Normative Ethics

There are many questions to ask with regard to the field of normative ethics. The first question to

ask is what is the field of ethics? Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies values and rules. The next

important question to ask is what is the field of normative ethics? Normative ethics is the branch or moral

philosophy whose role it is to investigate the criteria of what should be considered right or wrong. The

third important question to ask is on what the central issue of this field? The central issue of this subject is

the determination of how basic morals are arrived at and justified. It is on the basis of this issue that the

subject of normative ethics branches out into its three major subcategories: Deontology, Consequentialsm

and virtue ethics. These three sub-branches will be analyzed in greater detail during the course of this

essay.

Deontology or deontological ethics is the branch of normative ethics that takes the approach of

determining the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its adherence to a rule or a set of rules

regardless of the consequences. This branch is traditionally divided into two sub-branches based on the

point of emphasis on the moral agent committing the act or the person or victim being affected by it. A

moral agent is anyone who is capable of making moral decisions.

The branch that places emphasis on the moral agent committing the act is known as agent-centred

deontology. It is duty based approach that states that focus of each moral agent should be on fulfilling his

or her moral obligations and permissions to engage in activities on the basis of agent-relative relative

reasons. An agent relative reason is any objective reason for engaging in an action that may or may not be

applicable to anyone else. A good example of this would be the fact that parents are considered to have an

obligation to raise their children. This obligation does not however apply to non parents.

The branch of deontology that places emphasis on the person or victim being affected by the

action is known as patient centred deontology. This branch of deontology posits that an action can be

determined as being right when it does not infringe on someone else’s human rights. The most general

definition of a right is any justified claim against another person’s behaviour-such as one’s right not to be

harmed by another person. From this perspective a morally correct duty one the part of one person is one

that is implied from the rights of another. A good example of this would the fact that a debtor is duty

bound to return what he or she owes to his or her creditor as the creditor has a right to that payment.

Deontological theories can also be divided into groups based on what rules they state should be

followed. Two common examples out of the many that exist are the divine command theory and Kantian

ethics.

The divine command theory states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is based only on

the approval of God. The believers in this theory can be divided into groups based which god they look to

for approval. A good example of this is that someone who looks to the Christian god for guidance is

Christian deontologist.

Kantian ethics, the propositions posited by Immanuel Kant with regard to ethics, states that the

rightness or wrongness of an action is based on whether or not it is in adherence with maxims he called

categorical imperatives and if it is done with the right motives behind it. A maxim is a principle that is

used as the basis of making a decision. A categorical imperative is a maxim that qualifies as being a

moral law that applies unconditionally and universally to all moral agents and whose validity is not

derived from any end or ulterior motive.

Consequentialism is the branch or normative ethics that postulates that is the consequences of an

action that should be used to determine the wrongness or rightness of an action and the. This means that if

an action produces good results then it is a good action and if not then it is a bad action. This also means

that the more good that results from an action the better it is. There are many ways classify the many

consequential theories in existence. There is a school of thought that states that the definition that was

given for Consequentialism is actually the definition of the word utilitarianism, however most sources

disagree with this notion. This field can be subdivided

One way in which consequentialist theories differ is in how they define what makes the

consequences of a given action good or bad. Hedonistic consequentialists argue that good actions result in

the acquisition of pleasure. Preference consequentialists on the other hand argue that preferences, a

desired state of affairs such as the accomplishing of a goal, makes an action morally correct. Other

consequentialists argue that the advancement of intrinsic values such as love, friendshipship, life and so

on. Other consequentialists argue that a pluralistic approach involving some or all of the factors should be

used to determine what makes the consequences and by extension the action good.

Another issue that divides cosequentionalists is who should be the beneficiary of the given action

should be. This divides the theories in this branch of normative ethics between those that are agent

centred or agent neutral. Agent centred consequentialists emphasises the needs of the moral agent

engaged in the act over those who will be affected by the consequences. An example of such a theory is

ethical egoism which strictly states that action is good when it is in the interest of the moral agent. Agent

neutral theories such as altruism which states that actions should be directed toward helping others and

utilitarianism which states that actions should be directed toward providing a net benefit to everyone who

will be affected by the consequences ignores the moral agent does not place that emphasis on the moral

agent.

Another issue that divides consequentialists is whether or not the consequences should be

evaluated from an anthropocentric or human centred perspective or if they should judged based on their

impact on animals as well. A good example of an anthropocentric consequentialist philosophy is ethical

egoism and a good example of an opposing counterpart is the utititarianism posited by animal rights

activists such as Tom Regan.

Another divisive issue in consequentialist circles is how good the consequences have to be in or

to be good. All utilitarians believe that actions should be geared toward achieving the best possible result

or maximum utility, this is known as maximalist consequentialism . Classical and some other types of

utilitarians state that all moral agents are obliged to work towards achieving maximum utility. It has been

argued by many however that this is an impractical way to way to live as it is too extreme. Other

utilitatarians argue that working towards achieving a positive utility is an obligation but working towards

maximum utility is optional. Other forms of consequentialism such as satisficing and progressive

consequentialism oppose the idea of maximizing utility and instead focus generating enough, this is

known as minimalist consequentialism. Progressive consequentialists argue that moral agents should

make the world a better place but that they don’t have to do as they can. Satisficing cosequentialists argue

that a moral agent can still be a good individual if he or she fails to work towards good consequences by

making up for it in others.

Another issue that divides consequentialists is the issue concerning how the inevitable disparities

between actual and expected results of a given action will affect the rightness or wrongness thereof. This

issue can be divided into two sub-issues. One is that of objective versus subjective Consequentialism and

the other is that of legal proximate cause.

Objective Consequentialism is the branch that is considers an action to be good based on its

actual or objectively probable outcomes. Actual Consequentialism is the theory that it is the actual

consequences of a given action that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. This is a tenant of

traditional consequentialists such as classical utilitarianism and adhering to it would mean that one would

have to calculate all of the possible consequences of an action before taking it. This of course is

unfeasible due to the fact that not only is it impossible to consistently predict with perfect accuracy the

consequences of every action. There are other branches of consequentialism that postulate that one should

only take the objectively probable consequences into consideration such as reasonable Consequentialism

which states that an action is right only if it’s reasonably expected consequences are good. Subjective

Consequentialists would argue that only the intended or foreseen consequences should be used to

determine the rightness or wrongness of an action.

The other issue with regard to the actual or expected consequences of an action is the issue of the

legal concept of proximate cause. A legal proximate cause is the most direct cause of an event occurring.

This concept is relevant in a situation in which more than one moral agent is involved. An example of this

would one moral agent giving another a gift like a knife without knowing that this moral agent would use

it to commit murder. The proximate cause of this murder in is the intention of the murderer to commit

murder and not the giving of the knife to the murderer. This why the moral agent who gave the other the

knife would not be convicted of murder and most people would agree that the person who contributed the

knife did nothing wrong. However according to traditional Consequentialism the direct consequences of

an action, proximate or not, are the basis for determining the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Therefore on this basis traditional consequentialists such as classical utilitarians would judge the action of

giving the person the knife as wrong. Due to disagreements with the fairness or this doctrine some argue

in favour of proximate Consequentialism, the belief that only the proximate outcomes of a given

argument.

Another issue dividing consequentialists is how to approach the rights of our fellow moral agents.

There are two branches of the consequentialist philosophy that deal with this issue: direct

consequentialism and indirect consequentialism.

Direct Consequentialism is the term used to describe the consequentialist theories that assert that

the morality of a given act is based solely on the consequences of the action itself. One type of direct

consequentialist theory, act Consequentialism, a tenant of classical utilitarianism, States that an action is

morally correct if its consequences produce the best results in comparison to all the other possible actions

that could have been taken. This and the other direct consequentialist theories have been criticized as

being bad for society. This is due to the fact that if only the quality of the consequences of an action

matter then the deprivation of someone’s rights for the sake of the greater good can be justified. An

example of this would be the killing of one person in order to extract organs from him or her in order to

donate them to five dying patients in order to save their lives.

Indirect Consequentialism was postulated in response to the criticism of direct Consequentialism.

Indirect Consequentialism is the term used to describe the consequentialist theories that state that the

morality of an action is something else. An example of this is motive Consequentialism which states that

the morality of an action is based on the consequences of the motive of said act. Another example of this

is rule Consequentialism which states that the morality of an action is based on the consequences of a

rule.

Virtue ethics is the branch of normative ethics whose various sub-branches all propose that the

character of the moral agent involved, as opposed to either rules or consequences, is the key to ethical

thinking. This means that it is the motives behind a given action that makes it right or wrong. The there

are three main elements that make the theory: eudemonia, virtue and practical wisdom. Eudemonia is

defined as happiness or well being. This theory postulates that the meaning of life is to achieve

eudemonia. It further goes on to state that only way to achieve eudemonia is to live virtuously. To live

virtuously one must not only act virtuously but must also be motivated by the mindset to commit those

acts. This mindset is that of committing virtuous acts as ends in themselves. An example of this would be

to give to charity on the basis that this would be charitable. In order live virtuously one must also have

phronesis or practical wisdom. What is meant by this statement is that in order to live virtuously one must

have the ability act virtuously in a manner that is appropriate based on the situation. Such practical

wisdom can only be derived form formal learning and experience.

Bibliography

http://dictionary.die.net/ethics

http://dictionary.die.net/moral%20agent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hubin1/ho/dct.pdf

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#MorFre

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-agent/

http://plhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/decision-procedures.pdf

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99359/categorical

imperativeato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ConWhoLimDemMor

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/ProximateCause.aspx

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#H3

http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agency

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Proximate+cause

lecture notes