1
The Three Central Concepts in Ethical Theory
As we proceed through the semester, we will look at a number of different ethical theories that have been proposed over
the history of philosophy. There are a lot of different ways to try to “compartmentalize” these theories to contrast them
with one another. One way – which is more general – is to use the “agent-act” distinction. Another way is more specific,
and helps you to see the abstract nature of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of a particular theory. This second method uses four
concepts that are central to ethical discussion and asks how three of the four, in each particular case, are related to one
another. These concepts are “principles”, “inner states”, “right” and “good”. In what follows, I go through each of the
basic ways to construe these concepts as related, I explain what it means, and then I reveal the ethical theory that
matches it. I will repeatedly turn back to this as the semester progresses, so try to keep these concepts in mind.
1. Right to Principles: The concept of “right” in ethics is the kind of description you use to refer to action. Imagine that
a person grabs a baby before the baby is hit by a car. What a person will typically say here is that the fact that the baby
was saved was “good”, while the action itself that saved the baby was the “right” one to perform. We ask questions like
“is this the right thing to do?” When an action is right, we assume that it is what is ethical. But different theories in
ethics understand “rightness” in different ways, or give different explanations for it. When we want to know whether a
specific action is right, the first question we should ask is: what kind of explanation are we looking for? For example,
one might say that such questions could be answered with claims that “such actions leads to pleasure” or “help other
people”. On the other hand, some might say “right actions are those that follow from some generally accepted rule” or
“right actions are those that follow from good dispositions or inner states” such as honesty or caring (or some other kind
of accepted disposition). Depending on how we determine “what is a right action?” we draw the arrow from right to one
of the other two concepts. If we answer it by stating “right actions are those that follow from some rule” then we draw:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
STATES
GOOD
2
What this means is that if we say “action X is right” then what we mean is that the action follows from some kind of
principle or rule that we acknowledge to be the right ones to follow. So, we might say that a person did what was right
because they followed ‘do not lie’ as a principle. Or we might think that not hurting others is right because doing no
harm is the principle we ought to follow. Or perhaps we say “X is a right action because it is in accord with what God
says that we must do.” In any of these cases, one is defining “right action” in terms of principles or rules.
The next obvious question we ask at this point is this one: why are those principles the ones we should follow? What
makes them the right ones? Why are they good? Here we want to extend the diagram we currently have – we want to
draw a relationship between principles and the good. There are two ways a principle can be related to the good.
A. Maximization.
According to this way of understanding the relationship to the good, a principle would be the right one to follow if it
maximizes the good (whatever one construes this to be). So, you might think that the good is the presence of pleasure
and the removal of pain for the largest number of people. Or you might think that it is what maximizes one’s own
desires. In any case, a principle such as “do not lie” would be seen as ethical because when we act in accord with such
rules we tend to increase the amount of pleasure in the world and reduce the amount of pain in it (for the greatest
number of people, say). Because this way of relating principles to the good aims at increasing what is seen as good, the
relationship between principles and the good is a maximizing one. So the diagram looks like this:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
An example of this kind of approach is rule utilitarianism.
GOOD
3
B. Exemplification
If a principle is said to exemplify the good, then what we are saying is that acting in accord with such a principle
embodies some kind of good (again, however we construe this). Let’s say that what we think is “good” is reason. If so,
we may think that the principles we are supposed to follow are all examples of reason, and that’s what makes them
good. As a result, acting in accord with a principle doesn’t maximize reason, it exemplifies it and so acting in accord
with the right principles exemplifies the good. In such a case we draw the arrow from the good to principles, showing
that the good is exemplified through the principles themselves. So the diagram is drawn this way:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
GOOD
An example of this kind of approach is Kantian deontology.
Another version of this might be Divine Command Theory. According to this theory, what is “good” is what honors the
authority of God. As such, God might give out a number of commandments for us to follow. What would be right, in
this view, would be what is in accord with those commandments, and those commands would be seen as good because
acting on them exemplifies submission to God’s authority, which is seen as the good.
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
GOOD
4
2. RIGHT TO STATES
The right might not point towards principles; it might point towards states. What this means is this: when we say that an
action is “right” what we mean is not that it is in accord with the right principles or rules, but rather that it flows from
good dispositions and inner states. Examples might be things like this: “that was the right action, because it showed the
person was courageous” or “it was right because it revealed the generosity of the person.” Here we say that rightness is
explained by the inner state that the action sprung from. For an action to be right in this fashion, it cannot bypass
dispositions – it is necessary that for an action to be right that it flow from a kind of good disposition. So, the diagram
would be drawn in this way:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
GOOD
STATES
Now again, we should move to the good. Why is a particular state a good state? What’s so “good” about it? Just as for
principles, there are two ways for states to be related to the good – the states either exemplify it, or they maximize it. So,
A. Maximization. Same as the case for principles, a state is a good one if having it leads to the maximization of
whatever is seen as good. So, again, if ‘advancing utility or pleasure’ for others is the good, then the theory believes that
having one’s actions spring from good dispositions tends to lead to increase of the good on the whole. So the diagram
would be written like this:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
STATES
GOOD
5
An example of this is character utilitarianism.
B. Exemplification. If a state is said to exemplify the good, then what we are saying is that when our actions flow from
those dispositions we exemplify or embody what the good is. Mostly, theories that turn in this direction think of the
good as human nature. So, they argue that in some way acting from honesty or generosity makes us human, and this is
good. So actions are right because they flow from good states, and the states are good because they allow us to
exemplify what it means to be human.
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
GOOD
STATES
An example of this is virtue ethics.
III. RIGHT TO GOOD
Some theories dispense entirely with principles or states. Instead, they link “right” to the “good” directly. So they look
like this:
PRINCIPLES
RIGHT
GOOD
STATES
According to such theories, whether an action is right is determined by whether that action maximizes the good.
Theoretically, it’s pretty simple!
6
An example of this is act utilitarianism.