Download Ethical Framework summaries File

Ethical Framework summaries
Altruism
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is
an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend
solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the
individual itself. James Fieser states the altruist dictum as: "An action is morally right if
the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except
the agent."[1] Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others.
One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from
Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in
order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had
a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in
his Catéchisme Positiviste,[2] that:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on
individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our
predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations
increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to
live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction
exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty.
[Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of
overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means
everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think
that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to
create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our
species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about
which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters.
So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart
Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well known example of consequentialism. By contrast, the
deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.
Consequentialism is controversial. Various nonconsequentialist views are that morality
is all about doing one's duty, respecting rights, obeying nature, obeying God, obeying
one’s own heart, actualizing one’s own potential, being reasonable, respecting all people,
or not interfering with others—no matter the consequences.
Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in
the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's
1785 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of
evaluating motivations for action.
According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be
summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all
duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a
certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.
Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For
example:
 if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;
 if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional
requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself.
It is best known in its first formulation:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should
become a universal law.[1]
Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day,
believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives:
a utilitariansays that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those
involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the
positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral
systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments
against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on
subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the
demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.
Deontology
Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on
the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or
wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to
thecharacter and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether
the action that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its
conformity with a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good. For example, if someone
proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in
order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this
world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was
brought about. A Consequentialist would (or could) argue that the final state of
affairs justified the drastic action. AVirtue Ethicist would concern himself with neither,
but would look at whether the perpetrator acted in accordance with worthy virtues.
Ethical Hedonism
At its simplest, ethical hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has positive
importance and all and only pain or displeasure has negative importance. This
importance is to be understood non-instrumentally, that is, independently of the
importance of anything that pleasure or displeasure might cause or prevent. From
ethical hedonism, it follows that if our relationships, achievements, knowledge,
character states, and so on, have any non-instrumental importance, this is just a matter
of any pleasure or displeasure that is in their natures. Otherwise, they have only
instrumental importance through the pleasure they cause or displeasure they diminish.
At least from the simple forms of ethical hedonism, it also follows that pleasure is good
whenever it is had, even in matters that are themselves worthless or worse. Some
hedonists are willing to bite such bullets; others develop more complex forms of ethical
hedonism that seek to soften the bullets or even to dissolve them.
Stoic Ethics
The Stoic ethical teaching is based upon two principles already developed in their
physics; first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no
exceptions; and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed
up in the famous Stoic maxim, "Live according to nature." For this maxim has two
aspects. It means, in the first place, that men should conform themselves to nature in
the wider sense, that is, to the laws of the universe, and secondly, that they should
conform their actions to nature in the narrower sense, to their own essential nature,
reason. These two expressions mean, for the Stoics, the same thing. For the universe is
governed not only by law, but by the law of reason, and we, in following our own rational
nature, are ipso facto conforming ourselves to the laws of the larger world. In a sense, of
course, there is no possibility of our disobeying the laws of nature, for we, like all else in
the world, act of necessity. And it might be asked, what is the use of exhorting a person
to obey the laws of the universe, when, as part of the great mechanism of the world, we
cannot by any possibility do anything else? It is not to be supposed that a genuine
solution of this difficulty is to be found in Stoic philosophy. They urged, however, that,
though we will in any case do as the necessity of the world compels us, it is given to us
alone, not merely to obey the law, but to assent to our own obedience, to follow the law
consciously and deliberately, as only a rational being can.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other
forms ofconsequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or
wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are
relevant are the good and bad results that they produce. A key point in this article
concerns the distinction between individual actions and types of actions. Act utilitarians
focus on the effects of individual actions (such as John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of
Abraham Lincoln) while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of types of actions (such as
killing or stealing).
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the
amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the
amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or
systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or
orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what
makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and
perhaps non-human) beings.