Moral Theories

as
Frames of Moral Experiences
ETH 101

Issaiah Nicolle L. Cecilia

1 NRS – 1
 Moral Theories
Moral theories can help to justify and reflect upon making ethical decisions. Moral theories are
different from other theories: while they can help us to justify the ethical decisions that we make, they are
often not predictive. They were, instead, comprehensive and supported by large bodies of converging
evidence, based on repeated observations, usually integrating and generalizing hypotheses and making
consistently accurate predictions across a broad area of scientific inquiry. While there are some reasons
for being cautious about moral theories, they also hold great potential for enriching critical reflection
upon our decisions.
One of the moral theory is the Moral Subjectivism. In here, right and wrong is determined by
what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel') is right or wrong. In its common form, Moral
Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the possibility of
moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as
someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism.
Next, is the Cultural Relativism. Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of
principles or rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. It is closely linked to Moral
Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own.
Again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be
mistaken about what is right and wrong which seems not to be true, and so it denies the possibility of
moral advancement which also seems not to be true.
Another one is Ethical Egoism. Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest
or, it is immoral to act contrary to your self-interest. Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological
Egoism that we, by nature, act selfishly. It does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least
some 'higher' goods, for example: wisdom, political success, but rather that we will act so as to maximize
our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving some
long term goals. Egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests.
Moreover, there is Divine Command Theory. Many claim that there is a necessary connection
between morality and religion, such that, without religion in particular, without God or gods there is no
morality, no right and wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to
motivate and guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary
connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God
(or the gods). The upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if
God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be
done.
Then, there is Virtue Ethics where right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues making the good person. The most widely discussed is Aristotle's
account. For Aristotle, the central concern is "Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern
are excellences of character - the moral virtues. Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had
nothing to say about moral duty rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings truly 'happy'.
True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia means flourishing / well- being / fulfilment / self- actualization.
Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living in accordance with the
traditional virtues which are wisdom, courage, justice and temperance. For Aristotle, this comes from a
particular account of human nature, the virtuous life is the 'happiest' or most fulfilling life.
 Meanwhile, Feminist Ethics states that right and wrong is to be found in women’s' responses to
the relationship of caring. Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' --
display a male bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral
theories they take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea. Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to
consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So morality, according to some feminist
moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to relationships
of caring. This allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we have close social relationships.
Eventually, there is the theory of Utilitarianism. In here, the right and wrong is determined by
the overall goodness of the consequences of action. All action leads to some end but there is a summum
bonum or the highest good/end. This is pleasure or happiness. Also, there is a First Principle of Morals or
the 'Principle of Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually
characterized as the ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP
implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare. We do this in a particular instance by
choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
After that is the Kantian Theory, where right and wrong is determined by rationality and giving
universal duties. It has a basic idea that there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and evil are
defined in terms of Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that
acting morally was quite simple. That is you ought to do your duty simply because it is your duty and
reason guides you to this conclusion. Good Will is the only thing that is good without qualification. So,
actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention or based on Good Will.
Rights-based Theories merely focus on acting in accordance with a set of moral rights, which
we possess simply by being human. These theories are connected to Kantianism and are Non-
consequentialist. The basic idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to
provide what the right requires. Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is
one in which the corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order
to sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm someone.
Lastly, is the Contractarianism where the principles of right and wrong or justice are those
which everyone in society would agree upon in forming a social contract. Various forms of
Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the principles or rules that determine
right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical contract forming procedure.
John Rawls claims will lead to the choosing two basic principles: (1) that each member of the
society should have as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberty of others; and (2) the
'maximin' rule for decisions about economic justice -- namely, that they will choose those rules that
would maximize the minimum they would receive. Contractarianism suggests that people are primarily
self-interested, and that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining the maximization of their
self-interest will lead them to act morally and to consent to governmental authority.
All in all, ethics should be the backbone of every decision made on a personal level. The values
we hold, we demonstrate to the world by making choices that encompass them. We develop many values
and ethics through past experiences whether it is a positive or negative experience. These thoughts and
beliefs are what guide us through our life. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to
practicing good ethics and morals. So in making decisions, especially important ones, we should consider
many things to ensure that the decisions align with our personal ethics. Different moral theories can also
be applied as frames for our moral experiences. In all of our decision making, we should ask ourselves
first to make certain that we are aligned with the principles to promote good and reduce harm, to have
pure motivations and to make decisions we can be proud of today and into the future and try to make
decisions that uplift and encourage others, that do not harm anyone and that do not harm the environment.
The life we lead reflects the strength of our character.

Reference:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html