govern their own lives and to assess the

MODULE 2: KEY actions and the motivations of others.

CONCEPTS Conventional morality can differ from society

to society. The conventional morality of Saudi
Arabia forbids women from publicly
What Is Morality? contradicting their husbands or brothers,
while Denmark’s conventional morality allows
Before investing yourself in the study of an this. People in the United States would think it
academic subject, it would be useful to first immoral to leave a restaurant without tipping
have some idea of what you are getting a good waiter or bartender, while such
yourself into. One way—sometimes the behavior in many other societies is perfectly
best—to gain such an understanding is by OK.
considering a definition. When you open your
trigonometry text or chemistry handbook, Critical Morality
you’ll likely be given, very early on, a
definition of the area you are about to study. When we talk about morality in this course,
So, as your teacher, I would seem to have a we will be referring to moral standards that
duty now to present you with a definition of are not rooted in widespread endorsement,
morality. but rather are independent of conventional
morality and can be used to critically evaluate
Even if we want to we just simply can’t. There
its merits.
is no widely agreed-on definition of morality.
The absence of a definition does not leave us It’s possible, of course, that conventional
entirely in the dark, however. (After all, no morality is all there is. But this would be a
one has yet been able to offer informative very surprising discovery. Most of us assume,
definitions of literature, or life, or art, and yet as I will do, that the popularity of a moral view
we know a great deal about those things.) is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be
Indeed, we can get a good sense of our wrong on this point, but until we have a
subject matter by doing these four things: chance to consider the matter in detail, I think
it best to assume that conventional morality
1. being clear about the difference between can sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there
conventional and critical morality; may be some independent, critical morality
2. distinguishing the different branches of that
moral philosophy and their central
questions; (1) does not have its origin in social
3. identifying starting points for moral agreements;
thinking; and (2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs,
4. contrasting morality with other normative irrationality, or popular prejudices; and
systems, including religious ones.
(3) can serve as the true standard for
Conventional Morality determining when conventional morality has
got it right and when it has fallen into error.
Suppose you take sociology or an
That is the morality whose nature we are
anthropology course, and you get to a unit on
going to explore in this course.
the morality of the cultures you’ve been
studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns of
behavior to be found in the cultures, their
accepted ideas about right and wrong, and
the sorts of character traits that these cultures
find admirable. These are the elements of
what we can call conventional morality—the
system of widely accepted rules and
principles, created by and for human beings,
that members of a culture or society use to
 are legal, or customary, are sometimes
The Branches of morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has

Moral some mistaken ethical views, and no

human being is wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
Philosophy 3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a
good thing. Friendships add value to your
life. You are better off when there are
There are three core areas of moral people you care deeply about, and who
philosophy: care deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible.
1. Value theory
Morality can demand only so much of us.
Moral standards that are impossible to
 What is the good life?
 What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
meet are illegitimate. Morality must
 How do we improve our lot in life? respect our limitations.
 What is happiness, and is it the very same 5. Children bear less moral responsibility
thing as well-being? than adults. Moral responsibility assumes
an ability on our part to understand
2. Normative ethics options, to make decisions in an informed
way, and to let our decisions guide our
 What are our fundamental moral duties? behavior. The fewer of these abilities you
 What makes right actions right? have, the less blameworthy you are for
 Which character traits count as virtues, which any harm you might cause.
as vices, and why? 6. Justice is a very important moral good.
 Who should our role models be? Any moral theory that treats justice as
 Do the ends always justify the means, or are irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is important
there certain types of action that should never that we get what we deserve, and that we
be done under any circumstances? are treated fairly.
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
3. Metaethics justification. The default position in ethics
is this: do no harm. It is sometimes
 What is the status of moral claims and morally acceptable to harm others, but
advice? there must be an excellent reason for
 Can ethical theories, moral principles, or doing so or else the harmful behavior is
specific moral verdicts be true? If so, what unjustified.
makes them true?
8. Equals ought to be treated equally.
 Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
 Do we always have a good reason to do our
People who are alike in all relevant
moral duty? respects should get similar treatment.
When this fails to happen—when racist or
sexist policies are enacted, for instance—
Moral Starting then something has gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical
consideration. How well-off we are is
Points important. But it isn’t the only thing of
moral importance. Morality sometimes
calls on us to set aside our own interests
There are reasonable constraints that can
for the sake of others.
guide us when thinking about how to live.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or
Here are some of them:
emotional pain is bad. It may sometimes
be appropriate to cause such extreme
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune
suffering, but doing so requires a very
from moral criticism. The law does not
powerful justification.
have the final word on what is right and
wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power
can get away with lots of things that the rest
MODULE 3: MORALITY,
of us can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. RELIGION AND OTHER
That a person can escape punishment is one
thing—whether his actions are morally NORMATIVE NORMS
acceptable is another. We can also better understand morality by
12. Free and informed requests prevent rights contrasting its principles with those of other
violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one normative systems. Each of these represents
twisting your arm, you ask someone to do a set of standards for how we ought to
something for you, and she does it, then your behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we
rights have not been violated— even if you should not break.
end up hurt as a result. There are many such systems, but let’s
There are a number of points to make about restrict our focus to four of the most important
these claims. of them: those that govern the law, etiquette,
self-interest, and tradition.
 First, this short list isn’t meant to be
exhaustive. It could be made much
Law
longer. The fact that a law tells us to do something
 Second, we are not claiming that the does not settle the question of whether
items on this list are beyond criticism. We morality gives its stamp of approval.
are only saying that each one is very Some immoral acts (like cheating on a
plausible. Hard thinking might weaken our spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts
confidence in some cases. The point, (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are not
though, is that without such scrutiny, it is immoral. Certainly, many laws require what
perfectly reasonable to begin our moral morality requires and forbid what morality
thinking with the items on this list. forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that
 Third, many of these claims require shows that morality is something different
interpretation in order to apply them in a from the law. That a legislature passed a bill
satisfying way. When we say, for is not enough to show that the bill is morally
instance, that equals ought to be treated acceptable.
equally, we leave all of the interesting
questions open. (What makes people Etiquette
equals? Can we treat people equally
without treating them in precisely the We see the same imperfect fit when it comes
same way? And so on.) to standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed
to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t
A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, immoral to set them on the right. Good
treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is, manners are not the same thing as morally
depending on how you look at it, either no good conduct. Morality sometimes requires
morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any us not to be polite or gracious, as when
morality worth the name will place some someone threatens your children or happily
importance on justice, fairness, kindness, tells you a racist joke. So the standards of
and reasonableness. etiquette can depart from those of morality.

Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the
standards of self-interest. Think of all of the
people who have gotten ahead in life by
betraying others, lying about their past,
breaking the rules that others are following.
It’s an unhappy thought, but a very
commonsensical one: you sometimes can
improve your lot in life by acting immorally.
And those who behave virtuously are
sometimes punished, rather than rewarded,  It immediately solves the old problem of the
for it. Whistleblowers who reveal a company’s objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a
or a government official’s corruption are often matter of personal feeling or social custom.
attacked for their efforts sued to the point of Whether something is right or wrong is
bankruptcy, and targeted for their courageous perfectly objective: It is right if God commands
it and wrong if God forbids it.
behavior. Though the relation between self-  The Divine Command Theory explains why
interest and morality is contested, it is a any of us should bother with morality. Why
plausible starting point to assume that shouldn’t we just look out for ourselves? If
morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice immorality is the violation of God’s
our well-being, and that we can sometimes commandments, then there is an easy
improve answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will
our lot in life by acting unethically. be held accountable.

Tradition There are, however, serious problems with

the theory.
Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition.
That a practice has been around a long time  Atheists would not accept it, because they do
does not automatically make it moral. Morality not believe that God exists.
sometimes requires a break with the past, as  But there are difficulties even for believers.
it did when people called for the abolition of One can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct
slavery or for allowing women to vote. And right because the gods command it, or do the
some nontraditional, highly innovative gods command it because it is right? This is a
practices may be morally excellent. The question of whether God makes the moral
longevity of a practice is not a foolproof test truths true or whether he merely recognizes
of its morality. that they’re true.

First, we might say that right conduct is right

Morality and because God commands it. But this idea
encounters several difficulties.

Religion 1. This conception of morality is mysterious.

2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary.
The Presumed Connection between 3. This conception of morality provides the
Morality and Religion wrong reasons for moral principles.

In popular thinking, morality and religion are The second option has a different drawback.
inseparable: People commonly believe that
morality can be understood only in the  In taking it, we abandon the theological
context of religion. Thus the clergy are conception of right and wrong. When we say
assumed to be authorities on morality. that God commands us to be truthful because
When viewed from a non-religious truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a
perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, standard that is independent of God’s will.
meaningless place, devoid of value and The rightness exists prior to God’s command
purpose. and is the reason for the command.

The Divine Command Theory

The basic idea is that God decides what is
right and wrong. Actions that God commands
are morally required; actions that God forbids
are morally wrong, and all other actions are
permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive
features.
 MODULE 4: CULTURAL
RELATIVISM AND ETHICAL
Cultural
EGOISM Relativism
Two Types of Different Cultures Have
Different Moral Codes
Egoism - The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the
bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of
Pyschological course, did not do that—the Greeks practiced
cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as
the natural and fitting way to dispose of the
Egoism and dead. The Eskimos lived in small settlements,
separated by great distances, and their
customs turned out to be very different from
Ethical Egoism ours. The men often had more than one wife,
and they would share their wives with guests,
We respond differently when there is a lending them out for the night as a sign of
“crisis.” hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a
dominant male might demand—and get—
We have duties to others simply because regular sexual access to other men’s wives.
they are people who could be helped or The women, however, were free to break
harmed by what we do. If a certain action these arrangements simply by leaving their
would benefit (or harm) other people, then husbands and taking up with new partners—
that is a reason why we should (or should free, that is, so long as their former husbands
not) perform that action. The common-sense chose not to make too much trouble. All in all,
assumption is that other people’s interests the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile
count, from a moral point of view. practice that bore little resemblance to our
custom.
Some people believe that we have no duties
to others. On their view, known as Ethical
Egoism, each person ought to pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. This is the Cultural Relativism
morality of selfishness. It holds that our only
duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other Main Idea: “Different cultures have different
people matter only insofar as they can benefit moral codes. Therefore, there are no
us. universal moral truths, the customs
of different societies are all that exist.

Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought

to pursue his or her own self-interest The following claims have all been made by
exclusively. People ought to be self- cultural relativists:
interested and that our neighbors ought not to
give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim 1. Different societies have different moral codes;
about morality, or about the way things that a certain action is right, then that action is
right, at least within that society.
should be.
2. There is no objective standard that can be
Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts used to judge one society’s code as better
that each person does, in fact, pursue his or than another’s. There are no
moral truths that hold for all people at all
her own self-interest exclusively. People are
times.
self-interested and that our neighbors will not 3. The moral code of our own society has no
give to charity. Psychological Egoism makes special status; it is but one among many.
a claim about human nature, or about the
way things are.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures.
We should always be tolerant of them.
MODULE 5: MORAL REASONING
5. The moral code of a society determines what
is right within that society; that is, if the moral
AND THE MINIMUM
code of a society says it is. CONCEPTION OF MORALITY

The Cultural Differences Argument Moral Reasoning

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in
morality.
in Ethical Issues
3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion,
and opinions vary from culture to culture. Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good
What Follows from Cultural reasons; and second, morality requires the
Relativism impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.
1. We could no longer say that the customs of
other societies are morally inferior to our own. Moral Reasoning
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our
own society. When we feel strongly about an issue, it is
3. The idea of moral progress is called into tempting to assume that we just know what
doubt. the truth is, without even having to consider
arguments on the other side. Unfortunately,
however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
What We Can Learn from matter how powerful they may be. Our
Cultural Relativism feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the by-products of prejudice,
First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
rightly, about the danger of assuming that all
of our practices are based on some absolute Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we
rational standard. They are not. Some of our must let our feelings be guided as much as
customs are merely conventional—merely possible by reason. This is the essence of
peculiar to our society—and it is easy to lose morality. The morally right thing to do is
sight of that fact. Cultural Relativism begins always the thing best supported by the
with the insight that many of our practices are arguments. Of course, not every reason that
like this—they are only cultural products. may be advanced is a good reason. There
are bad arguments as well as good ones, and
The second lesson has to do with keeping an much of the skill of moral thinking consists in
open mind. As we grow up, we develop discerning the difference.
strong feelings about things: We learn to see
some types of behavior as acceptable, and The first thing is to get one’s facts straight.
other types as outrageous. The facts exist independently of our wishes,
and responsible moral thinking begins when
Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for we try to see things as they are.
this kind of dogmatism. Realizing this can
help broaden our minds. We can see that our Next, we can bring moral principles into play.
feelings are not necessarily perceptions of In our three examples, a number of principles
the truth— they may be due to cultural were involved: that we should not “use”
conditioning and nothing more. people; that we should not kill one person to
save another; that we should do what will
Many of the practices and attitudes we find benefit the people affected by our actions;
natural are really only cultural products. that every life is sacred; and that it is wrong to
discriminate against the handicapped. Most
moral arguments consist of principles being
applied to particular cases, and so we must most moral theories embrace the minimum
ask whether the principles are justified and conception, in one form or another.
whether they are being applied correctly.
The rote application of routine methods is MODULE 6: UTILITARIANISM
never a satisfactory substitute for critical
thinking, in any area. Morality is no exception.
– THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
The Requirement of
Impartiality
The Revolution
Almost every important moral theory includes
the idea of impartiality. This is the idea that
in Ethics
each individual’s interests are equally
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a
important; no one should get special
powerful argument for a novel conception of
treatment. At the same time, impartiality
morality. Morality, he urged, is not about
requires that we do not treat the members of
pleasing God, nor is it about being faithful to
particular groups as inferior, and thus it
abstract rules; instead, it is about making the
condemns forms of discrimination like sexism
world as happy as possible. Bentham
and racism.
believed in one ultimate moral principle, the
“Principle of Utility.” That principle requires
The Minimum us, in all circumstances, to “maximize
happiness”—in other words, to produce the
greatest total balance of happiness over
Conception of unhappiness, or of pleasure over suffering.
Bentham led a group of radicals who worked
Morality to reform the laws and institutions of England
along utilitarian lines. One of his followers
was James Mill, the distinguished Scottish
We may now state the minimum conception:
philosopher, historian, and economist.
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to
James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806–
guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do
1873), would become the next leading
what there are the best reasons for doing—
advocate of utilitarian ethics. The younger
while giving equal weight to the interests of
Mill’s advocacy was even more elegant and
each individual affected by one’s action.
persuasive than Bentham’s. Mill’s short book
This paints a picture of what it means to be a Utilitarianism (1861) is still required reading
conscientious moral agent. The conscientious for serious students of moral philosophy.
moral agent is someone who is concerned
To understand why the Principle of Utility was
impartially with the interests of everyone
so radical, consider what it leaves out of
affected by what he or she does; who
morality: It says nothing about God, nor does
carefully sifts facts and examines their
it speak of abstract rules “written in the
implications; who accepts principles of
heavens.” Morality is not viewed as
conduct only after scrutinizing them to make
obedience to a list of ancient proclamations.
sure they are justified; who will “listen to
Or as the utilitarian Peter Singer (1946–) puts
reason” even when it means revising prior
it, morality is not “a system of nasty
convictions; and who, finally, is willing to
puritanical prohibitions . . . designed to stop
act on these deliberations.
people [from] having fun.” Rather, ethics is
As one might expect, not every ethical theory about the happiness of beings in this world,
accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the and nothing more; and we are permitted—
conscientious moral agent has been disputed even required—to do what is necessary to
in various ways. However, theories that reject bring about the most happiness. This was no
it encounter serious difficulties. This is why quaint truism; this was a revolutionary idea.
 number one” in the Philippines. “In order to
Utilitarianism fight and defeat this enemy,” Duterte said, “it
is necessary to wage a new, all-out
offensive.” Thus began the Philippines’ “War
and real-world on Drugs.” Since then, billions of pesos on
law enforcement, prison construction, military
issues action, and public-opinion campaigns were
spent, all designed to reduce the use of illicit
drugs. And every local government joined in.
Today, thousands of people are prisoners of
First Example: the Philippines' Drug War; part of those of
people incarcerated in the Philippines are

Euthanasia locked up primarily due to nonviolent drug

offenses.
Despite its name, the War on Drugs targets
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the legendary
only some drugs. Many drugs are perfectly
Austrian psychologist, was stricken with oral
legal. Anyone can buy over-the-counter
cancer after decades of cigar smoking.
medications, which contain such drugs as
During his final years, Freud’s health went up
aspirin. Also legal are three substances that
and down, but in early 1939, a large swelling
millions of Filipinos are addicted to alcohol,
formed in the back of his mouth, and he
caffeine, and nicotine.
would have no more good days. Freud’s
cancer was active, and he was also suffering Drugs that the Drug War does target are
from heart failure. As his bones decayed, stated in THE COMPREHENSIVE
they cast off a foul smell, driving away his DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
favorite dog. Mosquito netting was draped 2002 or REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. Those
over his bed in order to keep flies away. drugs are considered so dangerous that, not
only are they outlawed for personal use, but
On September 21, at the age of 83, Freud
doctors cannot even prescribe them to
took his friend and personal physician, Max
patients.
Schur, by the hand and said, “My dear Schur,
you certainly remember our first talk. You Among those villains is marijuana. The
promised me then not to forsake me when my Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act has
time comes. Now it’s nothing but torture and always classified marijuana as an outlawed.
makes no sense anymore.” Forty years Thus, under law, nobody in the Philippines
earlier Freud had written, “What has the may grow, possess, or distribute cannabis,
individual come to . . . if one no longer dares including doctors and pharmacists.
to disclose that it is this or that man’s turn to Marijuana, it seems, has been one of the
die?” Dr. Schur said he understood. He main enemies in the War on Drugs.
injected Freud with a drug in order to end his
life. “He soon felt relief,” Dr. Schur wrote, Growing Support for Marijuana
“and fell into a peaceful sleep." Reform in other parts of the world.
During the past fifty years, many Americans
Second have opposed the Drug War, at least in their
private behavior, from time to time: marijuana

Example: has always been popular. A recent poll found

that 52% of adults have tried marijuana, and
22% are current users. For such reasons,
Marijuana perhaps, the drug has many nicknames. A
federal-government website notes that
marijuana is sometimes called “pot,” “weed,”
The War on Drugs. “bud,” “herb,” “grass,” “ganja,” and “Mary
Jane”—to which we may add “reefer,”
In 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte “chronic,” “cannabis,” “dope,” “schwag,”
declared that drug abuse was “public enemy “skunk,” “stinkweed,” “gangster,” “420,”
“THC,” and “the Devil’s lettuce.” Yet most treat animals in any way we like. Saint
Americans—Democrats and Republicans Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) summed up
alike—have supported the War on Drugs, the traditional view when he wrote,
ever since Nixon in 1971 declared it.
Hereby is refuted the error of those who said
In the last decade, however, many states it is sinful for a man to kill brute animals; for
have passed pro-marijuana laws in defiance by the divine providence they are intended for
of the Controlled Substances Act. By 2018, man’s use in the natural order. Hence it is not
most states had legalized marijuana for wrong for a man to make use of them, either
medical purposes (for example, for treating by killing them or in any other way whatever.
nausea in cancer patients), while eight states,
including California, had legalized it outright. But isn’t it wrong to be cruel to animals?
Today, more than 20% of Americans live in Aquinas concedes that it is, but he says the
states with laws that let adults purchase pot reason has to do with human welfare, not the
in certain places, just as adults might buy welfare of the animals:
vodka at a package store or liquor store. And if any passages of Holy Scripture seem
What happens, in practice, when a state law to forbid us to be cruel to brute animals, for
conflicts with federal law? Usually, the state instance, to kill a bird with its young, this is
law is deemed null and void, because the either to remove man’s thoughts from being
U.S. Constitution says that federal laws get cruel to other men, lest through being cruel to
priority. In this case, however, the federal animals one becomes cruel to human beings;
government has decided—so far—not to or because injury to an animal leads to the
enforce the Controlled Substances Act temporal hurt of man, either of the doer of the
against people who use weed in states that deed or of another.
have legalized it. Thus, according to the traditional view,
Given the nature of politics, perhaps that’s people and animals are in separate moral
unsurprising; a recent poll of Americans categories. Animals have no moral standing
found broad support for the reform of of their own; we are free to treat them in any
marijuana laws, with 61% supporting full way we please.
legalization, 88% in favor of medical Put so bluntly, the traditional doctrine might
marijuana, and 71% wanting the federal make us a little nervous: It seems extreme in
government to let states do as they wish. its lack of concern for nonhuman animals,
What do other people in other parts of the many of which are, after all, intelligent and
world say about the pros and cons of using sensitive creatures. Yet much of our conduct
marijuana? is guided by this doctrine. We eat animals; we
use them as experimental subjects in our
What does the utilitarian approach say about laboratories; we use their skins for clothing
the pros and cons of legalizing the use of and their heads as wall ornaments; we make
marijuana? them the objects of our amusement in
circuses, rodeos, and bullfights; and we track
them down and kill them for sport. All of these
Third Example: activities involve considerable animal pain.
If the theological “justification” of these
Nonhuman practices seems thin, Western philosophers
have offered plenty of secular ones.

Animals Philosophers have said that animals are not

rational, that they lack the ability to speak, or
that they are simply not human—and all
The treatment of animals has traditionally these are given as reasons why their
been regarded as a trivial matter. Christians interests lie outside the sphere of moral
believe that man alone is made in God’s concern.
image and that animals do not have souls.
Thus, by the natural order of things, we can How do you think should we treat non-human
animals?
How do you think the Utilitarian approach to enjoyment— and so right actions are those
ethics would deal with the treatment of actions that increase the world’s supply of
nonhuman animals? these things.

MODULE 7: CRITICISM Are Consequences All

AGAINST UTILITARIAN That Matter?
THEORY To determine whether an action is right,
utilitarians believe that we should look at what
will happen as a result of doing it. This idea is
Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in central to the theory.
three propositions:
Here are three arguments that attack the
(a) The morality of an action depends solely theory at just this point.
on the consequences of the action; nothing
else matters. Justice. Utilitarianism is incompatible with
the ideal of justice. Justice requires that we
(b) An action’s consequences matter only treat people fairly, according to the merits of
insofar as they involve the greater or lesser their particular situations. (H. J. McCloskey)
happiness of individuals.
Rights. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each that people have rights that may not be
individual’s happiness gets “equal trampled on merely because one anticipates
consideration.” good results. On Utilitarianism, an individual’s
An action is right if it produces the greatest rights may always be trampled upon if
overall balance of happiness over enough people benefit from the trampling.
unhappiness. Utilitarianism has thus been accused of
The question "What things are good?" is supporting the “tyranny of the majority”: if the
different from the question "What actions are majority of people would take pleasure in
right?" and Utilitarianism answers the second someone’s rights being abused, then those
question by reference to the first. rights should be abused, because the
pleasure of the majority outweighs the
Right actions are the ones that produce the suffering of the one.
most good. But what is good? The utilitarian
reply is: happiness.
But what is happiness? According to the Backward-Looking Reasons. Utilitarianism
classical utilitarians, happiness is pleasure. makes the past irrelevant, and so it seems
Utilitarians understand “pleasure” broadly, to flawed. The fact that someone committed a
include all mental states that feel good. crime is a reason to punish him. The fact that
someone did you a favor last week is a
The thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate reason for you to do her a favor next week.
good—and pain the one ultimate evil—has The fact that you hurt someone yesterday is a
been known since antiquity as Hedonism. reason to make it up to him today. These are
all facts about the past that are relevant to
We value things other than pleasure.
determining our obligations.
For example, we value artistic creativity and
friendship. These things make us happy, but
that’s not the only reason we value them.
G. E. Moore (1873–1958), have compiled
short lists of things to be regarded as
valuable in themselves. Moore suggested
that there are three obvious intrinsic goods—
pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic
 Most philosophers have therefore abandoned
Should We Be Utilitarianism.

Equally Concerned Some philosophers, however, continue to

defend it. They do so in three different ways.
for Everyone? The First Defense: Contesting the
Consequences.
We must treat each person’s happiness is
equally important. This has troubling Most of the arguments against Utilitarianism
implications. One problem is that the go like this:
requirement of “equal concern” places too
great a demand on us; another problem is a situation is described; then it is said that
that it disrupts our personal relationships. some particular (vile!) action would have the
best consequences under those
The Charge That Utilitarianism Is Too circumstances; then Utilitarianism is faulted
Demanding. for advocating that action.

Faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard These arguments, however, succeed only if
would require you to give away your wealth the actions they describe really would have
until you’ve made yourself as poor as the the best consequences. Would they?
people you’re helping. Utilitarianism seems According to the first defense, they would not.
unable to recognize the Theories like Utilitarianism are supposed to
“supererogatory” moral category. apply to all situations, including situations that
are merely hypothetical. Thus, showing that
The Charge That Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has unacceptable implications
Disrupts Our Personal Relationships. in made-up cases is a valid way of critiquing
In practice, none of us is willing to treat it. The first defense, then, is weak.
everyone equally, because that would require The Second Defense: The Principle of
giving up our special ties to friends and
family. We are all deeply partial where our
Utility Is a Guide for
family and friends are concerned. Choosing Rules, Not Acts.
When you are impartial, you miss out on The new version of Utilitarianism modifies
intimacy, love, affection, and friendship. At the theory so that individual actions are no
this point, Utilitarianism seems to have lost all longer judged by the Principle of Utility.
touch with reality.
Instead, we first ask what set of rules is
optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint. In other
The Defense of words, what rules should we follow in order to
maximize happiness?

Utilitarianism Individual acts are then assessed according

to whether they abide by these rules. This
new version of the theory is
called “Rule- Utilitarianism,” to distinguish it
Together, these objections appear to be from the original theory, now commonly
decisive. called “Act-Utilitarianism.”

 Utilitarianism seems unconcerned with both In shifting emphasis from the justification of
justice and individual rights. acts to the justification of rules, Utilitarianism
 Moreover, it cannot account for backward- has been brought into line with our intuitive
looking reasons. judgments.
 If we lived by the theory, we would become
poor, and we would have to stop loving our However, a serious problem with Rule-
family and our friends. Utilitarianism arises when we ask whether the
ideal rules have exceptions. Must the rules be
followed no matter what? What if a The Third Response: We Should Focus
“forbidden” act would greatly increase the on All the Consequences.
overall good?
When we’re asked to consider a “despicable”
The rule-utilitarian might give any one of action that maximizes happiness, the action
three answers. is often presented in a way that encourages
us to focus on its bad effects, rather than its
First, if she says that in such cases we may good effects.
violate the rules, then it looks like she wants
to assess actions on a case-by-case basis. If instead we focus on all the effects of the
act, Utilitarianism seems more plausible.
Second, she might suggest that we formulate
the rules so that violating them never will Concluding Thoughts
increase happiness.
Our “common moral consciousness,” many
Finally, the rule-utilitarian might stand her considerations other than utility seem morally
ground and say that we should never break important. But Smart is right to warn us that
the rules, even to promote happiness. “common sense” cannot be trusted.
The Third Defense: “Common Sense”
Is Wrong.
MODULE 8: THE
This defense is given by hard-nosed and
KANTIAN ETHICS – THE
unapologetic utilitarians. CATEGORICAL
The First Response: All Values Have a IMPERATIVE
Utilitarian Basis.
Harry S. Truman will always be remembered
Utilitarianism is not incompatible with as the man who made the decision to drop
common sense; on the contrary, Utilitarianism the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
justifies the commonsense values we have. Nagasaki.
Apart from the utilitarian explanation, Using the atomic bomb on one or two
common sense duties would seem Japanese cities might bring the war to a
inexplicable. What could be stranger than speedy end.
saying that lying is wrong “in itself,” apart
from any harm it causes? And how could Truman was at first reluctant to use the new
people have a “right to privacy” unless weapon. The problem was that each bomb
respecting that right brought them some would obliterate an entire city—not just the
benefit? military targets, but the hospitals, schools,
and homes. Women, children, old people,
The Second Response: Our Gut Reactions and other non-combatants would be wiped
Can’t Be Trusted when Cases Are out along with the military personnel.
Exceptional.
Elizabeth Anscombe, who died in 2001, was
Why do we immediately and instinctively a 20-year-old student at Oxford University
believe it to be wrong to bear false witness when World War II began.
against an innocent person? The reason,
some say, is that throughout our lives we “For men to choose to kill the innocent as a
have seen lies lead to misery and misfortune. means to their ends,” she wrote, “is always
Thus, we instinctively condemn all lies. murder.” To the argument that the bombings
saved more lives than they took, she replied,
However, when confronting unusual cases, “Come now: if you had to choose between
such as McCloskey’s (where lies that boiling one baby and letting some frightful
increase happiness), perhaps we should trust disaster befall a thousand people—or a
the Principle of Utility more than our gut million people if a thousand is not enough—
instincts. what would you do?”
Anscombe’s point was that some things may
not be done, no matter what. It does not Kant’s Arguments
matter if we could accomplish some great
good by boiling a baby; it is simply wrong. on Lying
According to Kant, then, our behavior should
be guided by universal laws, which are moral
Kant's Categorical rules that hold true in all circumstances. Kant
believed in many such exceptionless rules.
Imperative Suppose it was necessary to lie to save
someone’s life. Should you do it?
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Anscombe - Perhaps your maxim would be: “I
Kant observed that the word ought is often will lie when doing so would save someone’s
used non morally: life.”

 If you want to become a better chess player, Case of the Inquiring Murderer - Under these
you ought to study the games of Garry circumstances, most of us think, you should
Kasparov. lie. After all, which is more important: telling
 If you want to go to college, you ought to take the truth or saving someone’s life?
the SAT.
Kant’s reply - This argument may be stated in
Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” a general form: We are tempted to make
because they tell us what to do provided exceptions to the rule against lying because
that we have the relevant desires. in some cases we think the consequences of
honesty will be bad and the consequences of
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend lying will be good. However, we can never be
on having particular desires. The form of a certain about what the consequences will
moral obligation is not “If you want so-and-so, be—we cannot know that good results will
then you ought to do such-and-such.” follow. The results of lying might be
Instead, moral requirements unexpectedly bad.
are categorical: They have the form “You
ought to do such-and-such, period.” Response to Kant - The argument depends
on an unreasonably pessimistic view of what
How can we be obligated to behave in a we can know. Sometimes we can be quite
certain way regardless of our goals? confident of what the consequences of our
actions will be, in which case we need not
Kant - Just as hypothetical “oughts” are hesitate because of uncertainty.
possible because we
have desires, categorical “oughts” are Aren’t white lies acceptable—or even
possible because we have reason required—when they can be used to save
capacity. Categorical oughts, Kant says, are someone’s life? This points to the main
derived from a principle that every rational difficulty for the belief in absolute rules:
person must accept: the Categorical shouldn’t a rule be broken when following it
Imperative. would be disastrous?
“Act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
 Don’t such dilemmas prove that there are no
Conflicts absolute moral rules? The argument is
impressive but limited. It can be levied only

between Rules against a pair of rules; two rules are needed

to create the conflict. Yet there might still be
just one absolute rule. For example, even
Suppose it is held to be absolutely wrong to given the experience in New Orleans, never
do X in any circumstances and also wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being
do Y in any circumstances. Then what about could still be a rule that holds in all
the case in which a person must choose circumstances. So could, never let people
between doing X and doing Y? This kind of suffer horribly with no compensating benefits.
conflict seems to show that moral rules can’t However, both rules could not be absolute. A
be absolute. choice had to be made.

Kant’s Insight
Consider an example. Suppose we believe
that it is always wrong both to intentionally kill
an innocent person and to let people suffer
horribly with no compensating benefits. Now
Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as
consider a situation faced by health-care
binding on rational agents simply because
workers in New Orleans in 2005. As
they are rational; in other words, a person
Hurricane Katrina approached the city and
who rejected this principle would be guilty not
people fled, a skeletal crew of doctors and
merely of being immoral but also of being
nurses stayed behind at Memorial Medical
irrational.
Center in order to tend to the patients who
could not be evacuated. For a day or so after Moral judgment must be backed by good
the storm hit, the situation was manageable. reasons—if it is true that you ought (or ought
The city lost power, but the back-up not) to do such and such, then there must be
generators in the hospital came on, and the a reason why you should (or should not) do it.
machines kept humming. Badly needed help,
however, did not arrive. On day two, the Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are
generators failed, the hospital lost power, and binding on all people at all times. This is a
the air grew stifling hot. “Water stopped requirement of consistency, and Kant was
flowing from the taps, toilets were backed up, right to think that no rational person may deny
and the stench of sewage mixed with the it.
odor of hundreds of unwashed bodies,” one There are rational constraints on what we
reporter later wrote. On day three, the may do.
remaining doctors and nurses labored under
these conditions all day long, with little to eat, Rules, even within a Kantian framework,
and on little sleep. need not be absolute. All that Kant’s basic
idea requires is that when we violate a rule,
At this point, the health-care workers faced a we do so for a reason that we would be
grave dilemma: either euthanize the willing for anyone to accept.
remaining critical-care patients or let them
suffer until they die. There was no third
option. Conditions in the hospital were
horrendous; evacuation was impossible, and
many of the patients had been close to death
even before the hurricane hit. So one of the
“absolute” principles had to be violated: either
innocent people had to be killed, or needless
suffering had to occur. (In practice,
investigators later came to believe that more
than twenty patients had been euthanized.
One doctor, Anna Pou, was arrested on four
counts of second-degree murder, but
eventually, all the charges were dropped.)
MODULE 9: KANTIAN ETHICS Retribution and
AND RESPECT FOR PERSONS
Utility in the
Kant’s Core Ideas
These are the important points in this lesson:
Theory of
1. For Immanuel Kant, human beings occupy a Punishment
special place in creation.
2. Human beings have “an intrinsic worth” or The main ideas for this topic are:
“dignity” that makes them valuable “above all
price.” 1. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) said that
3. Other animals, according to Kant, have value
“all punishment is mischief: all punishment
only insofar as they serve human purposes.
Animals. . . are there merely as means to an in itself is evil.” Bentham had a point.
end. That end is the man. Human beings as Punishment, by its nature, always
ends meant that people are irreplaceable. involves inflicting some harm on the
person punished.
Two facts about people, Kant believed, 2. Retributivism - is idea that punishment is
support the above ideas. justified as a way of “paying back” the
offender for his wicked deed. Those who
 First, because people have desires, things have committed a crime deserve to be
that satisfy those desires can have treated badly. It is a matter of justice: If
value for people. you harm other people, justice requires
 Second, People have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., that you be harmed, too.
dignity” because they are rational agents, that 3. Retributivism was, on Bentham’s view, a
is, free agents capable of making their own wholly unsatisfactory idea, because it
decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding advocates the infliction of suffering
their conduct by reason.
without any compensating gain in
happiness.
The only way that moral goodness can exist
is for rational creatures to act from
If someone breaks the law, then punishing
goodwill —that is, to apprehend what they
that person can have several benefits.
should do and act from a sense of duty.

Kant's Second Formulation of  First, punishment provides comfort and

gratification to victims and their families.
Categorical Imperative
 Second, by locking up criminals, or by
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in executing them, we take them off the
your own person or in that of another, always street.
as an end and never as a means only."  Third, punishment reduces crime by
deterring would-be criminals.
Treat people “as an end” means, on the most  Fourth, a well-designed system of
superficial level, treating them well. punishment might help to rehabilitate
wrongdoers.
Kant’s Retributivism MODULE 10: THE
Kant argues that punishment should be
governed by two principles.
NATURAL LAW THEORY
 First, people should be punished simply Natural Law Theory: The
because they have committed crimes and
for no other reason. Main Idea
 Second, punishment should
be proportionate to the seriousness of the The Natural Law theory has three main parts.
crime.
1. The Theory of Natural Law rests on a
particular view of the world. In this view, the
Treating someone “as an end” means treating
world has a rational order, with values and
him as a rational being, who is responsible for
purposes built into its very nature.
his behavior. So now we may ask: What does
it mean to be a responsible being? The Greeks believed that everything in nature
has a purpose.
A rational being can freely decide what to do,
based on his own conception of what is best. Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) built this idea into his
Rational beings are responsible for their system of thought when he said that, in order
behavior, and so they are accountable for to understand anything, four questions must
what they do. be asked: What is it? What is it made of?
How did it come to be? And what is it for?
In punishing people, we are holding them
responsible for their actions. We are The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational
responding to them as people who have system, with each thing having its own proper
freely chosen their evil deeds. place and serving its own special purpose.
At the end of the day, what we think of Kant’s The Christian thinkers = the divine plan
theory may depend on our view of criminal
behavior. If we see criminals as victims of 2. A corollary to this way of thinking is that the
circumstance, who do not ultimately control “laws of nature” describe not only how
their own actions, then the utilitarian model things are but also how things ought to be.
will appeal to us. On the other hand, if we see The world is in harmony when things serve
criminals as rational agents who freely their natural purposes.
choose to do harm, then Kantian retributivism Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from
will have great appeal for us. the laws of nature. Some ways of behaving
The resolution of this great debate might thus are said to be “natural” while others are said
turn on whether we believe that human to be “unnatural”; and “unnatural” acts are
beings have free will, or whether we believe regarded as morally wrong.
that outside forces impact human behavior so We were created by God, with a specific
deeply that our freedom is an illusion. “human” nature, as part of his overall plan.
Natural-law theory has also been used,
however, to support more contentious moral
views. Religious thinkers often condemn
“deviant” sexual practices, and they usually
justify this by appealing to the Theory of
Natural Law.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of
Natural Law has few advocates today. It is
generally rejected for three reasons.
First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” beings, and not for anything else in the
seems open to obvious counterexamples. natural world.
Sometimes what’s natural is bad.
Almost everyone agrees that a distinctive
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to human feature is our sophisticated reasoning
confuse “is” and “ought.” Facts are one thing; abilities. A few other animals may be able to
values are another. reason in basic ways, but no species on earth
can approach our ability to assess various
Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now ways of life, critically analyze the merits of
widely rejected because its view of the world actions and policies, and then govern our
conflicts with modern science. behavior on the basis of our reflections. This
3. The third part of the theory addresses the capacity for rational thought also seems to be
question of moral knowledge. How can we the cornerstone of morality. Moral agents—
determine what is right and what is wrong? those who bear responsibility for their actions,
and who are fit for praise or blame—are
The “natural laws” that specify what we those who can control their behavior through
should do are laws of reason, which we are reasoning. That’s why we don’t hold animals
able to grasp because God has given us the (or trees or automobiles) morally responsible
power to understand them. Therefore, the for the harms they sometimes cause. Only
Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar human beings have the sort of nature that
idea that the right thing to do is whatever enables them to be moral agents. Natural law
action has the best reasons backing it up. theory can thus explain why moral duties
apply only to human beings (or, if there are
Moral judgments are “dictates of reason.” any, to other life forms who share our rational
God has given everyone the ability to listen to powers).
reason and follow its directives. 3. Natural law theory has a clear account of
the origins of morality.
Natural Law The theory tells us that morality is only as old
as humanity itself, that morality dates to the
Theory: the Main earliest days of humankind. But that isn’t
because morality depends on human opinion,
as so many people believe. Rather, it is
Attraction because morality depends on human nature.
No humans, no human nature. No human
nature, no morality.
The natural law theory promises to solve
some very serious problems in ethics. Four of 4. Natural law theory may solve one of the
these are especially important. hardest problems in ethics: how to gain moral
knowledge.
1. Natural law theory promises to explain how
morality could possibly be objective, that is, According to natural law theory, moral
how moral standards depend on knowledge requires two things: we must
something other than human opinion. know what our human nature is, and know
whether various actions fulfill it. Knowledge of
According to this theory, human nature can human nature may be quite difficult to get—
serve as the objective standard of morality. that depends on how we conceive of human
We do right when our acts express human nature, which we will consider shortly. In
nature and do wrong when they violate it. principle, though, we should be able to
Since individuals and entire societies can be investigate the matter and come up with
mistaken about what our true nature is, they some well-informed views. Equipped with this
can be badly off-target about what morality knowledge, we can then look carefully at
asks of us. individuals to see whether their actions line
2. Natural law theory easily explains why up with human nature.
morality is especially suited for human
 one will reject the worldview of natural- law
Some Objections to theory. That theory was a product, not of
modern thought, but of the Middle Ages.
the Natural Law Theory
Objections to Natural-Law Theory. MODULE 11: VIRTUE
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of
Natural Law has few advocates today. It is
ETHICS
generally rejected for three reasons. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (ca. 325
First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” b.c.), the central questions are
seems open to obvious counterexamples. about character.
Sometimes what’s natural is bad. People Aristotle begins by asking “What is the good
naturally care much more about themselves of man?” and his answer is “an activity of the
than about strangers, but this is regrettable. soul in conformity with virtue.” He then
The disease occurs naturally, but the disease discusses such virtues as courage, self-
is bad. Children are naturally self-centered, control, generosity, and truthfulness. Most of
but parents don’t think this is a good thing. the ancient thinkers came to ethics by
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to asking What traits of character make
confuse “is” and “ought.” In the 18th century, someone a good person?
David Hume pointed out that what is the case For the Greeks, the life of virtue was
and what ought to be the case are logically inseparable from the life of reason.
different notions, and no conclusion about
one follows from the other. We can say that The Christians, like the Jews, viewed God as
people are naturally disposed to be a lawgiver, and so they saw obedience to
beneficent, but it does not follow that they those laws as the key to righteous living.
ought to be beneficent. Similarly, it may be Thus, when medieval philosophers discussed
true that sex produces babies, but it does not the virtues, it was in the context of Divine
follow that sex ought or ought not to be Law, and the “theological virtues” of faith,
engaged in only for that purpose. Facts are hope, charity, and obedience occupied the
one thing; values are another. spotlight.

Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now In the modern period, the Divine Law was
widely rejected because its view of the world replaced by something called the “Moral
conflicts with modern science. The Law.” The Moral Law, which was said to
world as described by Galileo, Newton, and spring from human reason rather than from
Darwin has no need for “facts” about right God, was a system of rules specifying which
and wrong. Their explanations of nature actions are right. Our duty as moral persons,
make no reference to values or purposes. it was said, is to follow those rules. Thus,
What happens just happens, due to the laws modern moral philosophers approached their
of cause and effect. If the rain benefits the subject by asking a question fundamentally
plants, this is because the plants have different from the one asked by the ancients.
evolved by the laws of natural selection in a
Instead of asking What traits of character
rainy climate.
make someone a good person? they
Thus, modern science gives us a picture of asked What is the right thing to do? This led
the world as a realm of facts, where the only them in a different direction. They went on to
“natural laws” are the laws of physics, develop theories, not of virtue, but of
chemistry, and biology, working blindly and rightness and obligation:
without purpose. Whatever values may be,
they are not part of the natural order. As for  Ethical Egoism: Each person ought to do
the idea that “nature has made all things whatever will best promote his or her own
specifically for the sake of man,” well, that interests.
was only vanity. To the extent that one  The Social Contract Theory: The right
accepts the worldview of modern science, thing to do is to follow the rules that
 rational, self-interested people would courteousness loyalty
agree to follow for their mutual benefit. thoughtfulness
 Utilitarianism: One ought to do whatever
will lead to the most happiness. dependability moderation
 Kant’s theory: Our duty is to follow rules tolerance
that we could accept as universal laws— What Do These Virtues Consist In? Each of
that is, rules that we would be willing for the virtues has its own distinctive features
everyone to follow in all circumstances. and raises its own distinctive problems.
Courage. According to Aristotle, virtues are
The Virtues midpoints between extremes: A virtue is “the
mean by reference to two vices: the one of
excess and the other of deficiency.”
The Virtues
Generosity. Generosity is the willingness to
A theory of virtue should have several give to others. One can be generous with any
components: a statement of what a virtue is, of one’s resources—with one’s time, for
a list of the virtues, an account of what these example, or one’s money or one’s
virtues consist in, and an explanation of why knowledge. Aristotle says that generosity, like
these qualities are good. In addition, the courage, is a mean between extremes: It falls
theory should tell us whether the virtues are between stinginess and extravagance.
the same for all people or whether they differ
from person to person or from culture to Honesty. The honest person is someone
culture. who, first of all, does not lie. Why is honesty
good? Part of the reason is large-scale:
What Is a Virtue? Aristotle said that a virtue civilization depends on it. Our ability to live
is a trait of character manifested in habitual together in communities depends on our
action. ability to communicate. We talk to one
A virtue is a commendable trait of character another, read each other’s writing, exchange
information and opinions, express our desires
manifested in habitual action.
to one another, make promises, ask and
Moral virtue as a trait of character, answer questions, and much more. Without
manifested in habitual action, that it is good these sorts of exchanges, social living would
for anyone to have. be impossible. But people must be honest
about such exchanges to work.
What Are the Virtues? What, then, are the
virtues? Which traits of character should be On a smaller scale, when we take people at
fostered in human beings? There is no short their word, we make ourselves vulnerable to
answer, but the following is a partial list: them. By accepting what they say and
modifying our behavior accordingly, we place
benevolence fairness our wellbeing in their hands. If they speak
patience truthfully, all is well. But if they lie, then we
civility friendliness end up with false beliefs; and if we act on
prudence those beliefs, then we do foolish things. We
trusted them, and they betrayed our trust.
compassion generosity Dishonesty is manipulative. By contrast,
reasonableness honest people treat others with respect.
conscientiousness honesty Loyalty to friends and family. Friendship is
self-discipline essential to the good life. As Aristotle says,
“No one would choose to live without friends,
cooperativeness industriousness even if he had all other goods”
self-reliance
courage justice
tactfulness
Why Are the Virtues Important? We said o In every society, there will be some
that virtues are traits of character that are people who are worse off than others;
good for people to have. This raises the so, generosity will always be prized.
question of why the virtues are good. Why o Honesty is always a virtue because no
should a person be courageous, generous, society can exist without dependable
honest, or loyal? communication.
o Everyone needs friends, and to have
 friends one must be a friend; so,
o Courage is good because we need it everyone needs loyalty.
to cope with danger.
o Generosity is desirable because there To summarize, then, it may be true that in
will always be people who need help. different societies the virtues are given
o Honesty is needed because without it different interpretations, and different actions
relations between people would go may be counted as satisfying them; and it
wrong in all sorts of ways. may be true that the value of a character trait
o Loyalty is essential to friendship; will vary from person to person and from
friends stand by one another even society to society. But it cannot be right to say
when others would turn away. that social customs determine whether any
particular character trait is a virtue. The major
Virtues are important because the virtues flow from our common human
virtuous person will fare better in life. The condition.
point is not that the virtuous will always be
richer; the point is that we need the virtues in
order to flourish. Two Advantages
We are social creatures who want the
company of others. So we live in communities
among family, friends, and fellow citizens. In
of Virtue Ethics
this setting, such qualities as loyalty, fairness,
and honesty are needed to interact Virtue Ethics is often said to have two selling
successfully with others. points.

They are all qualities needed for successful 1. Moral motivation. Virtue Ethics is appealing
living. because it provides a natural and attractive
account of moral motivation.
Are the Virtues the Same for Everyone? 2. Doubts about the “ideal” of impartiality. A
dominant theme in modern moral philosophy
There is, then, an obvious sense in which the has been impartiality—the idea that all
virtues may differ from person to person. persons are morally equal, and that we should
Because people lead different kinds of lives, treat everyone’s interests as equally
have different sorts of personalities, and important. A moral theory that emphasizes the
occupy different social roles, the qualities of virtues, however, can easily account for all
character that help them flourish may differ. this. Some virtues are partial and some are
not. Loyalty involves partiality toward loved
Certain virtues will be needed by all people at ones and friends; beneficence involves equal
all times. regard for everyone.

Even in the most disparate societies, people Virtue and Conduct

face the same basic problems and have the
same basic needs. Thus: As we have seen, theories that emphasize
the right action seem incomplete because

they neglect the question of character. Virtue
o Everyone needs courage because no
Ethics remedies this problem by making
one (not even the scholar) can always
character its central concern. But as a result,
avoid danger. Also, everyone needs
Virtue Ethics runs the risk of being incomplete
the courage to take the occasional
in the other direction. Moral problems are
risk.
frequently problems with what to do. What
can a theory of virtue tell us about the Consider the virtue of being beneficent, or
assessment, not of character, but of action? being kind. Suppose I hear some news that
would upset you to know about it. Maybe I’ve
We could still assess actions based on the learned that someone you used to know died
reasons that can be given for or against in a car accident. If I don’t tell you this, you
them. However, the reasons cited will all be might never find out. Suppose, also, that
reasons connected with the virtues. Thus, the you’re the sort of person who would want to
reasons for doing some particular action be told. If I know all this, should I tell you the
might be that it is honest, or generous, or fair; news? What would be the kind thing to do?
while the reasons against doing it might be It’s a hard question, because what you would
that it is dishonest, or stingy, or unfair. On this prefer—being told—conflicts with what would
approach, the right thing to do is whatever a make you feel good— not being told. Would a
virtuous person would do. kind person care more about what you want
or more about what makes you feel good?
Difficulties of Radical Virtue Ethics cannot answer this
question.

Virtue Ethics Finally, Radical Virtue Ethics is incomplete

because it cannot help us deal with cases of
moral conflict.
The Problem of Incompleteness
Suppose I just got a haircut— a mullet the
The main objection to Radical Virtue Ethics is likes of which have not been seen in some
that it is incomplete. It seems to be time—and I put you on the spot by asking you
incomplete in three ways. what you think. You can either tell me the
truth, or you can say that I look just fine.
First, Radical Virtue Ethics cannot explain Honesty and kindness are both virtues, and
everything it should explain. Consider a so there are reasons both for and against
typical virtue, such as dependability. Why each alternative. But you must do one or the
should I be dependable? other— you must either tell the truth and be
unkind, or tell a lie and be kind. Which should
Plainly, we need an answer that goes beyond
you do? If someone told you, “You should act
the simple observation that dependability is a
virtuously in this situation,” that wouldn’t help
virtue. We want to know why it is a virtue; we
you decide what to do; it would only leave
want to know why it is good. Possible
you wondering which virtue to abide by.
explanations might be that being dependable
Clearly, we need guidance beyond the
is to one’s own advantage, or that being
resources of Radical Virtue Ethics.
dependable promotes the general welfare, or
that dependability is needed by those who
must live together and rely on one another.
The first explanation looks suspiciously like
Ethical Egoism; the second is utilitarian, and
the third recalls the Social Contract Theory.
But none of these explanations are couched
in terms of the virtues. Any explanation of
why a particular virtue is good, it seems,
would have to take us beyond the narrow
confines
of Radical Virtue Ethics.
The second way in which the theory is
incomplete is that it cannot give a full
interpretation of the virtues. It cannot say
exactly when they apply. Radical Virtue
Ethics doesn’t explain why something is a
virtue, then it won’t be able to tell us whether
the virtues apply in difficult cases.
 MODULE 12: ETHICS Kohlberg's Stages of
OF CARE Moral Development
Consider the following dilemma, devised by
Do Women and Men the educational psychologist Lawrence
Think Differently about Kohlberg (1927–1987).
Heinz’s wife is near death, and her only hope
Ethics? is a drug that was discovered by a pharmacist
who is now selling it for an outrageously high
The idea that women and men think price. The drug costs $200 to make, and the
differently has traditionally been used to pharmacist is selling it for $2,000. Heinz can
justify discrimination against women. raise
Aristotle said that women are less rational $1,000, but the pharmacist told him that half
than men, and so men naturally rule them. wasn’t enough. When Heinz promised to pay
Immanuel Kant agreed, adding that women the rest later, the pharmacist still refused. In
“lack civil personality” and should have no desperation, Heinz considers stealing the
voice in public life. Jean-Jacques Rousseau drug. Would that be wrong?
tried to put a good face on this by This problem, known as “Heinz’s Dilemma,”
emphasizing that women and men merely was used by Kohlberg in studying the moral
possess different virtues; but, of course, it development of children. Kohlberg
turns out that men’s virtues fit them for interviewed children of various ages,
leadership, whereas women’s virtues fit them presenting them with a series of dilemmas
for home and hearth. and asking them questions designed to
Against this background, it is not surprising reveal their thinking. Analyzing their
that the women’s movement of the 1960s and responses, Kohlberg concluded that there are
1970s denied that women and men differ six stages of moral development. In these
psychologically. The conception of men as stages, the individual conceives of “right” in
rational and women as emotional was terms of
dismissed as a mere stereotype. Nature (stage 1) obeying authority and avoiding
makes no mental or moral distinction punishment;
between the sexes, it was said; and when (stage 2) satisfying one’s own desires and
there seem to be differences, it is only letting others do the same, through fair
because women have been conditioned by exchanges;
an oppressive system to behave in “feminine” (stage 3) cultivating one’s relationships and
ways. performing the duties of one’s social roles;
These days, however, most feminists believe (stage 4) obeying the law and maintaining the
that women do think differently than men. welfare of the group;
But, they add, women’s ways of thinking are (stage 5) upholding the basic rights and
not inferior to men’s. Female ways of values of one’s society;
thinking yield insights that have been missed (stage 6) abiding by abstract, universal moral
in male-dominated areas. principles.

Thus, by attending to the distinctive approach So, if all goes well, we begin life with a self-
of women, we can make progress in subjects centered desire to avoid punishment, and we
that seem stalled. Ethics is said to be a end life with a set of abstract moral principles.
leading candidate for this treatment. Kohlberg, however, believed that only a small
minority of adults make it to stage 5.
In terms of Kohlberg’s stages, men seems to
have advanced beyond women. women’s
responses are typical of people operating in
stage 3, where personal relationships are
paramount. Men, on the other hand, appeals
to impersonal principles. Men seem to be them great suffering, and so we should
operating at one of the later stages. nourish ourselves without the cruelty.
The Ethics of Care appeals to intuition and
Implications for Moral feeling rather than to principle. Noddings
observes that our emotional responses to
Judgment: Family and humans are different from our responses to
Friends, Children with animals.

HIV, Animals
Implications for
Implications for Moral
Judgment
Ethical Theory
Men’s theories emphasize: impersonal duty,
Does an ethic of care have different contracts, the balancing of competing
implications than a “male” approach to interests, and the calculation of costs and
ethics? benefits.
Here are three examples. Feminists accuse moral philosophy of having
a male bias. The concerns of private life are
Family and Friends. almost wholly absent, and the “different
voice” of which Carol Gilligan speaks is silent.
When we try to construe “being a loving
parent” as a duty, we encounter problems. A The contrast between “being a certain kind of
loving parent is motivated by love, not by person” and “doing your duty” lies at the heart
duty. If parents care for their children only of a larger conflict between two kinds of
because they feel it is their duty, the children ethical theory.
will sense it and realize they are unloved.
Virtue Ethics sees being a moral person as
The ideas of equality and impartiality that having certain traits of character: being kind,
pervade theories of obligation seem deeply generous, courageous, just, prudent, and so
antagonistic to the values of love and on.
friendship.
Theories of obligation, on the other hand,
Children with HIV emphasize impartial duty: They portray the
moral agent as someone who listens to
Around the world, about 2.5 million children reason, figures out the right thing to do, and
under the age of 15 have HIV, the virus that does it.
can cause AIDS. Right now only one-fourth of
those children get decent medical care, while The ethics of care, therefore, may be best
only half of pregnant women who have HIV understood as one part of the ethics of virtue.
are taking steps to protect their unborn
children from the virus.
Almost all of us spend money on luxuries.
Luxuries are not as important as protecting
children from AIDS. Should we give at least
some of our money to UNICEF?

Animals
Do we have obligations to nonhuman
animals? Should we, for example, refrain
from eating them? An ethic of principle says
that how we raise animals for food causes