Download Ethical Theories Review Cheat Sheet and more Cheat Sheet Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!
Ethical Theories Review Sheet
Standard Theories:
- Consequence-Based (Teleological): e.g. Utilitarian Ethics
- Duty-Based (Deontological): e.g. Kantian, Divine Command ethics
- Character-Based: e.g. Virtue Ethics
- Human Rights-based: e.g. Western Liberal Individualism
- Human Nature-Based: e.g. Natural Law Ethics
- Common Sense-based theory: e.g. Common Morality
Critical Response Theories:
- Community-Based (Communitarian) Criticism:
-Gender-Based: Feminine, Feminist, etc. Ethics
-Story-Based: Narrative Ethics
-Relationship-Based: Care Ethics
Modes or Methods of Moral Reasoning:
> Deductive methods
> Inductive methods
> Reflective Equilibrium
Standard Theories
Well established, universally recognized sources of authority in ethics and morality. Refined
over centuries of careful reflection on the human and human experience, knowledge, and
capability, these theories define the field. To know ethics and morality, you must know these
theories.
1. Consequence-Based Theory:
Utilitarianism or Consequentialism : Sometimes referred to as “teleological” ethics because of the classical use of “telos” as the end toward which one aims a moral act. Put most simply it aims for, “The greatest good for the greatest number.” The primary concern is to promote that which is most valued by the most people in any given society, such as for instance, “well-being.” The principle of utility is the one and only (and absolute) principle to be followed. Rules and guidelines follow from this principle and shape its application.
Founders : Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832), John Stuart Mill (d. 1873)
- Acts are considered morally right as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they produce the reverse.
- Primary (but not only) focus is on the end or consequence of an action. Is your action aimed at that which is valued the most? Will your action produce more of what is valued and less of what is not valued?
- The good (or that which ought to be done) should promote happiness/pleasure which is founded on the notion of hedonism (humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain).
- Equal consideration of interests: All people count for one and no one counts for more than one. Utilitarianism is egalitarian in nature.
Act Utilitarianism: Primarily concerned with the consequences of specific acts as opposed to general rules. The movement is directly from the principle of utility to the act under consideration. Thus Utility >> actions.
Rule Utilitarianism: Primarily concerned with consequences of general policies or rules that have developed over time. The movement is from the principle of utility through the rules and/or guidelines that have shown themselves to produce the highest level of value. Thus Utility >> rules/guidelines >> actions.
2. Duty-Based Theory :
Deontological Ethics, Nonconsequentialist Ethics, Kantian Ethics, Divine Command Ethics : Any ethic that provides a universal normative statement that the listener is obliged to uphold should fall under the “duty-based” heading. The primary focus is on the act itself. Acts will produce consequences to be sure, but the primary moral concern for any given action is the act itself. If the act is morally wrong no amount of positive consequences can make it right. Even if the moral agent (the one acting) is a saint, because the act itself is wrong, the saint who engages in that action remains morally wrong.
Founder : Immanuel Kant (d. 1804)
A. Example: Kantianism: Kant argued that ethics must be based on reason and not particular tradition (personal, religious, cultural, or national orientation). One can only act morally when one rejects the idea that one’s self is an exception. One cannot act morally by doing the act that is best for one’s self or even someone else; one only acts appropriately when one acts for the sake of obligation. One must do the right act for the pure obligation of it. Or put positively there is only one universal rule for ethics and morality, it is called the “Categorical Imperative” and it
4. Human Rights-Based Theory :
Western Liberal Individualism : Emerges from the Enlightenment period and is fundamentally individualistic. Ethical truth is sought not in history, tradition, or religion but in universal tenets of rationality. Ethics and morality is objective and universal, applicable to all times and places. A Right is a well established claim that I (we) can make for myself (ourselves) which obliges others in one of two ways: either to leave me (us) alone or do something for me (us). Thus we have positive and negative Rights. My assertion of a Right to be left alone (a negative Right) obligates you to leave me alone. Your Right to healthcare obligates the society to provide some form of healthcare to you. But we all must agree on these matters to make Rights work. Thus I cannot assert a Right that I desire but everyone else rejects. In such a case I simply don’t have a Right. Rights reasoning is rule based, the assertion of a Right is to uphold a rule the breaking of which is immoral.
Founders : John Locke (d. 1704), Samuel Pufendorf (d. 1694), Hugo Grotius (d. 1645)
- Emerging from religious assertion of “natural” Rights given by God, today, based on a secular foundation we enter into agreements to uphold Rights and obligations of persons, governments and nations on a global scale.
a. Human Rights are “basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people” (Encyclopedia of Ethics ).
b. Examples: Rights to life, liberty, property. But Rights may not be absolute; property is routinely taken by cities and nations for community interests, liberties are routinely limited by things like seat belt laws, and even the right to life may be overruled for instance by killing in a time of war.
- Often referred to as “contractarian.” That is, we contract or agree with each other that these things exist. Rights are correlative with obligations but a Right precedes an obligation. I have no obligation to help pay for your healthcare until such time that the country decides healthcare is a right. I do have an obligation to pay taxes to support our nations military and our national system of education. Why? Because we have established the agreement (the contract) that we must have both the capability to defend ourselves as a nation and we must educate our children through the 12th^ grade.
- A commitment to the individual as the unique focus of moral concern. Rights theory is understood in the West as a primarily individualistic ethic, only secondarily interested in the communal good. In many other nations, less individualistically based, they are primarily understood to be communal first and only secondarily individualistic.
- The primary conceptual document is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The document and the theory are now as important politically as they are philosophically. Statements of human Rights have now emerged all over the world. See the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (1990) issued by the Organization of Islamic Conference. See also the Bangkok Declaration by the Ministers of Asian States (1993) jointly issued in preparation for the World Conference on Human Rights in Austria in
5. Human Nature-Based Theory:
Natural Law Ethics : Natural Law ethics is built upon the ontological argument that there is an objective moral order in the universe and that all humans can come to know that order and use it for human relations. There is a moral order set by either nature or God for human beings that, based upon their nature, is both knowable and desirable. Despite intense and on-going debate about human nature, Natural Law theorists argue than an ethic for human interaction is possible based upon our knowledge of human nature and an objective order in the universe. The difficulty arises when specific content for this law is asserted as a moral norm or rule. For instance, if murder (or the unjustified killing [because not all killing is unjustified] of a human) is condemned as wrong all across the
globe, can it be understood as an essential part of the Natural Law about human relations? Arguably, we could have such a discussion but when the specific rule about abortion in the U.S. is called "murder," we will launch into an interminable and unresolvable discussion over the specifics of the universal objective order.
Founders : Jewish and Greek philosophers. Islamic and Christian scripture. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) developed it most clearly. More than any other method of moral argument, within Roman Catholicism, Natural Law theory shapes teaching and doctrine for bioethics.
- First principle of this ethic: “Do good, avoid evil.”
- Modern derivative rules: (Grisez and Finnis, Roman Catholic interpreters). a. self-integration b. peace of conscience c. peace with others d. peace with God e. life and death f. truth and beauty g. play and skill 6. Common Sense-based Theory :
Common Morality Theory: A set of rules or norms toward which any person who takes morality seriously will feel a level of obligation. These ideas are shaped over millennia by human experience and rational reflection regardless of local differences in culture. The common morality is universal. All humans intuitively and by education understand it to be important for society to exist. But even if a society lives it out poorly or without any coherence that does not count against the idea. The foundations for any given expression may differ, but the rules and norms are common across the world. Pluralism is real but not determinative in the form of relativism. Intuition is important but not absolute. Principles and rules are determinative but not absolute.
Some people go beyond the keeping of the principles and their determinative rules and attain “saintly” status. That is, their personal traits of character fully integrate the underlying values associated with these rules. While not all are expected to be saintly, it is common to hold aspirations to be like these virtuous persons.
Founders : There are no founders as it is not well established. Present proponents: Bernard Gert, James Childress, Dan Beauchamp
- Some possible rules (non-absolute, prima facie binding): a. Do not steal b. Do not cause pain c. Do not kill d. Do not punish those who are not guilty e. Keep the law f. Keep your promises g. Prevent harm from occurring h. Help others in danger i. Care for the young and the old
- Any theory or approach to the moral life that does not account for these matters of common-sense universal rules and aspirations will fail in its specific application. Our common morality should not be shaped from above, that is, a purely rational theory that has no applicability to human experience. Rather our theory should emerge from our lived experience.
- Any given issue may be resolved in a number of different ways using principles from the common morality. The universal relevance does not dictate unanimity of expression.
often called the moral sense). Most commonly expressed simply as “it felt like the thing to do.” Or “I just know it.” Some theorists in ethics claim that all humans have a sense, like our other senses of taste, smell, etc. that is aware of and focused on ethics and morality; thus the Moral Sense.
Pros: We all have some measure of awareness of our intuitions…and despite the common proverb that women’s intuition is always correct, both males and females have and follow intuitions. Intuition works best when combined with another theoretical perspective.
Cons: We often follow it blindly to our detriment. We may “follow our heart” right down the road to broken promises and ruptured relationships. Intuition works best when combined with another theoretical perspective.
Critical Response Theories
Theories that attempt to correct the weaknesses of the standard theories. While they
emphasize those things that will expose and counteract the weaknesses of the standard
theories, they do not entirely refute those theories. Neither do they assert themselves as
comprehensive theories that may stand alone.
1. Community-Based Theory:
Communitarian Ethics : Generally put, all of our guiding norms can be traced to distinct ethical traditions and ways of life. We cannot place ourselves outside of this context and find the ethical norms for guidance. Particular notions of right and wrong behavior emerge from social convention, religious teachings, cultural traditions, family values, national interests, and the like. Actions that uphold and support communal forms and norms and values are those that should be considered morally appropriate. Anything that denigrates such matters or lifts the individual over these communal concerns is morally inappropriate.
Founders: While no single founder or group of exponents is responsible for this perspective it does have present- day proponents: Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, and Michael Walzer
- Ethical truth is particular, not universal. That is, it cannot be imagined as something for which all persons and societies will agree.
- Communitarian theories eschew the individuality upheld by Utilitarian emphasis on personal happiness, the individual autonomy asserted by Kantian notions of agents acting under obligation, and would position themselves toward Rights primarily expressed through the community and not the individual.
- Focus on:
Common good not individual good Shared values not individual values Healthy community not happy individual
NOTE: All of the theories that follow are, in my view, forms of
communitarian ethics.
1a. Story-Based Theory :
Narrative Ethics : Central claim is that morality is, at its root, constituted by stories. Our judgments about right and
wrong and good and evil and our resulting actions are dependent upon stories we hear, tell, and live out. Stories about “Uncle Joe’s” alcoholism, for instance, shape the family position toward alcohol consumption. Stories about the “founding fathers” of the United States shape our ideas of what is right and wrong on a national scale. Stories about Jesus help us figure out what he would do in any given moral quandary.
Founders : Iris Murdoch, Martha Nussbaum, Stanley Hauerwas, Alasdair MacIntyre
- Important conceptual notions include vision, virtue, character, tradition.
- Five things we do with stories: (Hinde Lindeman-Nelson). a. Read them b. Tell them c. Compare them d. Analyze them e. Invoke them
1b. Gender-Based Theory :
Feminist Ethics : A critique of the standard account of morality. The primary effort is to argue for the reality of the experience of women in moral understanding and ethical systems.
Founders : Some notable philosophical precursors: Mary Wollstonecraft (d. 1797), John Stuart Mill (d. 1873), Frederick Engels (d. 1895), and Simone de Beauvoir (d. 1986) and present day activist Gloria Steinem; psychologist Carol Gilligan, educator Nel Noddings, and theologian Margaret Farley.
- Difficulties in definition: a. Feminine ethics : A basic respect for women’s moral experience. Basic concern is for women’s morality in the context of ongoing societal reflection on morality and ethics. b. Feminist ethics : Not just an effort to respect women’s moral experience but to correct past injustice. Feminist ethics is typically very politically minded. c. Womanist ethics : The specific moral experience of black women in America. See the famous talk given by Sojourner Truth in 1851 at the Ohio Women’s Rights Convention called “Ain’t I Woman.” d. Mujerista ethics : The specific lived moral experience of women of Latin America. See the work of Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz.
- Minimally stated: a. Women and men cannot be assumed to be similarly situated in any given moral situation. b. We must understand individual actions in context of broader social practices. c. We must be able to provide guidance on issues of private life; namely intimate relations, sexuality, child-bearing and rearing. This is where women often are and it is an area ignored by those studying morality. These are issues not typically attended to by the justice perspective. d. We must take the moral experience of women seriously.
1c. Relationship-Based Theory:
Care Ethics: A newcomer to reflection on ethics and morality that has ancient roots in all theories within which human affection and relationships are important. Often compared and contrasted to the “Justice” perspective which supposedly views the moral life in terms of personal autonomy, objectivity, and independent decision making. Care ethics pushes for a deeper understanding and appreciation for personal interdependence over autonomy, subjectivity in balance with objectivity, and decision making based upon a full exploration of the relevance of one’s relationships with others who matter most.
Founders : Carol Gilligan in moral psychology; Annette Baier in moral philosophy; Nel Noddings in ethics
Essential aspects:
four principles.
- The principles are intended to serve a justificatory role. They justify our actions.
- To use principles as a method of reasoning the four principles must be balanced against each other after specifying which of them is relevant in any given case. 2. Inductive method:
The inverse of the deductive method argues that humans reason from the bottom up. That is, we reason from the particular details of the issue we are grappling with as our starting point. Principles and other more general rules, maxims, or theories only become important over time as we see the resolution of particular cases emerging along similar lines.
Casuistry: An approach to moral reasoning that upholds the particular aspects of the case at hand to be of utmost importance. Casuistry is a method that compares and contrasts features of the present case with those of prior cases. The prior or paradigmatic cases establish themselves over time and reflection upon how well they turned out. Primary proponents today are Al Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William Winslade whose, Clinical Ethics: A practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine is now in its 6th^ edition.
Some details of casuistry
- Upholds particulars; downplays universals.
- Does not reject the need for principles but insists that they emerge from the cases; not that we bring the principles to the case.
- Uses analogical reasoning. If we don’t know whether or not we should have universal right to healthcare in our country, we look at other countries and reason from there toward our situation. In a general sense, if something worked well in one case, our idea is that it will likely work well in similar present or future cases. To use an illustration from Islam: Alcohol use was forbidden by Muhammad, but neither the Qur’an nor the Prophet said anything about using Hashish. By analogy, if alcohol is forbidden, so also is Hashish forbidden.
- A taxonomy of cases develops; what some call a morisprudence.
- The principles that emerge are very porous, in that they are not timeless and universal. They are weighted according to the details of the specific case. 3. Reflective Equilibrium:
In deductive methods of moral reasoning justification is found in the proper application of general rules. In inductive methods of moral reasoning justification is found in details of the case particulars as understood through paradigm cases and practical reason. For reflective equilibrium justification is found the expression of both deductive and inductive reasoning. Without both inductive and deductive reasoning we fail to provide sufficient justification for our efforts to resolve any given moral quandary. Justification for one’s actions then does not simply lie in the fact that you have upheld some universal truth, like “Thou Shalt Not Lie.” Neither does justification lie simply in the fact that you have focused your attention on the patient’s particular need, like for pain relief, for instance. Rather, justification lies in the in-between. Moral certitude lies in the sense of fit or coherence between our responses to individual persons and their cases and the more abstract principles that guide our thinking. Martha Nussbaum calls this method a “loving conversation” between universal principles and particular case details.
John Rawls (d. 2002) established “reflective equilibrium” in his highly influential book A Theory of Justice , 1971. The idea is that our moral beliefs are always in a state of equilibrium between the greater principles toward which we are all inclined (such as those proposed in the Common Morality) and the specific details of any given ethical crisis with which we are presently engaged.
Examples: -Civil Rights:
That all citizens have rights is a general principle that was challenged by American Blacks in the Civil Rights movement. The challenge was not to the principle, rather to the perception and application of the principle among the majority of citizens who believed it did not apply to African Americans. -Marriage: Marriage is a principle of societal organization under which male and female vow to remain committed to each other and if possible and desirable raise a family. The present day challenge of Gay and Lesbian groups is for us to consider whether or not the force of this principle is found in the sexuality of the committed partnership or the commitment of those parties (i.e. the relational fidelity) is the primary force of the principle. -Others examples may include: *The principle of health as fundamental to life does or does not include access to healthcare as a universal right. *The principle of national self-defense does or does not include pre-emptive strike options. *The principle of responsibility for a professor does or does not include periodic grade updates throughout the quarter?
