Introduction to Normative Ethical Theories

In contrast with metaethics, which is concerned with the nature of ethics, normative ethics is concerned with the content of ethical theories. Normative ethical theories attempt to give an answer to the question of what makes someone ethical, or what makes certain actions morally permissible. Ethical theories are varied and they come in different flavours. Here we will group them into four families of theories.

Consequentialist Theories

Consequence-based theories are normative theories which, as the name suggests, define whether an action is morally permissible in terms of the consequences it brings about. In simple terms, they define morality as a matter of maximising the best possible consequences in any given situation. This then begs the question, what are the best consequences to be maximised? Consequentialists have given different answers to this question.

One very influential flavour of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which specifies that the way we should rank consequences is by how much total (aggregate) utlity they bring about (where more utlity is better).¹ This means that when confronted with a decision, utilitarianism will tell you to choose whichever action maximises overall utility. This theory's practical impact is not to be discounted. It has served as the basis for classical economics and is widely taught to and applied by economists today. Other examples of consequentialist theories are hedonism, act conseuquentialism, and rule consequentialism.²

In essence, what makes a normative ethical theory consequentialist is that, given a metric for what good consequences are (as well as a way of ranking better and worse consequences), it then states that in any situation, the morally approppriate way to act is to choose the action (among the existing possibilities) that brings about the best consequence.

Deontological Theories (or principles-based theories)

Deontological theories in contrast, take a different approach. Morality is not to be measured by the consequences actions bring about, but instead morality dictates that one should follow a set of rules or principles regardless of what the consequences are. That is, the rightness of an action is determined by an agent’s application of some universal standard, rule, or maxim of rightness irrespective of its consequences and independent of the interests or ends of the agent whose conduct the standard, rule, or maxim is guiding.

The most famous proponent of deontological theories is Immanuel Kant, who was a firm believer in rule or duty-based morality, and who went as far as to define the maxim or principle to be followed in order to act morally which he called the Categorical Imperative. This rule roughly states that one must always act as if one’s actions could be willed into a universal rule that everyone in society follows.

In principle-based theories, morality is about following a set of rules or principles, and different theories will give different answers as to what principles one should act upon.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is not concerned with how people should act in a particular situation, but instead on what kind of people they are. Its roots can be found in Confucius and Mencius in the East and in Plato and Aristotle in the West.

Instead of beginning with the question: “What should I do?”, it asks the question: “What sort of person should I strive to become in order to live an ethical life?”. Virtue ethicists emphasise that morality has to do with having a certain moral character which is achieved by cultivating virtues. A virtue is an excellent trait of character[@sep-ethics-virtue], and it comes in degrees.

These traits may derive from natural tendencies, but they must also be nurtured. Under these theories, a person who acts in a kind or benevolent way (these would be the virtues) does not do so because doing so would maximise the outcome of her actions (as a consequentialist would), or because it is her duty to do so (as deontology would advise), but instead because acting in that way cultivates said virtues.

The development of moral virtues through practice, discipline, and repetition is the purpose of the human form of life. For this ethical view to work, there must be some reserve of objective moral values available for agents to draw on to form virtuous habits and dispositions.

Some of the virtues stressed in antiquity but also justified in modern secular ethics: wisdom (ability to exercise practical reason to determine right action); temperance (ability to remain cool-headed and guided by reason instead of emotion); courage (ability to confront danger boldly and with self-assurance); justice (ability to act impartially and with fairness).

Bio-centric ethics

Biocentric ethics attempts to justify moral responsibility and the rightness of action not in a human-centered way but in terms of the intrinsic value of all life forms and ecologies. It treats “nature” (the living biosphere) not as an instrument or resource available to be used to achieve the purposes of human industry, but rather as an entity that makes a moral claim on us.

From a biocentric perspective, moral actions are those that preserve the flourishing and the diversity of all living beings and aim to secure the sustenance of the biosphere as a whole.

For the purposes of the rest of the course we will focus mostly on the first two families of theories.

Example

Let's take a classic example to help draw the distinction between consequentialism and deontology. Suppose an assassin comes to your door and asks if you have seen your friend Peter. And suppose you are indeed hiding Peter in your house as he is fleeing this very assassin. Should you tell the assassin the truth, or should you lie and tell him you don't know where Peter is?

From a consequentialist perspective, it is clear what one should do. Telling the truth will result in Peter dying and lying will result in him living. The first consequence is a lot worse than the second, so you should lie to the assassin.

However, from a deontological perspective it is not so obvious. If morality is about duty, and one of our duties is to be honest, then perhaps we also have a moral duty to tell the truth, even in this case.³

Most people would find the second conclusion morally abhorrent. This shows us that in some cases we seem to take a more consequentialist approach to ethics.

However, the converse can also be the case.

Example

Imagine you are a surgeon and Peter, your patient, is peacefully recuperating after an appendicitis operation. He should shortly be back home. And imagine that five people in need of different organ transplants come into the hospital. If these people do not get a transplant soon they will die. Suppose Peter is a match for all of these people. A strict consequentialist doctor might decide that we should kill Peter in order to save the other five via organ transplants. After all the consequences of one life lost and five gained are a lot better than one life gained and five lost.

Most people would find this conclusion morally abhorrent. A deontologist would reply that it is never permissible to use people as means to an end, since people are always ends in themselves. Therefore our duty to respect Peter's dignity and not use him as a means to saving the other five overrides any consequentialist considerations we might have.

---

1. The question as to what exactly utility is and how one goes about measuring it poses all sorts of complications which are beyond the scope of this introduction. ↩

2. For a list of different kinds of consequentialist theories see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Consequentialism[@sep-consequentialism]. ↩

3. There is a lot more nuance as to what a deontological theory would say in the example just described. However, this simplification helps illustrate a core difference between the two families of theories. ↩