Ethics: Short summary of all ethical theories:
Realism:
General idea: ethical codes and moral beliefs are connected to culture and therefore there cannot be a
universal moral truth
Contradiction: If there are no universal ethical codes or beliefs how can realism argue that every
ethical code of every culture should be tolerated as this would create a universal moral belief?
without the superiority of moral beliefs, there wouldn’t be any improvements and just changes
would mean that the vote for women, anti-slavery regulations and so on were not an
improvement at all and rather a change in a culture
sounds absurd to only accept these things as changes rather than improvements or to tolerate
practices like slavery in other cultures
Moral realism: objective/absolute about what is right and wrong
Moral Anti-Realism: There are moral facts, which do not exist objectively
Consequentialism:
subcategory of Utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics
To assess if something is good, look at the consequences
Example: the Murder of one person is morally good if the other option would’ve been that the person
would’ve killed several people so the consequence of murdering that one person is that a lot of lives
were saved
Utilitarianism:
Maximization of the good (mostly agreed to be happiness and pleasure).
‘Jeremy Bentham-principle of utility: the greatest utility for the greatest number
For utilitarians the community exists of beings that are capable of suffering
Generally opposed to deontology (theory that describes us all certain rights and duties, certain rules,
positive or negative does not determine whether something is right or wrong)
Problem: utilitarianism is willing to sacrifice a person for the sake of the benefit of a group – conflict
with our basic moral institution that people have a right not to be used in this way
Rule utilitarianism: We should live by rules that are most likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest
number -> maximizing the good for the greatest number in the long run
Act Utilitarianism: every single act should lead to the greatest good for the greatest number; short-term (It
would be perfectly fine to sacrifice the interest of some people for the greater good (killing someone and using
their organs for transplantation to let five people live)
Peter Singer:
Represent of utilitarianism
proposes the idea that to buy more than one actually needs to life is immoral
If we do not donate our 200$ to a charity (to save the life of a child, because apparently it takes 200$),
we are sacrificing a child’s life for our own luxury
Example: we see immorality of being ignorant of other people’s needs for bare necessities (while we
engage in accumulation what exceeds bare necessities) as immoral, if directly faced with it
A man has a very expensive car, he knows if he sells it, he will have enough money to life when he
retires, he parks it and walks a little bit. There is a child stuck in the train tracks and aa train is coming,
the man has the opportunity to change the directions of the train, the train would then crash into his
car.
We should in fact donate a part of all our money and refrain from paying for anything that exceeds
the absolute necessity of having
Deontology:
there are absolute rules and principles by whom we should live, and we have certain rules and duties
to follow (duties apply to not violate other people's rights)
, Kant also has a deontological Ethical approach, is representative of this theory
our actions are regulated by so-called hypothetical imperatives, hypothetical because I can choose
to follow the imperatives or not
Categorical imperatives (applying to white men, women and children do not count)
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never merely as means to an end(-Mittel), but always at the same time as an end(-
Zweck)” (Kant 1993 (1785): G 4:429). (2nd imperative)
Not only use a person as means to an end. The other person should benefit from it as well
3rd categorical imperative: “Always so to act that the will could at the same time regard itself as giving
in its maxims universal laws.”
Divine Demand Theory:
An act is morally required if it is commanded by God and immoral if God forbids it
Euthyphro question: Does God command actions because they are morally right, or are actions morally
right because God commands them?
Plato: The Gods love actions because they are pious (fromm)
Socrates: If the Gods love something because it is pious then the love of the Gods is not what makes
actions pious. Thus, Euthyphro failed in defining piety.
Natural Law Theory:
Actions are right because they are natural and wrong because they are unnatural
People are good or bad to the extent that they fulfill their true nature—the more they fulfill their
true nature, the better they are
Attractions of Natural Law Theory:
Natural law theory promises to explain how morality could possibly be objective – not depended on
human opinion
Natural law theory easily explains why morality is specifically suited for human beings and not for
anything else in the natural world
Natural law theory has a clear account of the origins of morality
Natural law theory may solve one of the hardest problems in ethics: how to gain moral knowledge -
moral facts are just scientific facts about human nature
Virtue Ethics:
An act is morally right because it is the one that a virtuous person, acting in character would do
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
virtue: state of character
concerned with choosing the mean between extremes
pleasure by performing right actions
happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue
Virtue can only be acquired by training, experience and practice
a virtuous person knows the right action, does the right action for its own sake
Virtuous person is a moral exemplar
Difference to most moral theories: What is the right thing to do? Vs. What kind of person should I be?
Family of theories that traces its root back to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
Focuses on moral character and attends to the characteristics of the individual that lead to moral
actions
Buddhist Virtue Ethics:
emphasis on virtue ethical system that teaches the art of becoming balanced and harmonious
through humility, with the goal of being free from dukka, or suffering or anguish (Qual)
Focussed on what is suitable and what is not rather than on what is right and what is wrong like in
western theories
promotes positive outcomes and lessens harmful outcomes
Realism:
General idea: ethical codes and moral beliefs are connected to culture and therefore there cannot be a
universal moral truth
Contradiction: If there are no universal ethical codes or beliefs how can realism argue that every
ethical code of every culture should be tolerated as this would create a universal moral belief?
without the superiority of moral beliefs, there wouldn’t be any improvements and just changes
would mean that the vote for women, anti-slavery regulations and so on were not an
improvement at all and rather a change in a culture
sounds absurd to only accept these things as changes rather than improvements or to tolerate
practices like slavery in other cultures
Moral realism: objective/absolute about what is right and wrong
Moral Anti-Realism: There are moral facts, which do not exist objectively
Consequentialism:
subcategory of Utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics
To assess if something is good, look at the consequences
Example: the Murder of one person is morally good if the other option would’ve been that the person
would’ve killed several people so the consequence of murdering that one person is that a lot of lives
were saved
Utilitarianism:
Maximization of the good (mostly agreed to be happiness and pleasure).
‘Jeremy Bentham-principle of utility: the greatest utility for the greatest number
For utilitarians the community exists of beings that are capable of suffering
Generally opposed to deontology (theory that describes us all certain rights and duties, certain rules,
positive or negative does not determine whether something is right or wrong)
Problem: utilitarianism is willing to sacrifice a person for the sake of the benefit of a group – conflict
with our basic moral institution that people have a right not to be used in this way
Rule utilitarianism: We should live by rules that are most likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest
number -> maximizing the good for the greatest number in the long run
Act Utilitarianism: every single act should lead to the greatest good for the greatest number; short-term (It
would be perfectly fine to sacrifice the interest of some people for the greater good (killing someone and using
their organs for transplantation to let five people live)
Peter Singer:
Represent of utilitarianism
proposes the idea that to buy more than one actually needs to life is immoral
If we do not donate our 200$ to a charity (to save the life of a child, because apparently it takes 200$),
we are sacrificing a child’s life for our own luxury
Example: we see immorality of being ignorant of other people’s needs for bare necessities (while we
engage in accumulation what exceeds bare necessities) as immoral, if directly faced with it
A man has a very expensive car, he knows if he sells it, he will have enough money to life when he
retires, he parks it and walks a little bit. There is a child stuck in the train tracks and aa train is coming,
the man has the opportunity to change the directions of the train, the train would then crash into his
car.
We should in fact donate a part of all our money and refrain from paying for anything that exceeds
the absolute necessity of having
Deontology:
there are absolute rules and principles by whom we should live, and we have certain rules and duties
to follow (duties apply to not violate other people's rights)
, Kant also has a deontological Ethical approach, is representative of this theory
our actions are regulated by so-called hypothetical imperatives, hypothetical because I can choose
to follow the imperatives or not
Categorical imperatives (applying to white men, women and children do not count)
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never merely as means to an end(-Mittel), but always at the same time as an end(-
Zweck)” (Kant 1993 (1785): G 4:429). (2nd imperative)
Not only use a person as means to an end. The other person should benefit from it as well
3rd categorical imperative: “Always so to act that the will could at the same time regard itself as giving
in its maxims universal laws.”
Divine Demand Theory:
An act is morally required if it is commanded by God and immoral if God forbids it
Euthyphro question: Does God command actions because they are morally right, or are actions morally
right because God commands them?
Plato: The Gods love actions because they are pious (fromm)
Socrates: If the Gods love something because it is pious then the love of the Gods is not what makes
actions pious. Thus, Euthyphro failed in defining piety.
Natural Law Theory:
Actions are right because they are natural and wrong because they are unnatural
People are good or bad to the extent that they fulfill their true nature—the more they fulfill their
true nature, the better they are
Attractions of Natural Law Theory:
Natural law theory promises to explain how morality could possibly be objective – not depended on
human opinion
Natural law theory easily explains why morality is specifically suited for human beings and not for
anything else in the natural world
Natural law theory has a clear account of the origins of morality
Natural law theory may solve one of the hardest problems in ethics: how to gain moral knowledge -
moral facts are just scientific facts about human nature
Virtue Ethics:
An act is morally right because it is the one that a virtuous person, acting in character would do
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
virtue: state of character
concerned with choosing the mean between extremes
pleasure by performing right actions
happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue
Virtue can only be acquired by training, experience and practice
a virtuous person knows the right action, does the right action for its own sake
Virtuous person is a moral exemplar
Difference to most moral theories: What is the right thing to do? Vs. What kind of person should I be?
Family of theories that traces its root back to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle
Focuses on moral character and attends to the characteristics of the individual that lead to moral
actions
Buddhist Virtue Ethics:
emphasis on virtue ethical system that teaches the art of becoming balanced and harmonious
through humility, with the goal of being free from dukka, or suffering or anguish (Qual)
Focussed on what is suitable and what is not rather than on what is right and what is wrong like in
western theories
promotes positive outcomes and lessens harmful outcomes
