Ethical
Theories
Most people know what we
mean by morally good and bad but very few people can explain what it is that
makes some action good or bad. Sometimes people might agree that a particular
act is bad but give very different reasons why it is bad. Sometimes two people
that a particular act (for example getting drunk) is bad but mean different
things by “bad”. For example I might mean that it is bad for your health but
not morally bad but a different person might think that it is morally bad
because it is a sin.
Over the centuries
different people and different societies have come up with different frameworks
for deciding these questions. These frameworks can overlap and be complimentary
or they might be quite alien to one another. The list below isn’t exhaustive
but it does cover some of the major ethical viewpoints.
Divine Command Theory:
God’s Law
In Judaism, Christianity
and Islam, good and bad are seen as being actually about obedience or disobedience
towards God’s law. This theory of ethics is called “Divine Command Theory”. In
Divine Command Theory we know what good and bad mean. Of course we still have
to find out what it is that God wants us to do and that is not always clear.
The bible for example has 10 Commandments but one of the most famous “Thou
shalt not commit murder” does not tell us what counts as murder and what does
not.
Although all religions
offer some moral framework not all religions follow a Divine Command Theory of
ethics. Buddhism and Hinduism are good examples of religions that have a
sophisticated ethical system but which is not about obeying God’s (or several
gods’) laws.
Eudaimonism: Virtues and
leading a Good Life
As well as behaving well or
badly maybe it is possible to be a good person (or a bad person) in yourself. A
virtuous person is a person who is good in themselves. A virtuous person will
do good deeds but that isn’t what makes them good they are good already.
“Eudaimon” is a Greek word
that means “flourishing” or “happy” (in a special sense). The idea is that by
acquiring virtues you will become a well adjusted, fulfilled, happy person.
What those virtues are differ from one system to another but often there is an
emphasis on good deeds and a balanced lifestyle. Many modern self help books
have a Eudaimonistic view of ethics, so did the Greek philosopher Aristotle and
Buddhism can also be seen as being Eudaimonistic.
The notion can be summed up
by the idea that being a good person is good for you.
Deontology: Rights and
Duties
You have a right to a good
education; I have a duty to teach you. Deontology is the part of ethics that
studies what obligations a person might have. A duty is something you should be
doing (or not doing) a right is a set of duties that people have towards you.
Rights and duties might arise from other ethical systems. Discussion of rights
and duties are often more to do with political ethics or the ethics of work.
Some rights and duties may
be things that people have agreed by contract by joining an organisation or
living in a particular country. Other rights and duties might be seen as being
universal and independent of your circumstances, for example “Human Rights” or
duties arising from your religion.
At the heart of this view
of ethics is the idea that some acts are right or wrong in themselves
regardless of the consequences. In other words you should do your duty
regardless of the consequences.
Consequentialism: Values
and Consequences
If you have a duty to do
something it shouldn’t matter what happens once you have done it. A soldier
might have a duty to obey orders so if he is told to shoot a civilian by a
senior office he might claim to have acted ethically because he did his duty.
Consequentialism looks at ethics differently. A consequentialist cares about
ends. If the end result is bad then the act was bad. How doe we decide if the
end was bad? That depends on your values. If you value human life, acts that
lead to people dying are bad.
Consequentialism is a very
different view from deontology. In consequentialism ends can justify the means.
Hedonism: Pleasure and Pain
One way of solving the
problem of what is meant by “good” and “bad” is to equate them with some other
things that are obviously good or bad. Most commonly is the idea that “good” is
what is pleasurable and “bad” is what is painful. The term “hedonism” is
sometimes used for people who indulge in every pleasure that they can but in
ethics it means something more respectable. Hedonism in the ethical sense
generally looks at pleasure and pain overall and not just for yourself. So an
ethical hedonist would not approve of parents who didn’t feed their children
because they had spent all their money on champagne.
Altruism versus Egoism:
Selfless and Selfish
Altruism
People approve of Mother
Theresa, Christians and Muslims admire people who died for their religion
(martyrs). My family doesn’t like it if I eat all the chocolate brownies myself.
Altruism is when you act for somebody else’s benefit rather than your own.
Altruism is concerned not with duty or consequence but with motive. Selfless
motives are seen as being good even if the consequences are bad whereas selfish
motives are seen as bad even if the consequences are good.
Egoism
In more recent times this
view has come under attack. The economic theory of capitalism stresses that
individual “selfish” financial motives can lead to prosperity all round. Egoism
is a contrasting view of ethics to altruism. Egoists believe that a persons
actions should be determined by that persons own interests.
There are lots of different
kinds of egoists. At one level this isn’t a theory of ethics at all but a
denial that there is any such thing. However many egoists believe that it is in
the general good for people to act selfishly so long as they are also acting
rationally. This idea is called “rational self interest”.
Descriptive Theories
Most theories of ethics are
prescriptive. In other words they don’t just offer insight into what the nature
of morals are they also give guidance on how you should behave. Since the
growth of scientific thinking some people have offered descriptive theories of
ethics. In other words these are theories that may shed light on what people
are doing when they make ethical judgements but they don’t (and can’t) actually
help you make that judgement without some extra input. Below are some examples
of descriptive approaches to ethics.
Emotivism: Approval and
Disapproval
Emotivism is a theory of
ethics that has given up trying to work out what morally good and morally bad
might actually mean. Emotivism says that statements about morality don’t really
mean much at all instead they are just expressions of how a person feels about
an issue. For example an emotivist would interpret the statement “Animal
testing is unethical” as really meaning “I find the idea of testing animals
yucky”.
Note that Emotivism is a
descriptive theory of ethics. It describes what ethical statements are like but
does not give any guidance on how you should behave. Emotivism does NOT say
that you SHOULD just follow your feelings when it comes to making moral
decisions; it is saying that you really don’t have any choice but to follow one
feeling or another. Although plausible, Emotivism isn’t very helpful.
Social and Psychological
Theories
As far as we are aware fish
don’t agonise over moral dilemmas. Although elephants have emotions they don’t
seem troubled about the consequences of their actions. Maybe ethics is
something to do with being human.
Sociology, anthropology and
psychology all can provide interesting insights into ethics. More recently
evolutionary biology has also attempted to explain some aspects of human
behaviour. For example in all human societies (with a few particularly odd
exceptions) incest is regarded as being very wrong. Evolutionary psychology
would suggest that this a deep seated instinct that has arisen to protect
populations from genetic diseases that would quickly be established if people
very closely related had children together.
A branch of mathematics
called “Game Theory” has also shown why various examples of “nice” behaviour in
people or animals can be in an individual’s long term interest.
More generally sociology and
anthropology can show why societies need ethical systems so that people can get
along together. Unfortunately once again because such theories are descriptive
they can’t directly help us make moral decisions.