Theory of Consequences and Intentions There are two traditional ways of looking at the “rightness” or “wrongness” of an act. 1. Look at the consequences of the act, judging the outcome we value to be good and that we find evil to be bad. 2. Ignore the consequences of the act and seek the good in the intention of the actor rather than the consequences that are brought about.

Ethical Theories Utilitarianism: This is an ethics of consequences Jeremy Bentham ( ) John Stuart Mill ( ) “ Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” an action is good if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number

Types of utilitarianism Actrule It can be either Act or rule utilitarianism. In both, ”rightness” or “wrongness” is determined by the actual consequences achieved. In Act utilitarianism, the rightness of the act is judged by the consequences of the act. In Rule utilitarianism, the rightness of the rule is judged by the consequences the rule brings about.

Ethical Theories Deontological Theory Deontological Theory: an ethics of duty or obligation Immanuel Kant ( ) This theory ignores the consequences of the act, judging, that in any event, the outcome is far from completely under our control, and good is sought in the intention of the actor rather than the consequences. The consequences here are not ignored but rather are the intended consequences, not the actual consequences.

Limitations of Utilitarianism and Deontology Utilitarianism makes any action which either produces maximal “ good” in itself ( act utilitarianism)or any action which conforms to a rule seem to maximize the “good” ( rule utilitarianism), good only because of the consequences. Both Utilitarian and deontological ethics fails to define the “good” except in the most general terms.

Limitations of Utilitarianism By relying purely on consequences in judging an act and it’s actor, utilitarianism, like all consequentialist theories, ignore fallibility and the unpredictability of events in assessing praise or blame. An action that turns out badly, no matter the unforseeable cause, is bad. e.g. carrying out dangerous experiments on helpless people to benefit a large number of people.

Limitations of Deontology Deontological theories are accused of being inflexible and are said to be deficient in their ability to guide our daily decisions. Kant’s ethic is said to be lacking in content. However, Kant did not set out to give specific answers in concrete situations but rather provide a framework within which decisions affecting concrete situations could be made.

Ethical Theories pluralists = many duties W. D. Ross, duties of: * non-maleficence: do not harm * beneficence: do good, benefit * justice: treat equals equally autonomy: respect individuals fidelity: be faithful * reparation: return good for good

Virtue Ethics  John Dewey Virtue ethics tries to base itself on an appreciation not as much on the rightness or wrongness of an act depending on duties and obligations but on the goodness of persons who select such obligations or rules. It inquires into what attributes are characteristic of persons we consider “ virtuous” rather than selecting rules then deciding that persons who follow those rules, are by virtue of rule following, virtuous.

“Virtue” is regarded as a sense of moral competence in the pursuit of moral excellence. It is said to carry an unfortunate baggage of moralism in common usage. To Plato, virtue was synonymous with excellence in living a good life, and such excellence could be attained by practice. Plato saw virtue as an intellectual trait.

To Aristotle and later Aquinas, virtue was a disposition to act in the right way. Aristotle saw that in practical terms virtue was a result of balance among intellect, feeling and action. The Problem with virtue ethics, is that “ goodness” and “virtuousness” are defined on each other’s terms: the virtuous man does good things, and good things are what those acts a virtuous man does.

Situation Ethics Professor Fletcher He states that this approach would judge each situation purely on it’s own merits, aiming for the most “loving” result that could be brought about. It is sometimes called “Agapism” or situationism. Agapism is a form of utilitarianism in which each act is judged by its outcome. Agapism breaks down when one considers that what is “ right” is not merely determined by the “goodness”( or the lovingness) of the outcome.

Ethical Theories Natural Law Theories Natural Law Theories: There are certain natural tendencies or purposes in things What is natural is, in general, to be followed Natural goals are to be achieved E.g., there is a natural tendency of things to continue their existence Abortion is not allowed Embryonic or fetal research is not allowed if it results in destruction

Ethical Theories Natural law theories (cont.): Natural law and suicide Natural law and sexuality Two principles: Natural vs. artificial treatment Principle of double effect

Ethical Theories Right Theories: What basic rights do we have? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to life, not to be harmed, to thrive or develop, etc.? Where do rights come from? God, natural rights, social contract, etc.? What do rights entail? Fundamental rights? Positive and negative rights What other rights are there? Education? Health care? Are there limits on rights?