CHAPTER TWO:

Approaches to Ethics
 2.1. Normative Ethics
 DEFINITION; Normative originated from norm
which means relating to an ideal standard of or
model, or being based on what is considered to
be the normal or correct way of doing
something.
 Normative has specialized meanings in
different academic disciplines such as
philosophy, social sciences, and the law.
 Cont’d
 Normative ethics attempts to give systematic
answers to how we should generally decide what to
do.
 In normative ethics, we abstract from a lot of
individual cases what it is in general that makes
something right or wrong, then we take that
abstracted principle back down with us into
particularly difficult cases
 Normative ethics can be seen as answering the
general question, what should we do?
 Cont’d
o Offers theories or accounts of the best
way to live. These theories evaluate
actions in a systematic way, i.e., they may
focus on outcomes or duties or motivation
as a means of justifying human conduct.
o Concerned with developing rational moral
rules, principles or standards of conduct to
govern the activities of human beings.
4
 Cont’d
o Includes ethical theories or approaches
such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue
ethics, narrative ethics and feminist
ethics.
•Normative ethics poses questions of the
following kind:
Are there general principles or rules that
we could follow which distinguish between
right and wrong? Or:
 Cont’d
Are there virtues and/or relationships that
we can nurture, in order to behave well?
 The ultimate concern of the normative theory of obligation is

to guide us in the making of decisions and judgments about

actions in particular situations

 Normative ethics involves an attempt to determine precisely

what moral standards are to follow, so that our actions may be

morally right or good.

 Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)

 It is referred as “the end justifies the means”.

 It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it stress that

the consequences of an action determines the morality or

immorality of a given action.

 an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral

depending on what happens because of it.

 One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral

principles but if the result, moral act is harmful, or bad it

 Cont’d
• Teleological (Consequentialist) Ethical theory : assess moral
worth of particular action depend on the consequence or result
that it brings.
• i.e. if an action brings positive consequence, it is morally
correct and if not it is morally wrong action.
• whereas for deontological theories, stealing is wrong because
we have a duty to respect other’s property.
• Note: The Greece term Teleo means end, result purpose...

• Example, stealing can be judged on its effects.

• stealing may not be wrong depend on its consequence,

 Cont’d

• All that is necessary is that the teleologist have some view

about what is good or bad, and that he determine what is right.

• obligatory by asking what is conducive to the greatest balance

of good over evil.

• In its pure form this would mean the individual actions needs

to be judged according to their actual consequences.

• Consequentialist theories are most often called Hedonistic.

99
 Cont’d

• It means that they identify the highest good with

pleasure, and a morally good act is defined as the
one which brings the greatest amount of pleasure
over pain.
• There are two main forms of consequentialist
ethics: Ethical egoism and Utilitarianism.
 2.1.1.1Egoism: Ethical and psychological Egoism
• We usually assume that moral behavior, or being ethical, has
to do with not being overly concerned with oneself
• Ethical egoism, considers an action to be good if it brings
about the best possible outcome for me as an individual (or
in your case, for you as an individual).
• Ethical egoism holds that I should always do what will
promote my own greatest good: that an act or rule of action
is right if and only if it promotes the greatest balance of
good over evil for me compared with any alternative.
• Greatest good for all will be served only if we all pursue our
own self- interest.
Some important things to notice about
ethical egoism:
• It does not just say that, from the moral point of view,

one’s own welfare counts as well as that of others. Rather,

it says that, from the moral point of view, only one’s own

welfare counts, and others’ does not, when one is making

a moral decision about how to act.

• Ethical egoism does not forbid one to help others, or
require one to harm others.
• Ethical egoism does not say that one ought always to do
what is most pleasurable, or enjoyable.
 cont.d
• Psychological Egoism; is the main argument that has
been used as a basis for ethical egoism is a psychological
one, an argument from human nature.
• We are all so constituted, it is said, that one always seeks
one's own advantage or welfare, or always does what he
thinks will give him the greatest balance of good over evil.
• It is usual here to object that one cannot logically infer an
ethical conclusion from a psychological premise in this
way.
• Thus understood, the psychological argument for ethical
egoism is at least reasonable, even if it is not logically
 Cont’d
• Thus, ethical egoism has generally presupposed what is
called psychological egoism -- that each of us is always
seeking his own greatest good, whether this is conceived
of as pleasure, happiness, knowledge, power, self-
realization, or a mixed life.
• At this point it is usual for the psychological egoist to say,
"Yes, we do things for others, but we get satisfaction out of
doing them, and this satisfaction is our end in doing them.
• Doing themselves is only a means to this satisfaction.
• Hence, even in doing 'altruistic' things for others, like
taking them to see the ocean, we are seeking our own
good."
 2.1.1.2. Utilitarianism: Producing the best consequences
•The term utilitarianism stems from the idea of utility, meaning
social utility or welfare or good of society. The core standard
of utilitarianism is the principle of “greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people”. An action is best if it procures the
greatest happiness for the greatest numbers.

•Historically, social hedonism or social utilitarianism is

identified with the English philosophers Jermy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill. These two thinkers, however, represent two
different forms of utilitarianism, though the difference reduces
more to a matter of emphasis. One emphasis on quantity of
happiness whiles the other on quality of happiness.
Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Quantity
over Quality
• According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) utility is the sole principle that we
ought to live and judge others by and we
must follow a moral system that invokes
us to maximize happiness and minimize
pain for everyone in society.
 Cont’d
•There are two main features of utilitarianism, both
of which Bentham articulated:

 The consequentialist principle (or its teleological

aspect): states that the rightness or wrongness of an act
is determined by the goodness or badness of the results
that flow from it. It is the end, not the means that
counts; the end justifies the means. and

 The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect): states

that the only thing that is good in itself is some specific

type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness, welfare).
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: Quality over
Quantity
• John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is also a greatly
known advocate of utilitarianism.
• For Bentham all pleasures are equal.
• Mill unlike Bentham differentiated between
higher pleasures and lower pleasures that
human enjoyed and he introduced quality and
quantity in to the evaluation of pleasures.
 Cont’d
• The pleasure of a fool and a wise person are not the
same even if their quantitative amount is similar.
Based on this he made two types of pleasures.
• The lower, or elementary, include eating, drinking,
sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation.
• The higher include scientific knowledge,
intellectuality, and creativity. Mental/intellectual
pleasure for him is higher pleasure and evaluating an
act we have to consider this distinction.
Altruism

•An action is right if the consequence of that action is favorable

to all except the actor. Some scholars argued that we have an
inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others.
This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that
at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive
benevolence.

•Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people’s

pleasure. They will act for the sake of someone else even if it
decreases their own pleasure and causes themselves pain.

•Altruists argue that humans are instinctively benevolent. And

instinctive benevolence, they argue, is the feature of our human
nature which is the basis of our altruistic moral obligations.
 Deontological Ethics (Non-
• Deontological theory assesses
Consequentialist ) the moral worth
of a particular action, by looking to the action
itself, and whether it confirms to certain
principles, rules and commands.
• The Deontologists does not consider the
consequence of an act. The principles or rules of
Deontology may be once governing our motives
for an action or they may simply identify specific
kinds of actions that are permitted and/or
forbidden, for example, Ten Commandments.
• Deontologists focused on making sure that our
actions are in accord with certain principles,
rules or commands –irrespective of the possible
benefits or harms they might bring as a
 The Divine Command Theory
• Ethical principles are simply the commands of God.

They derive their validity from God’s commanding

them, and they mean “commanded by God.” Without

God, there would be no universally valid morality.

1.Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates
with God.
2.Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and
moral wrongness means “being against the will of God.”
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not
on independently existing reasons for action, no further
reasons for action are necessary.
 Cont’d
We can express divine command theory by the
following list of four propositions:
1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the
command of God.
2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is
commanded by God.
3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is
permitted by the command of God.
4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically
wrong, required, or permitted.
 Rights Theory

• A second duty-based approach to ethics is

rights theory. The most influential early
account of rights theory is that of 17th
century British philosopher John Locke, who
argued that the laws of nature mandate that
we should not harm anyone's life, health,
liberty or possessions.
• For Locke, these are our natural rights,
given to us by God.
 Cont’d
•There are four features traditionally associated with moral
rights/rights theory.

 First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or

created by governments.
 Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change
from country to country.
 Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same
for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.
 Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot
hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling
myself into slavery.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative

•The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant

(1724-1804) identified the moral theory known
as deontology.

•Kant was adamantly opposed to the idea that

the outcome of an action could determine its
moral worth.

•It is not consequences which determine the

rightness or wrongness of an act, but, rather,
the intention of the person who carries out the
 Cont’d
•The Categorical Imperative: A Kant’s duty-based theory is
emphasizes a single principle of duty. Kant agreed that we have
moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one’s
talents, and keeping our promises to others.

•However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational

principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a
single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the
“categorical imperative.”

•A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally

different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge/center on
some personal desire that we have. For example, “If you want to
get a good job, then you ought to go to college.”
 Cont’d
•Kant’s categorical imperative states that we
should act in such a way that the maxim or
general rule governing our action could be a
universal law.
Examples: ☼ Always help those in need, just because it
is your duty.
☼ Always respect your mother and father, just
because it is your duty.
Hypothetical imperatives: involves, when our action
is depends on certain ends or goals in mind i.e. if you
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral
•A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by
Guidelines
British philosopher Sir William David Ross (15 April 1877
– 5 May 1971), which emphasizes prima facie duties.

•Ross’s interest in prima facie is to solve one of the

problems that Kant left unsolved.

•We have various duties that oftentimes come into

conflict with each other for instance; choosing either to
speak a truth (it is always wrong to lie) or to keep one’s
promise.

•But, Kant’s deontology has no help when a person is in

dilemma of choosing.
 Cont’d
• For Ross, as in the case of Kant, moral rules
without exception should be obeyed, but when they
are in conflict, we should decide that the moral
rules(moral duties of first blush) has to be obeyed.

•According to Ross, there are moral rules that we

should perform in every situation, except that these
rules themselves are in conflict.

•These duties are called Prima facie duties. Ross

identified the following principles as a prima facie
duties that every moral action should obey always:
Ross identified the following principles
 Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation

not to lie. Duties of fidelity are duties to keep one’s promises and
contracts and not to engage in deception/dishonesty.
 Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries

one has done to others. Ross describes this duty as "resting on a

previous wrongful act". It is the duty to compensate others when
we harm them. for example, If I damage something that belongs
to someone else, I have an obligation to make restitution.
 Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us.

Suppose, for example, an especially good friend is suddenly in

need of assistance, I am duty bound to do all I can help this
individual, who in the past had acted so selflessly toward me.
 Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in
 Cont’d
way that one distributes benefits and burdens
fairly.
 Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others. The
duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral
goodness, or happiness. This duty rests upon the fact that there are other
beings in the world whose condition we can make better in respect of
virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure.
 Duties of Self-improvement: The duty of self-improvement is to act so as
to promote one’s own good, i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral
goodness, virtue, intelligence and happiness.
 Duties of Non-maleficence: The duty of non-injury (also known as non-
maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to
avoid harming their health, security, intelligence, character, or happiness.
We are obliged to avoid hurting others physically, emotionally and
 Non-Normative Ethics
• Non normative ethics consists of either a factual
investigation of moral behavior or analysis of the
meaning of the terms used in moral discourse and
an examination of the moral reasoning by which
moral beliefs can be shown to be true or false.
• Non-normative ethics consists of two fields. These
are Scientific or descriptive study and Meta ethics.
 Scientific or Descriptive Study

 The Scientific or descriptive study of morality involves factual

investigation of moral behavior.

 It is concerned with how people do in fact behave.

 This approach is used widely in the social sciences

What is Meta-ethics?
• In meta-ethics, we are concerned not with questions which are the

province/area of normative ethics like 'Should I give to famine

relief?' or 'Should I return the wallet I found in the street?' but with
questions about questions like these.
• Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as:
 Cont’d
• What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean?
• What makes something good or right?
• Is moral realism true?
• Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding?
• Do intrinsic values exist?
 Cont.d
§ Act-utilitarianism (one ought to give to famine relief because that

particular action, of those possible, contributes most to the

greater happiness of the greatest number); rule-utilitarianism
§ Act Utilitarianism: Consider the consequences of an action for the

ones which will benefit the most

§ Rule Utilitarianism: Obey/confirm the rules that brings max
happiness to max people
§ Kantianism (one ought to give to famine relief because universal

refusal to give to famine relief would generate some kind of

inconsistency).
 Meta-ethics, rather, concerned with questions about the
following:
 Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is the
function of moral discourse to state facts, or does it have some
other non-fact-stating role?
 Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are
they like? Are they identical or reducible to some other type of fact
(or property) or are they irreducible /complex/ and sui generis?
 Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral
knowledge? How can we know whether our moral judgments are
true or false? How can we ever justify our claims to moral
knowledge?
 Cont’d
• Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the
experience of an agent making a moral judgment? Do they
appear to be 'out there' in the world?
• Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational
state of someone making a moral judgment? What sort of
connection is there between making a moral judgment and
being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes?
• Objectivity: can moral judgments really be correct or
incorrect? Can we work towards finding out the moral truth?
 Generally, Meta-ethics

• Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts

and the relationships between these concepts.
• Explores where moral values, such as ‘personhood’
and ‘autonomy’, come from.
• Considers the difference between moral values and
other kinds of values.
• Examines the way in which moral claims are
justified.
Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following kind
What do we mean by the claim, ‘life is sacred’/holy?
Are moral claims a matter of personal view, religious
belief or social standard, or, are they objective in
some sense?
If they are objective, what make them so?
Is there a link between human psychology and the
moral claims that humans make?
 Virtue Ethics

•“Virtue ethics” is a technical term in contemporary

Western analytical moral philosophy, used to distinguish a normative
ethical theory focused on the virtues, or moral character, from
others such as deontology and consequentialism.

•Imagine a case in which it is agreed by every sort of theorist that I

should, say, help someone in need.

•A deontologist will emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be

acting in accordance with a moral rule or principle such as “Do unto
others as you would be done by”; a consequentialist will point out
that the consequences of helping will maximize well-being; and a
virtue ethicist will emphasize the fact that providing help would be
charitable or benevolent – charity and benevolence being virtues.
 Aristotelian Ethics

•The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, (384-

322 B.C.) first wrote a detailed discussion of
virtue morality in the Nichomachean Ethics.

• ‘Virtue’ he understood as strength.

•Correspondingly, specific virtues are seen as

strengths of character.

•But, many years after Aristotle’s death, virtue

theory came to be over-shadowed by the
development of utilitarianism and deontology.
 Cont’d
•According to Aristotelian Ethics, Virtue
(arête) or excellence is defined as a mean
between two extremes of excess and
defect.

•The mean is relative to the individual

and circumstances.

For example, consider the following

Aristotelian Virtues And Vices Vice Of Deficiency Mean Or Virtue Vice Of Excess
Sphere Of Action

Fear Cowardice courage foolhardiness

Pleasure and Pain Insensibility temperance self-indulgence

Acquisition (minor) tight wad liberality spendthrift or

prodigality
Acquisition (major) undue humility pride or proper undue vanity
ambition
Anger unirascibility patience or good hotheadedness
temper
Self-Expression Self-deprecating truthfulness boastfulness

Conversation boorishness wittiness buffoonery

Social Conduct cantankerous friendliness obsequiousness

Exhibition shamelessness modesty shyness

Indignation spitefulness righteous indignation envy

 The End
Thank You!!!