Moral Theory

An explanation of why an action is right or
wrong or why a person or a person’s character is
good or bad

Tells us what it is about an action that makes it
right
Moral Theory cont.

Moral theories alone are not the ultimate
authority in moral deliberations.

Moral deliberations involve both the general and
the particular—theory, principles, and
considered judgments.
Moral Theory cont.

Consequentialist/Teleological theory—
Asserts that the rightness of actions depends
solely on their consequences

Categorical/Deontological theory—Asserts
that the rightness of actions is determined partly
or entirely by their intrinsic value
Moral Criteria of Adequacy

Criterion I: Consistency with our considered
moral judgments

Criterion II: Consistency with the facts of the
moral life

Criterion III: Resourcefulness in moral
problem-solving
Utilitarianism
“Greatest Happiness/Pleasure for the
Greatest Number”
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“Nature has placed man under the governance
of two masters, pain and pleasure.”

The only thing intrinsically good is pleasure

The only thing intrinsically bad is pain
Principle of Utility:

“The principle which approves or disapproves
of every action whatsoever, according to the
tendency which it appears to have to augment or
diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question.”

May be paraphrased simply as “The greatest
good for the greatest number.”
“Calculus of Felicity/Hedonistic Calculus”







Intensity: How strong is the sensation (of pain or
pleasure)?
Duration: How long does the sensation last?
Certainty: How clear and distinct is the sensation?
Propinquity: How soon will it be experienced?
Fecundity: What other sensations of pleasure/pain
will follow?
Purity: How free from pain is the pleasure, and vice
versa?
Extent: How many persons will be affected by it, one
way or the other?
Nozick’s “Experience Machine”


The thought experiment is an argument against
hedonism, i.e. the position that good is to be
defined in terms of pleasure alone.
Argues that “what matters” includes more than
simply having an experience, we wish to do
certain things and be a certain way, and
hedonism doesn’t fully answer the question of
motivation/what matters. Thus hedonism is
insufficient.
J.S Mill (1806-1873)

Mill’s version of Utilitarianism seeks to respond to charges that
Bentham’s moral system is a “pig philosophy,” i.e. base pleasures
trump all.

Seeks to distinguish “happiness” from mere sensual pleasure, so for
Mill “good” in the principle is equated with happiness.

Notes that there is a qualitative difference between pleasures, and this
fact must be factored in if one is to try to distinguish goods based
upon ability to produce happiness.

This distinction makes it difficult to apply a “hedonistic calculus” as
Bentham envisioned due to difference in values of opposing
“pleasures.” What is required are competent judges who can rule
between competing pleasures.
“Rule-Utilitarianism”

Many examples can given where an act might be morally justified
on an act-based system of consequentialism, but that would fail a
test for overall utility, e.g. “Bob for spare parts.”

Thus it seems the best way to salvage consequentialism is to
argue for a rules-based system, where the rules guiding action are
in place to maximize utility.

“Each act, in the moral life, falls under a rule; and we are to judge
the rightness or wrongness of an act, not by its consequences,
but by the consequences of its universalization – that is, by the
consequences of the rule under which this act falls.