1-NORMATIVE ETHICS
1.1-Deontology
Deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that
action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than on the consequences of the
action itself. For that reason, it is described as duty ethics. The principal deontological theory was developed
by Immanuel Kant, which thought that moral laws cannot be based on happiness as it is different for each
person and is an individual matter that changes with time, therefore striving for happiness would be immoral.
Therefore, duty was seen as a better guideline for ethics.
A key-term in Kantian ethics is autonomy, as a person itself should be able to determine what is morally correct
through reasoning. In other words, we should place a moral norm upon ourselves and obey it out of a sense of
duty, being only then when we are acting with good will. It is noteworthy that goodwill and having good
intentions is not the same for Kant, as actions that are led by the moral norm are the only valid ones. Since a
moral norm has validity independent of time and place, it means that a moral norm is unconditionally
applicable.
According to Kant, there is one universal principle from which all the norms can be derived, referred to as the
categorical imperative. This categorical imperative was formulated in three forms:
• Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
(Universality principle), reflecting agent neutrality as the idea that moral rules apply equally to
everyone, regardless of personal interests or circumstances. These maxims should guide the actions
of all rational beings without exceptions, and an action is only morally right if it can be universally
applied.
• Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end,
never as means only (Reciprocity principle). This imperative states that each human must have respect
for the relationality of another and that we must not misguide the rationality of another. In other
words, humans must never be merely used for our selfish ends, as we would disrespect their humanity.
• Thus, the third practical principle that follows from the first two is that we must will maxims that can
be at the same universal, but do not infringe on the freedom of ourselves nor of others (Autonomy
principle).
There are several critics regarding Kant’s theory:
• Moral norms are derived from the categorical imperative, however, in practice a situation might arise
where two moral rules are in conflict, but both should be strictly applied. William David Ross
developed a pluralistic theory of moral obligations, where good is situated on two levels, namely what
seems good at first and what is good when everything is being considered. From this, it was
distinguished between prima facie duties, obligations that generally apply, and actual or self-evident
duties, those that take priority after considering the situation. This approach acknowledges that moral
life is complex and sometimes requires weighing competing norms to decide which duty truly applies.
• Rigorism, which arises from the categorical imperative strictness and agent neutral character, applies
to all persons, all actions and all contexts without exceptions. Therefore, in some cases it ignores the
consequences of actions, potentially producing harm. Ross argue hat by recognizing multiple duties
, and considering context, moral reasoning can remain flexible and responsive to outcomes, avoiding
the moral blindness that strict Kantian rule-adherence can create.
• Maxims are personal rules for acting in a situation, but it can be unclear how to define one when
applying the categorical imperative. The main critic is that the concept of maxim is too vague, and
moral judgement can vary based on how you describe your intention. In order to solve this, refining
the maxims are needed, trying out possible formulations to see which one can be universalized.
• Kant strictly separates duty from emotion or sympathy as an action only has true moral worth if it’s
done from duty, not because we enjoy doing it or feel compassion. This seems unnatural as it makes
love, friendship, and empathy morally less valuable. Supporters of Kant argue that duty ensures our
actions are reliable and principled, not based on changing feelings, but emotions can still motivate us
to fulfill those duties.
1.2-Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory, namely a type of consequentialism, therefore the center of the
moral judgment resides in the consequence of actions, that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and
well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the
greatest good for the greatest number.
Jeremy Bentham was the founder of Utilitarianism, which described utility as the capacity of actions or objects
to produce benefits, such as pleasure of happiness and produce harm, such as pain or unhappiness, to those
affected. Bentham’s theory is considered hedonistic, as he believed that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and
pain, the only intrinsic evil, which motivates human behavior.
The moral criterion for good or bad lies upon the utility principle, which is based on the greatest happiness for
the greatest amount of people, and is the only and sufficient ground for any action. Bentham proposed a moral
balance sheet to perform calculations as a function of circumstances that would conclude if an action were
morally right in the case that it yields net happiness, such as:
• Duration
• Certainty
• Extent
• Remoteness
• Fecundity
• Purity
John Stuart Mill is another philosopher that extended Utilitarianism by revisiting Bentham's ideas, with the
exception of two main disagreements. On the one hand, those qualities must be taken into consideration when
performing calculations, as some pleasures are more valuable by nature. For instance, quantitatively smaller
pleasure can be preferred over a larger one if the smaller one is intrinsically more valuable. “Higher” desires
are described as intellectual ones, while “lower” are those related to physical and animal desires. The second
disagreement is related with the fact that Mill thought that actions must provide the most pleasure but not
conflict with human nature and dignity, as if the pleasure of the majority outweighs the unhappiness of a few
individuals it could result in abuse of minorities. Consequently, he introduces the freedom principle (no harm
principle), namely stating that everyone is free to strive for their own pleasure, as long as they do not deny the
pleasure of others.
, Utilitarianism has received several critics regarding cluelessness, integrity, impartiality, distributive justice, and
hedonism.
• Consequences cannot be foreseen, as they are often unpredictable, unknown or uncertain. However,
expected consequences can be used with the accompanying pleasure.
• Distributive justice refers to the value of having a just distribution of important goods. Utilitarianism
treats society as a whole, aiming for the greatest overall happiness, without necessarily considering
how happiness is distributed—this can allow unfair outcomes for the sake of a greater total good (as
criticized by John Rawls). To address this, Henry Sidgwick argued that among equally happy societies,
the one with the most equal distribution should be preferred. Moreover, Richard Hare maintained that
utilitarianism already tends toward a just distribution of welfare, since diminishing marginal utility (the
decreasing additional happiness gained from each extra unit of wealth) and the pain caused by
inequality both favor more equal outcomes.
• Ignores personal relationships, as the hedonistic view of Bentham considers people as anonymous
units and is irrelevant who receives the pleasure, just the total happiness is taken into consideration.
Hence, the objection concerns impartiality, which critics argue neglects personal commitments, such
as prioritizing the welfare of one’s family over strangers. Utilitarians can respond by arguing that
impartiality is a strength of the theory, ensuring fairness and consistency in moral decision-making,
though some variants of utilitarianism allow weighting closer relationships slightly more in practical
judgment.
• Another objection is integrity, in which a decision might go against personal moral values and
convictions, potentially undermining their sense of moral integrity. Defenders might respond by
underlining that moral principles should be based on the greater good, causing unavoidable personal
discomfort.
• The objection to utilitarianism due to hedonism is that reducing morality to the pursuit of pleasure
and avoidance of pain oversimplifies human values and ignores other important moral goods. In order
to prevent this issue, rule utilitarianism can be adopted, which judges actions by judging the
consequences of the rules on which these actions are based
1.3-Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics is a philosophical approach that focus on the nature of the acting person, namely by treating
virtues (characteristic disposition to think, feel, and act well in some domain of life) and character as the
primary subject of ethics. Virtues are not everyday habits, but they are character traits in the sense that they
are central to someone’s personality.
This moral theory began with Socrates and was developed further by Plato and the Stoics and it is mainly rooted
in the philosophy of Aristotle. According to this theory, moral behavior arises from cultivating good character
traits such as honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. Ethical action is achieved through finding the golden
mean, the balance between excess and deficiency of a virtue. Therefore, a moral virtue is the middle between
two evil extremes and are not given at birth or are supernaturales, but they can be developed by deeds, in
other words they can be practiced. However, what is good in one case does not necessarily have to be in
another situation, so Aristotle argues that good is sometimes ambiguous. For that reason, practical wisdom is
the intellectual virtue that enables one to make the right choice for action and in consequence it should be
strive for.
1.1-Deontology
Deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that
action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than on the consequences of the
action itself. For that reason, it is described as duty ethics. The principal deontological theory was developed
by Immanuel Kant, which thought that moral laws cannot be based on happiness as it is different for each
person and is an individual matter that changes with time, therefore striving for happiness would be immoral.
Therefore, duty was seen as a better guideline for ethics.
A key-term in Kantian ethics is autonomy, as a person itself should be able to determine what is morally correct
through reasoning. In other words, we should place a moral norm upon ourselves and obey it out of a sense of
duty, being only then when we are acting with good will. It is noteworthy that goodwill and having good
intentions is not the same for Kant, as actions that are led by the moral norm are the only valid ones. Since a
moral norm has validity independent of time and place, it means that a moral norm is unconditionally
applicable.
According to Kant, there is one universal principle from which all the norms can be derived, referred to as the
categorical imperative. This categorical imperative was formulated in three forms:
• Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
(Universality principle), reflecting agent neutrality as the idea that moral rules apply equally to
everyone, regardless of personal interests or circumstances. These maxims should guide the actions
of all rational beings without exceptions, and an action is only morally right if it can be universally
applied.
• Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end,
never as means only (Reciprocity principle). This imperative states that each human must have respect
for the relationality of another and that we must not misguide the rationality of another. In other
words, humans must never be merely used for our selfish ends, as we would disrespect their humanity.
• Thus, the third practical principle that follows from the first two is that we must will maxims that can
be at the same universal, but do not infringe on the freedom of ourselves nor of others (Autonomy
principle).
There are several critics regarding Kant’s theory:
• Moral norms are derived from the categorical imperative, however, in practice a situation might arise
where two moral rules are in conflict, but both should be strictly applied. William David Ross
developed a pluralistic theory of moral obligations, where good is situated on two levels, namely what
seems good at first and what is good when everything is being considered. From this, it was
distinguished between prima facie duties, obligations that generally apply, and actual or self-evident
duties, those that take priority after considering the situation. This approach acknowledges that moral
life is complex and sometimes requires weighing competing norms to decide which duty truly applies.
• Rigorism, which arises from the categorical imperative strictness and agent neutral character, applies
to all persons, all actions and all contexts without exceptions. Therefore, in some cases it ignores the
consequences of actions, potentially producing harm. Ross argue hat by recognizing multiple duties
, and considering context, moral reasoning can remain flexible and responsive to outcomes, avoiding
the moral blindness that strict Kantian rule-adherence can create.
• Maxims are personal rules for acting in a situation, but it can be unclear how to define one when
applying the categorical imperative. The main critic is that the concept of maxim is too vague, and
moral judgement can vary based on how you describe your intention. In order to solve this, refining
the maxims are needed, trying out possible formulations to see which one can be universalized.
• Kant strictly separates duty from emotion or sympathy as an action only has true moral worth if it’s
done from duty, not because we enjoy doing it or feel compassion. This seems unnatural as it makes
love, friendship, and empathy morally less valuable. Supporters of Kant argue that duty ensures our
actions are reliable and principled, not based on changing feelings, but emotions can still motivate us
to fulfill those duties.
1.2-Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory, namely a type of consequentialism, therefore the center of the
moral judgment resides in the consequence of actions, that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and
well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the
greatest good for the greatest number.
Jeremy Bentham was the founder of Utilitarianism, which described utility as the capacity of actions or objects
to produce benefits, such as pleasure of happiness and produce harm, such as pain or unhappiness, to those
affected. Bentham’s theory is considered hedonistic, as he believed that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and
pain, the only intrinsic evil, which motivates human behavior.
The moral criterion for good or bad lies upon the utility principle, which is based on the greatest happiness for
the greatest amount of people, and is the only and sufficient ground for any action. Bentham proposed a moral
balance sheet to perform calculations as a function of circumstances that would conclude if an action were
morally right in the case that it yields net happiness, such as:
• Duration
• Certainty
• Extent
• Remoteness
• Fecundity
• Purity
John Stuart Mill is another philosopher that extended Utilitarianism by revisiting Bentham's ideas, with the
exception of two main disagreements. On the one hand, those qualities must be taken into consideration when
performing calculations, as some pleasures are more valuable by nature. For instance, quantitatively smaller
pleasure can be preferred over a larger one if the smaller one is intrinsically more valuable. “Higher” desires
are described as intellectual ones, while “lower” are those related to physical and animal desires. The second
disagreement is related with the fact that Mill thought that actions must provide the most pleasure but not
conflict with human nature and dignity, as if the pleasure of the majority outweighs the unhappiness of a few
individuals it could result in abuse of minorities. Consequently, he introduces the freedom principle (no harm
principle), namely stating that everyone is free to strive for their own pleasure, as long as they do not deny the
pleasure of others.
, Utilitarianism has received several critics regarding cluelessness, integrity, impartiality, distributive justice, and
hedonism.
• Consequences cannot be foreseen, as they are often unpredictable, unknown or uncertain. However,
expected consequences can be used with the accompanying pleasure.
• Distributive justice refers to the value of having a just distribution of important goods. Utilitarianism
treats society as a whole, aiming for the greatest overall happiness, without necessarily considering
how happiness is distributed—this can allow unfair outcomes for the sake of a greater total good (as
criticized by John Rawls). To address this, Henry Sidgwick argued that among equally happy societies,
the one with the most equal distribution should be preferred. Moreover, Richard Hare maintained that
utilitarianism already tends toward a just distribution of welfare, since diminishing marginal utility (the
decreasing additional happiness gained from each extra unit of wealth) and the pain caused by
inequality both favor more equal outcomes.
• Ignores personal relationships, as the hedonistic view of Bentham considers people as anonymous
units and is irrelevant who receives the pleasure, just the total happiness is taken into consideration.
Hence, the objection concerns impartiality, which critics argue neglects personal commitments, such
as prioritizing the welfare of one’s family over strangers. Utilitarians can respond by arguing that
impartiality is a strength of the theory, ensuring fairness and consistency in moral decision-making,
though some variants of utilitarianism allow weighting closer relationships slightly more in practical
judgment.
• Another objection is integrity, in which a decision might go against personal moral values and
convictions, potentially undermining their sense of moral integrity. Defenders might respond by
underlining that moral principles should be based on the greater good, causing unavoidable personal
discomfort.
• The objection to utilitarianism due to hedonism is that reducing morality to the pursuit of pleasure
and avoidance of pain oversimplifies human values and ignores other important moral goods. In order
to prevent this issue, rule utilitarianism can be adopted, which judges actions by judging the
consequences of the rules on which these actions are based
1.3-Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics is a philosophical approach that focus on the nature of the acting person, namely by treating
virtues (characteristic disposition to think, feel, and act well in some domain of life) and character as the
primary subject of ethics. Virtues are not everyday habits, but they are character traits in the sense that they
are central to someone’s personality.
This moral theory began with Socrates and was developed further by Plato and the Stoics and it is mainly rooted
in the philosophy of Aristotle. According to this theory, moral behavior arises from cultivating good character
traits such as honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. Ethical action is achieved through finding the golden
mean, the balance between excess and deficiency of a virtue. Therefore, a moral virtue is the middle between
two evil extremes and are not given at birth or are supernaturales, but they can be developed by deeds, in
other words they can be practiced. However, what is good in one case does not necessarily have to be in
another situation, so Aristotle argues that good is sometimes ambiguous. For that reason, practical wisdom is
the intellectual virtue that enables one to make the right choice for action and in consequence it should be
strive for.
