Revision:Normative Ethics
From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > Normative Ethics
Utilitarianism (Classic)
What is it?
- Consequentialist theory
- Good act: maximises good in the world
- Hedonistic – happiness is only intrinsic good
- Felicific Calculus – ‘measures’ of happiness = calculated + weighed up
- Egalitarian – person one happiness = person two happiness
Weaknesses
- Egalitarian:
- Tyranny of the majority – seems to justify absurd things like slavery.
- Unlimited demands – when does the duty end? Should I sell my house send money to Oxfam so that 20 people in Africa might live a happier life? (stems from inability to distinguish between allow to happen and causing to happen + no concept of moral obligation)
- Consequences:
- Accurate predicting – surely this requires a god-like mentality. NO human is capable of accurately predicting the consequences of their actions. Also, this directly links ability to be moral to intelligence?!
- Time span – how far into the future are we expected to predict?
- Misunderstanding of morality:
- Wittgenstein –We do not act morally to gain some goal or benefit; morality is about conflict, weighing up values with other values. This is not possible with only one value!
- E.g. If I have a choice between saving my mum or mother Teresa from a burning building, which do I do? Surely I’m obligated to my mum, but Teresa = happiness.
- Happiness:
- Measure – can we really measure happiness?
- Assumes Hedonism – does this miss the point of life? We may do things for reasons other than achieving pleasure.
Strengths
- Dogma – rooted in a foundation that we dictate/ control/ experience
- Nature/ Emotion – strongly associated with human emotion/ feeling.
- Egalitarian – discourages prejudice
- Wellbeing – rather than abstract reasoning for morality (e.g. reason)
Abortion
- Predicting consequence – can’t always tell outcome of abortion
- Would seemingly have an obligation to have infinite babies
- How do we measure happiness vs. that of mother?
Utilitarianism – Different Versions
- Act – the consequences of the specific act are those which should be considered
- Standard classical utilitarianism
- Rule – the consequences of the rule under which the act falls are those that should be considered
- Answers objections of ‘tyranny’ etc.
- BUT must import values from other theories/ formulate rules
- Positive – the primary aim should be to maximise good in the world (happiness)
- Negative – the primary aim should be to minimize evil (pain)
- No hedonism assumption + acknowledges conflict within morality
- Can you distinguish between decreasing pain and increasing happiness? + seems to suggest we should kill everyone
- Preference – that which should be maximized is individual preference or welfare
- No Hedonism + pluralist
- Can we judge what is in our interests? Is preference = right? (rapists)
- Ideal – that which should be maximised is the consequences which are ideal or intrinsically good e.g. beauty, love, happiness etc. (ethically pluralist)
- Sidesteps preference objections
- Which ideals are intrinsically good? Are they always so? Why should we follow these ‘goods’?
Deontology – Kant’s
What is it?
- Good act = intent/motive (not consequences)
- Distinguishes between hypothetical (if want/then ought to) and categorical (you ought) imperatives.
- Want does not factor into it – you have a duty/ obligation
- Pure reason
- You should act on those maxims (abstract rules) which may be logically universalised.
- A categorical imperative: you should not use others as a means to an end, only as en end in themselves.
- A priori
Weaknesses
- Empty – the theory gives us the form of a moral act but not the content. To decide whether to apply universalisability to it we must first have some idea of whether it is right or wrong.
- A priori – anything that is a priori CANNOT be connected consequential (not trivial) = not practical!
- Universalisation – misunderstands nature of morality (stupid Kant!).
- Morality is not about consistency, it is about what is right. To say that something is right when it can be applied to everyone is misled and naïve. We may want to behave differently in different situations or say that something is right/ wrong for one person but not another.
- Does not work in determining morality! E.g. ‘use contraception’ is moral but could not be maximised
- Rule formulation – how do we formulate the rule? We might formulate a rule which is immoral + universaliseable.
- Makes us robots – only takes into account one aspect of what it is to be human.
- Consequences = consideration – surely we would to say people who act with good intent which resulted in negative consequences are morally liable? E.g. a doctor should be blamed for making careless mistakes?
- Does not aid with conflict – what if we have to choose between two undesirable maxims?
Strengths
- Non-dogmatic
- Practical (supposedly)/ decision procedure
- Explains moral obligation
Abortion
- Conflicting rights/ duties
- A priori – is baby human?
- Empty – contraception
- Universalisability – may want to abort some but not all
Virtue Theory
What is it?
- Concerned with how to live not what to do.
- We should seek to develop character when seeking to be moral
- By developing + applying those patterns of behaviour, thought and feeling which are virtuous.
- A virtue is something that is of worth to society and ourselves
- We acquire these through practice
- This is our best bet of leading a good and happy life – although luck is involved.
Weaknesses
- Virtues - how do we know what ‘virtues’ are?
- No universal agreement
- May end up redefining our preferences as virtues
- Relativism – if linked to idea that virtues = sociological values
- Superficial – a lot of value is placed on how you appear to other people as a person
- Lacking – cannot explain concepts such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’
Strengths
- Reflects the complex nature of morality
- Reflects more of what it is to be human (e.g. emotions etc.)
- No decision procedure
- Considers life as a whole
Comments
