the four theories

Seite 1

Kantian Ethics

Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason behind the action, not by its consequences. We can determine the worth of the motive behind any given moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive into a universally applicable maxim. Reason is the same at all times and for all people, so morality too should be universal. Therefore, an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law.

Kant calls it a “categorical imperative” that we must act in such a way that we could will the maxim according to which we act to be a universal law. He contrasts this with the “hypothetical imperative,” which would demand that we act to achieve certain ends. The maxim of a hypothetical imperative would assert, “do such-and-such if you want to achieve such-and-such result.” There are no ifs in moral action, according to Kant. Morality works according to a categorical imperative because we must act in a given way simply because the motive is admirable, not because we have calculated that we can achieve certain ends as a result.

Once we recognize the universality of moral law, we must also recognize that it applies equally to all people. Acting morally, then, requires that we recognize other people as moral agents and always treat them as ends in themselves, not as means by which we can achieve our own ends. We must also ensure that our actions do not prevent other people from acting in accordance with moral law. Kant envisions an ideal society as a “kingdom of ends,” in which people are at once both the authors and the subjects of the laws they obey.

Morality is based in the concept of freedom, or autonomy. Someone with a free, or autonomous, will does not simply act but is able to reflect and decide whether to act in a given way. This act of deliberation distinguishes an autonomous will from a heteronomous will. In deliberating, we act according to a law we ourselves dictate, not according to the dictates of passion or impulse. We can claim to have an autonomous will even if we act always according to universal moral laws or maxims because we submit to these laws upon rational reflection.

Kant answers the tricky question of free will and determinism—how can we at once assert that we have a free will and that we live in a world that functions according to necessary physical laws?—by drawing on his distinction from the Critique of Pure Reason between the phenomenal world of appearances and the noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Physical laws apply only to appearances, whereas the will is a thing-in-itself about which we have no direct knowledge. Whether the will is actually free we can never know, but we still act in accordance with the idea of freedom.

Christian Ethics

The Bible

The Bible clearly has a significant role in shaping Christians' ethical responses. Within the Catholic tradition, the Bible's authority is the same as the church. In practice this means that Catholics tend to listen to the church on ethical issues as the church interprets the Bible in the modern world.Within Protestant churches, a much greater emphasis is put on the Bible. Without a God-given authority to put faith in, Christians are expected to read the Bible for themselves and make their own decisions about important ethical issues. However, without the ability to read scripture in the language in which it was written, Christians have to put faith in the translators. On issues such as homosexuality, the translators' bias comes through in the translation, with words such as 'abomination' used with no justification.

Reading the Bible raises other issues. Is it the literal word of God, or merely inspired by God? Is it possible to dismiss large chunks as having been written for people in an entirely different society?

The best way to read the Bible is to look at the context of any passage. What is that passage meant to mean to the person who was going to read it? While parts of the Bible have a clear meaning, and are inspiring to many Christians, there will always be debate about the true meaning of some difficult passages.

Situation Ethics It is difficult to gauge the influence of Situation Ethics. Even before Fletcher wrote his book, many theologists supported a 'love ethic':

"There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". William Temple, 1917

"The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law." Paul Tillich, 1951

There is a tension within the Christian faith between the command to love, and the sense of duty towards other commandments and obligations. Fletcher saw the need for rules, but he said we need to be ready to abandon them when love demands this.

Natural Law

Just as ‘natural’ law is an unhelpful term (an artificial

limb is natural because it helps us fulfil our purpose or

nature), so is ‘doing good’. We think of the good that

is done, the outcome or consequences. A better

summary of Natural Law theory would be ‘Do good

actions, avoid doing evil acts.’ The theory looks at the

action itself. For example, the act of lying is wrong,

even though lying sometimes leads to good outcomes.

‘Do good’ means tell the truth. An abortion for a 9

year old rape victim may save her life, but it involves

killing an innocent foetus, so it is an evil act. According

to Natural Law, we must only do good actions, never

evil actions, even if bad acts lead to good outcomes.

The Primary Precepts

describe the purpose of human

life. A good person is one who fulfils their purpose. If

something is contrary to our God-given purpose, it is

wrong. All living things strive to survive and

reproduce. As rational beings, we have other purposes

peculiar to us – education and living in a civilised

society with rules. These are underpinned by the

belief that God made us with a specific purpose.

W – Worship God

O – live in an Ordered society

R - Reproduce

L - Learn

D – Defend the innocent

Secondary Precepts

Natural Law is a deontological theory, based on ‘duty’.

Duty based theories contain rules that we must follow,

rather than judging something of value (pleasure/

happiness/fulfilment of preferences etc.) that we need

to bring about. The Secondary Precepts are absolute,

they are derived from the Primary Precepts and have

no exceptions. For example, as one of the Primary

Precepts is reproduction, using contraceptives is

always wrong. Other Secondary Precepts include ‘Do

not abort’, ‘Do not euthanise’, ‘Do not experiment on

embryos’. ‘Do not divorce’ etc. The Secondary

Precepts are derived from the Primary Precepts using

reason.

Utilitarianism

Bentham

Bentham equated happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. This was an empirical observation - people desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain. His scientific mind led him to believe that the study of ethics could be undertaken in a practical way, carefully measuring the possible consequences or outcomes of an action before deciding which choice to take.

Bentham’s theories led to extensive social reform affecting Parliament, criminal law, the jury system, prisons, savings banks, cheap postage etc, etc. What was revolutionary about Bentham’s theory was that it resulted in all people being considered when making laws. His felicific calculus (also called the ‘hedonic’ or ‘utility’ calculus) was helpful in determining how to measure different amounts of pleasure:

The Hedonic Calculus

Remoteness – how near it is

Purity – how free from pain it is

Richness – to what extent it will lead to other pleasures

Intensity – how powerful it is

Certainty – how likely it is to result

Extent – how many people it affects

Duration – how long it lasts

John Stuart Mill

Mill believed that quality was more important than quantity when it came to pleasure. For example, the pleasures of the mind are far superior to the gratification of the body’s desires. This deals with the problem of sadistic torturers, as their pleasure is of a significantly lower kind.

‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’

Act Utilitarianism

You look at an action to determine what is moral, and from this general rules can be derived. E.g. when faced with a road traffic accident (rta) a paramedic will treat a pregnant woman first. This is because in any given situation, the pregnant woman and her unborn child have a greater potential for future happiness than any individual involved in the crash. By deciding how to act in a specific case, the general rule ‘Always treat a pregnant woman first’ can be derived. This rule is only a guideline, and should be discarded if doing so will bring about more happiness (e.g. if a brain surgeon is in need of treatment).

A big criticism of Act Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to make the sorts of calculations it requires, although Bentham talked of a 'rule of thumb' which meant that you could repeat a previous decision under similar circumstances. Another is that people need rules - if you allow people to lie, steal etc. this could become too great a temptation e.g. to lie to avoid looking bad rather than because it genuinely brought better consequences.

On the plus side, it has most integrity, as it allows you to stick with the greatest happiness principle unswervingly – simply do whatever brings the most happiness in any given situation.

Rule Utilitarianism

Some general principles are formulated. From these, certain actions will be ruled out as unacceptable. The principle of utility is therefore applied to a rule, so the rule will hold if in general following it leads to greater happiness. This means that in an individual case, even though an injustice might bring about greater happiness, if it goes against the general principle that injustice tends to lead to misery and a reduction in happiness, it is deemed wrong.

Bentham is generally seen as an Act Utilitarian, as the Greatest Happiness Principle seems to demand. As we saw, he is open to the criticism that Utilitarianism goes against justice and human rights, as it allows abuses of rights if they bring enough happiness. Mill may be seen as a Rule Utilitarian, as he clearly thinks certain rules have a Utilitarian justification. In his book 'Utilitarianism', Mill defends the idea of rights:

"To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility."

Ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it lead to the greatest happiness. Elsewhere in the book, Mill says:

"...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner."

Does this make him an Act Utilitarian? Peter Vardy says this is how most people view Mill. Others describe him as a 'soft' Rule Utilitarian, 'Hard' Rule Utilitarians would disagree with breaking a rule even if doing so led to the greater good. Many criticise 'soft' Rule Utilitarians, saying that this is effectively the same as Act Utilitarianism.

Mill strongly believed that the individual is sovereign over himself, which is an unusual principle for a Utilitarian! This means that, for example, we should allow people to smoke in private (banning smoking is an attack on the individual's sovereignty) even though smoking leads to terrible illness etc. Mill's belief in individual sovereignty could be justified by a Rule Utilitarian (can you explain how?)