Overview of Ethical Theories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Subjective relativism
Cultural relativism
Divine command theory
Kantianism
Act utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism
Social contract theory
Relativism versus Objectivism:
Where “The Good” Exists
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Subjective relativism
Cultural relativism
Divine command theory
Kantianism
Act utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism
Social contract theory
Relativism
“The
Good” is
inside
Objectivism
“The
Good” is
outside
THE WORKABLE ETHICAL THEORIES:
RATIONAL THEORIES
1.
Subjective relativism
2.
Cultural relativism
3.
Divine command theory
4.
Kantianism
5.
Act utilitarianism
6.
Rule utilitarianism
7.
Social contract theory
Not a Workable Theory
According to the Author
Workable Theories
SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM
• There are no universal moral norms of right and wrong
• All persons decide right and wrong for themselves
• Pros:
•
Well meaning people can have opposite opinions
•
Opposing views do not need to be reconciled
•
Unpleasant debates are avoided
CONS OF SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM
• Can be used to rationalize bad behavior
• Morality becomes meaningless
•
Anything can be called moral
• Tolerance becomes meaningless
•
Anything can be tolerated even intolerance
• Ethical decisions don’t have to be based on reason
1. SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM
Case for
• Relativism
• No universal norms of right
and wrong
• One person can say “X is
right,” another can say “X is
wrong,” and both can be right
• Subjective relativism
• Each person decides right and
wrong for himself or herself
• “What’s right for you may not
be right for me”
Well-meaning
and intelligent
people disagree
on moral issues
 Ethical debates
are disagreeable
and pointless

Case against
Blurs distinction
between doing what
you think is right and
doing what you want to
do
 Makes no moral
distinction between the
actions of different
people
 SR and tolerance are
two different things
 Decisions may not be
based on reason
 Not a workable
ethical theory
(according to author)

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• The ethical theory that what’s right or wrong depends on place and/or time
• Pros:
•
Different social contexts determine different moral guidelines
•
One society should not judge another by its own standards
•
The actual behavior of a society reflects its values better than what it says
CONS OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• Different views of right and wrong are not always acceptable
•
Just because they exist doesn’t make them okay
• Cultural relativism can be vague and subject to different interpretations
• There are no guidelines for reconciliation between cultures in conflict
• Cultures have to share many “core values”
2. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• What is “right” and
“wrong” depends upon a
society’s actual moral
guidelines
• These guidelines vary
from place to place and
from time to time
• A particular action may
be right in one society at
one time and wrong in
other society or at
another time
Case for
Different social
contexts demand
different moral
guidelines
 It is arrogant for
one society to
judge another
 Morality is
reflected in actual
behavior

Case against
Because two societies do
have different moral views
doesn’t mean they ought to
have different views
 Doesn’t explain how moral
guidelines are determined
 Doesn’t explain how
guidelines evolve
 Provides no way out for
cultures in conflict
 Because many practices are
acceptable does not mean any
cultural practice is acceptable
(many/any fallacy)
 Societies do, in fact, share
certain core values
 Only indirectly based on
reason
 Not a workable ethical
theory

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
• Good actions are aligned with the will of God
• Bad actions are contrary to the will of God
• The holy book helps make the decisions
• Pros:
•
We owe obedience to God, our creator
•
God is all good and all knowing
•
God is the ultimate authority
CONS OF DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
• There are many holy books that disagree with each
other
• In a multicultural society it’s unrealistic to adopt a
religion based morality
• Some moral problems are not mentioned in the holy
books
• Equating “good” with “God” is the “equivalence fallacy”
(trying to equate two things that are similar)
• Divine Command Theory is not based on reason
3. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
(THE VIRTUE APPROACH)
• Good actions: those
aligned with God’s will
• Bad actions: those
contrary to God’s will
• Holy books reveal God’s
will.
• We should use holy
books as moral decisionmaking guides.
Case for
We owe
obedience to our
Creator.
 God is all-good
and all-knowing.
 God is the
ultimate authority.

Case against
Different holy
books disagree
 Society is
multicultural,
secular
 Some moral
problems not
addressed in
scripture
 “The good” ≠
“God” (equivalence
fallacy)
 Based on
obedience, not
reason

KANTIANISM
• Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) a German philosopher
• People’s wills should be based on moral rules
• Therefore it’s important that our actions are based on appropriate moral rules.
• To determine when a moral rule is appropriate Kant proposed two Categorical Imperatives
FIRST FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
• Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time universalize.
•
If you act on a moral rule that would cause problems if everyone followed it then your actions are not more
SECOND FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
• Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a
means to an end.
•
If you use people for your own benefit that is not moral
PROS OF KANTIANISM
• It’s rational, i.e. people can use logic to determine if the reason for their actions meet one of the
Categorical Imperatives
• It produces universal moral guidelines
• All people are moral equals and deserve to be treated similarly
CONS OF KANTIANISM
• Sometimes a single rule is not enough
• There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules
• It allows no exceptions to moral rules
• But, is it a workable theory in spite of its weaknesses?
4. KANTIANISM
(THE RIGHTS APPROACH)
Case for
• Good will: the desire to do the
right thing
• Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the
world good without qualification
is good will.
• Reason should cultivate desire to
do right thing.
Rational
 Produces
universal moral
guidelines
 Treats all persons
as moral equals
 Workable ethical
theory

Case against
Sometimes no
rule adequately
characterizes an
action.
 There is no way
to resolve a conflict
between rules.
 Kantianism allows
no exceptions to
moral laws.

ACT UTILITARIANISM
• Principle of Utility
(Also known as Greatest Happiness Principle)
•
An action is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties
•
An action is wrong to the extent that it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties.
•
Happiness may have many definitions such as: advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure
ACT UTILITARIANISM
• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, 19th century
• The best ethical course of action is the one that brings the greatest good for the greatest
number
• An action is good if it benefits someone
• An action is bad if it harms someone
• Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual
or a community
• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure
• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain
• Principle of Utility (The Greatest Happiness Principle)
• An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the
affected parties.
PROS OF ACT UTILITARIANISM
• It focuses on happiness
• It is down-to-earth
•
It is practical
•
Well defined
• It is comprehensive
CONS OF ACT UTILITARIANISM
• The boundaries of an evaluation are not clear
• It is not practical
• Too much work can go into every moral decision
• Ignores persons’ innate sense of duty
• It is consequence oriented
• It is susceptible to the problem of “moral luck”
• The actors are not always in control of the consequences
ACT UTILITARIANISM - CONTINUED
Case for
• Act utilitarianism applies Principle
of Utility to individual actions
• Act utilitarianism
• Add up change in happiness of all
affected beings
• Sum > 0, action is good
• Sum < 0, action is bad
Focuses on
happiness
 Down-to-earth
(practical)
 Comprehensive
 Workable ethical
theory

Case against
Unclear whom to
include in
calculations
 Too much work
 Ignores our
innate sense of duty
 Susceptible to the
problem of moral
luck

RULE UTILITARIANISM
• Rules are based on the Principle of Utility
•
A rule is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties
•
The Greatest Happiness Principle is applied to moral rules
• Similar to Kantianism – both pertain to rules
•
But Kantianism uses the Categorical Imperative to decide which rules to follow
PROS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Calculating the total happiness is easier than in Act Utilitarianism
Not every moral decision requires the utilitarian calculations
It’s easier to resolve conflicting rules
It overrides “moral luck”
It appeals to a large cross section of society
Considered “workable”
• Treats all persons as equals
• Is rational and reasons can be given to explain why actions are good or bad
CONS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM
• We are forced to use the same scale or measure for all evaluations
even if the consequences are completely different
• Usually the consequences are expressed in dollars
• But, many consequences are difficult to measure in dollars
• It ignores the unjust distribution of good consequences
• Not all members of society may benefit equally
RULE UTILITARIANISM
• We ought to adopt
moral rules which, if
followed by everyone,
will lead to the greatest
increase in total
happiness
• Rule utilitarianism
applies Principle of
Utility to moral rules
Case for
Compared to act
utilitarianism, it is
easier to perform
the utilitarian
calculus.
 Not every moral
decision requires
performing
utilitarian calculus.
 Moral rules
survive exceptional
situations
 Avoids the
problem of moral
luck
 Workable ethical
theory

Case against
All consequences
must be measured
on a single scale.
 Utilitarianism
ignores the problem
of an unjust
distribution of good
consequences.

Utilitarianism does not
always mean “the greatest
good of the greatest
number”
 That requires a principle
of justice
 What happens when a
conflict arises between the
Principle of Utility and a
principle of justice?

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
•
Thomas Hobbes (1603-1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
•
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree
to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well.”
•
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan
•
•
•
Without rules and enforcement people have no incentive to create anything of value as they are not sure they
can keep or profit from it
•
State of nature
•
Cooperation is essential
•
Only possible when common guidelines are followed
•
Moral rules are necessary to insure the ‘benefit of social living’
Requires agreement to
•
Establishment of a set of moral rules
•
Government capable of enforcing the rules
Rousseau’s The Social Contract
•
No man has natural authority over others
•
Force alone bestows no rights
•
Legitimate authority must be based on agreements
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
• Critical problem is finding form of association that
• Guarantees everyone safety and property
• Enables each person to remain free
• Rousseau states the answer is for each to give themselves and their rights to
the community
• Community makes and enforces the rules
• Everyone is equal in the community
• “Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one
another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on
the condition that others follow those rules as well.”
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
• Based on universal moral rules
• Rules can be derived through a rational process
• Negative rights
• Positive rights
• Absolute rights
• Limited rights
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
• John Rawls (1921-2001)
• Each person may claim an adequate number of basic rights and liberties as long as everyone else has a
claim to the same rights and liberties.
• Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
•
They are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume
•
The difference principle: They are “to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society”
• Rawls’s Theory of Justice
•
Recognizes the harm of concentration of wealth and power
•
Each person may claim ‘fully adequate rights’ so long as they are consistent with other’s claims to those rights
•
Social and economic inequalities must be associated with positions that anyone can hold and to be to the ‘greatest
benefit to the least-advantaged’
PROS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
• It uses the language of rights
• It explains why rational people act out of self interest in the absence of a common agreement.
• It provides a clear ethical analysis of some important moral issues regarding the relationship between
people and their government
• It is a “workable” theory.
CONS OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
• If we don’t sign the contract why should we be bound by it?
• Some actions can be characterized multiple ways.
• It does not have a way to resolve conflicting rights
• It may be unfair to those who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract.
NEGATIVE VERSUS POSITIVE RIGHTS
• Negative right (liberty right): A right that another can guarantee by leaving you alone
• Positive right (claim right): A right obligating others to do something on your behalf
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
(THE COMMON GOOD APPROACH)
• Thomas Hobbes
• “State of nature”
• We implicitly accept a social contract
• Establishment of moral rules to govern
relations among citizens
• Government capable of enforcing these
rules
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• In ideal society, no one above rules
• That prevents society from enacting bad
rules
Case for
Framed in
language of rights
 Explains why
people act in selfinterest without
common agreement
 Provides clear
analysis of certain
citizen/government
problems
 Workable ethical
theory

Case against
No one signed
contract
 Some actions
have multiple
characterizations
 Conflicting rights
problem
 May unjustly
treat people who
cannot uphold
contract

CRITERIA FOR A WORKABLE ETHICAL THEORY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
These criteria are from the author and his colleagues
Do we agree?
Moral decisions and rules:
Based on logical reasoning
Come from facts and commonly held values
Culturally neutral
Treat everyone equally
THE FOUR “WORKABLE” THEORIES
•
•
•
•
•
Kantianism
Act Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Social Contract Theory
In spite of weaknesses all of the above pass the author’s “workable” test:
• Ethical decision making is a rational process
• Moral principles are found by using logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held
values
MORALITY VS. LEGAL
• Are all legal acts also moral?
• Difficult to determine because many immoral acts are not addressed by the law
• Are all illegal acts immoral?
• Social Contract Theory: Yes, we are obligated to follow the law
• Kantianism: Yes, by the two Categorical Imperatives
• Rule Utilitarianism: Yes, because rules are broken
• Act Utilitarianism: Depends on the situation. Sometimes more good comes from
breaking a law.
COMPARING WORKABLE THEORIES
• Kantianism and Social Contract are based on “doing the right thing”
• The Utilitarian theories are oriented towards the “consequences “ of actions
• However, once a rule is established, Rule Utilitarianism requires strict adherence to it.
• Therefore, Kantianism, Social Contract, and Rule Utilitarianism all use moral
rules to determine if an action is moral
• Act Utilitarianism adds up the total good achieved
• Kantianism and Social Contract theory focus on the individual decision makers
(The Deciders) while the Utilitarian theories focus on all affected parties.
TOOLBOX OF MORAL THEORIES
• Whether presented with problems that are easy or difficult to solve, the
four workable theories,
•
•
•
•
•
Kantianism
Act Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Social Contract Theory
will provide us with solutions to many of the problems that arise from
the introduction of Information Technology into society that we will
address this semester
COMPARING WORKABLE
ETHICAL THEORIES
Theory
Motivation
Criteria
Focus
Kantianism
Dutifulness
Rules
Individual
Act
Utilitarianism
Consequence
Actions
Group
Rule
Utilitarianism
Consequence/
Duty
Rules
Group
Rules
Individual
Social Contract Rights
BASIC Rules
for Critical Thinkers
1. Because you are not perfect, it is inevitable
some of the beliefs and viewpoints you
firmly hold are completely wrong.
2. You must understand the viewpoints of those
who disagree with you before you are fully
able to understand your own viewpoints.
3. Until you can summarize another viewpoint
so well those who hold it agree with your
summary, you do not understand that
viewpoint.
(2)
BASIC Rules
for Critical Thinkers
4. You should always assume those who
disagree with your viewpoint are as
intelligent and as noble-minded as you
are.
5. You must be willing to seriously consider
alternative viewpoints and to change your
mind in order to be a critical thinker.
6. A retreat into relativism is a retreat away
from critical thinking. Not all viewpoints
are equally valid.
(2)