ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS For PHIS102

Federico Jose Lagdameo, Ph.D.

 “What is more ethically important:
the intention behind the action or the
consequences of the action itself?”

GUIDE “What are the overarching

QUESTIONS FOR frameworks that dictate the way we
make our individual moral decisions?”
THIS SECTION:
“What is my framework in making my
decisions?”
 DEONTOLOGY:
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Kant & Rights Theory

ETHICAL
FRAMEWORKS
VIRTUE ETHICS: (JUSTICE AND
Aristotle FAIRNESS)
CONSEQUENTIALISM
TELEOLOGICAL OR CONSEQUENTIALIST
ETHICS
TELEOLOGICAL OR CONSEQUENTIALIST
ETHICS
“[Consequentialism] begins with one of the most important moral
insights of modern times and couples it with a powerful metaphor that
underlies our moral life. The insight is that consequences count; indeed,
it goes one step further than this and claims that only consequences
count.” (Hinman 2008)
TELEOLOGICAL OR CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS

PROPONENTS

Utilitarians = Jeremy Bentham,

John Stuart Mill

“The greatest good for the greatest

number of people”

Ethical Egoists = “What is good is

what is good for me”
 TELEOLOGICAL OR
CONSEQUENTIALIST “MAXIMIZE THE GOOD.”
ETHICS
DEONTOLOGY OR DUTY-BASED
ETHICS
 “The will is a person’s ability
to make decisions on the
basis of reasons; Kant
argues that nothing is good
without qualification except
a good will; and a good will
is one that chooses what is
morally right because it is
right and not because it is
pleasurable or in one’s self-
interest.” (Velasquez 2009)

KANT & RIGHTS THEORISTS

KANT & RIGHTS
THEORISTS
Immanuel Kant’s “categorical
imperative,” i.e., the basic
principle of morality, has three
formulations:
1. Principle of Universality
2. Principle of Humanity as
End-in-Itself
3. Principle of Autonomy
KANT & RIGHTS
THEORISTS
Immanuel Kant:
“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.”
(Groundwork of a Metaphysics of
Morals)

Individuals must always be

considered as ends in themselves
and never merely as means.
 Immanuel Kant:
“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.” (Groundwork of a
Metaphysics of Morals)

The second formulation

serves as the basis of rights-
KANT & RIGHTS THEORISTS based theories of ethics.
The US Public Health Service in 1932 undertook
to study the cases of Native American inhabitants
of Tuskegee afflicted with syphilis. Their consent
was not sought and they were deceived into
undergoing the study. When in the 1940s
antibiotics became available for the treatment of
syphilis, this was withheld from the inhabitants for
the purposes of continuing the experiment.

The experiment was only halted in 1972 when it

was exposed in media. By that time, more than
100 had died and only 72 had survived. (Jones,
1981)
The SCIENTIFIC but INHUMAN
experimentation of Nazis on human subjects
(Jews mainly) formed much of what was the
Nuremberg Trials after the World War II.
 “The person who helps other people out of a sense of
duty without any feeling of care, compassion, or
sympathy is morally superior to the person who performs
KANT & RIGHTS the same actions while motivated by altruistic feelings.
Yet Kant’s point here, whether we agree with it or not, is
THEORISTS clear: There is something morally valuable in the actions
of a person who, despite feelings to the contrary, does
something because it is the right thing to do..” (Hinman
2008)
DEONTOLOGICAL
OR DUTY-BASED “DO YOUR DUTY.”
ETHICS
VIRTUE ETHICS
VIRTUE ETHICS
“The moral life, [some] philosophers suggest, is not just a
matter of acting on moral rules about which there are
fundamental disagreements. Instead, morality is about
becoming a good person and cultivating morally
desirable character traits such as honesty, courage,
compassion, and generosity. Instead of trying to discover
universal rules about which we will inevitably disagree,
ethics should try to identify the character traits or ‘virtues’
of the morally good person and explain how we can
develop and acquire these traits. Ethics should not
emphasize doing but being; it should look not only at how
we are obligated to act, but also at the kind of human
being we ought to be.” (Velasquez 2009)
 From the question “what should I
do?” to “what sort of person
should I become? What kind of
life must I live?”

VIRTUE ETHICS
It emphasizes being over doing:
being honest, for instance, instead
of merely doing honest deeds.
VIRTUE ETHICS

As a framework for This seeming ambiguity,

ethical judgment, it leads to the question:
responds to dilemmas “what makes a person
with: “the moral or virtuous, what IS a
virtuous person will do virtuous person?”
the right thing.”
VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
Born in Stagira, a Macedonian town some two
hundred miles north of Athens;

Nicomachus, his father, became a court physician to

Amyntas, king of Macedonia and grandfather to the
future Alexander the Great;

At 17 or 18, he was sent to Athens to study under

Plato (until the latter’s death) at the AKADEMIA;
VIRTUE ETHICS:
ARISTOTLE
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
discusses his thoughts on what
consists the highest human good.

His answer: the pursuit of man’s

teloς
(telos) and ergon (ergon).

But what is man’s teloς and ergon?

It is eudaimonia (eudaimonia).
 Man’s ergon or function is to
achieve the full realization
of his potentials or
capacities as a human being.

Man’s ergon is to practice his

reason in an excellent
manner. This excellence or
arête is virtue.

The state of being in which

one is virtuous is eudaimonia,
“the good life,” “a
flourishing life.”
VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
Eudaimonia is

1. living a life of excellent activities (arête);

2. supported by moderate good fortune;
3. and practiced for a lifetime.
VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
Arête (virtue) is “practiced for a lifetime,” i.e., it is
a habit.

The practice of virtue results (but cannot be

directly willed as such) to eudaimonia, to the good
life, the happy life, the flourishing life.
VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
“In his great work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote that human
beings can be happy only if they fulfill their basic human purpose or
‘function.’ That is, humans can be happy only if they act as humans are
specifically meant to act. Because only humans can reason, Aristotle
concluded that humans are meant to act with reason. That is, we
humans will be happy only if we are able to act with reason in the
various circumstances of our life. Because the ability to do something
well is a virtue, Aristotle concludes that humans will achieve happiness
only by developing their virtues . . .” (Velasquez 2009)
 To practice virtue is to practice reasonableness in our
VIRTUE ETHICS: actions, desires, and emotions; and to be reasonable is to
act with moderation. Virtue, thus, lies in the middle
ARISTOTLE (mesotes), in moderation.
 VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE
DEFICIENCY MEAN (VIRTUE) EXCESS
Cowardice Courage Rashness
Insensibility Temperance Self-indulgence/Licentiousness
Meanness Liberality Prodigality
Pettiness Magnificence Vulgarity
Pusillanimity Magnanimity Vanity
Unambitiousness Pride Ambition
Lack of spirit Patience Irascibility
Understatement Truthfulness Boastfulness
Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery
Cantankerousness Friendliness Obsequiousness
VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics would have us exercise our
capabilities (rational, affective, physical)
reasonably, moderately, excellently.
“Whatever we learn to do, we learn by
actually doing it; men come to be
builders, for instance, by building, and
harp players by playing the harp. In the
same way, by doing just acts we come
to be just; by doing self-controlled acts,
we come to be self-controlled; and by
doing brave acts, we become brave.”

-Aristotle
Nicomachean Ethics Bk II. I
1103a30-1103b
VIRTUE ETHICS “BE A GOOD PERSON.”
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
PROBLEMS:
Consequentialism:
Are there really no actions that are intrinsically wrong?
Can utilitarianism recognise the existence of rights?
How do we justify the claim that we should aim to produce the greatest happiness of
the greatest number?
PROBLEMS:
Consequentialism:
Why is it happiness we should maximise, rather than liberty, equality or some other
good?
How do we know in advance what the consequences of our actions will be?
Must we put the greatest happiness of the greatest number before the happiness of
our family?
PROBLEMS:
Consequentialism:
What is happiness and how do we measure it?
How can we tell what makes someone else happy? How can we balance one person’s
happiness against another’s?
PROBLEMS:
Consequentialism:
Whose happiness must be counted?
Does the happiness of future generations count, or only the happiness of those
currently alive?
Can a utilitarian account for personal integrity?
PROBLEMS:
Deontology:
How do we know which actions
are intrinsically right or wrong?
How could blindly following a
set of rules make us moral?
Aren’t there sometimes moral
reasons for breaking moral
rules?
PROBLEMS:
Virtue Ethics:
Are there any virtuous people?
Is an act virtuous because a virtuous person performs
it, or does the virtuous person perform it because it
is a virtuous act?
Which virtues are most important?
 Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics – A Pluralistic Approach to
Moral Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth,
2008
Pojman, Louis and James Feiser. Ethics – Discovering Right
REFERENCES and Wrong. Boston, MA: Cengage, 2012.
Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text With Readings.
Boston, MA: Cengage, 2011.