MODULE 10

MORAL THEORIES
Learning Objectives

At the end of the topic, students are expected to:

 Determine the difference between morality and ethics.
 Understand the different moral theories.
 Differentiate between moral theories.

The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. However, it is useful to make the
following distinction:
 MORALITY is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the guide to good or
right conduct.
 ETHICS is the philosophical study of Morality.

What, then, is a Moral Theory?

A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts. A moral theory, then,
explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we
determine right and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a
reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues. Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp
divide between moral theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics).

For instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate what
actions or policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we take to determine right and wrong conduct. You will see,
as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at least some moral theory. When evaluating the merits of some decision
regarding a case, we will always (or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking about how right and wrong is
determined in general, and then apply that to the case at hand. Note, though, that sound moral thinking does not simply
involve going one way -- from theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case may suggest that we need to change or adjust our
thinking about what moral theory we think is the best, or perhaps it might lead us to think that a preferred theory needs
modification.

THEORIES OF MORALITY

1. MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

Main Point: Moral Subjectivism is where right or wrong are determined by what you -- the subject – just happens to
think (or 'feel') is right or wrong. This is simply based on your personal assessment and judgment.

In its common form, moral subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant
kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In nature, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so
long as someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral
subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's behavior. This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly
everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to
disagree about moral issues.

2. CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture just happens
to hold at the time. This is also based on the idea that different people have different cultures that are why right or wrong
is based on how one’s culture dictates morality.

Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the
actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles. Also, it
implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the
possibility of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true).
3. ETHICAL EGOISM

Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary
to your self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism
does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but
rather that we will (ideally) act so as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate
pleasures for the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others. However,
egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps
others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there
will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think
we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others
at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the
concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning through which we are guided to constrain our self-
interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.

4. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

Main Point: Right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the gods)

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that, without
religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong behaviour. Although there are
related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to behave in a morally good way, most take the
claim of the necessary connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands
of God (or the gods). This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an action is right --
or obligatory -- if God commands us to do it, wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible
if God does not command that it not be done.

5. VIRTUE ETHICS

Main Point: Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional virtues -- making
a good person.

6. FEMINIST ETHICS

Main Point: Right and wrong are to be found in women's responses to the relationship of caring.

Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male bias.
Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories. Rather, feminist ethics suggests
that we need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So morality, according to some feminist
moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This
allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we have close social relationships.

7. UTILITARIANISM

Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of the
action. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.

Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end. This is
pleasure or happiness. Also, there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest
Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. The GHP implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare. We do this in a particular instance by
choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
8. KANTIAN THEORY

Main Point: Right and wrong are determined by rationality, giving universal duties.

Basic ideas:
That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law / Duty /
Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that acting morally was quite simple.
That is:
1. You ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).
2. Reason guides you to this conclusion.
3. Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without qualification. So,
actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good Will.

9. CONTRACTARIANISM

Main Point: The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would agree
upon in forming a social contract.

Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the principles or rules that determine
right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical contract forming procedure.