Chapter Summary

Nonconsequentialist (deontological) theories of morality

o The basic assumption of these theories is that consequences do not, and in fact should not,
enter into our judging of whether actions or people are moral or immoral.
o

What is moral and immoral is decided upon the basis of some standard or standards of
morality other than consequences.

Act nonconsequentialist theories

The act nonconsequentialists major assumption is that there are no general moral rules or theories,
but only particular actions, situations, and people about which we cannot generalize.

Decisions are based upon intuitionism; that is, what is right and wrong in any particular situation is
based upon what people feel (intuit) is right or wrongthis is, therefore, a highly individualistic
theory.

There are several criticisms of act nonconsequentialism.

How can we know, with no other guides, that what we feel will be morally correct?

How will we know when we have acquired sufficient facts to make a moral decision?

With morality so highly individualized, how can we know we are doing the best thing for
everyone else involved in a particular situation?

Can we really rely upon nothing more than our momentary feelings to help us make our
moral decisions?

How will we be able to justify our actions except by saying, Well, it felt like the right thing
for me to do?

o
Rule nonconsequentialist theories
o

The major assumption here is that there are or can be rules that are the only basis for morality
and that consequences do not matterfollowing the rules, which are right moral commands,
is what is moral, not what happens because one follows the rules.

According to the Divine Command Theory, an action is right and people are good if, and only
if, they obey commands supposedly given to them by a divine being, regardless of
consequences. There are some criticisms of this theory.

The theory does not provide a rational foundation for the existence of a supernatural being
and therefore not for morality either.

Even if we could prove conclusively the existence of a supernatural being, how could we
prove that this being was morally trustworthy?

How are we to interpret these commands even if we accept the existence of a supernatural?

Rules founded upon the Divine Command Theory may be valid, but they need to be justified
on some other, more rational basis.

Kants Duty Ethics

o

Kant believed that it is possible by reasoning alone to set up valid absolute moral rules that
have the same force as indisputable mathematical truths.

Such truths must be logically consistent, not self-contradictory.

They also must be universalizable.

According to the Categorical Imperative, an act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it
cannot be made into a rule for all human beings to follow.

The Practical Imperative, another important principle in Kants moral system, states that no
human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone elses end, but
rather that each human being is a unique end in himself or herself.

Once moral rules have been discovered to be absolutes, human beings must obey them out of
a sense of duty rather than follow their inclinations.

There are criticisms of Kants system.

Although Kant showed that some rules would become inconsistent when
universalized, this does not tell us which rules are morally valid.

Kant never showed us how to resolve conflicts between equally absolute rules, such
as Do not break a promise and Do not kill.

Kant did not distinguish between making an exception to a rule and qualifying a
rule.

Some rules, such as Do not help anyone in need, can be universalized without
inconsistency yet still have questionable moral value.

(a) Kant answered this criticism by means of the reversibility criterion, that is, the
would-you-want-this-done-to-you, or Golden Rule, idea.

(b) However, the reversibility criterion suggests a reliance upon consequences, which
goes against the grain of everything Kant set out to do in his system.

Kant seems to have emphasized duties over inclinations, in stating that we must act from a
sense of duty rather than from our inclinations. However, he gave us no rule for what we

should do when our inclinations and duties are the same.

Rosss Prima Facie Duties

o

Ross agreed with Kant as to the establishing of morality on a basis other than consequences
but disagreed with Kants overly absolute rules. He falls between Kant and rule utilitarianism
in his approach to ethics.

He established Prima Facie Duties that all human beings must adhere to, unless there are
serious reasons why they should not.

He listed several Prima Facie Duties, those of:

Fidelity
Reparation
Gratitude
Justice
Beneficence
Self-improvement
Nonmaleficence (noninjury)

He offered two principles for use in the resolution of conflicting duties.

Always act in accord with the stronger prima facie duty.

Always act in such a way as to achieve the greatest amount of prima facie rightness
over wrongness.

There are criticisms of Rosss theory.

How are we to decide which duties are prima facie?

On what basis are we to decide which take precedence over the rest?

How can we determine when there is sufficient reason to override one prima facie
duty with another?

General criticisms of nonconsequentialist theories

Can we, and indeed should we, avoid consequences when we are trying to set up a
moral system?

Is it entirely possible to exclude consequences from an ethical system?

What is the real point of any moral system if not to do good for oneself, others, or
both and if not to create a moral society in which people can create and grow
peacefully with a minimum of unnecessary conflict?

How do we resolve conflicts among moral rules that are equally absolute? This
problem is peculiar to rule nonconsequentialist theories.

Any system that operates on a basis of such rigid absolutes as does rule
nonconsequentialism closes the door on further discussion of moral quandaries.