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