Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

Lesson 8: Basic theories as frameworks in ethics

Intended Learning Outcomes:

After the completion of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Discuss the concepts and context of basic theories as
frameworks in ethics;
2. Differentiate the various theories in ethics;
3. Familiarize the role of different theories in ethics in future career.

What is Framework?
FRAMEWORK  It is a basic structure values
 A set of assumption, concept, and practices
The Three Main Branches of the Philosophical Study of Ethics
1. META-ETHICS  Studies the nature of morality 
 Explains what goodness and wickedness mean
Cognitivism vs.  It talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values of
Non-Cognitivism moral judgement
Universalism vs.  It also explains what goodness and wickedness mean and
Relativism how we know about them 
Empiricism vs.  It consists in the attempt to answer the fundamental
Rationalism vs. philosophical questions about the nature of ethical theory
Intuitionalism itself.
For Examples:
1. Are ethical statements such as “lying is wrong”, or “friendship
is good” true or false?
2. Assuming there are truths of morality, what sorts of facts
make them true?
3. What makes ethical discourse meaningful? Is it different from
what makes other sorts of discourse meaningful?
4. How do the rules of logic apply to ethical arguments and
ethical reasoning? Is it possible to validly infer a moral
conclusion based on non-moral premises?
5. Assuming we have any, what is the source of our knowledge
of moral truths? Is it based on reason, intuition, scientific
experimentation or something else?
6. What is the connection (if any) between morality and religion? If
God exists, is God’s will the basis of morality? Can there be
morality if God doesn’t exist?
Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism
Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism
-The view that moral judgments -The view that moral
are capable of being true or judgments are not capable of
false being true or false (instead
-Right and wrong and matters they are like commands or
fact interjections)
2 famous form of Cognitivism -Denies the moral judgements

1
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

1. Moral Realism if true or false

-Claims that existence of moral
facts and the truth (or falsity) of Emotivism
moral judgements are -Submits the moral
INDEPENDENT judgements are mere
2. Ethical Subjective expressions of our emotional
-Holds that the truth of ethical and feelings
propositions are DEPENDENT
on attitude or standard of a
person
Universalism Vs. Relativism
Moral Universalism Moral Relativism
-Theorizes that moral facts -Submits the different moral
and principles apply to facts.
everybody in all places.
Empiricism Vs. Rationalism Vs. Intuitionalism
Moral Empiricism Moral Rationalism Moral
-Is a meta-ethical -Contends that moral Intuitionalism
stance which states facts and principles are -Submits that
that moral facts are knowable, a priori that moral truth are
known through is, by reason along and knowable by
observation and without reference to intuition.
experience. experience.
2. NORMATIVE  How man ought to act, morally speaking
ETHICS  It examines ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about what
is right, worthwhile, virtuous or just.
Deontology  It is the study of what makes actions right or wrong, what
Teleology makes situations or events good or bad and what makes
Virtue Ethics people virtuous or vicious.
Deontology
 Ethical system that bases morality on independent moral
 Rules or duties
 Obligation
Teleology
 Refers to moral system that determines the moral value of
actions by their outcomes or results
Virtue Ethics
 Moral system, places emphasis on developing good
habits of character, kindness and generosity.
 Avoiding bad character traits, or vices such as greed or
hatred.
3. APPLIED  Philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues.
ETHICS  It consists in the attempt to answer difficult moral questions
actual people face in their lives.
 Bioethics For example:
 Environmental 1. Is abortion always morally wrong?
Ethics 2. Is euthanasia always morally wrong?
 Business Ethics 3. What about the death penalty?
 Sexual Ethics Sex before marriage?

2
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

 Social Ethics So-called “white lies”

Being gay or lesbian?
Fighting in a war?
Using rough interrogation tactics on criminals?
Eating meat?
Using illegal drugs? ETC.
Bioethics
 Concerns ethical issues pertaining to life, biomedical
researches, medicines, health care and medical
profession.
Environmental Ethics 
 It deals with moral issues concerning nature, ecosystem,
and it’s human contents
Business Ethics 
 It examines moral principles concerning business
environment which involves issues about corporate,
practices, policies, business behavior and the
relationships of individual in the organization.
Sexual Ethics 
 Study moral issue about sexuality and human sexual
behavior
Social Ethics 
 Deals with what is right for a society to do and how it
should act as a whole.

Reference(s) & Author(s): Gzzingan,L., Porillo, J., Velasco, V., Valdez, S.,
Bautista, F., Dalhag, L., Trinidad, J.L., Palado, D., Nova, R. Understanding the Self.
Panday-Lahi Publishing House, Inc 2018.

Chapter Assessment

Direction:
Give life at least 2 experiences of the three main branches
of the philosophical study of ethics.

3
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

VIRTUE ETHICS- Socrates 470-399 BC, Plato 427-348 BC, and Aristotle 384-322
BC. The ancient Greek philosopher who deeply affected western philosophy.

1. Virtue Ethics Defined- is a moral philosophy that teaches that an

action is right if it is an action that a virtuous person would perform in
the same situation. Virtue Ethics emphasis on developing good habits
of character and avoiding bad character traits or vices. Basically the
virtues are the freely chosen character traits that people praise on
others. People praise them because: they are difficult to develop, they
are corrective of natural deficiencies, they are beneficial both self and
society.
2. Socrates and Plato Moral Philosophy- in the dialogue written by Plato,
Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain fail to provide an objective
standard from determining moral from immoral since they do not exist
apart from one another, while good and evil do.
Central to Plato’ philosophy in his Theory of Forms –the objectively
existing immaterial entities that are the proper object of
knowledge. Everything in the material world is what is by virtue of its
resemblance to, or participation, this universal form of idea. These
unchanging independent forms are like ideal and stable models of the
ordinary observable objects. The highest of all forms is the form of
The Good. Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can be
taught. Knowledge of good is considered as the source of guidance in
moral decision making that to know the good, it is argued, is to do the
good.
3. Aristotle’s Ethics- At least two of Aristotle’s work specifically concern
morality, the Eudemian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics.

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated by Aristotle.

3.1 Telos is an end or purpose. He believed that the essential nature of beings, lay
not at their cause or (beginning), but at their end (Telos).

(Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this manner: “all humans
seek happiness (wellbeing) but in different ways. True happiness is tied to the
purpose or end (telos) of human life. The essence of human beings (that which
separates and distinguishes as a species) is reason. Reason employed in achieving
happiness (human telos) leads to moral virtues. E.g., courage, temperance, justice
and prudence and intellectual virtues. (e.g., science, art, practical wisdom, theoretical
wisdom.)

3.2 Happiness and Virtues- Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self
realization. Aristotle identifies three natures of man: Vegetable or Physical,
Animal or Emotional, and Rational or Mental. The thing that distinguishes
humans from all other creatures is the rational nature or the ability to reason.
Accordingly, living in accordance with reason is viewed as vital in self-realization
or developing one’s potential. The awareness of our nature and the development

4
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

of our potentials-is the key to human happiness. But what is happiness in line
with Aristotle’s ethical view?
 For Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This human good is
eudaimonia or happiness.
 He also considers happiness as the summum bonum- the greatest good
of all human life. It is the only intrinsic good or inherent, that is the good
that is pursued for its own sake.
Note: happiness, therefore, is not much of a subjective feeling of well
being, but human well being itself, being the human good.

3.3 virtues as habit- Aristotle’s idea of happiness should be also understood in the
sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by habitual practice of moral
and intellectual excellences, or virtue. Aristotle employ the word hexis to refer to
moral virtue. One denotation of the term hexis is an active state, a condition in which
something must actively hold itself. More explicitly, an action counts as virtuous,
according to Aristotle, when a person holds one self in a stable equilibrium of the
soul, in order to select the action knowingly and its own sake. This stable equilibrium
of the soul is what constitutes character. Moral virtue is the only practical road to
effective action. The virtuous person, who has good character, sees truly, judge
rightly, and act morally.

3.4 virtues and the golden mean- as mentioned earlier, Aristotle distinguishes two
kinds of virtue. Virtues of intellect and moral virtues.

 The first corresponds to the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect.
 The second pertains to the part of the rational soul which can obey reason.
Moral virtue is an expression of character form by habits reflecting repeated
choices, hence is also called virtue of character.
He also mentions four moral basic virtues: Courage, Temperance, Justice
and Prudence. Courage is the golden mean between cowardice and tactless.
The coward has too little bravery, the reckless has too much and the
courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery.

3.5 Phronesis and Practice- in using golden mean to become virtuous, we must
recognize not only the mean is neither too much nor too little but also it is relative to
us as moral agent. We should know the right amount of food for the six footer
basketball player is different from the right amount for a 3 footer, thin 12 tear old boy,
to avoid excess and defect. Aristotle teaches us about an intellectual virtue that plays
a significant role in ethics. The Phronesis, the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom,
is that kind of moral knowledge which guides us to what is appropriate in conjunction
with moral virtue.

To be virtuous, one must perform the action that habitually bring virtue. Example: a
person must practice and develop the virtue of generosity, for instance, so that acting
generously becomes habitual. Moral education thus comprises imitation,
internalization, and practice until it become normal.

5
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

4. AN EVALUATION OF THE GREEK PHILOSOPHER’S ETHICAL

THEORIES

Socrates and Plato advocate a positive view of man. Their philosophy implies that
human beings who behave immorally do so out of ignorance of the good. All vice
therefore is the result of lack of knowledge, and no person is willingly bad. Obviously,
being moral, virtuous, and just, is equated with being knowledgeable of the good.
The just person is said to be truly happy one-far happier than the wicked, whatever
material; advantages the unjust person enjoys, and no matter what difficulties or poor
status the moral person suffers.

Comparatively, Aristotle’s concept of virtue is more active (by practice) than that of
Plato. Whereas Plato equates virtue with mere knowledge of the form of the good.
Aristotle considered virtue not as innate or something taught by a teacher to a
student, but that which acquired by practice.

5. AQUINAS ETHICS- called the angelic doctor and the prince of

Scholastics, 1225-1274. Italian philosopher and theologians. He is
most important thinkers of the medieval time period. His idea
depends heavily on Aristotle. Aquinas believes that all actions are
directed toward ends (telos by aristotle) and that happiness is the final
ends. Happiness consists in activities in accordance with virtue. Like
Augustine, he declares that ultimate happiness is not attainable in this
life. Present happiness is imperfect)true happiness is to be found only
in the soul (saint) of the blessed in heaven of in beatitude with God.

(5.1) The Natural Law. Aquinas use the ordinance of reason for the common good,
promulgated by someone who has care of the community. He also be understood in
terms of “rules and measures” for people conduct and as “rational pattern or forms”.

Aquinas: there are four primary types of law-the eternal law, natural law, human law,
and divine law.

Eternal law- refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As
God is the supreme ruler of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe
that exist in His (God) mind is the law that directs everything in the universe to its
appointed end. To this eternal law, everything in the universe is subject.

Natural Law- is the aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason.
Because mankind fall under or part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the
eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct. This is the moral law, the law
or order to which people are subject by their nature ordering them to do good and
avoid evil.

Human Law- refers to positive laws. For natural law to be adhered or follow to, more
exact and forceful provision of human law are helpful. Because natural law is too
broad to provide particular guidance, the human laws precise, positive rules of
behavior are supposed to spell out what natural law prescribe. This human law
includes the civil and criminal law, though only those formulated in the light of

6
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

practical reason and moral laws. Human laws that are against natural law are not real
laws, and people are not oblige to obey those unjust laws

Divine Law- serves to compliments other types of law. It is a law of revelation,

disclosed through scared text of Scriptures and the church which is also directed
toward man’s eternal end. The divine law is more focused on how man can inwardly
holy and eventually attain salvation.

Obviously the type of law that is primarily significant in ethics is the Natural Law. Part
of this natural law is our natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals
appropriate to us.

(5.2) Features of Human Actions. Aquinas evaluates human actions on the basis not
only of their conformity to the natural law but also to their specific features. He
mentions at least three aspect through the morality of an acts can be determined in
terms of its “Species, Accident, and End (telos by Aristotle).

Species- of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the action. And
human deeds may be divided into kinds. “good, bad, indifferent or neutral.
Aquinas holds that for an action to be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in
species.

Accidents- it refers to the circumstances surrounding the action in ethically

evaluating an action, the context in which the action takes place is also considered
because an act might be flawed or damage through its circumstances.

End- an act might be unjust through its intention. To intend to direct oneself against a
good is clearly immoral. Correspondingly, a bad intention can spoil a good act, like
giving an alms out of vainglory. Hence, stealing to give to the poor as in the case of
Robin Hood, is an unjust act.

6. AN ANALYSIS OF THOMISTIC ETHICS. He holds that the goodness

or badness of an action lies in the interior act of will, in the external
bodily act, in the very nature of the act, and even in its consequences.
Moreover, he declares that what matters in morally is not what actually
does but also his intention in doing the act. Thomistic ethics does not
fall into just one neat contemporary category of moral theory. By not
giving emphasis on the result of actions in his so-called features of
actions, we can say that he more of a deontologist or Kantian than a
utilitarian. His basic tenet that actions must be directed to what is good
somehow relates hi theory to utilitarianism and consequentialism in
general. By advocating the roles by virtues in morality, Aquinas and
Aristotle, is a virtue ethicist.

1. KANTIAN RIGHTS THEORY-Kantian ethics refers to a deontological

ethical theory developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that
is based on the notion that: “It is impossible to think of anything at all
in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good
without limitation except a good will.” The theory was developed as a
result of Enlightenment rationalism, stating that an action can only be

7
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

good if it’s maxim or could be a universal standard—the principle

behind it—is duty to the moral law, and arises from a sense of duty in
the actor.

Central to Kant’s construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which
acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires.

Immanuel Khant Categorical imperative- a rule of conduct that is unconditional or

absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire
or end.

Immanuel Khant Hypothetical Imperative- a rule of conduct that is understood to

apply to an individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed)
to act on that desire.

Good will and duty

In his combined works, Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law by the concept
of duty. Kant began his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue that can be
unqualifiedly (no limitation/ qualification) good is a good will. No other virtue has this
status because every other virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends (for example,
the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to an evil person). The good will is
unique in that it is always good and maintains its moral value even when it fails to
achieve its moral intentions. Kant regarded the good will as a single moral principle
that freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.

Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a
will which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is
the good will which is the highest good and the condition of all other goods. Kant is
somehow contradicts to the summon bonum of Aristotle were happiness is the
highest form of end (telos). Note: Kant teaches that the only good will is intrinsically
good. That is, it is the only thing which is good without qualification.

1.1 Kant categorical imperative- what we discussed so far is Kant emphasis on the
ethical relevance of good will and acting from a sense of duty. “can a person
know what his duty is in a given situation?”. Is there a test to find out what one’s
duty is in a particular set of circumstances? Kant believe that there is, first, it is
one’s duty, as rational being, to act on principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply
acting on impulse.
1.2

To distinguish “action on maxim” from “action on impulse,” let’s provide some

illustration.

8
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

Acting on impulse- Suppose a man wants to financially help a certain lady

who is in need, merely because he likes her personally, and he might not want to
give the same assistance to another woman in an exactly similar situation
because he does not happen to like her. This is acting on impulse and not
done for a reason or on any principle or maxim.

Acting on maxim- now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to total
strangers who are victim of calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to
provide support to those in need, he treats in precisely the same manner any
other person whose situation has the same characteristics.

Evidently not all maxims are moral ones. In ethics Kant concerned with maxims that
are moral, that is, those dictated by reason and thus has imperative force or vital
force.

Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two classes, the hypothetical
imperatives and categorical imperatives.

“Imperative” should be understood as a command of reason.

The term “hypothetical”, on the other hand, entails being true only under some
conditions, and therefore not universally true or valid. A hypothetical imperative is
how reason orders to achieve one’s specific ends. Example: if you want to pass the
examination, then study hard. If you are hungry then eat. So it’s like a decree stating
that if you wish to accomplish such-and-such an end, you must act in such-and-such
a way.

Categorical Imperative- on the other hand, pronounce, “No matter what end you
desire to attain, act in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what
one’s end may be.

9
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

Categorical imperative demands action without qualification, without any If’s, and
without regards to consequence such an act may produce. Unlike hypothetical
imperative, categorical imperative is accepted on its own merits.

For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will guarantee that
the person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally. The categorical
imperative serves as a barometer of reason determining whether or not an action
qualifies as ethical. Therefore, it is Kant moral philosophy that an act is morally good
maxim; and a maxim is morally good if it conforms to the categorical imperative.

Kant provides various formulations of categorical imperative. The most famous is the
“universabizability” formulation which states, “Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

2. AN ANALYSIS OF KANTIAN ETHICS- many who have read and

understood Kant’s ethical system find it sensible and plausible or
believable. In fact, when we try to prove that one’s particular action is
unethical and ask him, “what if everybody behave as you do?, we are
actually advocating Kant’s universabizability formulation of the
categorical imperative. Kant stated the highly accepted golden rule,
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and its
proscriptive counterpart. The most famous formulations of Kant’s
categorical imperative, especially the end-in-itself version, instruct us
to respect other because that is how we treat ourselves. He submits
that some action like lying, are wrong regardless of the circumstances
and the outcomes they generate.

Critics argue that if lying is the only way to safeguard from sure danger another
person, then lying is what one must do. For instance, if a murderer, armed with a
shotgun, comes looking for a family member or friend to kill her, should we reveal her
whereabouts merely because we ought to tell the truth? We may suggest that human
obligations, say keeping promises, telling the truth, and repaying debts, should be
really kept, but provided that no other overriding factors exist, some propose, are
better construed as generalizations rather than as categorical commands without any
exception.

10
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of solution to instances when there is
a conflict of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then another
person asks him about it. He cannot tell the truth without breaking his promise. But
Kantian ethics inflexibly demands that he ought to do both always and in all
circumstances, which, in this case, is logically impossible.

3. RIGHT THEORY- in law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of

rights. He saw a distinctive correlation, yet difference, between the
intent of the law and the enforcement of the law. For Kant,
governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by
citizens they govern in exchange for protection. (the dato and raha do
the same measurement prior to Spanish occupation). Thus,
governments have no right to disrupt that trust by making laws with
cruel intent against the freedom that citizens had been promised.

The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious,
“government must approach the making and enforcement of the laws with the right
intentions in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members of
society agree to give up some freedom to protection enjoyed by organized society,
but government cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens have been promised.

When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed
morally justifiable, the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to
human rights. The principle of rights theory teaches that it is not merely the outcome
of actions that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because if the intent
is evil, then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad as well.

Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant principle of rights theory is
included. There are some rights both positive and negative rights, that all humans
have based only on the fact that they are human. These rights can be natural or
conventional.

Example of rights based ethics…

11
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

1. The right to life

2. The right to liberty

3. The right to pursue happiness

4. The right to a jury trial

5. The right to a lawyer

6. The right to freely practice a religion of choice

7. The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual

8. The right of individual or organizations to express opinions or share

information freely in written medium

9. The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals

10. The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested

11. The right to call witnesses to speak on one’s behalf if accused of

crime

12. The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after
being found guilty of a crime

12
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

13. The right to freely live and travel within the country

14. The right to work

15. The right to marry

16. The right to bear children

17. The right to free education

18. The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of choice

19. The right to be free from slavery

20. The right to not be tortured

21. The right to be treated as equal to others

22. The right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty

23. The right to personal privacy

24. The right to own property

13
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

4. Legal vs Moral Rights

What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily
legal is particular country. These principles prove, among other things, that being
moral and being legal may be practically related but not one and the same.

4.1 Legal Rights. Denotes or indicate all the rights found within existing legal codes,
as such, they enjoy the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their
existence can be resolved by just locating the pertinent legal instrument of piece of
legislation.

Technically, a legal right does not exist prior to its passing into law and limits of its
validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed its legislation.

(note: the exercise of the right is limited to particular place and has no legal right
receive into different location.)

4.2 Moral Rights. Is plain contrast, are rights that “exist prior to and independently
from their legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not
deemed to be dependent upon the actions of jurists and legislators. For instance,
many people argued that the black majority in apartheid south Africa have a moral
right to full political participation in that country’s political system, although there
existed no such legal right.

Note: “aparthood”) was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in

South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s.
… Apartheid was adopted as a formal policy by the South African government after

14
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

the ascension of the National Party (NP) during the 1948 general elections. The
liberation (under great Britain) achieve through the works of Nelson Mandela.

What many found so ethically objectionable about apartheid south Africa (Nambia)
was its denial to majority of the country’s inhabitants of many fundamental moral
rights, such as the right not to discriminated against on ground of color and rights to
political participation.

This specific line of opposition and protest could only be pursued because of a belief
in the existence and validity of moral rights, with or without recognition of a legal
system.

It must be clear, therefore, that human rights cannot be reduced to, or exclusively
identified with legal rights. In fact, some human rights are best identified as moral
rights. Human rights are meant to apply to all human beings universally, regardless
of whether or not they have attained legal recognition by all countries everywhere.
Human rights are best thought as being both moral and legal rights.

UTILITARIANISM- Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 and John Stuart Mill 1808-1873; Are
British philosopher who had immense impact on British thought. Bentham was the
head of the group of reformers called “the philosophical radicals,” whose member
included James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are
considered the main proponent/taga taguyod of the moral theory called Utilitarianism.

1- Utilitarianism Explained

15
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

1. Perhaps the most proponent moral philosophy in the last two

centuries, utilitarianism in known as a consequentialist theory, a
subclass of teleological (The doctrine of the final causes of things)
moral theory. A teleological ethical system judges the rightness of an
act in terms of an external goal or purpose. Its basis in the
determination of what one ought or ought not to do rest exclusively on
the consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor the
traditional moral rules.

Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules or policies should be ethically

measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by the intention or motives of
the agent. As oppose to absolutists who holds that some actions are
intrinsically/essentially wrong and must never be done no matter what the results are,
consequentialists suppose that there is no kind of act which may not be justified by
its effects. Absolutists believe in a natural law or in natural rights or conflict with the
law-as immoral, no matter what their outcomes are. Consequentialist, on the other
hand, believed that there is no class of actions which must be ruled out in advance
independent of their consequences.

Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialists’ theory. Derive from the term
utilis which means useful, utilitarianism basically states that what is useful is good,
and that the moral value of actions are determined by the utility.

Notes: Teleology is an account of a given thing’s purpose. For example, a

teleological explanation of why forks have prongs that design helps humans eat
certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.

Utilitarian Ethics argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall
happiness. This ethical system is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with
pleasure. In general, it puts forward that an action is right if it amplifies pleasures and
minimizes pain.

The principle of utility can be applied to either particular actions or general rules. The
former is usually called “act-utilitarianism and the latter, “rule-utilitarianism”.

16
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

1.1 Act Utilitarianism. In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied directly to
every alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the
one which bring about the best results, or the least amount of bad results. One of
the criticisms against this outlook is the difficulty of getting a full knowledge and
certainly of the consequences of people’s action. Moreover it is argued that it is
possible to justify immoral act using Act Utilitarianism: “suppose you could end a
regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy soldiers, thus
revealing the hide out of the fathers” (Utilitarian Theories)
1.2
1.3 Rule Utilitarianism. On the other hand, the principle of utility is use to decide the
validity of rules of conduct (moral standard or principle). A moral rule such as
promise-keeping is established by evaluating the consequences of a world which
people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Moral
and immoral are then defined as following or breaking those rules. Note: for you
not to break the rules, reveal the hideout of your father to. That’s the contract
under utilitarianism.
1.4

One of the criticisms against this view is that it is possible to produce unjust rules
according to the principle utility. For example, “slavery in Greece might be right if it
led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some
mistreated individuals.

2- Origin and Nature of the Theory- Jeremy Bentham founded

the doctrine of utilitarianism but John Stuart Mill later
systematized and modified some of Bentham utilitarian
principles.

Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of utilitarianism in his introduction to the
Principle of Morals Legislation (1789). He confessed nonetheless that he took over
the principles of utility from David Hume, upon the reading Hume’s Account of utility.
(tsk tsk tsk…nag plagiarized si kumpareng Jeremy).

1.1 Bentham Utilitarianism. Bentham explains that “utility” means that property in any
object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness to prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. The
Principle of Utility thus states that an action is right insofar or the extent as it
tends to produce the greatest happiness to the greatest number. This dogma
thus considers the advancement of the greatest happiness for the greatest

17
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

number as the supreme objective of human action. Note: For Bentham, it is the
principle of utility-not the so-called natural law, natural rights, or social contracts-
whose serves as the objective barometer in ethically evaluating human action,
state laws, and legal system. For Bentham, nothing else but pleasure is
intrinsically good or essentially good.
1.2

Dubbed as quantitative hedonist or qualitative utilitarian, Bentham even went so far

as to create a detailed method. The hedonic calculus, “to calculate the quantitative
worth of pleasures. The method has seven criteria or ingredients that allow one to
qualify the amount of pleasure or pain an action brings about- (1) intensity, (2)
duration, (3) certainty, (4) propinquity (or remoteness), (5) fecundity (or fruitfulness),
(6) purity, and (7) extent to which pleasure and pain are shared among the greatest
number of people. In general, utilitarianism determines the moral value of an act by
calculating the sum of pleasure it caused, and the amount of pain generated.

1.3 Mill’s Utilitarianism. The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most
extensively articulated in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal is to
justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This principle says
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness.
1.4

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation
of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much
more requires to be said (…). But these supplementary explanations do not affect the
theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded….” (CW, 210, emphasis
mine) The Second Formula relates the principle of utility to rules and precepts and
not to actions. It seems to say that an act is correct when it corresponds to rules
whose preservation increases the mass of happiness in the world. And this appears
to be a rule-utilitarian conception. In the light of these passages, it is not surprising
that the question whether Mill is an act- or a rule-utilitarian has been intensely
debated. In order to understand his position it is important to differentiate between
two ways of defining act and rule utilitarianism.

(i) One can conceive of them as competing theories

about objective rightness. An action is objectively
right if it is the thing which the agent has most
reason to do. Act utilitarianism would say that an
action is objectively right, if it actually promotes
happiness. For rule utilitarianism, in contrast, an
action would be objectively right, if it actually
corresponds to rules that promote happiness.

18
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

(ii) One can also conceive of act- and rule utilitarianism

as theories about moral obligation. Act utilitarianism
requires us to aim for the maximization of
happiness; rule utilitarianism, in contrast, requires
us to observe rules that facilitate happiness.
Understood as a theory about moral obligation, act
utilitarianism postulates: Act in a way that promotes
happiness the most. Rule utilitarianism claims, on
the other hand: Follow a rule whose general
observance promotes happiness the most. Mill is in
regard to (i) an act utilitarian and in regard to

(iii) A rule utilitarian. This way the seeming

contradiction between the First and the Second
Formula can be resolved. The First Formula states
what is right and what an agent has most reason to
do. It points to the “foundation of morals”. In
contrast, the Second Formula tells us what our
moral obligations are. We are morally obliged to
follow those social rules and precepts the
observance of which promotes happiness in the
greatest extent possible.

3- An Analysis of Utilitarianism-utilitarianism appears to be a

direct negative reaction against Kantian

Ethics. While Kant proposes that an act is justified by the person’s motive to perform
his duty, Bentham and Mill counteract this by submitting that actions are evaluated
though their consequences.

Note: As a moral theory, utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Basically anchored on

the pleasure and pain concepts, utilitarianism has transcultural appeal as all sentient
or emotional beings understand pain and pleasure.

19
 Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if justified by the consequences.
Take the case of lying to protect another from sure danger. For some rule bound
theories like that of Kant, such an act is transgressing such an exceptionless rule.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would say that such an act is warranted if the
course of action will generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

4- Business Fascination with Utilitarianism- utilitarianism is

perhaps the most broadly understood and normally applied
ethical theory to business. In as organizational context,
utilitarianism basically teaches that a decision regarding
business conduct is proper if that decision generates the
greatest good for the greatest number of person.

In the theory, ‘good’ is typically defined as the net benefits that accrue or
increase to those parties affected by choice. Moral choices must thus be evaluated
by calculating the net benefits of each available alternative action. In business this
implies that all the stakeholders affected by the decision must be given their just
consideration.

Act utilitarianism, one major school of thought in the theory, centers on the action
that has been taken, evaluating it along the lines of whether the chosen action
produces more good than bad consequences.

20
Module 7 in GNED 02: Ethics

21