Overview of Moral Theories: Analysis and Common
Criticisms
Some moral theories are presented in
brief.
Background for this Article
This thin guide to ethical theory was
prepared for a course called "Philosophy of Peace" which I
taught at Queen's University in 2001. This document can be used
as an intro to ethics by activists, or by instructors in
courses, especially where only a basic treatment of ethics is
called for. Goes with "Guide to Moral
Theoretical Terms".
Table of Contents
1. Skepticism in Ethics
1.1 Skepticism in Ethics: Analysis
1.2 Criticism of Skepticism in Ethics:
Pro
1.3 Criticism of Skepticism in Ethics:
Con
2. Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract
2.1 Hobbes’ Social Contract: Analysis
2.2 Criticism of Hobbes’ View: Pro
2.3 Criticism of Hobbes’ View: Con
3. Feminist Ethic of Care
3.1 Feminist Ethic of Care: Analysis
3.2 Criticizing Ethic of Care: Pro
3.3 Criticizing Ethic of Care: Con
4. Utilitarianism
4.1 Utilitarianism: Analysis
4.2 Criticism of Utilitarianism: Pro
4.3 Criticism of Utilitarianism: Con
4.4 Criticism of Utilitarianism: Pro or
Con?
5. Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Theory
5.1 Kant’s Ethical Theory: Analysis
5.2 Criticism of Kant’s Ethics: Pro
5.3 Criticism of Kant’s Ethics: Con
5.4 Criticism of Kant’s Ethics: Pro or
Con?
- Denies universal moral principles (rights, duties, rules,
virtues, and so on)
- Analyzes ethics in terms of existing individual and group
diversity (i.e., moral anthropology)
- When people seem to say something is good/bad,
right/wrong, just/unjust, they either mean other than what
they literally seem to (e.g., good = object of pro-attitude),
or else they are deluded
- Refuses to be dogmatic (holding beliefs without reason or
evidence), insists on what it conceives of as "intellectual
honesty"
- Is very open to moral diversity, across cultures and
individuals, at least in theory
- Is often celebrated as liberating, freeing individuals to
decide their own destiny
- Is unable to guide us, except to be free to do anything
we can
- "Anything goes" could condone any sort of abuse (or what
we so characterize, for practical purposes) as neither right
nor wrong; promotes moral indifference, not necessarily
"tolerance"
- Moral language does mean some things are unjust, and
maybe that is right (i.e., is skepticism self-refuting, or
not a coherent view?)
- People are naturally selfish, and there are no universal
moral norms to guide us
- Unrestrained, in a state of nature, life for people would
be "nasty, brutish, and short"
- BUT it is in everybody's self-interest to agree to a set
of rules that everybody will obey: typically, protections
against harm (e.g., no killing, raping, stealing, etc.)
- Clear and simple basis for ethics
- No "metaphysical baggage," can get ethics off the ground
even if skeptical
- Seems to many people to be "realistic" and practical,
since people will only ever follow an ethic that everyone
agrees to anyway, such as a basic set of minimal
obligations
- Acting out of pure selfishness does not seem especially
"ethical"
- Purely selfish agents will constantly seek ways to cheat,
while encouraging others ("suckers") to respect the social
contract (free rider problem)
- Non-contractors have no direct moral protection (senile,
insane, comatose, infantile, mentally challenged people, and
nonhuman animals)
- Moral life is not lived chiefly according to abstractions
(a male bias) so much as through caring
relationships
- People only ever do what they care about anyway, which
accounts for moral motivation
- Caring can be analyzed as a kind of respectful
virtue, and generally opposes harming
- Very flexible and contextually specific
- Allows us to focus on our everyday lives in caring ways,
taking responsibility for what is around us, is not "cold and
unemotional"
- Still allows for justice, rules, etc., but with caring as
a (possible) basis for them
- Does not view individuals in isolation, but as existing
in a web of interrelationships
- Collapses into ethical relativism: people will do
whatever people care (or not care) to do?
- Conduces to favoritism, lack of impartiality, since we
care more for familiars or those like ourselves?
- Even if granted, hopelessly vague, whereas ethics should
help to guide our actions Does not take justification or
reasoning seriously: why "care" in the first place?
- Dispenses with absolute rules as unworkable: they are
either too simplistic or else too arbitrary and
complicated
- Instead: maximize the good and minimize the bad in the
consequences of everyone's actions
- Example: If lying to Nazi re hidden Jews results in less
harm than exposing them, then lie.
- No absolute rules, but may be unworkable to calculate
(maximum) good, so can justify flexible rules (or rights,
virtues, duties) as being for the greatest good to adhere to
(indirect utilitarianism)
- Common distinction: act utilitarians (calculate for every
act) vs. rule utilitarians (justify "rules of thumb," only
calculate in cases of conflicting rules)
- Allows for flexibility, no rigid rules
- Seems fair in accounting for the good of all (well-being,
pleasure/pain, satisfaction)
- Situation-sensitive: looks to broader context
- Gives a reason for actions: for the good
- Not afraid to "get one's hands dirty" to do what is
thought to be morally "best"
- Individuals can be sacrificed for "the greatest good for
the greatest number," including for the pleasure of the
masses (slavery could be right?)
- Rule U. reduces to act U.? (or else how decide exceptions
to rules?)
- So vague can justify anything as "for the best"?
(example: utilitarians argued both sides re the bombing of
Hiroshima)
- Ignorance: Cannot predict future very well, quantify
good/bad, or add/subtract units of them, but some
things do seem to be better/worse than others, and maybe we
just have to guess as the best we can do
- Best only for governmental/societal decisions,
considering total good? (or else maybe that is all we
need, so long as we have general rules of thumb?)
- Based in "universalizability": every rational agent
should only act according to rules that can be made into
universal laws
- Example: stealing, killing, and lying cannot be willed as
universal law, for then others could do the same to oneself,
thus contradicting one's will as a rational agent
- Treat other rational beings as "ends in themselves,"
never as a means only (a universalizable form of respect, as
oneself would wish to be treated)
- Kant's respect for individuals was thought to result in
absolute rules against certain kinds of acts: lying,
promise-breaking, killing innocents, suicide, stealing,
adultery, etc.
- Kant is sometimes known as the father of human
rights
- Protects individuals against abuses, being exploited, or
disregarding their claims in pursuit of benefits for
others
- Prohibits arbitrary favoritism, making ethics universal
in its consistency
- Insists that people justify their actions,
especially harmful ones
- Makes priority out of preventing harm; promoting
happiness or welfare is more discretionary
- Unclear how specific rules have to be (e.g., can
one consistently be a racist without contradicting
one's own will: only against nonwhites, not self?)
- Rigidity: Never lie? (e.g., to Nazis about
harbouring Jews?)
- Emotionally challenged: Kant claims it must be the wish
of every rational agent completely to rid his/her self
of emotional inclinations
- Only "rational" beings count (directly) in ethics?
- accords with "Judaeo-Christian tradition" (a right and
good thing? controversial)
- emphasis on reasoning avoids emotional bias, but
can psychopaths be "rational" too?
- Treating persons as "ends in themselves" is vague, not
guiding, or is this good because it encourages us to give the
benefit of the doubt in avoiding harm in unclear cases?
