Morality articles
Article 1; “Why ethical reflection matters” - Bart Engelen & Maurien Sie
It introduces three influential moral theories: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of actions and argues that the morally right
choice is the one that leads to the best overall outcomes. Utilitarianism, a specific form of
consequentialism, suggests maximizing happiness or well-being. For example, sharing pictures
on social media may be justified if it generates more happiness than the loss of privacy it entails.
Deontology emphasizes respecting rights and fulfilling duties, regardless of the consequences.
Deontologists consider actions right or wrong based on whether they violate someone's rights. In
the context of social media, deontologists would condemn posting confidential information or
embarrassing pictures without consent, as it violates the right to privacy.
Virtue ethics focuses on the development of virtuous character traits and the pursuit of a good
and fulfilling life. Virtue ethicists argue that moral actions arise from the virtues a person
possesses, such as honesty and trustworthiness. Posting embarrassing pictures or confidential
confessions would be seen as contrary to developing virtues like trustworthiness.
The text highlights that these moral theories offer different explanations for what matters to us
and why, leading to different evaluations of actions and moral reasoning. It also notes that these
theories are not purely theoretical constructs but have practical implications and influence
everyday decision-making.
Overall, the text explores the importance of privacy, discusses different moral theories, and their
implications for understanding what is morally right or wrong in various situations.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism defines utility in various ways, such as subjective desires being satisfied or an
objective list of factors contributing to well-being. Hedonic utilitarians specifically focus on
maximizing overall happiness, which involves increasing pleasure while minimizing pain.
The appeal of utilitarianism lies in its alignment with our natural inclination to pursue happiness
and avoid harm. It suggests that ethical actions involve considering the interests and happiness of
others in addition to our own, aiming to maximize the total sum of happiness for all. This
extends to the question of moral concern for non-human animals, with the argument that their
suffering should matter morally as well, leading to positions such as vegetarianism or veganism.
However, disagreements exist within utilitarianism. There are debates on the nature of happiness
and suffering, including whether all forms of happiness and suffering carry equal moral weight.
Some utilitarians argue that quality matters alongside quantity, distinguishing between different
types of pleasure and pain. Another point of contention is whether utilitarianism should be
applied on a case-by-case basis or through adherence to general rules. Rule utilitarians propose
that following simple rules would maximize overall utility, while act utilitarians argue that each
individual action should maximize utility, even if it means sacrificing some people's interests for
the greater good.
, In summary, utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that promotes the pursuit of
happiness and utility. It considers the consequences of actions, emphasizes overall well-being,
and raises questions about moral concern for non-human animals. However, disagreements
persist regarding the nature of happiness, the weighting of different types of happiness and
suffering, and the application of utilitarian principles.
Deontology
Unlike utilitarians, deontologists argue that moral obligations arise from our inherent rights and
duties as human beings.
Immanuel Kant, an influential figure in deontological ethics, emphasized the role of reason in
determining moral duties. He rejected the notion of relying on religion to guide moral
decision-making and instead proposed that through our rationality, we can discern our moral
duties. Kant distinguished between hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional upon our
desires and goals, and moral imperatives, which are unconditional and prescribe what we ought
to do irrespective of personal desires.
Kant formulated the categorical imperative, which provides a universal principle for determining
moral actions. The first formulation, known as the "universalizability principle," states that we
should act only according to maxims (general principles) that we can will to become universal
laws. In other words, we should consider whether we could rationally want everyone to act on
the same maxim as us. If a contradiction arises or the action undermines the essence of certain
concepts, such as promises, then it is morally impermissible.
The second formulation of the categorical imperative focuses on treating humanity, including
ourselves and others, as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end. This
emphasizes the importance of respecting the intrinsic value and dignity of individuals.
While contemporary deontologists may have varying perspectives on specific rights, duties, and
their application to concrete situations, they share the fundamental belief that rights and duties
form the core of morality. They reject the utilitarian or consequentialist approach that relies on
calculating moral costs and benefits.
In summary, deontologists believe in absolute rules and principles based on rights and duties,
independent of happiness or consequences. Kant's categorical imperative provides a rational
framework for determining moral actions, emphasizing the universality of principles and the
respect for human dignity.
Virtue ethics
According to Aristotle, humans are morally good when they excel in what makes them human,
specifically their reason.
In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he explains that ethics is concerned with practical knowledge
rather than theoretical knowledge. Practical knowledge is aimed at doing good and becoming a
virtuous person.
