moral problem, whilst others think
that we are wasting our time in worrying about animals when so many human beings are
leading miserable live, and that the welfare of animals raises no serious moral issues/
problems.
What a moral theory does is to try to bring order to this confusion by telling us which are
the most important of the issue with which morality concerns itself, which are of less
importance, and which of no real importance at all.
Why should we care about being clear about such issues?

One answer that many philosophers would give is that, moral philosophy/ethics, in
constructing moral theories, aspires us to give us guidance as to what we should do or how
we should live.
A theory is a conceptual framework for explaining a set of facts or concepts. In ethics,
theory explains why a certain action, for example, breach of one’s code of conduct, is
wrong and why we ought to act in certain ways and be a certain type of person.
Moral theory also helps us clarify, critically analyze and rank the moral concerns raised by
particular moral issues.
Activity 1: What is the significance of a moral theory?

A good theory should also be able to explain the whole rang or scope of morality, not just
particular type of actions. In addition, a theory should take into account what we, upon
reflection, believe to be right. Moral theory, however, goes beyond our everyday notion
about morality. It requires consistency in our thinking and the weeding out of those
commonly held beliefs about morality that are inconsistence or superfluous.
Moral theory can be compared to road maps. A good theory offers guidance or sign posts
for thinking about and resolving moral issues. Although we may just happen to come upon
a good solution, a moral theory, like a road map, make it more likely that we will reach our
destination with the least amount of wrong turns and aggravation.
By providing guidelines, moral theories help us identify conflicts and contradictions in our
thinking and make more satisfactory moral decisions.
Nevertheless, like maps, not all theories are equally good. Some may be good as far as they
go, but they leave out too much. In this case we may want ot combine them with other
theories or “maps”.
Theories provide us with a framework for discussing real-life moral issues; they also shape
our worldviews or interpretations of our experiences.
Dear students, so far we have discussed the significance of moral theory in one’s life to
judge certain conduct or action as good/right or bad/wrong.
Now in this unit and the following two units we discuss most widely used ethical theories.
There are many ethical theories, but we consider only a few that are most widely discussed
and used namely teleological moral theory/consequentialism, deontological moral theory
and virtue ethics theory.
Consider the following example: fire in a movie theater, and discuss how to solve
such a moral dilemma.
You are a teacher taking a group of school children to a film. You and the children are in
an upstairs balcony in the theater. In the middle of the show some one cries ‘fire’ and
there is strong smell of smoke. The audience begin to panic and rush for the exits. You
fear that the children will be trampled by the crowed so you herd them towards the near
door as flames begin to lick up the walls towards the ceiling. When you get to the door
you discover that it is a large plate glass door which can’t be unlocked from the inside. In
front of it there is a man who has stopped, frozen in panic. Every second counts and so
you seize him by the shoulder and smash him against the glass. The glass cracks and you
push him through it leaving a hole big enough for the children to step over his bleeding
and unconscious body. You get them all out just before the ceiling of the theater falls
down killing the man and everyone else left inside. Suppose that you know that what you
do to the man will probably cause his death. Are you justified doing it, in killing him, to
save the lives of the children?
 CONSEQUENTIALISM/ TELEOLOGICAL MORAL THEORIES

Many ethicists contend that moral rightness must be determined by appeal to the
consequences of an action. If the consequences are good, the act is right. If the
consequences are bad, the act is wrong. Hence, a consequentialist theory measures the
morality of action on the bases of the nonmoral consequences. Consequentialists consider
the ratio of good to evil that an action produces. The right action is the one that produces,
will probably produce, or is intended to produce at least as great a ratio of good to evil as
any other action. The wrong action is the one that does not.
Activity 2: How a morality that looks at consequences is different from one looks at
motives?
Is it sometimes right to lie? It might be if telling the truth might lead to someone getting
killed. Is it sometimes right to kill somebody? It might be if the alternative was that even
more people got killed. To think this way is to judge actions in terms of their
consequences.
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences

of our actions. According to consequentialist theories, correct moral conduct is
determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences.
And the value of an action depends on its consequences. So one should choose an action
depending on what you expect its consequences to be. The consequences of an action can
depend on very fine details of the circumstances in which it is performed.
Suppose you tell an innocent lie to a friend to avoid having lunch with her. That may
have good consequences if it allows you finish an assignment on time. But, bad
consequences, if it adds to her feeling of social rejection just enough to push her into a
serious depression. So we cannot say that telling lies for social convenience is always
right or always wrong; in any particular case the good and bad consequences have to be
balanced off against one another.
For consequentialists an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable. Consequentialist theories are also called teleological
theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole
determining factor of its morality.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad
consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater,
then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is
morally improper.
Activity 3: explain the difference between egoism, altruism and utilitarianism.
2.3. TYPES OF CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY

There are three commonly discussed types of consequentialism theory. Theses are egoism,
altruism and utilitarianism.
2.3.1. EGOISM
In ethics egoism entails that the individual self is either the motivating moral force and is,
or should, be the end of moral action.
This theory puts an individual’s interests and happiness above everything else. With
egoism any action is good as long as it maximizes an individual’s overall happiness.
People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for
themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only
according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests? Conversely, can an
individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The
answers will depend on an account of free will.
There are two kinds of egoism: ethical egoism, which states how people ought to behave
as they pursue their own interests, and psychological egoism, which describe how people
actually behave.
The term “egoism” derives from the Latin term “ego,” which means “I” in English. Egoism
should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of one’s
own importance, or of one’s own activities. Altruism is the opposite of egoism.
Activity 4: What is the difference between ethical egoism and psychological egoism?
2.3.1.1. Psychological egoism
The difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that while the former is
not an ethical theory but the latter is an ethical theory. Psychological egoism is a scientific,
descriptive approach to egoism, whereas ethical egoism is the philosophical normative
prescriptive approach.
In other words, psychological egoism points out how people do act whereas ethical egoism
lay down how they should act.
Psychological egoism offers an explanation of human affairs, in effect a description of
human nature, which he or she believes to be wholly self-centred and self-motivated.
There are two sorts of psychological egoism: the strong form and the weak form.
The strong form holds that people always act in their own self-interest because they are
psychologically constructed to do so. But the weak form maintains that people often, but
not always, act in their own self-interest. However, neither can operate as a basis for ethical
egoism. If the strong form is accepted, then why tell people to do what they cannot help
doing? If I am psychologically constructed to always act in my own self-interest, what
good will it do to tell me that I should always in my own self-interest?
Activity 5: What is ethical egoism? How different from mere selfishness?
2.3.1.2. ETHICAL EGOISM

The second variant of egoism is normative in that it stipulates the agent ought to promote
the self above other values. This theory does not attempt to describe human nature, but
asserts how people ought to behave. It comes in two general forms: rational egoism and
ethical egoism.
Rational egoism claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance
with reason. In the strong version not only is it rational to pursue one's own interests, it is
also irrational not to pursue them. In the weak version, it is rational to pursue one's own
interests but there may be occasions when not pursuing them is not necessarily irrational.
A problem with rational egoism is that reason may dictate that one's own interests should
not govern one's actions. At this point the possibility of conflicting reasons in a society
need not be evoked, but it can be claimed that reason may invoke an impartiality clause,
demanding that in a certain situation, one's interests should not be furthered. For
example, consider a free-rider situation. In marking students' papers, a teacher may
reasonably argue that to offer inflated grades is to make his life easier, for marking
otherwise would incur negative feedback from students, having to spend time counselling
on writing skills, etc.; it is even foreseeable that inflating grades may never have negative
consequences, for he could free-ride on the tougher marking of the rest of the department
or university and not worry about the negative consequences of a diminished reputation.
However, impartiality considerations demand an alternative course-reasonably it is not
right to change grades to make life easier. Here self-interest conflicts with reason.
Ethical egoism is the theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with
morality. In the strong version it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own
good and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it claims that whilst it is
always moral to promote one's good, it is not necessarily never moral not to do so-that is,
there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral
action.
The Psychological variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs.

That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be
described otherwise. Ethical egoism proposes that people should be so motivated,
regardless of what presently motivates their behavior.
Ethical egoism is not necessarily the same thing as selfishness, which might not be in an
egoist’s self-interest at all. That is if somebody is always acting selfishly, people might hate
him/her and generally treat him/her badly. Therefore, it might be more in one’s self-interest
to be not selfish.
There are three kinds of ethical egoism.
(a) Individual ethical egoism: it states that everyone ought to act in my self-interest.
(b) Personal ethical egoism maintains that I ought to act in my own self-interest but that I
make no claims about what anyone else ought to do.
(c) Universal ethical egoism states that everyone should always act in his/her own self-
interest regardless of the interests of others unless their interests also serve his/hers.
2.3.1.2. 1. Individual and Personal ethical egoism

Dear students, in the aforementioned statements we have seen the principles of both forms.
But what is the problem found in such principles?
One of the serious problems with individual and personal ethical egoism is that they apply
only to one individual and cannot be laid down for humanity in general since morality or a
moral system is applicable to all human beings. These individualistic systems fail to take
into consideration that human beings are not isolated from each other and that moral and
immoral actions of all persons affect other people around them.
However, they are only good for one person and may not even be beneficial to that
individual, especially if anyone else finds out he/she is really operating under such a
system. So these views of egoism are impossible to accept.
2.3.1.2. 2. Universal ethical egoism
This version is most commonly presented by egoists because it is, as its name states,
“universal” i.e. an ethical theory that claims to apply to all human beings.
Universal ethical egoism does not state only what I should do. But it concerns itself with
what all human beings should do if the want to be moral: they should always act in their
own self-interest. This version is advocated by Epicurus and Ayn Rand, among others.
These philosophers wish to set up an ethical system for all human beings to follow, and
according to them the most ethical view point is for everyone to act in his/her own self-
interest.
Activity 6: What are problems related with universal ethical egoism if human beings set it
as moral principle?
The following are some of the problems related with universal ethical egoism.
1. It is inconsistent in that it is unclear whose self-interest should be satisfied.
2. what is meant by “everyone” is not clear
3. there is difficulty in determining how to give moral advice
4. it does not fit well with the helping professions

Nevertheless, ethical egoism has certain advantages
1. it is easier for egoists to know what is in their own self-interest than it is for other
moralists who are concerned about more than self interest to know what is in the
best interest of others.
2. it encourages individual freedom and responsibility and fits in best, according to
egoists, with our capitalist economy.
3. it can work successfully as long as people are operating in limited sphere, isolated
from each other, thereby minimizing conflicts.
Limitation of these advantages is that (a) it offers no consistent method of resolving
conflict of self-interest. (b) we do not live in isolated, self-sufficient communities but we
are interdependent socially as well as economically.
In summery, it would seem that people can be ethical egoists with some success only if
they advocate some other theory besides ethical egoism and only if they do not tell others
that this what the are doing. This makes for a questionable ethical theory at worst and an
impractical one at best. Considering all of these problems, we should not settle on ethical
egoism until we have first examined other ethical theories.
2.3.2. Altruism
In altruism an action is right if the consequences of that action are favorable to all except
the actor. Butler argued that we have an inherent psychological capacity to show
benevolence to others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at
least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.
Psychological altruism holds that all human action is necessarily other centred and other
motivated. A parallel analysis of psychological altruism results in opposing conclusions
to psychological egoism, and again arguably the theory is just as closed as psychological
egoism. If both theories can be validly maintained, it follows that the soundness of either
or both must be questioned.
Suppose, for example, that Degu, who is not good at swimming, saves a child from
drawing in Lake Abaya. What ultimately motivated him to do this? It would be odd to
suggest that it’s ultimately his own benefit that Degu is seeking. After all, he is risking
his own life in the process.
Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people’s pleasure. They will act for
the sake of someone else even if it decreases their own pleasure and causes themselves
pain.
Activity 7: Are people by nature altruistic?

We can differentiate egoistic and altruistic desires in the following way:
One’s desire is egoistic if (and only if) it concerns (what one perceives to be) the benefit
of oneself and not anyone else. In the contrary, one’s desire is altruistic if (and only if) it
concerns (what one perceives to be) the benefit of at least someone other than oneself.
Altruists reject the theory of psychological egoism and argue instead that humans are
instinctively benevolent. And instinctive benevolence, they argue, is the feature of our
human nature which is the basis of our altruistic moral obligations
2.3.3. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory principally advocated by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It derives its name from “utility,” which means
usefulness. For a utilitarian, an act is right (moral) if it is useful in bringing about a
desirable or good end. According to this theory, every one should perform that act or
follow that moral rule that will bring about the greatest good or happiness for everyone
concerned. We will briefly discuss the two types of this theory based on acting and
following rules.
For utilitarian an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Unlike egoism, this theory puts a group’s interest and happiness above those of an
individual, for the good of many. Thus an action is good if it benefits the maximum
number of people.
Dear students, to make more understandable the concept of utilitarianism consider the
following examples.
Example1. Imagine that you are an administrator deciding where to build a hospital. It
could be built in either of two districts. In district A 2000 people will be served by it, who
at present have no accessible hospital. In district B 4000 people will be served, who also
have no hospital at present. According to utilitarian, where do you think the hospital is
going to be built? You ought build the hospital in district B (other things being equal),
since that way more people will gain, and presumably the balance of overall pleasure over
pain will be greater.
Example 2: suppose that two people are stranded in the desert. They know they will be
rescued in six hours. One of them has a bottle of water and since she is thirsty she drinks
half of it. She can save the other half for the thirst she knows will return in a couple of
hours. Or she can give it to other person, who will suffer extreme dehydration if he does
not get a drink soon. According to utilitarianism, she ought to give the other person the
remaining water. For if she saves it for herself she will avoid some painful thirst; but if she
gives to the other person, she will avoid his having a mush more painful experience.
The aforementioned examples points out some basic features of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on actions: it discusses what you should do
rather than what your motives should be or whether you are a good or bad person. It takes
into account the consequences of action – what will or may happen if you do the action.
Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Dear students as we have discussed all three of teleological/consequentialist theories

(egoism, altruism and utilitarianism) focus on the consequences of actions for different
groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of
each other. They also yield different conclusions. Let us make clear the concepts using
the following example. A woman was traveling through a developing country when she
witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked the
hired driver to pull over to assist but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past
the scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained that in his country if someone
assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for
the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible
for the death. The driver continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore
usually left unattended and often die from exposure to the country’s harsh desert
conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism, the woman in this illustration would only
be concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected.
Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of
ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as
others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences
reveals that assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the
negative consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must
consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear,
and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of
her action.
Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action
that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One
thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is
understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism
from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian
view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as
well as one's own good.
Activity 8: What is the difference between utilitarianism and hedonism?
Utilitarianism can demand that people sacrifice their own pleasure for the greater
pleasure of others, for utilitarianism bases action on pleasure and pain. And since it
recommends creating as much pleasure as possible and as little pain as possible, it clearly
takes pleasure to be desirable. But it does not say that you should take your own pleasure
as more desirable than any one else’s.
On the other hand, though hedonism takes pleasure to be desirable, it says that the most
important thing for you is your own pleasure. So utilitarianism is a moral theory that calls
for a lot of self-sacrifice, hedonism is that focuses on the choices that involve the most
overall pleasure for yourself.
2.3.3.1. Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of
utilitarianism.
Bentham's work opens with a statement of the principle of utility,
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do… By the principle of
utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever
according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the
party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote
or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of
every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.”
He introduces a method of calculating the value of pleasures and pains, which has come
to be known as the hedonic calculus. Bentham says that the value of a pleasure or pain,
considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration,
certainty/uncertainty and propinquity/remoteness. In addition, it is necessary to consider
“the tendency of any act by which it is produced” and, therefore, to take account of the
act’s fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind and
its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the extent, or the number of people affected by the
action.
Two features of Bentham’s theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we tally
the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case
basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is
known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure
and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of
Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism.
Activity 9:To what extent do you agree with Bentham’s concept of calculating pains and
pleasure resulting from our actions. Discuss.
On the other hand, Mill rejects a purely quantitative measurement of utility and says,
“It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds
of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that
while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the
estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.”
Mill notes that, contrary to what its critics might say, there is “no known Epicurean
theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect… a much higher
value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation.” However, he accepts that this is
usually because the intellectual pleasures are thought to have circumstantial advantages,
i.e. “greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, &c.” Instead, Mill will argue that some
pleasures are intrinsically better than others.
The accusation that hedonism is “doctrine worthy only of swine” has a long history. In
Nicomachean Ethics (Book 1 Chapter 5) Aristotle says that identifying the good with
pleasure is to prefer a life suitable for beasts. The theological utilitarians had the option of
grounding their pursuit of happiness in the will of God; the hedonistic utilitarians needed
a different defense. Mill’s approach is to argue that the pleasures of the intellect are
intrinsically superior to physical pleasures.
In the mid-twentieth century a number of philosophers focused on the place of rules in
utilitarian thinking. It was already accepted that it is necessary to use rules to help you
choose the right action because the problems of calculating the consequences on each and
every occasion would almost certainly result in you frequently choosing something less
than the best course of action. Paley had justified the use of rules and Mill says,
“It is truly a whimsical supposition that, if mankind were agreed in considering utility to
be the test of morality, they would remain without any agreement as to what is useful,
and would take no measures for having their notions on the subject taught to the young,
and enforced by law and opinion… to consider the rules of morality as improvable, is one
thing; to pass over the intermediate generalisations entirely, and endeavour to test each
individual action directly by the first principle, is another… The proposition that
happiness is the end and aim of morality, does not mean that no road ought to be laid
down to that goal… Nobody argues that the art of navigation is not founded on
astronomy, because sailors cannot wait to calculate the Nautical Almanack. Being
rational creatures, they go to sea with it ready calculated; and all rational creatures go out
upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and
wrong.”
However, rule utilitarianism proposes a more central role for rules that was thought to
rescue the theory from some of its more devastating criticisms, particularly problems to
do with justice and promise keeping.
Activity 10:What is the difference between Bentham’s and Mills concept of

utilitarianism?
According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the

consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighes the consequences of each particular action,
rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as
“stealing is wrong.” Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable
consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral
rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method
for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor’s lawn furniture, is
judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is
morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for
everyone. J.S. Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Act utilitarianism: tells one to consider seriously the consequence of all actions
before choosing that with the best overall advantage or happiness for the maximum
number of people.
Rule utilitarianism: tells one to obey these rules that bring the maximum
happiness to the greatest number of people. Rule utilitarianism maintains that a
behavioral code or rule is good if the consequences of adopting that rule are
favorable to the greatest number of people.
Social Contract Theory: In addition to ethical egoism, ethical altruism, and

utilitarianism, as defined above, we also find an egoistic consequentialist strategy in
social contract theory. Thomas Hobbes argued that, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is
better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. For without
moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish interests. Our property,
our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore
motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized
community.
Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and
killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are
enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once
their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore,
for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing
agency which punishes us if we violate these rules.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with
pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to
maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest
number’.
Dear students, so far we have discussed the concept of utilitarianism from the view point of
different classical philosophers. Now let us discuss the criticism forwarded by the
opponents of this theory.
2.4. CRITICISMS
Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have
developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have
different targets. A criticism of its hedonistic assumptions might be part of a rejection of
utilitarianism as a whole or a reason for moving to a different form of utilitarianism. A
criticism made by one person for one reason may be used later by someone else for a
different reason.
1. Ignores justice
As Rosen has pointed out, claiming that act utilitarians are not concerned about having
rules is to set up a "straw man". Similarly, Hare refers to "the crude caricature of act
utilitarianism which is the only version of it that many philosophers seem to be
acquainted with." Given what Bentham says about second order evils it would be a
serious misrepresentation to say that he and similar act utilitarians would be prepared to
punish an innocent person for the greater good. Nevertheless, whether they would agree
or not, this is what critics of utilitarianism claim is entailed by the theory. A classic
version of this criticism was given by H. J. McCloskey:
“Suppose that a sheriff were faced with the choice either of framing a Negro for a rape
that had aroused hostility to the Negroes (a particular Negro generally being believed to
be guilty but whom the sheriff knows not to be guilty)—and thus preventing serious anti-
Negro riots which would probably lead to some loss of life and increased hatred of each
other by whites and Negroes—or of hunting for the guilty person and thereby allowing
the anti-Negro riots to occur, while doing the best he can to combat them. In such a case
the sheriff, if he were an extreme utilitarian, would appear to be committed to framing the
Negro.”
By "extreme" utilitarian, McCloskey is referring to what later came to be called "act"
utilitarianism. Whilst this story might be quoted as part of a justification for moving from
act to rule utilitarianism McCloskey anticipates this and points out that each rule has to
be judged on its utility and it is not at all obvious that a rule with exceptions has less
utility. The above story invites the reply that the sheriff would not frame the innocent
because of the rule "do not punish an innocent person". However, McCloskey asks, what
about the rule “punish an innocent person when and only when to do so is not to weaken
the existing institution of punishment and when the consequences of doing so are
valuable”?
In a later article, McCloskey says:

"Surely the utilitarian must admit that whatever the facts of the matter may be, it is
logically possible that an 'unjust' system of punishment—e.g. a system involving
collective punishments, retroactive laws and punishments, or punishments of parents and
relations of the offender—may be more useful than a 'just' system of punishment?"
2. Calculating utility is self-defeating
An early criticism, which was addressed by Mill, is that if time is taken to calculate the
best course of action it is likely that the opportunity to take the best course of action will
already have passed. Mill responds, that there has been ample time to calculate the likely
effects,
“...namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind
have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the
prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent…It is a strange notion that the
acknowledgment of a first principle is inconsistent with the admission of secondary ones.
To inform a traveller respecting the place of his ultimate destination, is not to forbid the
use of landmarks and direction-posts on the way. The proposition that happiness is the
end and aim of morality, does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or
that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another.
Men really ought to leave off talking a kind of nonsense on this subject, which they
would neither talk nor listen to on other matters of practical concernment.”
More recently, Hardin has made the same point. “It should embarrass philosophers that
they have ever taken this objection seriously. Parallel considerations in other realms are
dismissed with eminently good sense. Lord Devlin notes, ‘if the reasonable man ‘worked
to rule’ by perusing to the point of comprehension every form he was handed, the
commercial and administrative life of the country would creep to a standstill.’”
It is such considerations that lead even act utilitarians to rely on ‘rules of thumb’ as Smart
has called them. The objection arises when utilitarianism is mistakenly taken to be a
decision-making procedure rather than a criterion of what is right.
3. Predicting consequences
It has been argued that it is impossible to do the calculation that utilitarianism requires
because consequences are inherently unknowable. Daniel Dennett describes this as the
Three Mile Island effect. Dennett points out that not only is it impossible to assign a
precise utility value to the incident, it is impossible to know whether, ultimately, the near-
meltdown that occurred was a good or bad thing. He suggests that it would have been a
good thing if lessons had been learned which would have prevented even more serious
incidents from happening later.
Russel Hardin rejects such arguments. He argues that it is possible to distinguish the
moral impulse of utilitarianism, which is “to define the right as good consequences and to
motivate people to achieve these” from our ability to correctly apply rational principles
which will among other things “depend on the perceived facts of the case and on the
particular moral actor’s mental equipment.” The fact that the latter is limited and can
change doesn't mean that the former has to be rejected. "If we develop a better system for
determining relevant causal relations so that we are able to choose actions that better
produce our intended ends, it does not follow that we then must change our ethics. The
moral impulse of utilitarianism is constant, but our decisions under it are contingent on
our knowledge and scientific understanding."
From the beginning, utilitarianism has recognized that certainty in such matters is
unobtainable and both Bentham and Mill said that it was necessary to rely on the
tendencies of actions to bring about consequences. G. E. Moore writing in 1903 said,
“We certainly cannot hope directly to compare their effects except within a limited
future; and all the arguments, which have ever been used in Ethics, and upon which we
commonly act in common life, directed to shewing that one course is superior to another,
are (apart from theological dogmas) confined to pointing out such probable immediate
advantages…
An ethical law has the nature not of a scientific law but of a scientific prediction: and the
latter is always merely probable, although the probability may be very great.”
4. It is too demanding
Act utilitarianism not only requires everyone to do what they can to maximize utility but
to do so without any favouritism. Mill says, "As between his own happiness and that of
others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator." Critics say that this combination of requirements leads to
utilitarianism making unreasonable demands. The well-being of strangers counts just as
much as that of friends, family or self. “What makes this requirement so demanding is the
gargantuan number of strangers in great need of help and the indefinitely many
opportunities to make sacrifices to help them." As Shelly Kagan says, “Given the
parameters of the actual world, there is no question that …(maximally)… promoting the
good would require a life of hardship, self-denial, and austerity…a life spent promoting
the good would be a severe one indeed.”
Hooker describes two aspects to the problem: act utilitarianism requires huge sacrifices
from those who are relatively better off and also requires sacrifice of your own good even
when the aggregate good will be only slightly increased. Another way of highlighting the
complaint is to say that in utilitarianism, "there is no such thing as morally permissible
self-sacrifice that goes above and beyond the call of duty." Mill was quite clear about
this, “A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness,
it considers as wasted.”
One response to the problem is to accept its demands. This is the view taken by Peter
Singer who says, “No doubt we do instinctively prefer to help those who are close to us.
Few could stand by and watch a child drown; many can ignore the avoidable deaths of
children in Africa or India. The question, however, is not what we usually do, but what
we ought to do, and it is difficult to see any sound moral justification for the view that
distance, or community membership, makes a crucial difference to our obligations."
Others argue that a moral theory that is so contrary to our deeply held moral convictions
must either be rejected or modified. There have been various attempts to modify
utilitarianism to escape its seemingly over-demanding requirements. One approach is to
drop the demand that utility be maximized. In Satisficing Consequentialism Michael

Slote argues for a form of utilitarianism where “an act might qualify as morally right
through having good enough consequences, even though better consequences could have
been produced.” One advantage of such a system is that it would be able to accommodate
the notion of supererogatory actions.
5. Aggregating utility
The objection that ‘utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons’
came to prominence in 1971 with the publication of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. The
concept is also important in Animal rights advocate Richard Ryder’s rejection of
utilitarianism in which he talks of the ‘boundary of the individual’, through which neither
pain nor pleasure may pass. However, a similar objection was noted by Thomas Nagel in
1970 who claimed that consequentialism ‘treats the desires, needs, satisfactions, and
dissatisfactions of distinct persons as if they were the desires, etc., of a mass person.’ and
even earlier by David Gauthier who wrote that utilitarianism supposes ‘that mankind is a
super-person, whose greatest satisfaction is the objective of moral action. . . . But this is
absurd. Individuals have wants, not mankind; individuals seek satisfaction, not mankind.
A person’s satisfaction is not part of any greater satisfaction.’ Thus the aggregation of
utility becomes futile as both pain and happiness are intrinsic to and inseparable from the
consciousness in which they are felt, rendering impossible the task of adding up the
various pleasures of multiple individuals.
A response to this criticism is to point out that whilst seeming to resolve some problems
it introduces others. Intuitively, there are many cases where people do want to take the
numbers involved into account. As Alastair Norcross has said, “suppose that Homer is
faced with the painful choice between saving Barney from a burning building or saving
both Moe and Apu from the building…it is clearly better for Homer to save the larger
number, precisely because it is a larger number… Can anyone who really considers the
matter seriously honestly claim to believe that it is worse that one person die than that the
entire sentient population of the universe be severely mutilated? Clearly not.”
Activity 11: Discuss the criticisms related with consequentialism.
Dear students, so far we have thoroughly examined what consequentialist theory of

morality and its limitation. Now let us move to the other moral theory which stands in a
different position than consequentialism.
UNIT SUMMERY
In summery, utilitarianism is an improvement over egoism in that it attempts to take into
consideration all people concerned by any moral action. However, it runs into the difficulty
of determining what would be good for others, a difficult not arise in egoism.
In act utilitarianism, the problem is that there are no moral rules or guides to go by; a
person must decide what is right for all people in each situation he/ she faces.
In rule utilitarianism, the problem is finding out which rules really cover all human beings
and situations.
The last problem with each kind of utilitarianism is that it lends itself to the cost-benefit
analysis type of thinking, which is often the result of “the greatest good for the greatest
number” kind of morality. Or, in other words, that any end, especially any good end,
justifies any means used to attain it. There is a question among many moralists whether we
should only concentrate on consequences or ends and ignore other things such as means or
motives when making moral decisions. This issue will be discussed further when Kant’s
moral concept is presented in the next unit.
Another advantage of utilitarianism has over ethical egoism is that it would be much more
suitable for people in the helping professions (nurse, doctor, teacher, minister, social
worker) in that it is concerned with the best good consequences for everyone.
EXERCISES FOR REVIEW
1. Explain the difference between teleological and deontological morality?
2. What is the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism?
3. Explain individual and personal ethical egoism?
4. Explain the moral concept of ethical egoism? How it is different from other forms?
5. What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
6. What are the difficulties related with utilitarianism in general?
Discussion Questions
1. Analyze and critically evaluate Ethiopia national and foreign policies, attempting to
determine whether they are based on egoism in any of its forms or on act or rule
utilitarianism. Support your views with examples.
2. To what extent do you feel that Christian ethics is based on egoism or utilitarianism?
Give specific examples.
3. Describe the extent to which you are any form of ethical egoist or an act or rule
utilitarian. Show how these theories have or have not worked for you as you have dealt
with specific moral issues and problems.
4. To what extent do you believe members of your family or your friends are egoists or
utilitarian? Describe how these theories work for them and for those around them.
UNIT THREE: DEONTOLOGICAL THEOREIS OF MORALITY

INTRODUCTION
A duty is a moral obligation that an agent has towards another person, such as the duty not
to lie. Etymologically, duties are actions that are due to someone else, such as paying
money that one owes to a creditor. In a broader sense, duties are simply actions that are
morally mandatory. Medieval philosophers such as Aquinas argued that we have specific
duties or obligations to avoid committing specific sins. Since sins such as theft are
absolute, then our duty to avoid stealing is also absolute, irrespective of any good
consequences that might arise from particular acts of theft. From the 17th to the 19th
centuries, many philosophers held the normative theory that moral conduct is that which
follows a specific list of duties. These theories are also called deontological theories, from
the Greek word deon, or duty, since they emphasize foundational duties or obligations.
Deontological or nonconsequentialist theories of morality are based on something other
than consequences of a person’s actions. In the previous section we have seen that in both
egoism and utilitarianism, for example, moralities are concerned with the consequences or
outcomes of human actions. Egoists maintain that people act in their own self-interest, and
utilitarians are concerned that people act in the interest of all concerned.
On the other hand the proponents of nonconsequentialist theories claim that consequences
do not, and should not, enter into judging whether actions or people are moral or immoral.
Actions are to be judged solely on whether they are right and people solely on whether they
are good, based on some other “higher” standard or standards of morality. That is, acts or
people are to be judged moral or immoral regardless of the consequences of actions. One of
these theories is the Divine Command theory. If one believes that there is a God, goddess
or gods and that He/She or they have set up a series of moral command, then an action is
right and people are good if and only if they obey these commands, regardless of the
consequences that might follow.
Activity 1: can you explain how teleological view of morality is different from
deontological one? Identify some sorts of activities which bound to one of these principles.
The word deontology derives from the two Greek words deon, which means duty and logos
which means science (or study). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of
those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden,
or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that
guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to
(aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of
person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain,
deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in
opposition to consequentialists.
In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices

by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about. The most familiar
forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to
consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no
matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden. On such
familiar deontological accounts of morality, agents cannot make certain wrongful choices
even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be minimized
(because other agents will be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful choices). For
such deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such
norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be
maximized by each agent. In this sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said to have
priority over the Good. If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be undertaken,
no matter the Good that it might produce (including even a Good consisting of acts in
accordance with the Right).
The theory of deontological reason does not concern itself with the consequences of the
action but rather with the will of the action. The deontologist denies that the moral value of
actions or practices is exclusively a function of the consequences of those actions or
practices.
Some deontologists (e.g., Immanuel Kant) deny that consequences have any relevance
whatever the moral evaluation of actions or practices. For example Kant held that morality
forbids us to lie, and there is simply no exception to this rule. Even the fact that the murder
of some innocent person might be prevented by lying could not be sufficient to justify lying
according to Kant. Or strict rule deontologists such as Kant, once a moral rule is
established, it is exceptionless.
Other deontologists are more moderate in their views of the nature of moral rules. W.D.
Ross, for example, held that we have a number of prima facie duties, or duties which can
come into conflict with one another. That is, Ross held that we have a variety of general
duties which arise form our positions and relations in the world, including duties to avoid
doing harm, to prevent harm, to repair harm done, just to mention few. This will be
discussed in next section. In any given concrete situation, two or more of these duties might
come into conflict and the task in being moral is, according to Ross, to discern which of our
conflicting duties takes priority in that concrete situation.
Contemporary deontologists tend to allow that consequences (particularly bad
consequences which can be avoided) are morally important, even though they, too, den that
consequences are the only relevant consideration in moral decision making.
3.1. Types of Deontological Theories.

There are four types of deontological theories
1. Duty theory: this theory is championed by Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf. They
classified these duties that a good person should acquire under three headings: duties to
God, duties to oneself, and duties to others.
Duties to God include honoring him, serving him, and praying to him. Duties to oneself
include preserving one's life, pursuing happiness, and developing one's talents. Duties to
others fall into three groups. First, there are family duties which involve honoring our
parents, and caring for spouses and children. Second, there are social duties which involve
not harming others, keeping promises, and benevolence. Third, there are political duties
that involve obedience to the laws, and public spirit. Based on these duties it would be
wrong, for example, for us to skip worship services, to commit suicide, or steal from
others. The morality of all actions, then, is determined in reference to these duties. For
almost 200 years, duty theory dominated normative ethical theories.
2. Rights theory: According to rights theorists, these are rights that all people naturally
have, and the rest of us are obligated to acknowledge. 17th century British philosopher
John Locke argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life,
health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these (life, liberty and property) are our natural
rights, given to us by God.
Proponents maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the
rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression.
There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural
insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal
insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense
that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth,
they are inalienable which means that I can not hand over my rights to another person, such
as by selling myself into slavery.
3. Categorical imperative as developed by the18th-century German philosopher Immanuel
Kant. Influenced by Grotius and Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to
oneself and others, such as developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to others.
However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses
our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the
"categorical imperative." We will discuss this point in the next section briefly. .
4. prima facie duties: A fourth deontological theory is a recent revision of duty theory
advocated by British philosopher W.D. Ross. He argues that our duties are "part of the
fundamental nature of the universe." The notion of prima facie duties is also discussed in
the following section.
Activity 2: compare and contrast act and rule utilitarianism with act and rule
nonconsequentialism
Generally, nonconsequentialist theories are divided into two categories: Act

nonconsequentialism and rule nonconsequentialism. Dear students, you remember that we
have seen the categories of utilitarianism (act and rule). However, the main difference
between act and rule utilitarianism and act and rule nonconsequentialism is that the former
are based on consequences but the latter are not. Just recall the difference between
consequentialism and nonconsequentialism.
3.1.1. ACT NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

According to act nonconsequentialists there are no general moral rules or theories at all but
only particular actions, situations and people about which we cannot generalize. We must
approach each situation individually as one of a kind and somehow decide what is the right
action to take in that situation. It is the “how we decide” in this theory that is interesting.
Decisions for act nonconsequentialist are “intuitionsitic.” That is, what a person decides is
based on what he/she believes or feels (intuits) to be the right action to take. This is
because he/she cannot use any rules or standards.
This theory is highly individualistic because individuals must decide what they feel is the
right thing to do and then do it. They are not concerned with consequences but they must
do what they feel is right given this particular situation and the people involved in it.
However, act nonconsequentialism is criticized for its limitations. One of the main
criticisms is based on the difference in feelings. That is, if feelings differ from person to
person, how can conflict between opposing feelings be resolved? It is obvious that we
disagree with another person’s feelings; we have no rational ground for saying, “your
feeling is wrong, whereas mine is right.” We cannot simply arbitrate feelings as we do
reasons and judgments of evidence. Therefore, a theory of morality which relies on feelings
alone, like act nonconsequentialism, is highly doubtful.
Act nonconsequentialism is also criticized for its focus on the questionable assumption that
all situations and people are completely different and that none of them have anything in
common.
The following are other criticisms of act nonconsequentialism
(a) How do we know that what we feel is morally correct with no other guides?
(b) How do we know when we have sufficient facts to make a moral decision?
(c) With morality so highly individualized, how do we know we are doing the best thing for
anyone else involved in the situation?
(d) Can we really relay on nothing but our momentary feelings to make moral decisions?
(e) How will we be able to justify our actions except by saying, “Well, it felt like the right
thing for me to do?”
Activity 3: why do you think act utilitarianism does not serve as principle of morality?
3.1.2. RULE NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

According to rule nonconsequentialists, there are or can be rules that are the only bases of
morality and that consequences do not matter. It is the following of the rules (which are
right moral commands) that is moral or that makes an action right. According to this
theory, the concept of morality cannot applied to what happens, as that of act
nonconsequentialists, since one follows the rules. In the forgoing sections we discuss three
different rule nonconsequentialists theories. The main thing that these theories differ is in
how they establish the rules.
Activity 4: How is a morality that looks at motives is different from one looks at
consequences?
3.1.2.1. Divine Command Theory

The divine command theory is the view that moral actions are those which conform to
God's will. That is, morality is not based on consequences of actions or rules, nor on self
interest but rather on something higher than these mere mundane events of the imperfect
human or natural worlds. Morality is based on the existence of an all-good being or
beings who are supernatural and who have communicated to human beings what they
should do and do not in a moral sense. To be moral human beings must follow the
commands and prohibitions of such a being or beings. Charity, for example, is morally
proper because God endorses it, and murder is wrong because God condemns it.
Activity 5: according to the divine command theory when is an act wrong or a person is
immoral? How this theory is different from rule utilitarianism?
There are both normative and metaethical versions of this theory. The normative version
is proposes a test for determining whether any action is right or wrong: if it conforms to
God's will, it is morally permissible, if it does not, then it is impermissible. As a
normative theory, the divine command theory is difficult to maintain given the
epistemological problems of accessing the will of God. The metaethical version simply
makes the factual claim that God's will is the foundation of morality. Here, the content of
God's will does not have to be explored.
As a metaethical theory, there are three ways that the divine command theory can be
understood.
The weakest version claims only that, within certain religious communities, the meaning
of the statement, "charity is good," is that God wills us to be charitable. This version has
only limited implications. Although it may represent the views of a particular religious
group, it has no bearing on what those outside that group mean by the statement "charity
is good." A stronger version of the divine command theory concedes that charity is
morally good in and of itself, but that God's will provides us with the motivation to be
charitable. On this view, only the religious believer has the motivation to be moral.
Theoretically, unbelievers could also act morally, but it would only be by accident since
unbelievers would lack the motivation for consistent moral behavior. The strongest
version of the divine command theory states that morality is a creation of God's will.
According to this view, charity is good because God has willed that charity is good. The
claim here is not about what particular communities mean by the word "good" or what
motivations people have to be good. Instead, the claim is that moral conduct is identical
to the conduct which God commands of us. This final version of the divine command
theory is the most controversial, and has been criticized from several angles.
GENERAL CRITICISMS OF THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

During the Enlightenment, the divine command theory fell under attack from two distinct
camps. One group argued that moral standards, like mathematical truths, are eternal and
fixed in the nature of universe. Philosophers such as Samuel Clarke argued that moral
values can be intuitively perceived and, again, like mathematical truths, can be
understood by any rational being. Since God is a rational being, then God, too, endorses
these eternal standards of morality. However, God's mere acceptance of moral standards
in no way creates them, and in that sense is no different than a human's acceptance of
moral standards.
A second group argued that moral standards are fundamentally human-based, and are
neither fixed in the nature of the universe, nor in the will of God. For example, Thomas
Hobbes argued that moral standards are necessary human conventions which keep us out
of a perpetual state of war. Others, such as Hume and Mill, argued that they are based on
human instinct. In either case, God's will is irrelevant to ethical standards.
A more recent times, the divine command theory has been attacked on two principle
grounds.
First, if morality is a dictate of God's will, then it is conceivable that God could choose to
reverse the present state of morality and thus make evil actions moral. That is, God could
make murder or stealing morally permissible if he chose. The theologian's reply to this
possibility is that God would not reverse the moral standards he has created since God
himself is infinitely good, and God would not will anything which is contrary to his own
good nature. This reply, however, leads to the second problem with the divine command
theory. If moral goodness is merely a creation of God's will, then the phrase "God is
good" becomes meaningless. For, by definition, "God is good" would simply mean that
God's nature is in accord with what he wills. Since there are no pre-existing moral
restrictions to what God can will, then even if God was malicious, he would be good.
Clearly, this makes nonsense of the notion of goodness.
Activity 6: is the criticism presented against the divine command theory plausible for
you? Why or why not?
3.1.2.2. Kant’s Duty Ethics: Categorical Imperative

18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the primary proponent
in history of what is called deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of duty. On
Kant’s view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is
achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. The categorical
imperative is Kant’s famous statement of this duty: “Act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Kantian ethics emphasis the importance of motives, of acting on principles and of

adhering general rule of conduct.
Consider the following example: fire in a movie theater, and discuss it.
You are a teacher taking a group of school children to a film. You and the children are in
an upstairs balcony in the theater. In the middle of the show some one cries ‘fire’ and
there is strong smell of smoke. The audience begin to panic and rush for the exits. You
fear that the children will be trampled by the crowed so you herd them towards the near
door as flames begin to lick up the walls towards the ceiling. When you get to the door
you discover that it is a large plate glass door which can’t be unlocked from the inside. In
front of it there is a man who has stopped, frozen in panic. Every second counts and so
you seize him by the shoulder and smash him against the glass. The glass cracks and you
push him through it leaving a hole big enough for the children to step over his bleeding
and unconscious body. You get them all out just before the ceiling of the theater falls
down killing the man and everyone else left inside. Suppose that you know that what you
do to the man will probably cause his death. Are you justified doing it, in killing him, to
save the lives of the children?
Most people have many conflicting reaction to this case. But one of them is likely to be
something like: there are things that you just cannot do to people. This reaction, as we
seen, conflicts sharply with the whole spirit of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism says you
must evaluate each action by its consequences, but the reaction says there are some
actions that no possible consequences could justify. Some means cannot justify any end.
Does the end justify the means? When?
Kant’s ethics focuses on motives, rules and the way we treat people. To see how these are
related consider the above example. Suppose you do smash the man through the glass and
that he dies. You might defend yourself by saying ‘but my aim was not to kill him; I was
trying to save the children.’ If you are saying this, you are taking of the man as a means
to the aim of end of saving the children. But, this according to Kant is a moral mistake; in
fact one of the really basic mistakes in moral thinking. To act morally, according to
Kantian ethics, is to act according to motives that never think of people as means but
always as ends. You should never think of people as if they were just tools to be
manipulated to achieve some end, even when that end is a very desirable one.
Kant presents a criterion of moral obligation, which he calls the categorical imperative.
Kant’s account of morality fits squarely into the deontological tradition and is found in
three principal books: The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), The
Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and The Metaphysics of Morals (1798). Kant’s
writings indicate that he was aware of the moral traditions that went before him, such as
virtue theory which bases morality on good character traits, and consequentialist accounts
which base morality solely on the consequences of actions. In all of his ethical writings,
Kant rejects these traditional theories of morality and argues instead that moral actions
are based on a "supreme principle of morality" which is objective, rational, and freely
chosen: the categorical imperative. Kant’s clearest account of the categorical imperative
is in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.
In Section one of the Foundations, Kant argues against traditional criteria of morality,
and explains why the categorical imperative can be the only possible standard of moral
obligation. He begins with a general account of willful decisions. The function of the
human will is to select one course of action from among several possible courses of
action (for example, my choice to watch television right now instead of going jogging).
Our specific willful decisions are influenced by several factors, such as laziness,
immediate emotional gratification, or what is best in the long run. Kant argues that in
moral matters the will is ideally influenced only by rational considerations, and not by
subjective considerations such as one’s emotions. This is because morality involves what
is necessary for us to do (e.g., you must be benevolent), and only rational considerations
can produce necessity. The rational consideration which influences the will must be a
single principle of obligation, for only principles can be purely rational considerations.
Also, the principle must be a command (or imperative) since morality involves a
command for us to perform a particular action. Finally, the principle cannot be one that
appeals to the consequences of an action, such as the joy I would receive from watching
television; for, appeals to consequences involve emotional considerations.
The only principle which fulfills these requirements is the categorical imperative which
dictates the universalizability of our actions: "act only on that maxim by which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law." Morality, then, consists of
choosing only those actions that conform to the categorical imperative.
Maxim: a rule or principle on which one acts.
Universalisation: a maxim can be universalized when it can be willed without
contradiction as a maxim on which all act.
Kinds of imperatives
Kant distinguishes between types of imperatives. Imperatives in general are commands
that dictate a particular course of action, such as "you shall clean your room."
1. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that depend on my preference for a
particular end, and are stated in conditional form, such as, "If I want to lose weight, then I
should eat less." In this case, the command to eat less hinges on my previous preference
to lose weight. There are two types of hypothetical imperatives. Problematic-hypothetical
imperatives involve rules of skill based on preferences that vary from person to person
(such as "If you want to be a doctor then you should go to medical school"). Assertoric-
hypothetical imperatives, by contrast, involve rules of prudence based on the preference
everyone has to be happy (such as, "If you want to be happy, then you should go
skydiving"). None of these hypothetical imperatives, however, are moral imperatives,
since the command is based on subjective considerations that are not absolute.
2. Categorical Imperative: A categorical imperative, by contrast, is an absolute

command, such as "you shall treat people with respect," which is not based on subjective
considerations. Thus, the supreme principle of morality is a categorical imperative since
it is not conditional upon one’s preferences.
What are Kant’s arguments for the Categorical Imperative? First, consider an example.
Consider the person who needs to borrow money and is considering making a false
promise to pay it back. The maxim that could be invoked is, “when I need of money,
borrow it, promising to repay it, even though I do not intend to.” But when we apply the
universality test to this maxim it becomes clear that if everyone were to act in this
fashion, the institution of promising itself would be undermined. The borrower makes a
promise, willing that there be no such thing as promises. Thus such an action fails the
universality test.
Activity 7: what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
Kant continues by describing the sources of the above types of imperatives. His
discussion uses four technical terms:
(a) Analytic propositions: propositions that are true by definition, such as "All wives are
women."
(b) Synthetic propositions: propositions that are not true by definition, such as "Jones is
bald."
(c) A posteriori knowledge: knowledge attained through the five senses, such as the fact
that the door is brown.
(d) A priori knowledge: intuitive knowledge attained without use of the senses, such as
2+2=4.
Kant argues that problematic-hypothetical imperatives are analytic or true by definition,
such as, "If you want to be a doctor, then you should go to medical school." Assertoric-
hypothetical imperatives are less clear since the concept of happiness varies so greatly, as
in the statement, "If you want to be happy, then you should go skydiving." However,
Kant believes that even this statement is true by definition since if we fully understand
happiness, we will also know the means to happiness.
Finally, categorical imperatives are synthetic a priori, since the statement "you shall treat
people with respect," is not true by definition, and is not known by means of the senses.
Kant’s point is that the categorical imperative involves a unique type of knowledge that is
intuitive, yet informative.
In view of this background, Kant presents the single categorical imperative of morality:
act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
Hypothetical imperative: an imperative dependent on a desire or other inclination for its

applicability to an agent.
Categorical imperative: an imperative not dependent on a desire for its applicability to an
agent.
Although there is only one categorical imperative, Kant argues that there can be four
formulations of this principle:
(i) The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to
become through your will a universal law of nature."
(ii) The Formula of the End Itself: "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."
(iii) The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time
as making universal law through its maxims."
(iv) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a
law-making member of a kingdom of ends."
Kant’s categorical imperative is the normative position that states: Always act in such a
way that you could wish the rule of your action to become a universal law.
According to Kant, each of these four formulations will produce the same conclusion
regarding the morality of any particular action. Thus, each of these formulas offers a step
by step procedure for determining the morality of any particular action.
The formula of the law of nature tells us to take a particular action, construe it as a
general maxim, then see if it can be willed consistently as a law of nature. If it can be
willed consistently, then the action is moral. If not, then it is immoral. To illustrate the
categorical imperative, Kant uses four examples that cover the range of morally
significant situations which arise. These examples include committing suicide, making
false promises, failing to develop one’s abilities, and refusing to be charitable. In each
case, the action is deemed immoral since a contradiction arises when trying to will the
maxim as a law of nature. The formula of the end itself is more straight forward: a given
action is morally correct if when performing that action we do not use people as a means
to achieve some further benefit, but instead treat people as something which is
intrinsically valuable. Again, Kant illustrates this principle with the above four examples,
and in each case performing the action would involve treating a person as a means, and
not an end.
The moral imperative is unconditional; that is, its imperative force is not tempered by the
conditional “if I want to achieve some end, then do X.” It simply states, do X. Kant
believes that reason dictates a categorical imperative for moral action.
Kant’s Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Kant’s criticisms of utilitarianism have become famous enough to warrant some separate
discussion. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of
happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the
most people is the moral course of action. Kant has an insightful objection to moral
evaluations of this sort. The essence of the objection is that utilitarian theories actually
devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. If we allow utilitarian calculations to
motivate our actions, we are allowing the valuation of one person’s welfare and interests
in terms of what good they can be used for. It would be possible, for instance, to justify
sacrificing one individual for the benefits of others if the utilitarian calculations promise
more benefit. Doing so would be the worst example of treating someone utterly as a
means and not as an end in themselves.
Another way to consider his objection is to note that utilitarian theories are driven by the
merely contingent inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal
moral law dictated by reason. To act in pursuit of happiness is arbitrary and subjective,
and is no more moral than acting on the basis of greed, or selfishness. All three emanate
from subjective, non-rational grounds. The danger of utilitarianism lies in its embracing
of baser instincts, while rejecting the indispensable role of reason and freedom in our
actions.
Activity 8: what do you think are the limitations of Kant’s moral principle? Is it possible
to bind to categorical imperatives in the real world? How can we resolve conflicts of
duties?
Criticisms of Kant’s Duty Ethics

There are several criticisms of Kant’s system. Some of them are as follow.
Although Kant showed that some rules would become inconsistent when universalized,
this does not tell us which rules are morally valid. He argued, for example, one should
not break a promise because it would be inconsistent to state, “I promise that I will repay
you in thirty days, but I don’t intend to keep my promise.”
However, suppose that not breaking a promise would result in someone’s being seriously
injured or even killed. According to Kant, we have to keep the promise, and because
consequences do not matter, an innocent person would simply have to be hurt or killed.
But which is, in fact, more important – keeping a promise or preventing an innocent
person from being inured or killed? Kant never tells us how to decide between conflicting
duties to obey different but equally absolute rules. We have a duty not to kill and a duty
not to break promises, but which takes precedence when the two duties conflict?
Another criticism of the concept of absolute rules is that it leaves open to question
whether a qualified rule is any less universalizable than one that is unqualified. Kant
never distinguished between making an exception to a rule and qualifying that rule. For
example if the rule is stated, “Do not break promises but I feel that I can beak them any
time I want to,” I would making an unfair exception of my self to the rule. Kant felt that
one should not make an exception to a general rule, and certainly not for one’s self alone.
3.1.2.3. W.D. Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
The last deontological theory is a recent revision of duty theory by British philosopher
W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. The word prima facie literally means
“at first glance” or “on the surface of things.” Then, a prima facie duty is one that all
human beings must do in a general sense before any other considerations enter into the
picture.
Activity 9: Discuss how Ross’s prima facie duties notion solve the problems related with
Kantianism and other moral theories. Does the view of Ross resolve the moral problems
that arise due to conflict of duties?
Ross agreed with Kant that morality should not basically rest on consequences, but he
disagreed with the underlying absolutism of Kant’s theories. Ross might be placed
somewhere in between Kant and the rule utilitarians in that he felt that we had a certain
prima facie duties that we must generally always adhere to unless serious circumstances
or reasons told us to do otherwise. In other words, Ross did not believe that consequences
make an action right or wrong, but he did think that it is necessary to consider
consequences in making moral choices.
The following are some of Ross’s prima facie duties which he believes reflect our actual
moral convictions:
1. Duties of Fidelity ( or faithfulness): the duty to keep promises, telling the truth
2. Duties of Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
3. Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
4. Duties of Justice: the duty to recognize merit, keeping the improper distribution of
good and bad.
5. Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others in the area of
virtue, intelligence and happiness
6. Duties of Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue, happiness and
intelligence
7. .Duties of Nonmaleficence (noninjury): the duty to not injure others, and

preventing injury to others
Although some of these duties are the same as those of traditional duty theory, such as
beneficence and self-improvement, Ross does not include duties to God, self-
preservation, or political duties. This list is not complete, Ross argues, but he believes
that at least some of these are self-evidently true. Ross recognizes that situations will
arise when we must choose between two conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose
I borrow my neighbor's gun and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit
of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take
vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the
gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others
and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these
duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my
duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun.
Ross establishes two principles to deal with the conflict of the prima facie duties:
1. Always do that act that is in accord with the stronger prima facie duty, and
2. Always do that act that has the greatest prima facie rightness over prima facie
wrongness.
As we have seen Ross, like Kant, had rules that human beings should adhere to because it
was their moral obligation to do so. He also improved on Kant a great deal in the area of
what to do when duties (especially prima facie duties) conflict.
However, Ross’s theory was criticized for the following cases:
a. How are we to decide which duties are prima facie?
b. On what bases are we to decide which ones take precedence over the rest?
c. How can we determine when there is sufficient reason to override one
prima facie duty with another?
Dear students, so far we have thoroughly discusses varieties of deontological theories of
morality, now let us assess its advantages and limitations generally.
Activity 10: discuss the strengths and limitations of deontological theories vis-à-vis
teleological theories.
3.2. STRENGTH AND LIMITATION OF DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

The Advantages of Deontological Theories
On the one hand, deontological morality, in contrast to consequentialism, leaves space for
agents to give special concern to their families, friends, and projects. At least that is so if
the deontological morality contains no strong duty of general beneficence, or, if it does, it
places a cap on that duty's demands. Deontological morality, therefore, avoids the overly
demanding and alienating aspects of consequentialism and accords more with
conventional notions of our moral duties.
Likewise, deontological moralities, unlike most views of consequentialism, leave space
for the supererogatory. A deontologist can do more that is morally praiseworthy than
morality demands. A consequentialist cannot, assuming none of the consequentialists'
defensive maneuvers earlier referenced work. For such a pure or simple consequentialist,
if one's act is not morally demanded, it is morally wrong and forbidden. Whereas for the
deontologist, there are acts that are neither morally wrong nor demanded, some—but only
some—of which are morally praiseworthy.
As we have seen, deontological theories all possess the strong advantage of being able to
account for strong, widely shared moral intuitions about our duties better than can
consequentialism.
Finally, deontological theories, unlike consequentialist ones, have the potential for
explaining why certain people have moral standing to complain about and hold to
account those who breach moral duties. For the moral duties typically thought to be
deontological in character—unlike, say, duties regarding the environment—are duties to
particular people, not duties to bring about states of affairs that no particular person has
an individual right to have realized.
The Weaknesses of Deontological Theories
On the other hand, deontological theories have their own weak spots. The most glaring
one is the seeming irrationality of our having duties or permissions to make the world
morally worse. Deontologists need their own, non-consequentialist model of rationality,
one that is a viable alternative to the intuitively plausible, “act-to-produce-the-best-
consequences” model of rationality that motivates consequentialist theories. Until this is
done, deontology will always be paradoxical. Patient-centered versions of deontology
cannot easily escape this problem. It is not even clear that they have the conceptual
resources to make agency important enough to escape this moral paradox. Yet even
agent-centered versions face this paradox; having the conceptual resources (of agency
and agent-relative reasons) is not the same as making it plausible just how a secular,
objective morality can allow each person's agency to be so uniquely crucial to that
person.
Second, it is crucial for deontologists to deal with the conflicts that seem to exist between
certain duties, and between certain rights. Kant's bold proclamation that “a conflict of
duties is inconceivable” is the conclusion wanted, but reasons for believing it are difficult
to produce. The intending/foreseeing, doing/allowing, causing/aiding, and related
distinctions certainly reduce potential conflicts for the agent-centered versions of
deontology; whether they can totally eliminate such conflicts is a yet unresolved
question.
One well known approach to deal with the possibility of conflict between deontological
duties is to reduce the categorical force of such duties to that of only “prima facie” duties.
This idea is that conflict between merely prima facie duties is unproblematic so long as it
does not infect what one is categorically obligated to do, which is what overall, concrete
duties mandate. Like other softenings of the categorical force of deontological obligation,
the prima facie duty view is in some danger of collapsing into a kind of
consequentialism. This depends on whether “prima facie” is read epistemically or not,
and on (1) whether any good consequences are eligible to justify breach of prima facie
duties; (2) whether only such consequences over some threshold can do so; or (3)
whether only threatened breach of other deontological duties can do so.
Third, there is what might be called the paradox of relative stringency. There is an aura of
paradox in asserting that all deontological duties are categorical—to be done no matter
the consequences—and yet asserting that some of such duties are more stringent than
others. A common thought is that “there cannot be degrees of wrongness with
intrinsically wrong acts…. Yet relative stringency—“degrees of wrongness”—seems
forced upon the deontologist by two considerations. First, duties of differential stringency
can be weighed against one another if there is conflict between them, so that a conflict-
resolving, overall duty becomes possible if duties can be more or less stringent. Second,
when we punish for the wrongs consisting in our violation of deontological duties, we
(rightly) do not punish all violations equally. The greater the wrong, the greater the
punishment deserved; and relative stringency of duty violated (or importance of rights)
seems the best way of making sense of greater versus lesser wrongs.
Fourth, there are situations—unfortunately not all of them thought experiments—where
compliance with deontological norms will bring about disastrous consequences. To take a
stock example of much current discussion, suppose that unless A violates the
deontological duty not to torture an innocent person (B), ten, or a thousand, or a million
other innocent people will die because of a hidden nuclear device. If A is forbidden by
deontological morality from torturing B, many would regard that as a reductio ad
absurdum of deontology.
Deontologists have six possible ways of dealing with such “moral catastrophes”
(although only two of these are very plausible). First, they can just bite the bullet and
declare that sometimes doing what is morally right will have tragic results but that
allowing such tragic results to occur is still the right thing to do. Complying with moral
norms will surely be difficult on those occasions, but the moral norms apply nonetheless
with full force, overriding all other considerations. We might call this the Kantian
response, after Kant's famous hyperbole: “Better the whole people should perish,” than
that injustice be done. One might also call this the absolutist conception of deontology,
because such a view maintains that conformity to norms has absolute force and not
merely great weight.
This first response to “moral catastrophes,” which is to ignore them, might be further
justified by denying that moral catastrophes, such as a million deaths, are really a million
times more catastrophic than one death. This is the so-called “aggregation” problem. John
Taurek famously argued that it is a mistake to assume harms to two persons are twice as
bad as a comparable harm to one person. For each of the two suffers only his own harm
and not the harm of the other (Taurek 1977). Taurek's argument can be employed to deny
the existence of moral catastrophes and thus the worry about them that deontologists
would otherwise have. Robert Nozick also stresses the separateness of persons and
therefore urges that there is no entity that suffers double the harm when each of two
persons is harmed (Nozick 1974). (Of course, Nozick, perhaps inconsistently, also
acknowledges the existence of moral catastrophes.) Most deontologists reject Taurek's
radical conclusion that we need not be morally more obligated to avert harm to the many
than to avert harm to the few; but they do accept the notion that harms should not be
aggregated. Deontologists' approaches to the nonaggregation problem when the choice is
between saving the many and saving the few are: (1) save the many so as to acknowledge
the importance of each of the extra persons; (2) conduct a weighted coin flip; (3) flip a
coin; or (4) save anyone you want (a denial of moral catastrophes).
The second plausible response is for the deontologist to abandon Kantian absolutism for
what is usually called “threshold deontology.” A threshold deontologist holds that
deontological norms govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the
consequences become so dire that they cross the stipulated threshold, consequentialism
takes over. A may not torture B to save the lives of two others, but he may do so to save a
thousand lives if the “threshold” is higher than two lives but lower than a thousand.
There are two varieties of threshold deontology that are worth distinguishing. On the
simple version, there is some fixed threshold of awfulness beyond which morality's
categorical norms no longer have their overriding force. Such a threshold is fixed in the
sense that it does not vary with the stringency of the categorical duty being violated. The
alternative is what might be called “sliding scale threshold deontology.” On this version,
the threshold varies in proportion to the degree of wrong being done—the wrongness of
stepping on a snail has a lower threshold (over which the wrong can be justified) than
does the wrong of stepping on a baby.
Threshold deontology (of either stripe) is an attempt to save deontological morality from
the charge of fanaticism. It is similar to the “prima facie duty” version of deontology
developed to deal with the problem of conflicting duties, yet threshold deontology is
usually interpreted with such a high threshold that it more closely mimics the outcomes
reached by a “pure,” absolutist kind of deontology. Threshold deontology faces several
theoretical difficulties. Foremost among them is giving a theoretically tenable account of
the location of such a threshold, either absolutely or on a sliding scale (Alexander 2000;
Ellis 1992). Why is the threshold for torture of the innocent at one thousand lives, say, as
opposed to nine hundred or two thousand? Another problem is that whatever the
threshold, as the dire consequences approach it, counter-intuitive results appear to follow.
For example, it may be permissible, if we are one-life-at-risk short of the threshold, to
pull one more person into danger who will then be saved, along with the others at risk, by
killing an innocent person (Alexander 2000). Thirdly, there is some uncertainty about
how one is to reason after the threshold has been reached: are we to calculate at the
margin on straight consequentialist grounds, use an agent-weighted mode of summing, or
do something else? A fourth problem is that threshold deontology threatens to collapse
into a kind of consequentialism. Indeed, it can be shown that the sliding scale version of
threshold deontology is extensionally equivalent to an agency-weighted form of
consequentialism (Sen 1982).
The remaining four strategies for dealing with the problem of dire consequence cases all
have the flavor of evasion by the deontologist. Consider first the famous view of
Elizabeth Anscombe: such cases (real or imagined) can never present themselves to the
consciousness of a truly moral agent because such agent will realize it is immoral to even
think about violating moral norms in order to avert disaster (Anscombe 1958; Geach
1969; Nagel 1979). Such rhetorical excesses should be seen for what they are, a peculiar
way of stating Kantian absolutism motivated by an impatience with the question.
Another response by deontologists, this one most famously associated with Bernard
Williams, shares some of the “don't think about it” features of the Anscombean response.
According to Williams (1973), situations of moral horror are simply “beyond morality,”
and even beyond reason. (This view is reminiscent of the ancient view of natural
necessity, revived by Sir Francis Bacon, that such cases are beyond human law and can
only be judged by the natural law of instinct.) Williams tells us that in such cases we just
act. Interestingly, Williams contemplates that such “existentialist” decision-making will
result in our doing what we have to do in such cases—for example, we torture the
innocent to prevent nuclear holocaust.
Surely this is an unhappy view of the power and reach of human law, morality, or reason.
Indeed, Williams (like Bacon and Cicero before him) thinks there is an answer to what
should be done, albeit an answer very different than Anscombe's. But both views share
the weakness of thinking that morality and even reason runs out on us when the going
gets tough.
Yet another strategy is to divorce completely the moral appraisals of acts from the
blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of the agents who undertake them, even when those
agents are fully cognizant of the moral appraisals. So, for example, if A tortures innocent
B to save a thousand others, one can hold that A's act is morally wrong but also that A is
morally praiseworthy for having done it.
Deontology does have to grapple with how to mesh deontic judgments of wrongness with
“hypological” (Zimmerman 2002) judgments of blameworthiness (Alexander 2004). Yet
it would be an oddly cohering morality that condemned an act as wrong yet praised the
doer of it. Deontic and hypological judgments ought to have more to do with each other
than that. Moreover, it is unclear what action-guiding potential such an oddly cohered
morality would have: should an agent facing such a choice avoid doing wrong, or should
he go for the praise?
The last possible strategy for the deontologist in order to deal with dire consequences,
other than by denying their existence, as per Taurek, is to distinguish moral reasons from
all-things-considered reasons and to argue that whereas moral reasons dictate obedience
to deontological norms even at the cost of catastrophic consequences, all-things-
considered reasons dictate otherwise. (This is one reading of Bernard William's famous
discussion of moral luck, where non-moral reasons seemingly can trump moral reasons
(Williams 1975, 1981); this is also a strategy some consequentialists (e.g., Portmore
2003) seize as well in order to handle the demandingness and alienation problems
endemic to consequentialism.) But like the preceding strategy, this one seems desperate.
Why should one even care that moral reasons align with deontology if the important
reasons, the all-things-considered reasons that actually govern decisions, align with
consequentialism?
Unit Summery
In summary, according to utilitarianism, morality is a matter of the nonmoral good
produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is instrumental, not
intrinsic. Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way an end in itself. Space
does not allow for a detailed critique of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to say that the
majority of moral philosophers and theologians have found it defective. One main
problem is that utilitarianism, if adopted, justifies as morally appropriate things that are
clearly immoral. For example, utilitarianism can be used to justify punishing an innocent
man or enslaving a small group of people if such acts produce a maximization of
consequences. But these acts are clearly immoral regardless of how fruitful they might be
for the greatest number. For this and other reasons, many thinkers have advocated a
second type of moral theory, deontological ethics.
Deontological ethics is in keeping with Scripture, natural moral law, and intuitions from
common sense. The word “deontological” comes from the Greek word deon which
means “binding duty.” Deontological ethics has at least three important features.
First, duty should be done for duty’s sake. The rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is,
at least in part, a matter of the intrinsic moral features of that kind of act or rule. For
example, acts of lying, promise breaking, or murder are intrinsically wrong and we have
a duty not to do these things. This does not mean that consequences of acts are not
relevant for assessing those acts. For example, a doctor may have a duty to benefit a
patient, and he or she may need to know what medical consequences would result from
various treatments in order to determine what would and would not benefit the patient.
But consequences are not what make the act right, as is the case with utilitarianism.
Rather, at best, consequences help us determine which action is more in keeping with
what is already our duty. Consequences help us find what is our duty, they are not what
make something our duty.
Second, humans should be treated as objects of intrinsic moral value; that is, as ends in
themselves and never as a mere means to some other end (say, overall happiness or
welfare). This notion is very difficult to justify if one abandons the theological doctrine
of man being made in the image of God. Nevertheless, justified or unjustified,

deontological ethics imply that humans are ends in themselves with intrinsic value.
Third, a moral principle is a categorical imperative that is universalizable; that is, it must
be applicable for everyone who is in the same moral situation. Moral statements do not
say, “If you want to maximize pleasure vs. pain in this instance, then do such and such.”
Rather, moral statements are imperatives or commands that hold for all examples of the
type of act in consideration, such as truth telling. Moral statements say, “Keep your
promises,” “do not murder,” and so forth.
EXERCISES FOR REVIEW
1. What is deontorlgical theory of morality?
2. What is the difference between consequentialist and deontological morality?
3. What do act nonconseqentialists maintain? How do they differ from act utilitarians?
4. What is the stance of rule nonconseqentialists? How do they differ from rule
utilitarians?
5. Critically analyze the divine command theory.
6. Explain the categorical imperative? How it is different from hypothetical imperative?
7. What does “universalizability” mean and explain how this concept is important in
kant’s moral system?
8. What are prima facie duties? Can you think of any moral duties that might be prima
facie? What are they?
9. In your opinion, can a moral system really function without regard to consequences?
How or how not?
10. Explain the problems that are peculiar to rule nonconsequentaialist theories of
morality?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. The rule nonconsequentialist theories essentially state that there are certain moral
absolutes that should never be violated (for example, rules against killing, stealing and
breaking promises). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this idea? Are there
certain dos and don’ts to which human beings should always adhere? If so, why should
they be adhered to and what are they? If not, why not?
2. One of the advantages of rule nonconsequentaialist theories is that the clearly state dos
and don’ts, thereby lending a great deal of stability and order to morality. Adherents
describe the benefits of this when they say, “We know just where we stand with this type of
morality, and it gives us a great deal of security when compared to relativistic morality.”
To what extent do you feel this advantage is an important one? Why? What are its strong
points and its drawbacks?
3. To what extent do you think it is important to rank moral rules in order of importance
(for example, Ross’s prima facie duties)? Show how you would rank your ethical rules or
those of any system of which you are aware
UNIT FOUR: VIRTUE ETHICS

INTRODUCTION
In this section we will discuss about the meaning and moral issue of virtue ethics.
Conceptual explanation will be presented on the moral and philosophical foundation of
virtue. Moreover, the lesson will open a discussion on different ethical theories of virtue.
In this section we will also attempt to discuss advantageous and disadvantageous claims
with regard to virtue ethics and examine the comparison with the other normative
theories.
Before we get in to the details with what virtue ethics is, it is important to know the
meaning of virtue, philosophical development of virtue ethics as a foundation of morality,
and how it is different from other normative theories.
can you define what virtue is?
The dictionary defines virtue as “quality of moral excellence, righteousness and
responsibility…a
specific type of moral excellence or other exemplary quality considered meritorious; a
worthy practice or ideal”
Virtue is an admirable character trait or disposition to habitually act in a manner than
benefits ourselves and others. The action of virtues people originated from a respect and
concern for the well being of themselves and others.
A dictionary of philosophy describes virtue in Aristotle’s philosophy as “state of thing

which constitutes its peculiar excellence and enables it to perform its function well…in
man, it is the activity of reason and of rationally ordered habits”
These definitions focus on the good or virtuous character of human beings themselves,
rather than on their acts, the consequence of their acts, or feelings or rules. In other
words, it is the development of the good or virtuous person that is important in this moral
theory, not abstract rules or consequences of acts or rules except as they derive from a
good or virtuous person or cause that person to be good or virtuous.
Compassion, courage, generosity, loyalty, and honesty are all examples of virtues.
1.2 What is virtue ethics?
Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue
in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring
about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice:
“Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation”.
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a
virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural
internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become
stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations
over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize
utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist
theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that
can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider
questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper
family and social values?”
Aristotle divided virtues in to two broad categories; intellectual virtues and moral virtues.
The intellectual virtues are cultivated through growth and experience; and the moral
virtues through habit. Wisdom is the most important virtue because it makes all the other
virtues (intellectual and moral) possible. Aristotle believes that all life has a function that
is peculiar to its particular life form. The function peculiar to human life, is the exercise
of reason. Only by living in accordance with reason, which is our human function, can we
achieve happiness and inner harmony.
According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices;
either excess or deficiency (defect). He emphasize that the mean in ethic cannot be
determined mathematically but is rather is a mean “relative to us” or to whoever is trying
to determine what the right thing to do is. Moral virtue then is defined by Aristotle “as a
disposition to choose by a rule…which a practical wise man would determine; to be the
mean between two extremes of excess or deficiency”. And according to him practical
wisdom is the ability to see what is the right thing to do in any circumstance is.
Therefore, a person has to determine what a “practically wise, virtuous man” would
choose in any circumstance involving a moral action and do the right thing.
Activity 1.Can you mention some example of means between two extremes?
Here are some example of means between extremes as established by Aristotle,
Felling of Excess Mean Defect

action
Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice
Shame Bashfulness Modesty Shamelessness
Truth telling Boastfulness Truthfulness Self-
about oneself depreciation
Friendship Obsequiousness Friendliness Sulkiness
Activity 2.
What are the mechanisms for the development of good personal traits?
1.2.1. Aristotle’s emphasis on goodness of character
Aristotle is concerned with action, not as right or good in itself, but as it is conducive to
human good. In ethics he starts from the actual moral judgment of human beings. And by
comparing, contrasting, and shifting them. Aristotle presupposes that there are natural
ethical tendencies implanted in human beings and that following them with a general
attitude of consistent harmony and proportion constitutes the ethical life.
1.2.2. Development of the good or virtuous human being
Aristotle states that human start by having a capacity for goodness which has to be
developed by practice. He says we begin by doing acts which are objectively virtuous,
without the knowledge that the acts are good and without actively and rationally choosing
them our selves. As we practice this acts, we come to realize that the virtue is good in and
of itself. For example, a child is thought to tell the truth (objectively a virtue) by her
parents, and then she does so because they have thought her she should. Eventually, she
recognizes that truth is a virtue in and of it and continues to tell the truth because she
knows it is virtuous to do so. This process would seem to be circular except that Aristotle
makes a distinction between the acts that create a good disposition (telling the truth
without knowing it’s a virtue) and the acts that flow from the good disposition once it has
been created (telling the truth because a person has come to know it’s a virtue).
1.3. Virtue Ethical Theories
Dear students, there are many different accounts of virtue ethics,
For the purpose of our discussion we will select the three types which are representative
of the field. There is a large field, however, of diverse writers developing other theories
of virtue. For example, Christine Swanton has developed a pluralist account of virtue
ethics with connections to Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s theory emphasizes the inner self and
provides a possible response to the call for a better understanding of moral psychology.
Swanton develops an account of self-love that allows her to distinguish true virtue from
closely related vices, e.g. self-confidence from vanity or ostentation, virtuous and vicious
forms of perfectionism, etc. She also makes use of the Nietzschean ideas of creativity and
expression to show how different modes of acknowledgement are appropriate to the
virtues.
Historically, accounts of virtue have varied widely. Homeric virtue should be understood
within the society within which it occurred. The standard of excellence was determined
from within the particular society and accountability was determined by one’s role within
society. Also, one’s worth was comparative to others and competition was crucial in
determining one’s worth.
Other accounts of virtue ethics are inspired from Christian writers such as St. Thomas
Aquinas and St. Augustine. Aquinas’ account of the virtues is distinctive because it
allows a role for the will. One’s will can be directed by the virtues and we are subject to
the natural law, because we have the potential to grasp the truth of practical judgments.
To possess a virtue is to have the will to apply it and the knowledge of how to do so.
Humans are susceptible to evil and acknowledging this allows us to be receptive to the
virtues of faith, hope and charity—virtues of love that are significantly different from
Aristotle’s virtues.
However, since its revival in the twentieth century, virtue ethics has been developed in
three main directions: Eudemonism, Agent-based theories, and the Ethics of care.
Raising objections to other normative theories and defining itself in opposition to the
claims of others, was the first stage in the development of virtue ethics. Virtue ethicists
then took up the challenge of developing fully fledged accounts of virtue that could stand
on their own merits rather than simply criticize consequentialism and deontology. These
accounts have been predominantly influenced by the Aristotelian understanding of virtue.
While some virtue ethics take inspiration from Plato’s, the Stoics’, Aquinas’, Hume’s and
Nietzsche’s accounts of virtue and ethics, Aristotelian conceptions of virtue ethics still
dominate the field.
1.3.1. Eudemonism
“Eudaimonia” is an Aristotelian term loosely (and inadequately) translated as happiness.

To understand its role in virtue ethics we look to Aristotle’s function argument. Aristotle
recognizes that actions are not pointless because they have an aim. Every action aims at
some good. For example, the doctor’s vaccination of the baby aims at the baby’s health,
the English tennis player Tim Henman works on his serve so that he can win Wimbledon,
and so on. Furthermore, some things are done for their own sake (ends in themselves) and
some things are done for the sake of other things (means to other ends). Aristotle claims
that all the things that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is
the greatest good of all. That good is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is happiness, contentment,
and fulfillment; it’s the name of the best kind of life, which is an end in itself and a means
to live and fare well.
Aristotle then observes that where a thing has a function the good of the thing is when it
performs its function well. For example, the knife has a function, to cut, and it performs
its function well when it cuts well. This argument is applied to man: man has a function
and the good man is the man who performs his function well. Man’s function is what is
peculiar to him and sets him aside from other beings—reason. Therefore, the function of
man is reason and the life that is distinctive of humans is the life in accordance with
reason. If the function of man is reason, then the good man is the man who reasons well.
This is the life of excellence or of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the life of virtue—activity
in accordance with reason, man’s highest function.
The importance of this point of eudaimonistic virtue ethics is that it reverses the
relationship between virtue and rightness. A utilitarian could accept the value of the
virtue of kindness, but only because someone with a kind disposition is likely to bring
about consequences that will maximize utility. So the virtue is only justified because of
the consequences it brings about. In eudaimonist virtue ethics, the virtues are justified
because they are constitutive elements of eudaimonia (that is, human flourishing and
wellbeing), which is good in itself.
Rosalind Hursthouse developed one detailed account of eudaimonist virtue ethics.

Hursthouse argues that the virtues make their possessor a good human being. All living
things can be evaluated qua specimens of their natural kind. Like Aristotle, Hursthouse
argues that the characteristic way of human beings is the rational way: by their very
nature human beings act rationally, a characteristic that allows us to make decisions and
to change our character and allows others to hold us responsible for those decisions.
Acting virtuously—that is, acting in accordance with reason—is acting in the way
characteristic of the nature of human beings and this will lead to eudaimonia. This means
that the virtues benefit their possessor. One might think that the demands of morality
conflict with our self-interest, as morality is other-regarding, but eudaimonist virtue
ethics presents a different picture. Human nature is such that virtue is not exercised in
opposition to self-interest, but rather is the quintessential component of human
flourishing. The good life for humans is the life of virtue and therefore it is in our interest
to be virtuous. It is not just that the virtues lead to the good life (e.g. if you are good, you
will be rewarded), but rather a virtuous life is the good life because the exercise of our
rational capacities and virtue is its own reward.
It is important to note, however, that there have been many different ways of developing
this idea of the good life and virtue within virtue ethics. The virtues are beneficial to their
possessor or to the community (note that this is similar to Aristotle’s argument that the
virtues enable us to achieve goods within human practices). Rather than being
constitutive of the good life, the virtues are valuable because they contribute to it. Such
claim derives the virtues from the characteristics that most fully develop our essential
properties as human beings. Individuals are judged against a standard of perfection that
reflects very rare or ideal levels of human achievement. The virtues realize our capacity
for rationality and therefore contribute to our well-being and perfection in that sense.
1.3.2. Agent-Based Accounts of Virtue Ethics
Not all accounts of virtue ethics are eudaimonist. Michael Slote has developed an account
of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which character traits are
admirable. Slote makes a distinction between agent-focused and agent-based theories.
Agent-focused theories understand the moral life in terms of what it is to be a virtuous
individual, where the virtues are inner dispositions. Aristotelian theory is an example of
an agent-focused theory. By contrast, agent-based theories are more radical in that their
evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents
who perform those actions. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable,
such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc. and we can identify these by looking at
the people we admire, our moral exemplars.
1.3.3. The Ethics of Care
Finally, the Ethics of Care is another influential version of virtue ethics. Developed
mainly by feminist writers, such as Annette Baier, this account of virtue ethics is
motivated by the thought that men think in masculine terms such as justice and
autonomy, whereas woman think in feminine terms such as caring. These theorists call
for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues
exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-
sacrifice, etc. These virtues have been marginalized because society has not adequately
valued the contributions of women. Writings in this area do not always explicitly make a
connection with virtue ethics. There is much in their discussions, however, of specific
virtues and their relation to social practices and moral education, etc., which is central to
virtue ethics.
2. A Rival for Deontology and Utilitarianism
Virtue ethics offers a radically different account to deontology and consequentialism.

Virtue ethics, however, has influenced modern moral philosophy not only by developing
a full-fledged account of virtue, but also by causing consequentialists and deontologists
to re-examine their own theories with view to taking advantage of the insights of virtue.
For years, Deontologists relied mainly on the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
for discussions of Kant’s moral theory. Kantian virtue is in some respects similar to
Aristotelian virtue. In the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant stresses the importance of
education, habituation, and gradual development—all ideas that have been used by
modern deontologists to illustrate the common sense plausibility of the theory. For
Kantians, the main role of virtue and appropriate character development is that a virtuous
character will help one formulate appropriate maxims for testing. In other respects,
Kantian virtue remains rather dissimilar from other conceptions of virtue. Differences are
based on at least three ideas: First, Kantian virtue is a struggle against emotions. Whether
one thinks the emotions should be subjugated or eliminated, for Kant moral worth comes
only from the duty of motive, a motive that struggles against inclination. This is quite
different from the Aristotelian picture of harmony between reason and desire. Second, for
Kant there is no such thing as weakness of will, understood in the Aristotelian sense of
the distinction between continence and incontinence. Kant concentrates on fortitude of
will and failure to do so is self-deception. Finally, Kantians need to give an account of the
relationship between virtue as occurring in the empirical world and Kant’s remarks about
moral worth in the noumenal world (remarks that can be interpreted as creating a
contradiction between ideas in the Groundwork and in other works).
Virtue ethics initially emerged as a rival account to deontology and consequentialism. It

developed from dissatisfaction with the notions of duty and obligation and their central
roles in understanding morality. It also grew out of an objection to the use of rigid moral
rules and principles and their application to diverse and different moral situations.
Characteristically, virtue ethics makes a claim about the central role of virtue and
character in its understanding of moral life and uses it to answer the questions “How
should I live? What kind of person should I be?” Consequentialist theories are outcome-
based and Kantian theories are agent-based. Virtue ethics is character-based.
Consequentialists have found a role for virtue as a disposition that tends to promote good
consequences. Virtue is not valuable in itself, but rather valuable for the good
consequences it tends to bring about. We should cultivate virtuous dispositions because
such dispositions will tend to maximize utility. This is a radical departure from the
Aristotelian account of virtue for its own sake. Rival accounts have tried to incorporate
the benefits of virtue ethics and develop in ways that will allow them to respond to the
challenged raised by virtue ethics.
There are a number of different accounts of virtue ethics. It is an emerging concept and
was initially defined by what it is not rather than what it is. The next section examines
claims of virtue ethicists initially made that set the theory up as a rival to deontology and
consequentialism.
Can you identify the difference between consequentialism, deontology and virtue
ethics?
2.1. How Should One Live?
Moral theories are concerned with right and wrong behavior. This subject area of
philosophy is unavoidably tied up with practical concerns about the right behavior.
However, virtue ethics changes the kind of question we ask about ethics. Where
deontology and consequentialism concern themselves with the right action, virtue ethics
is concerned with the good life and what kinds of persons we should be. “What is the
right action?” is a significantly different question to ask from “How should I live? What
kind of person should I be?” Where the first type of question deals with specific
dilemmas, the second is a question about an entire life. Instead of asking what is the right
action here and now, virtue ethics asks what kind of person one should be in order to get
it right all the time.
Whereas deontology and consequentialism are based on rules that try to give us the right
action, virtue ethics makes central use of the concept of character. The answer to “How
should one live?” is that one should live virtuously, that is, have a virtuous character.
2.2. Character and Virtue
Modern virtue ethics takes its inspiration from the Aristotelian understanding of character
and virtue. Aristotelian character is, importantly, about a state of being. It’s about having
the appropriate inner states. For example, the virtue of kindness involves the right sort of
emotions and inner states with respect to our feelings towards others. Character is also
about doing. Aristotelian theory is a theory of action, since having the virtuous inner
dispositions will also involve being moved to act in accordance with them. Realizing that
kindness is the appropriate response to a situation and feeling appropriately kindly
disposed will also lead to a corresponding attempt to act kindly.
Another distinguishing feature of virtue ethics is that character traits are stable, fixed, and
reliable dispositions. If an agent possesses the character trait of kindness, we would
expect him or her to act kindly in all sorts of situations, towards all kinds of people, and
over a long period of time, even when it is difficult to do so. A person with a certain
character can be relied upon to act consistently over a time.
It is important to recognize that moral character develops over a long period of time.
People are born with all sorts of natural tendencies. Some of these natural tendencies will
be positive, such as a placid and friendly nature, and some will be negative, such as an
irascible and jealous nature. These natural tendencies can be encouraged and developed
or discouraged and thwarted by the influences one is exposed to when growing up. There
are a number of factors that may affect one’s character development, such as one’s
parents, teachers, peer group, role-models, the degree of encouragement and attention one
receives, and exposure to different situations. Our natural tendencies, the raw material we
are born with, are shaped and developed through a long and gradual process of education
and habituation.
Moral education and development is a major part of virtue ethics. Moral development, at
least in its early stages, relies on the availability of good role models. The virtuous agent
acts as a role model and the student of virtue emulates his or her example. Initially this is
a process of habituating oneself in right action. Aristotle advises us to perform just acts
because this way we become just. The student of virtue must develop the right habits, so
that he tends to perform virtuous acts. Virtue is not itself a habit. Habituation is merely an
aid to the development of virtue, but true virtue requires choice, understanding, and
knowledge. The virtuous agent doesn’t act justly merely out of an unreflective response,
but has come to recognize the value of virtue and why it is the appropriate response.
Virtue is chosen knowingly for its own sake.
The development of moral character may take a whole lifetime. But once it is firmly
established, one will act consistently, predictably and appropriately in a variety of
situations.
Aristotelian virtue is defined in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics as a purposive

disposition, lying in a mean and being determined by the right reason. As discussed
above, virtue is a settled disposition. It is also a purposive disposition. A virtuous actor
chooses virtuous action knowingly and for its own sake. It is not enough to act kindly by
accident, unthinkingly, or because everyone else is doing so; you must act kindly because
you recognize that this is the right way to behave. Note here that although habituation is a
tool for character development it is not equivalent to virtue; virtue requires conscious
choice and affirmation.
Virtue “lies in a mean” because the right response to each situation is neither too much
nor too little. Virtue is the appropriate response to different situations and different
agents. The virtues are associated with feelings. For example: courage is associated with
fear, modesty is associated with the feeling of shame, and friendliness associated with
feelings about social conduct. The virtue lies in a mean because it involves displaying the
mean amount of emotion, where mean stands for appropriate. (This does not imply that
the right amount is a modest amount. Sometimes quite a lot may be the appropriate
amount of emotion to display, as in the case of righteous indignation). The mean amount
is neither too much nor too little and is sensitive to the requirements of the person and the
situation.
Finally, virtue is determined by the right reason. Virtue requires the right desire and the
right reason. To act from the wrong reason is to act viciously. On the other hand, the
agent can try to act from the right reason, but fail because he or she has the wrong desire.
The virtuous agent acts effortlessly, perceives the right reason, has the harmonious right
desire, and has an inner state of virtue that flows smoothly into action. The virtuous agent
can act as an exemplar of virtue to others.
It is important to recognize that this is a perfunctory account of ideas that are developed
in great detail in Aristotle. They are related briefly here as they have been central to
virtue ethics’ claim to put forward a unique and rival account to other normative theories.
Modern virtue ethicists have developed their theories around a central role for character
and virtue and claim that this gives them a unique understanding of morality. The
emphasis on character development and the role of the emotions allows virtue ethics to
have a plausible account of moral psychology—which is lacking in deontology and
consequentialism. Virtue ethics can avoid the problematic concepts of duty and
obligation in favor of the rich concept of virtue. Judgments of virtue are judgments of a
whole life rather than of one isolated action.
2.3. Anti-Theory and the Uncodifiability of Ethics
In the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle warns us that the study of ethics is
imprecise. Virtue ethicists have challenged consequentialist and deontological theories
because they fail to accommodate this insight. Both deontological and consequentialist
type of theories rely on one rule or principle that is expected to apply to all situations.
Because their principles are inflexible, they cannot accommodate the complexity of all
the moral situations that we are likely to encounter.
We are constantly faced with moral problems. For example: Should I tell my friend the
truth about her lying boyfriend? Should I cheat in my exams? Should I have an abortion?
Should I save the drowning baby? Should we separate the Siamese twins? Should I join
the fuel protests? All these problems are different and it seems unlikely that we will find
the solution to all of them by applying the same rule. If the problems are varied, we
should not expect to find their solution in one rigid and inflexible rule that does not admit
exception. If the nature of the thing we are studying is diverse and changing, then the
answer cannot be any good if it is inflexible and unyielding. The answer to “how should I
live?” cannot be found in one rule. At best, for virtue ethics, there can be rules of
thumb—rules that are true for the most part, but may not always be the appropriate
response.
The doctrine of the mean captures exactly this idea. The virtuous response cannot be
captured in a rule or principle, which an agent can learn and then act virtuously. Knowing
virtue is a matter of experience, sensitivity, ability to perceive, ability to reason
practically, etc. and takes a long time to develop. The idea that ethics cannot be captured
in one rule or principle is the “uncodifiability of ethics thesis.” Ethics is too diverse and
imprecise to be captured in a rigid code, so we must approach morality with a theory that
is as flexible and as situation-responsive as the subject matter itself. As a result some
virtue ethicists see themselves as anti-theorists, rejecting theories that systematically
attempt to capture and organize all matters of practical or ethical importance.
Can you mention some advantage of virtue ethics comparing to the other theories of
morality discussed in the previous lessons?
3. Advantage of virtue ethics
The advantage of virtue ethics implies in accordance of its direct connectivity to the
agents character traits. It emphasize that it is the person’s characteristics which is the
object of judgment than the action. It is asserted that for any virtuous we choose, such as
truthfulness, we can postulate a corresponding duty, such as the duty to be truth full.
Similarly, virtuous such as, courage, temperance, justice, prudence, e which distinguish
them from mere character traits. It seems, then, that our obligation to develop a virtue
such as truthfulness in fact presupposes that we have a prior duty to be constantly truth
full. Hence, some of the advantages calculated from this essence of virtue ethics are:
3.1. Creating the good human being
virtue ethics attempts to create the good or virtues human being. It tries to inculcate
virtue by urging human beings to practice virtuous acts in order to create the habitual
virtuous or good person who will then continue to act virtuously. Many ethicists believe
that, as one of our major problems today, we have rules, laws and systems of ethics, but
we still do not have ethical or virtuous people. Until we create ethical or virtuous people,
our chance of creating a moral society is minimal.
3.2. Unifying reason and emotion
most morality theories attempts to separate reason and emotion or feelings from each
other. Virtue ethics on the other hand attempts to unify them by stating that virtues are
disposition not only to act in certain ways but also to feel in certain ways. The purpose
again is , through reasoning (practical wisdom), to do what is virtuous, at the same time
inculcating that virtuousness with in so that not only do humans reason what is virtuous,
but also they begin and continue to feel what is virtuous. None of the other theories
attempts to do this as well.
3.3. Emphasize moderation
Virtue ethics, at least Aristotle’s version sets up a way to achieve moderation between
excess and deficiency. Many ethicist believe, along with the Greeks, that moderation in
all things is what human beings ought to strive for. Aristotle attempts to set out means to
achieve moderation by codifying what constitutes excess, defect, and the mean between
them (see the table above). He also encourage freedom by allowing individuals to decide
the appropriate mean relative to them selves. Similarly, he seems to encourage integration
between feeling and reason by urging individuals to use both their reason and feelings to
decide the appropriate mean for them.
Discuss some of the objection that could raise on virtue ethics relative to other
normative theories you have discussed in the other lessons.
4. Objections to Virtue Ethics
There are some common objections to virtue ethics. Its theories provide a self-centered
conception of ethics because human flourishing is seen as an end in itself and does not
sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Virtue ethics also
does not provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for
guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Lastly,
the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors
beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral
character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame
of the person?
Much of what has been written on virtue ethics has been in response to criticisms of the
theory. In this regard, the following section presents three objections and possible
responses, based on broad ideas held in common by most accounts of virtue ethics.
4.1. Self-Centeredness
Morality is supposed to be about other people. It deals with our actions to the extent that
they affect other people. Moral praise and blame is attributed on the grounds of an
evaluation of our behavior towards others and the ways in that we exhibit, or fail to
exhibit, a concern for the well-being of others. Virtue ethics, according to this objection,
is self-centered because its primary concern is with the agent’s own character. Virtue
ethics seems to be essentially interested in the acquisition of the virtues as part of the
agent’s own well-being and flourishing. Morality requires us to consider others for their
own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with
aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make
oneself happier.
Related to this objection is a more general objection against the idea that well-being is a
master value and that all other things are valuable only to the extent that they contribute
to it. This line of attack exemplified in the writings of Tim Scanlon, objects to the
understanding of well-being as a moral notion and sees it more like self-interest.
Furthermore, well-being does not admit to comparisons with other individuals. Thus,
well-being cannot play the role that eudaimonists would have it play.
This objection fails to appreciate the role of the virtues within the theory. The virtues are
other-regarding. Kindness, for example, is about how we respond to the needs of others.
The virtuous agent’s concern is with developing the right sort of character that will
respond to the needs of others in an appropriate way. The virtue of kindness is about
being able to perceive situations where one is required to be kind, have the disposition to
respond kindly in a reliable and stable manner, and be able to express one’s kind
character in accordance with one’s kind desires. The eudaimonist account of virtue ethics
claims that the good of the agent and the good of others are not two separate aims. Both
rather result from the exercise of virtue. Rather than being too self-centered, virtue ethics
unifies what is required by morality and what is required by self-interest.
4.2. Action-Guiding
Moral philosophy is concerned with practical issues. Fundamentally it is about how we

should act. Virtue ethics has criticized consequentialist and deontological theories for
being too rigid and inflexible because they rely on one rule or principle. One reply to this
is that these theories are action guiding. The existence of “rigid” rules is strength, not a
weakness because they offer clear direction on what to do. As long as we know the
principles, we can apply them to practical situations and be guided by them. Virtue
ethics, it is objected, with its emphasis on the imprecise nature of ethics, fails to give us
any help with the practicalities of how we should behave. A theory that fails to be action-
guiding is no good as a moral theory.
The main response to this criticism is to stress the role of the virtuous agent as an
exemplar. Virtue ethics reflects the imprecise nature of ethics by being flexible and
situation-sensitive, but it can also be action-guiding by observing the example of the

virtuous agent. The virtuous agent is the agent who has a fully developed moral character,
who possesses the virtues and acts in accordance with them, and who knows what to do
by example. Further, virtue ethics places considerable of emphasis on the development of
moral judgment. Knowing what to do is not a matter of internalizing a principle, but a
life-long process of moral learning that will only provide clear answers when one reaches
moral maturity. Virtue ethics cannot give us an easy, instant answer. This is because
these answers do not exist. Nonetheless, it can be action-guiding if we understand the role
of the virtuous agent and the importance of moral education and development. If virtue
consists of the right reason and the right desire, virtue ethics will be action-guiding when
we can perceive the right reason and have successfully habituated our desires to affirm its
commands.
4.3 Moral Luck
Finally, there is a concern that virtue ethics leaves us hostage to luck. Morality is about
responsibility and the appropriateness of praise and blame. However, we only praise and
blame agents for actions taken under conscious choice. The road to virtue is arduous and
many things outside our control can go wrong. Just as the right education, habits,
influences, examples, etc. can promote the development of virtue, the wrong influencing
factors can promote vice. Some people will be lucky and receive the help and
encouragement they need to attain moral maturity, but others will not. If the development
of virtue (and vice) is subject to luck, is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the
vicious) for something that was outside of their control? Further, some accounts of virtue
are dependent on the availability of external goods. Friendship with other virtuous agents
is so central to Aristotelian virtue that a life devoid of virtuous friendship will be lacking
in eudaimonia. However, we have no control over the availability of the right friends.
How can we then praise the virtuous and blame the vicious if their development and
respective virtue and vice were not under their control?
Some moral theories try to eliminate the influence of luck on morality (primarily
deontology). Virtue ethics, however, answers this objection by embracing moral luck.
Rather than try to make morality immune to matters that are outside of our control, virtue
ethics recognizes the fragility of the good life and makes it a feature of morality. It is only
because the good life is so vulnerable and fragile that it is so precious. Many things can
go wrong on the road to virtue, such that the possibility that virtue is lost, but this
vulnerability is an essential feature of the human condition, which makes the attainment
of the good life all the more valuable.
UNIT FIVE: ETHICAL IDEALS AND WORLD RELIGIONS

INTRODUCTION
Most religions have ethical component, often derived from purported supernatural
revelation or guidance. For many people, ethics is not only tied up with religion, but is
completely settled by it. Such people do not need to think too much about ethics, because
there is an authoritative code of instructions, a handbook of how to live.
Ethics, which is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life.
It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A
central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply
satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional
moral conduct. Some assert that religion is necessary to live ethically. Blackburn states
that, there are those who "would say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a
strong social order, cemented by common adherence to a particular religious tradition".
This lesson will focus up on the concepts of ethics in selected great religions. It attempts
to elaborate the moral inclusion in each of these religions and how this moral guidance of
the religions contributed for the well goodness of the society. Generally each sections
attempts to open up a discussion how religious thoughts were used as mechanism for
bringing moral change.
1. Christian Ethics
Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics (p.221) describes it as ‘...a network of operative

values, centering around the concept of love as defined in scripture.’ Loosely used the
term ethics is intended to cover the codes of conduct, social customs and the like which a
man, in any given culture ought to follow. It does not mean that he will follow them, but
it is at least the general standard set. When we penetrate into the Christian ethic we
discover that such a loose statement will not do. There is no sense in which the Christian
ethic is haphazard. Whilst we may not directly speak of absolutes we do speak of ethical
principles which are unchanging, although their adaptation in any age or society may be a
matter for consideration and, even, debatable.
Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for love, grace, mercy, and
forgiveness because of sin. With divine assistance, the Christian is called to become
increasingly virtuous in both thought and deed, see also the Evangelical counsels.
Conversely, the Christian is also called to abstain from vice.
Christian ethical principles are based on the teachings within the Bible. They begin with
the notion of inherent sinfulness, which requires essential atonement. Sin is estrangement
from God which is the result of not doing God's will. God's will can be summed up by the
precept: "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as
yourself", commonly called the Great Commandment. Christian ethics are founded upon
the concept of grace which transforms a person's life and enable's one to choose and act
righteously. As sin is both individual and social, so is grace applied to both the individual
and society. Christian ethics has a teleological aspect--all ethical behavior is oriented
towards a vision of the Kingdom of God--a righteous society where all live in peace and
harmony with God and nature, as envisioned in the Book of Isaiah. Specific ethical
behaviors originate in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments, and are enriched by
teachings in the Psalms and morals contained in historical accounts.
Christian ethics is not substantially different from Jewish ethics, except in the exhortation
to love one's enemy. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Christian ethics is this command
to love one's enemies. It has been argued that Jesus was waging a non-violent campaign
against the Roman oppressors and many of his sayings relate to this campaign--turn the
other cheek, go the second mile, etc. Understanding these commands as part of a larger
campaign makes it impossible to interpret Christian ethics as an individual ethic. It is
both an individual and a social ethic concerned with life here on earth.
Other tenets include maintaining personal integrity and the absence of hypocrisy, as well
as honesty and loyalty, mercy and forgiveness, rejection of materialism and the desire for
wealth and power, and teaching others in your life through personal joy, happiness and
Godly devotion. There are several different schema of vice and virtue. Aquinas adopted
the four cardinal virtues of Aristotle, justice, courage, temperance and prudence, and
added to them the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity.
Christian ethics is based on the principle of the bible which advocates the need for
love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness that is oriented towards a vision of the Kingdom
of God--a righteous society where all live in peace and harmony with God and
nature, as envisioned in the Book of Isaiah.
2. Islamic ethics
Islamic ethics defined as "good character," historically took shape gradually from the 7th
century and was finally established by the 11th century. It was eventually shaped as a
successful amalgamation of the Qur'anic teachings, the teachings of the Sunnah of
Muhammad, the precedents of Islamic jurists (see Sharia and Fiqh), the pre-Islamic
Arabian tradition, and non-Arabic elements (including Persian and Greek ideas)
embedded in or integrated with a generally Islamic structure. Although Muhammad's
preaching produced a "radical change in moral values based on the sanctions of the new
religion and the present religion, and fear of God and of the Last Judgment", the tribal
practice of Arabs did not completely die out. Later Muslim scholars expanded the
religious ethic of the Qur'an and Hadith in immense detail.
The foundational source in the gradual codification of Islamic ethics was the Muslim
understanding and interpretations of the mankind has been granted the faculty to discern
God's will and to abide by it. This faculty most crucially involves reflecting over the
meaning of existence, which, as John Kelsay in the Encyclopedia of Ethics phrases,
"ultimately points to the reality of God." Therefore, regardless of their environment,
humans are believed to have a moral responsibility to submit to God's will and to follow
Islam (as demonstrated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, or the sayings of Muhammad)
This natural inclination is, according to the Qur'an, subverted by mankind's focus on
material success: such focus first presents itself as a need for basic survival or security,
but then tends to manifest into a desire to become distinguished among one's peers.
Ultimately, the focus on materialism, according to the Islamic texts, hampers with the
innate reflection as described above, resulting in a state of jahiliyya or "ignorance."
Muslims believe that Muhammad, like other prophets in Islam, was sent by God to
remind human beings of their moral responsibility, and challenge those ideas in society
which opposed submission to God. According to Kelsay, this challenge was directed
against five main characteristics of pre-Islamic Arabia:
1. The division of Arabs into varying tribes (based upon blood and kinship). This
categorization was confronted by the ideal of a unified community based upon
Islamic piety, an "ummah;"
2. The acceptance of the worship of a multitude of deities besides Allah - a view
challenged by strict Islamic monotheism, which dictates that Allah has no partner
in worship nor any equal;
3. The trait of muruwwa (manliness), which Islam discouraged, instead emphasizing
on the traits of humility and piety;
4. The focus on achieving fame or establishing a legacy, which was replaced by the
concept that mankind would be called to account before God on the day of
resurrection;
5. The reverence of and compliance with ancestral traditions, a practice challenged
by Islam which instead assigned primacy to submitting to God and following
revelation.
These changes lay in the reorientation of society as regards to identity and life of the
Muslim belief, world view, and the hierarchy of values. From the viewpoint of
subsequent generations, this caused a great transformation in the society and moral order
of life in the Arabian Peninsula. For Muhammad, although pre-Islamic Arabia
exemplified "heedlessness," it was not entirely without merit. Muhammad approved and
exhorted certain aspects of the Arab pre-Islamic tradition, such as the care for one’s near
kin, for widows, orphans, and others in need and for the establishment of justice.
However, these values would be re-ordered in importance and placed in the context of
strict monotheism.
Furthermore, a Muslim should not only follow these five main characteristics, but also be
broader about his morals. Therefore, the more the Muslim is applying these rules, the
better that person is morally. For example, Islamic ethics can be applied by important
verses in there holy book (The Quran). The most fundamental characteristics of a Muslim
are piety and humility. A Muslim must be humble with God and with other people:
“And turn not your face away from people (with pride), nor walk in insolence through the
earth. Verily, God likes not each arrogant boaster. And be moderate (or show no
insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice. Verily, the harshest of all voices is the
voice (braying) of the ass.” (Quran 31:18-19)
Muslims must be in controls of their passions and desires.
A Muslim should not be vain or attached to the ephemeral pleasures of this world. While
most people allow the material world to fill their hearts, Muslims should keep God in
their hearts and the material world in their hand. Instead of being attached to the car and
the job and the diploma and the bank account, all these things become tools to make us
better people. Morality in Islam addresses every aspect of a Muslim’s life, from greetings
to international relations. It is universal in its scope and in its applicability. Morality
reigns in selfish desires, vanity and bad habits. Muslims must not only be virtuous, but
they must also enjoin virtue. They must not only refrain from evil and vice, but they must
also forbid them. In other words, they must not only be morally healthy, but they must
also contribute to the moral health of society as a whole.
3. Hindu ethics
Can you identify the bases of the moral teachings of Hinduism?
Hindu ethics are related to reincarnation, which is a way of expressing the need for
reciprocity, as one may end up in someone else's shoes in their next incarnation. Intention
is seen as very important, and thus selfless action for the benefit of others without thought
for oneself is an important rule in Hinduism, known as the doctrine of karma yoga. This
aspect of service is combined with an understanding that someone else's unfortunate
situation, while of their own doing, is one's own situation since the soul within is the soul
shared by all. The greeting namaskar is founded on the principle that one salutes the
spark of the divine in the other. Kindness and hospitality are key Hindu values.
More emphasis is placed on empathy than in other traditions, and women are sometimes
upheld not only as great moral examples but also as great gurus. Beyond that, the Mother
is a Divine Figure, the Devi, and the aspect of the creative female energy plays a major
role in the Hindu ethos. Vande Mataram, the Indian national song (not anthem) is based
on the Divine mother as embodied by 'Mother India' paralleled to 'Ma Durga'. An
emphasis on domestic life and the joys of the household and village may make Hindu
ethics a bit more conservative than others on matters of sex and family.
Of all religions, Hinduism is among the most compatible with the view of approaching
truth through various forms of art: its temples are often garishly decorated, and the idea
of a guru who is both entrancing entertainer and spiritual guide, or who simply practices
some unique devotion (such as holding up his arm right for his whole life, or rolling on
the ground for years on a pilgrimage), is simply accepted as a legitimate choice in life.
Ethical traditions in Hinduism have been influenced by caste norms. In the mid-20th
century Mohandas Gandhi, a Vaishnava, undertook to reform these and emphasize
traditions shared in all the Indian faiths:
 vegetarianism and an ideology of harms reduction leading ultimately to

nonviolence
 active creation of truth through courage and his 'satyagraha'
 rejection of cowardice and concern with pain or indeed bodily harm
After his profound achievement of forcing the British Empire from India, these views
spread widely and influence much modern thinking on ethics today, especially in the
peace movement, ecology movement, and those devoted to social activism.
4. Buddhist Ethics
Dear students, Can you identify the bases of the moral teachings of Buddhism?
There are two temptations to be resisted when approaching Buddhist moral theory. The
first is to assimilate Buddhist ethics to some system of Western ethics, usually either
some form of Utilitarianism or some form of virtue ethics. The second is to portray
Buddhist ethical thought as constituting some grand system resembling those that
populate Western metaethics. The first temptation, of course, can be avoided simply by
avoiding the second. In Buddhist philosophical and religious literature we find many
texts that address moral topics, and a great deal of attention devoted to accounts of
virtuous and vicious actions, virtuous and vicious states of character and
of virtuous and vicious lives. However, we find very little direct attention to the
articulation of sets of principles that determine which actions, states of character or
motives are virtuous or vicious, and no articulation of sets of obligations or rights. This is
not because Buddhist moral theorists were and are not sufficiently sophisticated to think
about moral principles or about the structure of ethical life, and certainly not because
Buddhist theorists think that ethics is not important enough to do systematically. It is
instead because from a Buddhist perspective there are simply too many dimensions of
moral life and moral assessment to admit a clean moral theory. Buddhist ethical thought
has instead been concerned with understanding how the actions of sentient beings are
located and locate those beings within the web of dependent origination, or prat¥tya-
sammutpåda.
4.1. Action Theory and Karma
The term “karma” plays a central role in any Buddhist moral discussion. It is a term of
great semantic complexity and must be handled with care, particularly given its intrusion
into English with a new range of central meanings. Most centrally,
“karma” means action. Derivatively, it means the consequences of action. Given the
Buddhist commitment to the universality of dependent origination, all action arises from
the karmic consequences of past actions, and all action has karmic consequences. Karma
is not a cosmic bank account on this view, but rather the natural causal sequellae of
actions. Karma accrues to any action, simply in virtue of interdependence, and karmic
consequences include those for oneself and for others, as well as both individual and
collective karma. Buddhist action theory approaches human action and hence ethics in a
way slightly divergent from that found in any Western action theory, and it is impossible
to understand moral assessment without attention to action theory. Buddhist philosophers
distinguish in any action the intention, the act itself (whether mental, purely verbal, or
non-verbally physical as well) and the completion or the final state of affairs resulting
directly from the action itself.
REFERENCES (unit1-5)
Thiroux, Jacques (1995) Ethics: Theory and Practice, 5th ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall
Barry, V. (1983) Philosophy: A Text with Readings.2nd ed. Belmont, Wadsworth
Publishing com.
Bonevac, D. (1999) Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives, 3rd
ed. California, Mayfield
Ward, L. R. (1965) Ethics a College Text. New York, Harper and Row Publishers.
Singer, P.(ed.) (1993) A Companion to Ethics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers
Gensler, J Spurgin,W & Swindal,C (2004) Ethics contemporary readings,New York and
London. Routhledge group publishers.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005), Ataraxiainc, Bogota, Chibchombia
Boss, J.A.(1999) Analyzing Moral Issues. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Bourke, V. J. (1961) Ethics: A Text Book in Moral Philosophy. New York, The
Macmillan com.
Callahan, Joan C. (ed.) (1988) Ethical Issues in Professional Life. Oxford, Oxford
University press.
Gregory, W.T.and Giancila, D. (2003) World Ethics, Canada,Wadsworth
Hamilton, C. (2003) Understanding Philosophy for As Level. Nelson Thornses Ltd.
Light, A. & Rolston, H.(ed.) (2003) Environmental Ethics: an Anthology, Oxford,
Blackwell Publishing
Moore,B.N. and Bruder, K. (2005) Philosophy the Power of Ideas.6th ed. McGraw Hill.
Munitz, M. K. (ed.) (1961) A Modern Introduction to Ethics: Readings from Classical and
Contemporary Sources, USA, The Free Press of Glencoe.
Pahel, K and Schiller, M. (ed.) (1970) Readings in Contemporary Ethical Theory,New

Jersey, Prentice Hall
Stumpf, Samuel E. (1993) Socrates to Sartre: A history of Philosophy, Rev. 5 th ed.,New
York. McGraw-hill, Inc.
Titus, H. H. (1947) Ethics for Today. 2nd ed. New York, American Book
CompanyK.Tardo, Russel(1999) Studies in Christian ethics
Garfield,Jay L (2004) Buddhist ethics
Noor, Abdu (2008) Ethics, Religion and Good governance
Rashell, Hastings (2007) Philosophy and Religion
Moral Philosophy Individual Assignment
General Instruction: write short and precise answers for the following questions.
Your handwriting should be neat and legible.
1. Explain the difference and similarity between morality and ethics.
2. Write the difference between normative ethics and metaethics.
3. Write why and how morality is different from a) etiquette b) law c) religion d)
obedience to authority.
4. What are the significance of moral theory in understanding and explaining moral
problems and issues?
5. Explain the difference between teleological and deontological morality.
6. Explain the moral concept of ethical egoism. How it is different from other forms?
7. What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
8. What are the difficulties related with utilitarianism in general?
9. What do act nonconseqentialists maintain? How do they differ from act utilitarians?
10. What is the stance of rule nonconseqentialists? How do they differ from rule
utilitarians?
11. Explain the categorical imperative. How it is different from hypothetical imperative?
12. What are prima facie duties? Can you think of any moral duties that might be prima
facie? What are they?
13. Explain how virtue ethics is different from consequentialist or non-consequentialist
ethics.
14. Discuss some advantage of virtue ethics comparing to the other theories of morality.

Moral Phil Full Document (New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moral Phil Full Document (New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WSU, COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

Program Civics and ethical studies

M oral philosophy/ethics is not to be treated as remote; a discipline studied by

☺ Explain the need of moral philosophy/ethics in human social life

3-6 3 Chapter Two

Chapter Three: Listen lecture

Required reference books

Singer, P.(ed.) (1993) A Companion to Ethics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers

Moral philosophy/ethics is not to be treated as remote; a discipline studied by philosophers or

UNIT ONE: MEANING AND CONCEPTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY/ ETHICS

Etymological definition of ethics and morality

Activity 2: Is ethics the exclusive province of philosophers? Is it only a matter of abstract

Activity 3: Can you discuss some of the major branches of ethics?

1.3. Major Branches of Ethics

metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values

B. Psychological Issues in Metaethics: A second area of metaethics involves the psychological

Activity 5: What is morality for you?

Lesson Two: Definition of Morality

normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that

Activity 6: Compare and contrast descriptive and normative sense of ethics?

Some major distinctions and what morality is not

2.3. To Whom or what does Morality Apply?

9. Do not covet your neighbor’s spouse.

Individual Morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of

2.4. Who is morally or ethically responsible?

2.5. Where does morality come from?

2.6. WHY ETHICS

2.7. Key terms in Ethics

UNIT TWO: TELEOLOGICAL/CONSEQUENTIALIST MORAL THEORIES

TELEOLOGICAL/CONSEQUENTIALIST MORAL THEORIES

Why should we care about being clear about such issues?

Activity 1: What is the significance of a moral theory?

 CONSEQUENTIALISM/ TELEOLOGICAL MORAL THEORIES

It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences

Activity 3: explain the difference between egoism, altruism and utilitarianism.

2.3. TYPES OF CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY

2.3.1.1. Psychological egoism

2.3.1.2. ETHICAL EGOISM

The Psychological variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs.

2.3.1.2. 1. Individual and Personal ethical egoism

4. it does not fit well with the helping professions

Activity 7: Are people by nature altruistic?

The aforementioned examples points out some basic features of utilitarianism.

Dear students as we have discussed all three of teleological/consequentialist theories

Activity 8: What is the difference between utilitarianism and hedonism?

2.3.3.1. Types of Utilitarianism

Activity 10:What is the difference between Bentham’s and Mills concept of

According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the

Social Contract Theory: In addition to ethical egoism, ethical altruism, and

In a later article, McCloskey says:

2. Calculating utility is self-defeating

drop the demand that utility be maximized. In Satisficing Consequentialism Michael

Activity 11: Discuss the criticisms related with consequentialism.

Dear students, so far we have thoroughly examined what consequentialist theory of

UNIT THREE: DEONTOLOGICAL THEOREIS OF MORALITY

In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices

3.1. Types of Deontological Theories.

Generally, nonconsequentialist theories are divided into two categories: Act

3.1.1. ACT NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

3.1.2. RULE NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

3.1.2.1. Divine Command Theory

GENERAL CRITICISMS OF THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

3.1.2.2. Kant’s Duty Ethics: Categorical Imperative