MORAL

THEORIES
AND
PRINCIPLES

Announcement

The first midterm exam will be

held on February 10, our last class
before the Reading period.
A detailed guide for the exam will
be posted on Blackboard at least
one week before the exam.

Reading for these slides

Reading 2: W. Shaw and V. Barry,

Moral Issues in Business,
(Toronto: Wadsworth, 2004)
Chapter 2: Normative Theories
of Ethics, pp. 55 - 81

Moral theories discussed in

Reading 2
Ethical egoism
Utilitarianism
( Two forms of Util: Act and Rule)
Kantian Ethics
Rosss Ethics
(The Five Principles Approach)
Rights-based ethics

What is a moral theory?

A moral theory tries to give a complete
answer to the following question:
What is it that determines whether
an act is right (we have a moral
obligation to do it) or wrong (we have
an obligation not to do it)?
Answering this question might help us
resolve moral dilemmas and
disagreements.

Two types of moral theory

Consequentialism: Whether an act is

right or wrong depends only on its
consequences.
Non-consequentialism: Consequences
are not the only thing that affects
the morality of an act.

Two consequentialist theories:

Ethical Egoism

Utilitarianism

Ethical egoism
An act is morally right if and only if
it is in the interest of the agent,
that is, the one who does the act.
In other words, an act I do is right
if and only if it is in my interest, an
act you do is right if and only if it is
in your interest, and so on.

Two prominent defenders

of egoism
Plato In his famous work The Republic
Thomas Hobbes 17th century English
philosopher, in his work The Leviathan
Both philosophers argued that,
although it might not seem so at first
glance, it is actually in our interest to
follow the rules of conventional
(common sense) morality.

But Ethical egoism seems

clearly false
There seem to be clear cases of acts
that are in a persons interest but which
are wrong acts.
For example, you keep a lost wallet,
with a lot of money in it, even though
you could easily have returned to its
rightful owner.
Sometimes morality requires us to do
things that are not in our own interest.

Utilitarianism

The most prominent form of

consequentialism

Accepted by many philosophers today

Leading defenders include the English

philosophers Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and John Stuart Mill (18061873)

John Stuart Mill (18061873)

British philosopher,
economist, civil servant
Family friend of Bentham
Very precocious child,
nervous breakdown at 20
Major reformer, Member
of Parliament, proponent
of womens rights
Important works:
Utilitarianism, On Liberty

John Stuart Mill

The creed which accepts as the foundation

of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness.
From Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill, Chapter 2

The Utilitarian Theory of

Value
Distinction between:
Instrumentally good good as a means
Intrinsically good good for its own
sake
Only one thing is intrinsically good
namely, happiness.
Each persons happiness is of equal
value.

Many utilitarians assume

further that

Happiness consists of pleasure and

the absence of pain (Hedonism).

Pleasure is understood broadly to

include intellectual, artistic and
other pleasures, as well as physical
and sensual pleasures.

Pleasure and pain can be roughly

quantified.

Principle of Utility a more

precise statement

An act is morally permissible only if

there is no other act you could have
done that would have produced
more overall happiness.
Illustration: Suppose I win $1000.00 in
a lottery. What should I do with the
money?

Utilitarianism imposes a high

standard
The happiness which forms the
utilitarian standard of what is right
in conduct, is not the agents own
happiness, but that of all concerned.
As between his own happiness and
that of others, utilitarianism requires
him to be as strictly impartial as a
disinterested and benevolent
spectator.
(Mill, Utilitarianism)

Contd

Utilitarians believe that the

principle of utility alone accounts
for all right and wrong.
Many utilitarians also believe that
to a large extent this principle
underlies our common sense
judgments about right and wrong.

Utilitarianism was (is) very

progressive
Abolition of slavery
Abolition of child labour
Equality for women
Animal welfare
Programs for public health and
safety
Strong obligation to help the poor
Prison reform

Is utilitarianism a plausible
moral theory?
We now want to ask whether
utilitarianism gives an accurate
account of right and wrong.
To test it, we will look for possible
counter examples, that is, examples
of acts that util says we should do but
which seem to us wrong acts, or acts
that util says we should not do, but
which seem to us right acts.

Some Problems for (Act)

Utilitarianism
1)

Some say the theory is impractical

2)

Would sometimes violate peoples rights

3)

Would sometimes lead to unfairness

4)

5)

6)

Gives weight to pleasures that are

bad/immoral
Cannot account for special relationships
between people, e.g. family, friends
Is too demanding, requires too much of
people

Turn now to another

form of utilitarianism
called Rule
Utilitarianism
(Note that in Reading 2 rule
util is not discussed until the
end.)

Difference between act and rule

utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
Applies the principle
of utility to
individual acts:
Always try to do
those particular
acts that will
produce as much
happiness as
possible

Rule Utilitarianism
Applies the principle
of utility to rules:
First, determine what
rules would
maximize happiness
in society, and then
follow those rules.

How would they lead to

different acts?
Consider the case of killing an innocent
person and using his organs to save
many others.
- Act util might require us to do this
act.
- What about rule utilitarianism?
Would we maximize happiness in
society if we had a rule that permitted
such acts? The answer is clearly no
everyone would be terrified.

What rules would maximize

happiness?
We would have to include the familiar
rules of common sense morality:
- Dont lie (except in extreme
situations)
- Dont steal
- Dont kill
b/c without such rules there would be
chaos, and happiness would not be
maximized.

How rule util avoids objections

to act util
The ideal system of rules would

Have to protect human rights.

Include a realistic rule for charity,

e.g. give a small part of your salary
to the poor so Rule Util is not too
demanding.

Not say Try to maximize happiness

in your actions, since people would
make mistakes.

Possible Objection to Rule

Utilitarianism

Some critics argue that rule

utilitarianism involves a kind of rule
worship. i.e. not doing an act just
b/c there is a rule against it, even
though the act would produce more
happiness than anything else we
could do.

Another Moral
Theory:
Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant (17241804)

Born, lived and died in

Konigsberg, Prussia
Strict protestant
upbringing
Taught as a Privatdozent
for many years
Captivating lecturer, great
conversationalist, people
set their clocks by his
walks
Major works: Critique of
Pure Reason, Groundwork
of the Metaphysics of
Morals

Contrast between
Utilitarianism and Kant
Utilitarianism:
Consequentialist only the
consequences of an act are relevant to
its being right or wrong
No act is intrinsically right or wrong

Kants Ethics:
Non-consequentialist consequences
are not relevant
Some acts are intrinsically wrong, e.g.
lying, breaking promises

The Categorical
Imperative
Kants ethics involves a single basic
moral principle the categorical
imperative (CI)
Imperative i.e. a command
Categorical no exceptions
Kant gave different formulations of
the CI

General Features of Kantian

Ethics

Morality applies equally to everyone

e.g. if lying is wrong for others,
its wrong for me too.

Only acts done from a good will

(good motive) have moral worth.

Morality is intimately connected

with rationality wrong acts involve
a kind of contradiction.

First Version of the Categorical

Imperative

Respect-for-Persons Version:
Always act in such a way that you
treat people, including yourself,
as ends in themselves and never
merely as a means.

Elaboration

Okay to treat people as a means,

but not to treat them merely as
a means.

Difference between the way we

treat inanimate objects and the
way we treat people.

Our nature as rational,

autonomous agents who have
free will is what merits respect.

Advantages of this version of

the CI
1)

2)

3)

Simple, plausible moral principle

Provides a foundation for

autonomy and human rights
It is correct as far as it goes it
is in general wrong to use
people merely as a means

Weaknesses of this Version of

the CI

1)

2)

Somewhat vague not too

clear what counts as treating
someone merely as a means
Does not account for all right
and wrong
(What about the treatment of
animals, for example?)

Second version of the CI:

The Universalizability Version

Always act in such a way that the

maxim of your act could be a
universal law.
A maxim is a rule of action that tells
you do a certain act
Universal law a law or rule that
everyone must follow

Restated in my words
Always act in such a way that the
maxim of your act could be a
universal law.
In other words:
Whenever you do something, make
sure that it would at least be
possible for everybody else to act in
the same way, to do the same type
of act youre doing.

Why does Kant insist upon this

requirement?
His thought is that universality is a
fundamental feature of the moral
outlook that morality is objective,
impartial, and treats everyone in
the same way.
So, if its wrong for you to do
something, e.g. break a promise, it
must also be wrong for me to do it.

Illustration
Act making a false promise (one you
dont intend to keep)
Maxim of the act If you need money,
and you can get it by making a false
promise, then make the false
promise.
Universalizing What would happen if
everyone followed this same maxim?

Kants Universalizability Test of

Right Action
1)

2)

3)

Identify the maxim (rule) of your act.

Suppose everyone follows the same
maxim (rule).
Consider what the result of (2) would be.

if the result is a contradiction, the act is

wrong
if no contradiction results, then the act is
permissible

What if everyone broke their

promises?
The institution of promising would
collapse, it would cease to exist, and it
would be impossible for anyone to
make promises.
This result contradicts my goal in doing
the original act, namely, trying to get
money by making a false promise. I
cannot pursue this goal if the
institution of promising does not exist.
In other words, Break your promises
is an impossible rule.

The contradiction:
Left side conflicts with right
side
Outcome of
universalizing the
act

My goal in doing the

act

My goal is to get money

oInstitution of
by making a false
promising collapses, promise.
ceases to exist.
But I cannot achieve this
goal if the institution of
promising does not exist.
oSo, impossible
B/c, without the
even to make a
institution, I cannot even
promise.
make a promise.

What kind of contradiction?

So, the contradiction Kant has in mind is

between the consequences of
everyones doing the act and the goals
you have in doing the original act of
making a false promise.
(Its actually not so much a contradiction
as a conflict between the two.)

Other examples

Kant thought there were many other acts

that are similar in this respect: Stealing,
cheating, lying, killing, being rude .
The very possibility of a persons doing
these acts requires that most people,
most of the time, dont act in these
ways. This is what makes them wrong
acts they cant be universalized.

Connection btwn the two

versions of the CI
The institution of promising depends
on the fact that most people go to the
trouble of keeping their promises
(most of the time).
So, when I break my promises, Im a
freerider: I am using the institution of
promising (and so using other people)
merely as a means to my own selfish
goals.

Objections to version 2 of the

CI
1)

2)

Version 2 of the CI is too rigid it is not

always wrong to break a promise, tell a
lie, etc. At some point utility, overall
happiness, trumps Kants rules.
A Counter-example: Suppose I need
peace and quiet, and so I go skating on
the Canal. What would happen if
everyone acted on this maxim? The
canal would be too crowded and I
would get no peace and quiet.

Turn Briefly to Some

Other Moral Theories:
Rosss Ethics
The five principles
approach
Rights-based ethics

W.D. Ross (1877-1971)

Scottish philosopher
Spent early
childhood in India
Had four daughters,
was knighted in 1938
Taught at Oxford
University
Best known work:
The Right and the
Good
Recent influence in
medical ethics

The Ethical Theory of W.D.

Ross
In an important sense Ross rejects the whole
idea of a moral theory.
That is, he does not believe there is a single
underlying moral princple that explains all
right and wrong. He does not think there is
any single property that all right acts have
in common, or that wrong acts have in
common, other than just being right and
wrong.
This view is referred to as moral pluralism.

Prima facie moral principles

Doing the right thing involves

following a set of principles. These
principles are not absolute, but
prima facie; that is, we should
follow each of the rules, unless
there is a good reason not to.
When the rules conflict, we try to
decide, intuitively, which should
override the other.

Examples of Rosss prima

facie rules
Tell the truth
Keep your promises
Dont harm others
Try to help others when you can
Promote justice and fairness
Correct wrongs done to people
Show gratitude to those who help
you
Make good use of your talents

Moral Principles

Moral theories and moral

principles
Moral theories are put forward as a
complete description and explanation of
right and wrong, they are meant to hold
always, and can never be overridden.
Moral principles are less comprehensive
than moral theories; they are relevant
considerations in a broad range of
situations, but might be overridden by
some other principle or value.

Examples of moral
principles

Principle of Utility

Principle of autonomy

Beneficence

Non-maleficence not harming

Justice

The Principle of Utility

Utilitarians say this is the only consideration

that has any relevance to right and wrong.
But that seems a little extreme.

On the moral principals approach, only the

weaker claim is made that the amount of
happiness or unhappiness produced by an
act is one consideration that is relevant to
whether it is right or wrong.

The principal of utility is one moral principle

among others.

Autonomy
Another moral principle is
autonomy. Autonomy concerns the
extent to which a person has
control over his or her life and
actions.
Why is autonomy good, or valuable,
or important? Different answers
have been given to this question.

Whats so great about

autonomy?
Instrumental value the utilitarian
perspective
- Each person better able to know, and
control, her own happiness.
- People derive satisfaction from controlling
their lives.
- Individuality leads to new ideas,
knowledge, etc., which benefits humanity

Contd
Intrinsic value the Kantian perspective
- The ability to act autonomously is good in
itself, autonomy is what makes us
unique/human
- Those character traits that we regard as
virtues presuppose autonomy, example,
courage, generosity, loyalty, morality
itself

A Third View

Human Rights
Regardless of the value or
importance of autonomy, each
person has the right to control
his or her own life.

Many conditions can reduce

autonomy/free will
External constraints
Overpowering desires/addictions
Overpowering emotions (fear, hate,
revenge)
Propaganda, brain washing
Illness, injury
Ignorance, lack of information
Emotional dependence
Extreme poverty

Beneficence and NonMaleficence

Beneficence in the
Broad Sense means
both helping and
not harming others
Narrow Sense
means just helping,
as opposed to not
harming, others

Difference between Beneficence

and Non-Maleficence
Egs of Beneficence
-Giving to charity
-Saving a drowning
victim
-Offering assistance
-Providing needed
medical treatment
-Helping a friend
with an emotional
problem

Egs of
Nonmaleficence
-Not killing
-Not stealing
-Not assaulting
-Not lying
-Refusing to pursue a
medical treatment
known to be harmful

Justice
Justice is an important
principle in ethics in
general, and it is
especially important in
business ethics.
In many contexts, the
moral assessment of
institutions and practices
in business will hinge on
whether they are just or
fair to everyone.

Distinction
Retributive justice What punishment
is appropriate for wrongdoing?
Distributive justice how benefits and
burdens should be distributed if the
distribution is to be just and fair to
everyone concerned.

Our concern in business ethics is

mainly with distributive justice.

What is just or fair? Four

answers
1) The desert theory everyone should get
what he or she deserves.
2) Utilitarianism things should be divided up
in such a way as to maximize happiness.
3) John Rawls Theory things should be
divided equally unless inequalities make
everyone better off.
4) Libertarianism inequalities are okay as
long as no ones rights are violated.

Turn Now to Two Other Moral

Theories:

The Five-Principles Approach

Rights-Based Theories of
Morality

The Five Principles

approach
Derives from Rosss ethics;
actually, just a variation on Rosss
ethics.
Developed by philosophers Tom
Beauchamp and James Childress,
and applied by them in the context
of medical ethics and bioethics.

Moral principles/values
The Five
Principles
Approach:
Utility
Autonomy
Non-maleficence
Beneficence
Justice

In other words
The five principles approach is saying that
there are five different variables that affect,
or are relevant to, the rightness or
wrongness of an act:
How much utility results
How the act affects the autonomy of people
How much harm the act does
How much the cat helps people
The extent to which the act conforms to
fairness and justice.

Ross and the Five Principles

Approach
Note the similarity between the five
principles approach and Rosss ethics:
Both approaches reject the idea that
there is a single, underlying
characteristic or property that all right
acts share (that makes them right)
and a single property that all wrong
acts share (that makes them wrong).
Both are forms of pluralism in ethics.

Rights-based approaches
to ethics

Every human being possesses certain

fundamental moral rights, often called natural, or
human rights.

The existence of these rights is taken to be a

basic, self-evident fact that requires no
justification:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all

men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
(Jefferson American Declaration of Independence)

Examples of such rights

The right to life
The right to free speech, freedom of
religion, and other liberties
The right to a fair trial if accused of a
crime
The right to property
The right to a minimum level of
education
The right to health care
The right to privacy
The right to self-determination

Given that everyone has these rights,

people have a moral obligation to act
in ways that respect them.

In other words, these rights provide

the basis for the familiar rules of
common sense morality, such as,
dont kill, dont steal, dont interfere
with the freedom of others, and so on.

Morality, therefore, can be seen to

arise from these basic rights.