ethical theories essay questions

376 Ethical Topics & Questions for Research Papers, Essays, Debates, & More

Are there white lies with good intentions? Should euthanasia be permitted by law?

Both of these questions are ethical dilemmas – situations with two or more conflicting moral choices. Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting values and moral obligations. To ease the understanding of such predicaments, you can approach ethics (or moral philosophy). This branch of philosophy suggests the concepts of good and bad and provides theories to determine moral behavior.

In this article, we will explore different ethical topics and theories applicable to them. You will also find practical tips on how to write an essay on the most complex ethical issue. Let’s start!

💥 TOP 12 Ethical Topics

📚 Normative Ethical Theories

🤔 How to Answer Ethical Dilemmas

📝 Ethical Research Paper Topics

🧑🏾‍⚕️ ethical topics in healthcare.

🌳 Environmental Ethical Issues

🖥️ Ethical Topics in Technology

⚡ ethical argument topics.

🏺 Philosophy Essay Topics
👩🏽‍🎓 Ethical Questions for Students

💬 Ethical Persuasive Speech Topics

🔦 ethical topics for presentation, ❓ ethical questions: faq, 🔗 references, 💥 top-12 ethical topics.

Here are some ethical topics that are popular for discussion in 2023:

Privacy concerns in social media advertisement.
Ethics of using artificial intelligence for marketing.
Digital surveillance and personal data protection.
Genetic engineering and ethical boundaries.
Ethical issues in educational technology.
Ethical challenges in healthcare data sharing.
Environmental ethics and sustainable development.
Ethical dilemmas of autonomous vehicles.
Bioethics in medical research and experimentation.
Ethical considerations in cybersecurity practices.
Ethical concerns in the use of big data.
Ethical implications of blockchain technology.

Normative ethical theories provide principles or guidelines for determining what is morally right or wrong. There are three broad (and competing) groups of ethical theories:

Consequentialism believes that the consequences of an action determine its moral value.
Deontology emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties.
Virtue ethics focuses on developing moral character and embodying virtuous traits.

🤔 How to Answer Ethical Dilemma Questions

Sometimes it seems that ethical dilemmas don’t have the right answers . But you can choose the best one for yourself if you establish a certain decision-making algorithm.

To answer ethical dilemma questions, follow these steps:

Below, you will see lists of ethical topics from different areas of human knowledge and activities. There are plenty of topics to write about, no matter what your focus of study is.

Ethical Topics in Business

Corporate social responsibility in multinational companies.
The role of business ethics in insurance companies .
Ethical challenges in international supply chain management.
Transparency and accountability in financial reporting.
The role of business ethics in recruiting new employees using social media .
Workplace diversity and inclusion ethics in the USA.
Data privacy and security of employees in the workplace.
Global warming and business ethics .
Bribery and corruption in business transactions.
Whistleblowing and ethical reporting mechanisms.
Business ethics: Indian tea plantation workers .
Ethical considerations in advertising and marketing practices.
Fairtrade and ethical sourcing in global business.
Business ethics of concealing facts in reports .
Ethical leadership and decision-making in organizations.

Ethical Fashion Topics

Sustainability and eco-friendly practices in fashion.
Maintaining ethical standards in fashion .
Ethical implications of fast fashion and overconsumption.
Fair wages and labor rights in garment manufacturing.
Supply chain as a crucial component of sustainability in the fashion industry .
Animal cruelty-free and ethical sourcing of materials.
Transparency in supply chains and traceability of products.
Child labor in the fashion industry .
Body image and ethical representation in fashion advertising.
Recycling and upcycling in the fashion industry.
Overseas sweatshops in the fashion industry .
Cultural appropriation and respect for traditional designs.
Ethical considerations in fashion collaborations and partnerships.
Fashion Nova’s labor standards and transparency .
Fashion industry’s impact on local communities and artisans.

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Topics

Use of force and police brutality in the United States.
The code of ethics in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice .
Racial profiling and discriminatory practices in law enforcement.
Ethical considerations in undercover operations and informant handling.
Criminal justice: philosophies of corrections .
Integrity and honesty in witness testimony and evidence presentation.
Ethical challenges in the use of informants and confidential sources.
Professional ethics in criminal justice: Singleton vs. Norris .
Juvenile justice and ethical treatment of young offenders.
Capital punishment and ethical implications of the death penalty.
Criminal justice ethics: police corruption & drug sales .
Ethical issues in plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion.
Ethical responsibilities of defense attorneys and client representation.
The criminal justice service violations and ethical issues .
Rehabilitation and ethical approaches to offender reintegration.

Media Ethics Paper Topics

Accuracy and fact-checking in media reporting.
Communication and social media ethics in the United Arab Emirates .
Journalism ethics in the era of misinformation.
Privacy concerns and ethical boundaries in media coverage.
Media ethics: censorship of online material and behavior .
Ethical considerations in photojournalism and image manipulation.
Sensationalism and ethical dilemmas in news reporting.
Media ethics: principle of privacy .
Conflict of interest and transparency in media ownership.
Diversity and representation in media storytelling and content.
Mass media ethics in news coverage .
Ethical challenges in social media and online journalism.
Intellectual property and plagiarism in media production.
Media censorship in the US .
The role of media in promoting ethical discourse.

Ethics in healthcare ensures that medical professionals prioritize patient well-being, maintain confidentiality, and make decisions rooted in moral principles. Choose one of the topics below for a paper on ethics in medicine:

Informed consent and patient autonomy in healthcare decisions.
Healthcare ethics: physician-assisted death .
Ethical considerations in end-of-life care and medical assistance.
Allocation of scarce resources and equitable healthcare distribution.
Abortion: an ethical dilemma .
Confidentiality and privacy of patient health information.
Ethical challenges in clinical research and human experimentation.
Medical ethics: implications of a confidentiality breach .
Ethics of physician-assisted suicide in healthcare.
Organ transplantation and ethical considerations in donor selection.
Obamacare and healthcare reform: ethical challenges .
Ethical dilemmas in reproductive medicine and assisted reproduction .
Cultural competence and ethical practices in healthcare delivery.
Medical ethics: pet euthanasia .
Ethical considerations in the use of emerging technologies in healthcare.

Ethical Topics in Nursing

Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in nursing care.
Nursing ethics in patient advocacy .
Understanding and managing confidentiality breaches in nursing.
Ethical implications of assisted suicide for nursing practice.
Hospice care and nursing ethics provisions .
The moral dilemma of resource allocation in nursing.
Addressing the tension between cultural sensitivity and medical guidelines.
Euthanizing handicapped people: ethical and moral concerns .
Discussing the impact of health inequities on nursing ethics.
Ethical challenges in implementing telehealth in nursing.
Circumcision: ethical dilemma and a nurse’s role in it .
The moral landscape of mandatory vaccination for nurses.
The nursing profession’s role in addressing medical errors.
Ethic-of-care and ethic-of-justice in nursing leadership .
Exploring the nurse’s role in patient advocacy.

Biomedical Ethics Topics

Impact of gene editing on the future of healthcare.
Cryonics and its ethical side .
Ethical issues surrounding prenatal genetic testing.
The role of bioethics in emerging infectious diseases.
Embryo harvesting: ethical implications .
Ethical challenges in stem cell research .
Ethical considerations in human organ and tissue transplantation.
Bioethics: the use of marijuana for medical purposes .
Privacy and consent in the age of digital health data.
Addressing animal rights in the context of biomedical research.
Neuroimaging methods and arising ethical issues .
The ethics of personalized medicine and genetic discrimination.
Bioethics of advancements in neurotechnology and brain-computer interfaces.
Cloning research ethics: ethical dispute and issues .
The ethics of extending human lifespan through biotechnology.
Surgery complications and bioethical decision-making .

🌳 Environmental Ethical Issues Topics

Environmental ethics guide individuals and organizations to act responsibly towards the planet. Such actions promote sustainable practices and biodiversity conservation and mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities on ecosystems. Here is a list of ethical environmental topics for research:

Ethical responsibility for climate change for future generations.
Sea dumping: legal and ethical issues .
The role of environmental justice in urban planning.
Ethical considerations in the use and disposal of plastics.
The issue of global climate change from an ethical perspective .
Implications of luxury fashion on the environment and ethics.
The ethical responsibility of corporations in pollution.
Land use and environmental ethics .
The intersection of environmental ethics and indigenous rights.
The ethical debate surrounding geoengineering as a climate solution.
Environmental ethics: genetically modified organisms .
The moral duty towards the preservation of biodiversity.
Ethical considerations in the transition to renewable energy sources.
Environmental ethics: intrinsic value of objects .
The role of capitalism in environmental degradation.
Commercial fishing: environmental ethics case study .

Animal Ethics Topics

Ethical considerations in the treatment of companion animals.
Nestlé animal testing and business ethics .
The role of ethics in wildlife conservation efforts.
The ethics of animal testing in scientific research.
Ethical issues in animal research .
The environmental and ethical impact of factory farming.
The moral status of animals in ecological ethics.
Is animal testing ethical ?
Ethical approaches to invasive species management.
Addressing the ethical implications of zoos and animal captivity.
Ethics of using animals in medical research .
The ethical debate around hunting as a conservation strategy.
Ethics of the human-wildlife conflict resolution.
Scientific experiments on animals from ethical perspectives .
The moral side of animal cloning and bioengineering.

Food Ethics Topics

Ethical concerns of genetically modified foods’ impact on the environment.
Underweight products and deontological ethics .
Food waste and its ethical concerns.
The ethical debate on organic versus conventional farming.
Ethical eating in daily food practices .
The ethical and ecological effects of the meat industry.
Balancing the demand for seafood with sustainable practices.
Food safety issues in modern agriculture .
The ethics of the global food supply chain in developing countries.
Evaluation of the environmental ethics of palm oil production.
Food ads ban for childhood obesity prevention .
Food sovereignty and its significance in ecological ethics.
The ethical implications of mono-cropping and biodiversity loss.
Do marketers condition us to buy more junk food ?
Ethical dilemmas in the use of pesticides in agriculture.

In the technology sphere , ethics can influence the development and use of innovations. Ethical approach ensures privacy protection and promotes inclusive technology solutions. Below, you will find several topic lists regarding ethics in technology:

Computer Science Ethics Topics

The ethical concerns of artificial intelligence development.
Electronic surveillance as an unethical practice .
Outdoor privacy and surveillance in the digital age.
The ethics of data collection and use by tech companies.
Computer attacks and critical privacy threats .
Implications of autonomous vehicles on societal ethics and safety.
Ethical considerations in the development and use of deepfakes.
Obscenity and computer ethics .
Cybersecurity and ethical considerations in protecting user data.
The ethics of algorithmic bias in machine learning.
Computer ethics and privacy .
Ethical challenges in the application of facial recognition technology.
The responsibility of tech companies in spreading disinformation.
Computer ethics and data protection .
The ethics behind AI’s influence on job displacement and unemployment.

Aviation Ethics Topics

Ethical challenges of automation in aviation safety.
Aviation security and Al-Qaeda in Yemen .
The balance between profitability and safety in commercial aviation.
Ethical responsibilities of air traffic controllers.
Safety risks in the modern aviation industry .
Ethical considerations in the age of crewless aerial vehicles.
Ethics of environmental sustainability in the aviation industry.
Criminalization of aviation accidents .
Ethical challenges in aviation maintenance practices.
The moral dilemma of overbooking flights in the airline industry.
Aviation security is over-reliant on technology .
Ethical issues in the crisis management in aviation.
The role of whistleblowers in promoting aviation safety.
Sustainability in global aviation companies .
Ethical implications of advanced surveillance technologies in aviation security.

Engineering Ethics Research Paper Topics

Navigating the ethics of autonomous vehicles in society.
Engineering professionalism and ethics .
The role of ethics in sustainable engineering practices.
Ethical considerations in the age of artificial intelligence engineering.
Chernobyl disaster and engineering ethics .
Conflicts between innovation and safety in civil engineering projects.
The responsibility of engineers in managing climate change.
Engineering ethics: patent rights and legal issues .
Ethical challenges in the disclosure of engineering failures.
The implications of biotechnology in bioengineering ethics.
Machinery accident from an ethical standpoint .
The role of ethics in software engineering and data privacy.
Ethical considerations in the use of drones for engineering.
Ethical manufacturing and technology trends .
The ethical dilemmas in nuclear engineering.
Engineering competence and the code of ethics .
The ethics of using performance-enhancing drugs in sports.
Circumcision: medical, ethical, and human rights issues .
Should artificial intelligence be allowed to make life-or-death decisions?
Do celebrities have a moral responsibility to be role models?
Nightingale Pledge: medical ethics perspectives .
The ethical debate on privacy versus security in the digital age.
Are autonomous vehicles a boon or a bane for society?
Hurricane Katrina: government ethical dilemmas .
Should schools be allowed to use surveillance cameras on students?
Is it ethical to use animals for scientific experimentation?
Debate on circumcision: is it unethical and unlawful ?
Is the use of gene editing in babies ethically acceptable?
Is it ethically right to deny healthcare based on lifestyle choices?
Samsung and child labor: business ethics case .
The ethics of commercialization of organ transplants.
Are social platforms ethically responsible for the spread of fake news?
Obesity in Afro-Americans: ethics of intervention .
Should governments be allowed to censor the internet for national security?
Is it ethically right to use facial recognition technology in public?
Fetal abnormality and the ethical dilemma of abortion .
Is it ethical to prioritize economic growth over environmental sustainability?
The ethical implications of giving minorities benefits in college admissions.
Discrimination as an unethical business situation .
Should companies have the right to track their employees’ online activities?
The ethical debate on the death penalty as a justice form.
Ethical dilemmas in business: KFC Company’s case .
Is it ethically acceptable to use AI for predictive policing ?
Should parents have the right to choose their child’s genetic traits?
The relationship between economic rationality and ethical behaviour .
Is it ethically right to implement social credit systems in society?

🏺 Philosophy Essay Topics: Ethics

The role of cultural relativism in moral philosophy.
Aristotle’s views on ethics .
Ethics of the philosophy of existentialism.
Kantian ethics in contemporary society.
Kant’s deontological ethical theory .
The use of virtue ethics in modern moral dilemmas.
The influence of Stoicism on contemporary ethical thinking.
Cicero’s views on citizenship and ethics .
The ethical debate on utilitarianism versus deontology .
The philosophical implications of moral objectivism versus moral subjectivism.
Kant’s and Mill’s ethical philosophies .
Ethical implications of free will in the era of AI.
The philosophy of ethical egoism in capitalist societies.
Aristotle’s ethical theory about euthanasia .
The relevance of Nietzsche’s master-slave morality in modern ethics.
The role of empathy in moral philosophy and ethics.
Moral philosophical views: from Plato to Nussbaum .
Ethical questions raised by determinism and indeterminism.
The influence of Eastern philosophies on contemporary ethics.
Aristotle and virtue ethics .
The role of ethics in postmodern philosophy.
The ethics of responsibility in existentialist thought.
Theories of ethics: consequentialism and ethical relativism .
Moral obligations towards future generations in environmental ethics.
Individual ethics versus collective ethics.
Philosophical views of ethics and morality .
Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia in modern society.
The ethical questions raised by the philosophy of solipsism.
Nonconsequential theory of ethics: case analysis .
The ethics of hedonism in contemporary societies.

👩🏽‍🎓 List of Ethical Questions for Students

We have ensured that you can find the perfect ethical topic depending on the type of assignment you received. You can find debate, discussion, speech, and presentation topics here.

Ethical Debate Topics

What are the ethical implications of capital punishment?
Fetus with deformities: what is its moral status ?
Should there be a moral limit to scientific discoveries?
Is it ethical to use animals in circus performances?
How do ethical theories view gay marriage ?
Is the commercialization of human organs ethical?
Is it ethical to use DNA from extinct species?
Should parents be responsible for children’s crimes ?
Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide?
Is it ethical to clone humans for medical purposes?
Should parents spank their children ?
Is the use of child labor ethical?
Should religious beliefs influence public health policy?
Why should you be moral when it is not in your best interest to do so ?
Should gene editing in unborn children be allowed?
Is it ethical to implement robotic soldiers in warfare?
Should the United States abolish the death penalty ?
Is euthanasia in terminally ill patients ethical?
Should society implement universal basic income?
Should the sale of human organs be legalized ?
Is it ethical to design babies with specific traits?
Is the censorship of artistic expression ethical?
Should animals be used in medical research ?

Ethical Discussion Topics

The ethical implications of social media on personal privacy.
Should sex and violence be restricted on television ?
How should we address ethical issues in global outsourcing?
The ethical implications of data breaches and digital privacy.
Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children ?
The ethics of sustainable consumption of electronic devices.
The ethics of wealth disparity in capitalist societies.
Should we not abolish capital punishment ?
The role of ethics in sustainable development and climate change.
Ethical considerations of health disparities in society.
Should smoking be illegal ?
Ethical considerations of pandemic response and vaccine distribution.
The role of ethics in animal rights and testing.
Should parents avoid vaccinating their children ?
Ethical considerations in the rise of the gig economy.
The ethical implications of facial recognition technology in public.
The right-to-die bill: why should all states pass it ?
Ethical dilemmas in genetic testing and personalized medicine.
The role of ethics in global migration and refugee crisis.
Should cigarette manufacturers be prohibited ?
The ethics of using AI in predictive policing.
The ethical considerations of child labor in global supply chains.
Should Kant be criticized for his absolutism ?
Why should animal testing for cosmetics be globally banned?
Corporate fraud as an ethical and leadership dilemma .
The need for ethical considerations in AI development.
Why the right to privacy should be prioritized in the digital age?
Stem cell research ethics, pros and cons, and benefits .
The importance of ethical farming practices for a sustainable future.
Why must corporations take responsibility for their carbon emissions?
Ethics of Obamacare and Trumpcare .
The necessity of ethical treatment of workers in global supply chains.
The importance of ethical considerations in medical research.
Should Americans adopt a vegan lifestyle ?
Why should technology companies be held accountable for data breaches?
The need for ethical standards in reporting and journalism.
Should we withhold life support ?
Why should businesses prioritize corporate social responsibility?
The importance of ethical considerations in education system reforms.
Should children be tried as adults for murder ?
Why should organ donation be encouraged as an ethical duty?
The necessity of transparency in governmental decision-making.
Ethical dilemma: should gene editing be performed on human embryos ?
Why should we consider the ethical implications of autonomous weapons?
The importance of sustainable consumption in the fight against climate change.
Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes should not be allowed .
Why should we prioritize ethics in the fashion industry?
The necessity for implementing ethical norms in genetic engineering.
Should human cloning be allowed ?
Why should we consider ethical implications of wealth disparity ?
The importance of ethically addressing refugee and migration crises.
How much should we do for our fellow men ?
The necessity of ethical governance in the use of facial recognition.
Ethical concerns in using virtual reality for psychological treatment.
Patient’s violence and the use of doctor force – medical ethics .
The role of ethical dilemmas in shaping public policy.
The ethical issues and carbon footprint of global supply chains.
British Petroleum: corruption involving ethics .
The ethical implications of data breaches in technology companies.
The ethical landscape of genetic engineering.
Domino’s Pizza: ethical dilemma case .
Ethical considerations in the use of personal data for political microtargeting.
Evaluating the ethical considerations in predictive policing.
The code of ethics of the American Nurses Association .
The role of ethics in responsible journalism and fake news.
The ethics of personalized pricing based on consumer data analysis.
Apple Corporation: ethical and social responsibility .
Ethical implications of intensive livestock farming on animal welfare.
Visualizing the environmental impact of single-use plastics in marine ecosystems.
Business ethics and dilemmas in the film Michael Clayton .
Ethical considerations in access to healthcare for marginalized populations.
Ethical dimensions of cultural appropriation.
International legal and ethical issues in business .
The role of ethics in organ donation and transplantation.
The ethical implications of economic disparity in capitalist societies.
Chevron Company: ethical analysis .
Ethical considerations in journalism and media ethics.
The role of ethics in sustainable development and consumption.
College sport: ethical issues .
Visualizing the environmental impact of fast fashion through data.
Ethical dilemmas in pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies.
Ethical dilemmas in Shakespeare’s Hamlet .
The ethical challenges in the education reform policies.

What Are Ethical Questions?

Ethical questions are inquiries that explore moral issues, challenging us to consider right and wrong, good and bad. They often deal with dilemmas where a decision about the appropriate behavior or action must be made. Ethical questions are relevant in many fields, such as business, healthcare, politics, science, and education.

What Are the Seven Ethical Principles?

The seven ethical principles are common guidelines in ethical decision-making across various fields:

Autonomy – respect for individuals’ right to decide for themselves.
Beneficence – obligation to promote well-being and good.
Non-maleficence – duty to cause no harm.
Justice – ensuring fairness and equitable distribution of resources.
Fidelity – maintaining loyalty and keeping promises.
Veracity – commitment to truthfulness and honesty.
Confidentiality – respecting the privacy of others.

What Are Some Ethical Topics?

Ethical topics cover a broad spectrum of issues across multiple domains. In healthcare, topics like euthanasia, patient confidentiality, and genetic engineering are common. In business, we discuss corporate social responsibility, whistleblowing, and fair trade. Environmental ethics covers animal rights, sustainability, and climate change. In technology, topics like data privacy, AI ethics, and cybersecurity are popular.

Ethics Awareness: UC San Diego
Solving Ethical Dilemmas; Ethics in Law Enforcement
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making – Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
5 Ethical Issues in Technology to Watch for in 2023 | CompTIA
The Very Best 127 Philosophical Questions 2023
Identifying Ethical Issues; Exploring Business
How to Write About an Ethical Dilemma – Synonym
The RIGHT Decision Method: An approach for solving ethical dilemmas | Institute on Community Integration Publications
A Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper | Harvard College Writing Center
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter X
Share to LinkedIn

Self-discipline for students: tips, & practices, associate degree: is it worth it types, jobs, & tips for students, 392 proposal essay topics for arguments, projects, and more.

180 Ethics Topics & Ethical Questions to Debate

Our code of ethics is derived from what we think is right or wrong. On top of that, we have to agree to the moral standards established by the society we live in. Conventional norms generally label theft, murder, or harassment as bad. However, there are many influences that impact our considerations and understanding of ethics.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies moral issues. This article outlines the three different types of ethics and presents a list of compelling ethics topics for essays and research papers, as well as ethical questions to debate.

You don’t know how to write about ethics or which ethical argument topic to choose for your paper? Maybe your assignment deadline is dreadfully looming over you? Our custom writing service is happy to help you craft a fantastic essay on ethics whenever the need arises.

🔝 Top 10 Ethical Topics

🧑🤝🧑Types of Ethics
🤔 Ethical Issues
🖥️ Computer Ethics
🧬 Bioethics
🚓👮 Criminal Justice
⚖️ Ethical Dilemmas

⭐ Top 10 Ethics Topics to Debate

😈 ethical questions to debate, 🔍 references.

Religious beliefs vs. medical care
Issues behind unpaid internships
Toxic environment at the workplace
The dilemma of reporting an accident
Should one’s political leanings be private?
The limits of doctor-patient confidentiality
Is it ethical to pay children for good grades?
Ethics at the workplace and discrimination
Should social media be allowed at the workplace?
Promotion of environmental responsibility in business

🧑🤝🧑 Types of Ethics

Modern philosophy splits ethics into three groups: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

The core question of metaethics is: “What is morality, and where does it come from?” It is also concerned with the emergence of human values, motivation, and reasoning.
Normative ethics seeks to answer the question, “How should I act?” An example of a normative moral theory is Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law . In other words: be kind.
Applied ethics seeks to apply moral considerations into real-life controversial subjects. Its contents can vary greatly and touch bioethics as well as criminal justice. It studies specific actions and practices from the point of moral acceptance.

However, ethics does not end with these three types. Over the centuries, philosophers have proposed various ethical theories. Their four general categories are deontological, utilitarian, right, and virtue ethics.

A deontologist is a person with a set of moral duties from which they will not adhere. When faced with an ethical conflict, they will always act according to their self-proclaimed obligations.
For a utilitarian , a decision needs to yield the greatest benefit for the majority.
If rights are the root of an ethical theory, these are the highest priority. A person’s rights can either be established in a society by law or bestowed from one individual upon another.
Judging someone by virtue means considering a person’s character rather than their actions. Here, an individual’s reputation, motivation, and ethics play a crucial role.

Now that you know the basics, you have the perfect ground to start your ethics essay.

🤔 Ethical Topics for an Essay

Ethical issues are situations in which an individual needs to evaluate which course of action is morally right. Essays on this topic shine a light on difficult questions. Therefore, students need to defend their position convincingly.

Discuss what we should do about climate change.
What are the moral problems surrounding abortion?
Can we still justify eating meat?
Investigate the use of plastic in the beauty industry.
Is it unethical to be extremely rich?
Should you buy Nestlé products despite the fact that the company privatizes water?
Is the unequal distribution of wealth unethical?
Discuss how workplace ethics should take sexism into account.
What can we do to combat racism?
Why are LGBT+ people discriminated against?
Should euthanasia be legal?
Can war be ethical?
Should schools punish students for attending the Fridays for Future protests?
Would drug use be unethical if it were legal?
Explain the moral problems that come with automating jobs.

Is it ethical to hire someone to do assignments for you?
How far should everyone’s right to privacy go?
Is using animals for scientific testing unethical?
How should governments deal with refugees ?
Discuss the carbon impact of having children.
Can modern societies still be held accountable for what their nation did in the past?
Analyze the benefits and disadvantages of universal income.
How much control should the state have on the press?
Should schools teach religion?
What are ethical concerns regarding downloading media from the internet?

🖥️ Computer Ethics Essay Topics

The advent of information technology has altered every aspect of our lives. Computer ethics applies traditional moral theories to everything surrounding computers and cyber security. The list below contains enthralling ethical topics concerned with the realm of computing.

How much work should we leave entirely to computers?
Discuss the dangers of storing vulnerable data online.
Are computers secure enough to contain so much information about our lives?
Discuss if hacking can be morally justified.
Examine privacy-related concerns regarding computers .
Should all software be free?
How can you legitimize the possession of a computer algorithm patent?
What can be done to prevent cyberbullying?
Investigate the moral effects anonymity has on internet users.
Whose laws apply if you wish to protect your rights online?
Discuss how the necessity to own a computer impacts poorer nations and people.
Which ethical problems can people face due to the internet’s possibilities?
When is sabotaging another person’s computer justified?
Analyze the social responsibility that comes with developing new software.
Are computer crimes less harmful than crimes against humans?
Who owns information that is distributed online?
What is more important: easy accessibility or privacy?
Investigate the moral problems associated with AI.
If a computer makes a critical mistake, whose fault is it?
Discuss the importance of netiquette.
How should tech companies deal with ethical problems?
Can AI algorithms ensure ethical behavior?
Why do tech companies need ethics boards?
Which ethical conflicts appear when using drones?
Investigate racial bias in facial recognition systems.

🏅 Sports Ethics Topics for a Paper

Morality in sports is based on integrity, respect, responsibility, and fairness. Often, this puts athletes into a dilemma: do I want to be ethical, or do I want to win? Answering these questions is not always easy. The following list compiles sports topics for a research paper on ethics.

What are moral complications when using enhancement drugs?
Is gamesmanship unethical?
How important is ethics in sports?
Discuss the moral responsibilities of athletes .
What are ethical reasons to pay college athletes?
Investigate the ethical implications of kneeling for the national anthem .
Can college sports and the principles of higher education go hand in hand?
Investigate the sexist bias in sports.
Was it selfish when the American female soccer team went to court to demand equal pay?

What moral obligations do universities have towards their athletes?
When can you justify cheating?
Concerning the environment, how can professional sports events be ethical?
Which ethical issues do healthcare workers have concerning sportspeople?
Which moral duties do teams’ coaches have?
Are the extremely high salaries of sports professionals justified?
In 2003, the Olympics abolished the wild card system. Was that fair?
Because of the Paralympics, disabled athletes cannot take part in the real Olympics. Is that discriminatory?
Discuss how money influences the fairness of a sport.
Debate if and how children are exploited to become elite athletes.
Which moral duties should a good sport follow?
How much should parents get involved in their child’s physical education?
Investigate if everyday codes of ethics should apply to sports.
Discuss the ethical implications of motorsports.
Who is responsible if a player gets injured?
Are referees always fair?

🧬 Bioethics Topics for an Essay

Bioethics comes into play when we talk about life and health. It expands from genetics to neurology and even plastic surgery. In the name of the common good, researchers often find themselves in conflicting positions. This makes bioethics an especially exciting topic to write about.

Discuss the moral conflicts of genetic engineering .
What are the ethical responsibilities associated with using CRISPR ?
Investigate the problems of stem cell research.
When can humans be used for drug testing ?
Should vaccinations be mandatory for everyone?
Investigate the ethics that apply to a medical worker.
Discuss the harmful effects of plastic surgery .
Should a person who is brain dead be kept alive?
Is it just that medical care is linked to an individual’s ability to pay?
Should everyone be an organ donor by default?
What is more important: a person’s right to privacy or the information of at-risk relatives?
Is prenatal invasive testing ethical?
Should neuroenhancement drugs be legal?
Discuss ethical conflicts concerning Disclosure and Barring Service.
Is it ethical to improve memory functions with brain stimulation?
Analyze the ethical issues concerning precision medicine.
What are the problems of surrogacy ?
Should medical personnel collect healthy tissues of a deceased person without their consent?

Bioethics is closely connected with the fields of technology, medicine, politics, philosophy, and law,

What should be done with the child of a brain-dead pregnant woman?
How important is a subject’s anonymity during research?
Discuss the ethics of shared decision-making .
How much responsibility do mentally challenged people carry for their actions?
Was Sweden right not to impose strict lockdown rules during the COVID-19 pandemic?
To what extent are businesses responsible for their employees’ health?
Should universal healthcare be free?

🚓👮 Criminal Justice Ethics Topics to Write About

Law enforcers should always act ethically. Unfortunately, it is not always the case. Police officers and attorneys often end up in morally ambiguous situations. In many cases, they don’t do what the public deems the right thing. Below are the examples of criminal justice ethics topics.

When is it legitimate for a police officer to use violence?
How can an officer remain impartial?
Should law enforcement visibly wear guns in public?
How much force is too much?
Investigate possible ethical implications associated with true crime podcasts.
Should prostitution be legal in the US?
How ethical is interrogation ?
Can torture be justified?
Discuss the ethical consequences of lying when working in criminal justice .
Is working undercover deception?
Debate whether it is an American citizen’s moral duty to participate in jury duty.
Should the police be allowed to access everyone’s data?
Discuss the moral complications of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Should convicted pedophiles be allowed to see their children?
Can teaching ethics at schools prevent crime?
Analyze ethical problems of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Should NATO have become involved in America’s Afghan war?
What are the ethical implications of shooter drills at school?
Was Edward Snowden morally in the wrong?
How should we deal with child soldiers?
Discuss if the prosecution of Julian Assange is justified.
Examine the ethical problems of private prisons.
What moral obligations should someone consider when granting prisoners the right to work?
When is capital punishment justified?
Is it ethical to incarcerate juvenile offenders ?

⚖️ Ethical Dilemma Topics to Write About

An ethical issue becomes a dilemma when different moral standards clash with each other. In this situation, it is impossible to find a path to an ethically permissible solution that is unambiguous. The following sample topics are a solid base to start a discussion on morals.

Should parents watch over what their children do on the internet?
Would you report an accident you caused if there are no witnesses?
What should a doctor do if a patient refuses life-saving treatment for religious reasons?
Should you turn down a client if their political views do not match yours?
Would you promote something you are not convinced of to get money?
Should you lie to land a job that gets you out of poverty?

Your partner cheated on you. Now, you get the chance to take your revenge with someone you really like. Would you do it?
Should students use automated writing tools like free thesis generators , summarizers, and paraphrasers?
Your teacher is continuously mocking your classmate. You are a teacher’s pet. Would you speak up?
Your son likes to wear dresses. One day, he asks if he can wear one to school. Will you let him?
You are very religious. Your daughter wants to get married to another woman and invites you to her wedding. What will you do?
Prenatal testing showed that your unborn child has a disability. Would you terminate pregnancy?
You are in a long-term relationship. Suddenly, your partner gets a job offer in another part of the world. What would you do?
You have a terminal illness. This makes you a financial burden to your relatives. Are you obliged towards them to quit your treatment?
You have a red and a blue candy bar. Blue is your favorite, but you also know that it’s your friend’s favorite. Will you give it to them?
A friend asked you for a loan. Since then, they have not given you anything back. They are still not wholly stable financially. Will you ask them to return the money?
Your grandma passed away and bequeathed her favorite mink coat to you. You are a vegan. What do you do?
A few years ago, you borrowed a gun from a friend. Now, they ask for it back, but their mental state seems to be rapidly deteriorating. This makes you scared they are going to shoot someone, or themselves. What do you do?
You find out that your friend cheats on their spouse. You are close friends with their family. Will you tell on them?
For your birthday, your friend gave you a sweater they’ve made themselves. You think it’s ugly. Do you tell them?
You are a vegan . Should you buy vegan products which are highly problematic to produce?
You are in a restaurant. Your order arrives too late. The waitress looks stressed. Will you make her take it back?
You went to the store and bought a new, expensive item. The clerk gives you too much change. Do you give it back?
You are walking with a friend and find $50 on the floor. Would you share it with them?
Your child firmly believes in Santa Claus. One Christmas , they start suspecting that he is not real. What do you do?
Is having pets ethical?
Can eating meat be justified?
Should we defund the police?
Should atomic bombs be banned?
Can discrimination be justified?
Is it ethical to ask someone’s age?
Should children get paid for chores?
Is it unprofessional to send voice messages?
Should children be allowed to vote?
Should influencers promote products they don’t use?
Should there be any limitations to doctor and patient confidentiality?
Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?
Can teenagers get plastic surgery?
What to do when you find out that your relative has committed an offense?
What to do when you see your friend cheating on the exam?
Should sportsmen be paid more than teachers?
Should gender quotas be used during parliamentary elections?
Do companies have the right to collect information about their customers?
Can politicians appeal to religious issues during electoral campaigns?
Should fake news be censored in a democratic society?

We hope that in this list you’ve found the ethics topic that fits you the best. Good luck with your assignment!

12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers

Writing Essays
Writing Research Papers
English Grammar
M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
B.A., History, Armstrong State University

Writing a persuasive essay requires identifying interesting ethical topics, and these options might inspire you to create a powerful and engaging essay, position paper , or speech for your next assignment.

Should Teens Have Plastic Surgery?

Good looks are highly prized in society. You can see advertisements everywhere urging you to buy products that will supposedly enhance your appearance. While many products are topical, plastic surgery is probably the ultimate game-changer. Going under the knife to enhance your looks can be a quick fix and help you achieve the look you desire. It also carries risks and can have lifelong consequences. Consider whether you think teens—who are still developing into mature individuals—should have the right to make such a big decision at such a young age, or if their parents should be able to decide for them.

Would You Tell If You Saw a Popular Kid Bullying?

Bullying is a big problem in schools and even in society in general. But it can be difficult to show courage, step up—and step in—if you see a popular kid bullying someone at school. Would you report it if you saw this happening? Why or why not?

Would You Speak Up If Your Friend Abused an Animal?

Animal abuse by youngsters can foreshadow more violent acts as these individuals grow up. Speaking up might save the animal pain and suffering today, and it might steer that person away from more violent acts in the future. But would you have the courage to do so? Why or why not?

Would You Tell If You Saw a Friend Cheating on a Test?

Courage can come in subtle forms, and that can include reporting seeing someone cheat on a test. Cheating on a test might not seem like such a big deal; perhaps you've cheated on a test yourself. But it is against the policies of schools and universities worldwide. If you saw someone cheating, would you speak up and tell the teacher? What if it were your buddy cheating and telling might cost you a friendship? Explain your stance.

Should News Stories Slant Toward What People Want to Hear?

There is much debate over whether the news should be unbiased or allow commentary. Newspapers, radios, and news television stations are businesses, just as much as a grocery store or online retailers. They need customers to survive, and that means appealing to what their customers want to hear or see. Slanting reports toward popular opinions could increase ratings and readership, in turn saving newspapers and news shows, as well as jobs. But is this practice ethical? What do you think?

Would You Tell If Your Best Friend Had a Drink at the Prom?

Most schools have strict rules about drinking at the prom, but many students still engage in the practice. After all, they'll be graduating soon. If you saw a friend imbibing, would you tell or look the other way? Why?

Should Football Coaches Be Paid More Than Professors?

Football often brings in more money than any other single activity or program a school offers, including academic classes. In the corporate world, if a business is profitable, the CEO and those who contributed to the success are often rewarded handsomely. With that in mind, shouldn't it be the same in academia? Should top football coaches get paid more than top professors? Why or why not?

Should Politics and Church Be Separate?

Candidates often invoke religion when they're campaigning. It's generally a good way to attract votes. But should the practice be discouraged? The U.S. Constitution, after all, dictates that there should be a separation of church and state in this country. What do you think and why?

Would You Speak Up If You Heard an Ugly Ethnic Statement at a Party Filled With Popular Kids?

As in the previous examples, it can be hard to speak up, especially when an incident involves popular kids. Would you have the courage to say something and risk the ire of the "in" crowd? Who would you tell?

Should Assisted Suicides Be Allowed for Terminally Ill Patients?

Some countries, like the Netherlands, allow assisted suicides , as do some U.S. states. Should "mercy killing" be legal for terminally ill patients who are suffering from great physical pain? What about patients whose diseases will negatively impact their families? Why or why not?

Should a Student's Ethnicity Be a Consideration for College Acceptance?

There has been a long-standing debate about the role ethnicity should play in college acceptance. Proponents of affirmative action argue that underrepresented groups should be given a leg up. Opponents say that all college candidates should be judged on their merits alone. What do you think and why?

Should Companies Gather Information About Their Customers?

Information privacy is a big and growing issue. Every time you log onto the internet and visit an online retailer, news company, or social media site, companies gather information about you. Should they have the right to do so, or should the practice be banned? Why do you think so? Explain your answer.

How to Ask and Answer Basic English Questions
100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
50 Argumentative Essay Topics
100 Persuasive Essay Topics
49 Opinion Writing Prompts for Students
Fun March Writing Prompts for Journaling
Engaging Writing Prompts for 3rd Graders
24 Journal Prompts for Creative Writing in the Elementary Classroom
9 Common Medical School Interview Questions and How to Answer Them
Second Grade Writing Prompts
May Writing Prompts
Writing Prompts for 7th Grade
January Writing Prompts
October Writing Prompts
April Writing Prompts
25 Essay Topics for American Government Classes

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Moral Theory

There is much disagreement about what, exactly, constitutes a moral theory. Some of that disagreement centers on the issue of demarcating the moral from other areas of practical normativity, such as the ethical and the aesthetic. Some disagreement centers on the issue of what a moral theory’s aims and functions are. In this entry, both questions will be addressed. However, this entry is about moral theories as theories , and is not a survey of specific theories, though specific theories will be used as examples.

1.1 Common-sense Morality

1.2 contrasts between morality and other normative domains, 2.1 the tasks of moral theory, 2.2 theory construction, 3. criteria, 4. decision procedures and practical deliberation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. morality.

When philosophers engage in moral theorizing, what is it that they are doing? Very broadly, they are attempting to provide a systematic account of morality. Thus, the object of moral theorizing is morality, and, further, morality as a normative system.

At the most minimal, morality is a set of norms and principles that govern our actions with respect to each other and which are taken to have a special kind of weight or authority (Strawson 1961). More fundamentally, we can also think of morality as consisting of moral reasons, either grounded in some more basic value, or, the other way around, grounding value (Raz 1999).

It is common, also, to hold that moral norms are universal in the sense that they apply to and bind everyone in similar circumstances. The principles expressing these norms are also thought to be general , rather than specific, in that they are formulable “without the use of what would be intuitively recognized as proper names, or rigged definite descriptions” (Rawls 1979, 131). They are also commonly held to be impartial , in holding everyone to count equally.

… Common-sense is… an exercise of the judgment unaided by any Art or system of rules : such an exercise as we must necessarily employ in numberless cases of daily occurrence ; in which, having no established principles to guide us … we must needs act on the best extemporaneous conjectures we can form. He who is eminently skillful in doing this, is said to possess a superior degree of Common-Sense. (Richard Whatley, Elements of Logic , 1851, xi–xii)

“Common-Sense Morality”, as the term is used here, refers to our pre-theoretic set of moral judgments or intuitions or principles. [ 1 ] When we engage in theory construction (see below) it is these common-sense intuitions that provide a touchstone to theory evaluation. Henry Sidgwick believed that the principles of Common-Sense Morality were important in helping us understand the “first” principle or principles of morality. [ 2 ] Indeed, some theory construction explicitly appeals to puzzles in common-sense morality that need resolution – and hence, need to be addressed theoretically.

Features of commons sense morality are determined by our normal reactions to cases which in turn suggest certain normative principles or insights. For example, one feature of common-sense morality that is often remarked upon is the self/other asymmetry in morality, which manifests itself in a variety of ways in our intuitive reactions. For example, many intuitively differentiate morality from prudence in holding that morality concerns our interactions with others, whereas prudence is concerned with the well-being of the individual, from that individual’s point of view.

Also, according to our common-sense intuitions we are allowed to pursue our own important projects even if such pursuit is not “optimific” from the impartial point of view (Slote 1985). It is also considered permissible, and even admirable, for an agent to sacrifice her own good for the sake of another even though that is not optimific. However, it is impermissible, and outrageous, for an agent to similarly sacrifice the well-being of another under the same circumstances. Samuel Scheffler argued for a view in which consequentialism is altered to include agent-centered prerogatives, that is, prerogatives to not act so as to maximize the good (Scheffler 1982).

Our reactions to certain cases also seem to indicate a common-sense commitment to the moral significance of the distinction between intention and foresight, doing versus allowing, as well as the view that distance between agent and patient is morally relevant (Kamm 2007).

Philosophers writing in empirical moral psychology have been working to identify other features of common-sense morality, such as how prior moral evaluations influence how we attribute moral responsibility for actions (Alicke et. al. 2011; Knobe 2003).

What many ethicists agree upon is that common-sense is a bit of a mess. It is fairly easy to set up inconsistencies and tensions between common-sense commitments. The famous Trolley Problem thought experiments illustrate how situations which are structurally similar can elicit very different intuitions about what the morally right course of action would be (Foot 1975). We intuitively believe that it is worse to kill someone than to simply let the person die. And, indeed, we believe it is wrong to kill one person to save five others in the following scenario:

David is a great transplant surgeon. Five of his patients need new parts—one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord—but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his patients die. (Thomson 1976, 206)

And yet, in the following scenario we intuitively view it entirely permissible, and possibly even obligatory, to kill one to save five:

Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have just failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Edward can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately there is one person on the right-hand track. Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five. (Thomson 1976, 206).

Theorizing is supposed to help resolve those tensions in a principled way. Theory construction attempts to provide guidance in how to resolve such tensions and how to understand them.

1.2.1 Morality and Ethics

Ethics is generally understood to be the study of “living well as a human being”. This is the topic of works such as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics , in which the aim of human beings is to exemplify human excellence of character. The sense in which we understand it here is that ethics is broader than morality, and includes considerations of personal development of oneself and loved ones. This personal development is important to a life well lived, intuitively, since our very identities are centered on projects that we find important. Bernard Williams and others refer to these projects as “ground projects”. These are the sources of many of our reasons for acting. For Williams, if an agent seeks to adopt moral considerations, or be guided by them, then important ethical considerations are neglected, such as personal integrity and authenticity (Williams 1977; Wolf 1982). However, Williams has a very narrow view of what he famously termed “the morality system” (Williams 1985).

Williams lists a variety of objectionable features of the morality system, including the inescapability of moral obligations, the overridingness of moral obligation, impartiality , and the fact that in the morality system there is a push towards generalization .

There has been considerable discussion of each of these features of the morality system, and since Williams, a great deal of work on the part of standard moral theorists on how each theory addresses the considerations he raised. Williams’ critique of the morality system was part of a general criticism of moral theory in the 1980s on the grounds of its uselessness, harmfulness, and even its impossibility (Clarke 1987). This anti-theory trend was prompted by the same dissatisfaction with consequentialism and deontology that led to the resurgence of Virtue Ethics.

A major criticism of this view is that it has a very narrow view of what counts as a moral theory. Thus, some of these approaches simply rejected some features of William’s characterization of the morality system, such as impartiality. Others, however, Williams’ included, attacked the very project of moral theory. This is the ‘anti-theory’ attack on moral theorizing. For example, Annette Baier argued that morality cannot be captured in a system of rules, and this was a very popular theme amongst early virtue ethicists. On this view, moral theory which systematizes and states the moral principles that ought to guide actions is simply impossible: “Norms in the form of virtues may be essentially imprecise in some crucial ways, may be mutually referential, but not hierarchically orderable, may be essentially self-referential” (Baier 220).

Robert Louden even argued that the best construal of virtue ethics is not as an ethical theory, but as anti-theory that should not be evaluated as attempting to theorize morality at all. (Louden 1990). According to Louden, moral theories are formulated to a variety of reasons, including to provide solutions to problems, formulas for action, universal principles, etc. Louden notes that this characterization is very narrow and many would object to it, but he views anti-theory not so much as a position against any kind of moral theorizing, but simply the kind that he viewed as predominant prior to the advent of Virtue Ethics. This is a much less severe version of anti-theory as it, for example, doesn’t seem to regard weightiness or importance of moral reasons as a problem.

Some of the problems that Williams and other anti-theorists have posed for morality, based on the above characteristics, are:

Morality is too demanding and pervasive: that is, the view that moral reasons are weighty indicates that we should be giving them priority over other sorts of reasons. Further, they leach into all aspects of our lives, leaving very little morally neutral.

Morality is alienating. There are a variety of ways in which morality can be alienating. As Adrian Piper notes, morality might alienate the agent from herself or might alienate the agent from others – impartiality and universality might lead to this, for example (Piper 1987; Stocker 1976). Another way we can understand alienation is that the agent is alienated from the true justifications of her own actions – this is one way to hold that theories which opt for indirection can lead to alienation (see section 4 below).

Morality, because it is impartial, makes no room for special obligations. That is, if the right action is the one that is impartial between persons, then it does not favor the near and dear. On this picture it is difficult to account for the moral requirements that parents have towards their own children, and friends have towards each other. These requirements are, by their nature, not impartial.

Morality is committed to providing guides for action that can be captured in a set of rules or general principles. That is, morality is codifiable and the rules of morality are general.

Morality requires too much. The basic worry is that the morality system is voracious and is creeping into all aspects of our lives, to the detriment of other important values. The worry expressed by 4 takes a variety of forms. For example, some take issue with a presupposition of 4, arguing that there are no moral principles at all if we think of these principles as guiding action . Some argue that there are no moral principles that are complete, because morality is not something that is codifiable . And, even if morality was codifiable, the ‘principles’ would be extremely specific , and not qualify as principles at all.

Since Williams’ work, philosophers have tried to respond to the alienation worry by, for example, providing accounts of the ways in which a person’s reasons can guide without forming an explicit part of practical deliberation. Peter Railton, for example, argues in favor of a form of objective consequentialism, Sophisticated Consequentialism , in which the rightness of an action is a function of its actual consequences (Railton 1984). On Railton’s view, one can be a good consequentialist without being alienated from loved ones. Though not attempting to defend moral theory per se , other writers have also provided accounts of how agents can act on the basis of reasons – and thus perform morally worthy actions, even though these reasons are not explicitly articulated in their practical deliberations (Arpaly 2002; Markovits 2014). Deontologists have argued that autonomous action needn’t involve explicit invocation of, for example, the Categorical Imperative (Herman 1985). Generally, what characterizes these moves is the idea that the justifying reasons are present in some form in the agent’s psychology – they are recoverable from the agent’s psychology – but need not be explicitly articulated or invoked by the agent in acting rightly.

One way to elaborate on this strategy is to argue that the morally good agent is one who responds to the right sorts of reasons, even though the agent can’t articulate the nature of the response (Arpaly 2002). This strategy makes no appeal to codifiable principles, and is compatible with a wide variety of approaches to developing a moral theory. It relies heavily on the concept, of course, of “reason” and “moral reason,” which many writers on moral issues take to be fundamental or basic in any case.

There has also been debate concerning the proper scope of morality, and how moral theories can address problems relating to impartiality. Kant and the classical utilitarians believed that moral reasons are impartial, what others have termed agent-neutral. Indeed, this is one point of criticism that virtue ethics has made of these two theories. One might argue that moral reasons are impartial, but that there are other reasons that successfully compete with them – reasons relating to the near and dear, for example, or one’s own ground projects. Or, one could hold that morality includes special reasons, arising from special obligations, that also morally justify our actions.

The first strategy has been pursued by Bernard Williams and other “anti-theorists”. Again, Williams argues that morality is a special system that we would be better off without (Williams 1985). In the morality system we see a special sense of “obligation” – moral obligation – which possesses certain features. For example, moral obligation is inescapable according to the morality system. A theory such as Kant’s, for example, holds that we must act in accordance with the Categorical Imperative. It is not optional. This is because morality is represented as having authority over us in ways that even demand sacrifice of our personal projects, of the very things that make our lives go well for us. This seems especially clear for Utilitarianism, which holds that we must maximize the good, and falling short of maximization is wrong . A Kantian will try to avoid this problem by appealing to obligations that are less demanding, the imperfect ones. But, as Williams points out, these are still obligations , and as such can only be overridden by other obligations. Thus, the theories also tend to present morality as pervasive in that morality creeps into every aspect of our lives, making no room for neutral decisions. For example, even decisions about what shoes to wear to work becomes a moral one:

Once the journey into more general obligations has started, we may begin to get into trouble – not just philosophical trouble, but the conscience trouble – with finding room for morally indifferent actions. I have already mentioned the possible moral conclusion that one may take some particular course of action. That means that there is nothing else I am obliged to do. But if we have accepted general and indeterminate obligations to further various moral objectives…they will be waiting to provide work for idle hands… (Williams 1985, 181)

He goes on to write that in order to get out of this problem, “…I shall need one of those fraudulent items, a duty to myself” (Williams 1985, 182). Kantian Ethics does supply this. Many find this counterintuitive, since the self/other asymmetry seems to capture the prudence/morality distinction, but Kantians such as Tom Hill, jr. have made strong cases for at least some moral duties to the self. In any case, for writers such as Williams, so much the worse for morality .

Other writers, also concerned about the problems that Williams has raised argue, instead, that morality does make room for our partial concerns and projects, such as the norms governing our relationships, and our meaningful projects. Virtue ethicists, for example, are often comfortable pointing out that morality is not thoroughly impartial because there are virtues of partiality. Being a good mother involves having a preference for the well-being of one’s own children. The mother who really is impartial would be a very bad mother, lacking in the appropriate virtues.

Another option is to hold that there are partial norms, but those partial norms are themselves justified on impartial grounds. This can be spelled out in a variety of different ways. Consider Marcia Baron’s defense of impartiality, where she notes that critics of impartiality are mistaken because they confuse levels of justification: “Critics suppose that impartialists insisting on impartiality at the level of rules or principles are committed to insisting on impartiality at the level of deciding what to do in one’s day-to-day activities” (Baron 1991). This is a mistake because impartialists can justify partial norms by appealing to impartial rules or principles. She is correct about this. Even Jeremy Bentham believed, for example, that the principle of utility ought not be applied in every case, though he mainly appealed to efficiency costs of using the principle all the time. But one can appeal to other considerations. Frank Jackson uses an analogy with predators to argue that partial norms are strategies for maximizing the good, they offer the best chance of actually doing so given our limitations (Jackson 1991). Similarly, a Kantian such as Tom Hill, jr., as Baron notes, can argue that impartiality is part of an ideal, and ought not govern our day-to-day lives (Hill 1987). Does this alienate people from others? The typical mother shows the right amount of preference for her child, let’s say, but doesn’t herself think that this is justified on the basis of promoting the good, for example. A friend visits another in the hospital and also does not view the partiality as justified by any further principles. But this is no more alienating than someone being able to make good arguments and criticize bad ones without a knowledge of inference rules. Maybe it is better to have an awareness of the underlying justification, but for some theories even that is debatable. For an objective theorist (see below) it may be that knowing the underlying justification can interfere with doing the right thing, in which case it is better not to know. For some theorists, however, such as neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicists, a person is not truly virtuous without such knowledge and understanding, though Rosalind Hursthouse (1999) does not make this a requirement of right action.

Recently consequentialists have been approaching this issue through the theory of value itself, arguing that there are agent-relative forms of value. This approach is able to explain the intuitions that support partial moral norms while retaining the general structure of consequentialism (Sen 2000). Douglas Portmore, for example, argues for a form of consequentialism that he terms “commonsense consequentialism” as it is able to accommodate many of our everyday moral intuitions (Portmore 2011). He does so by arguing that (1) the deontic status of an act, whether it is right or wrong, is determined by what reasons the agent has for performing it – if an agent has a decisive reason to perform the act in question, then it is morally required. Combined with (2) a teleological view of practical reasons in which our reasons for performing an action are a function of what we have reason to prefer or desire we are led to a form of act-consequentialism but one which is open to accepting that we have reason to prefer or desire the well-being of the near and dear over others.

Though much of this is controversial, there is general agreement that moral reasons are weighty , are not egoistic – that is, to be contrasted with prudential reasons, and are concerned with issues of value [duty, fittingness].

1.2.2. Morality and Aesthetics

Moral modes of evaluation are distinct from the aesthetic in terms of their content, but also in terms of their authority. So, for example, works of art are evaluated as “beautiful” or “ugly”, and those evaluations are not generally considered as universal or as objective as moral evaluations. These distinctions between moral evaluation and aesthetic evaluation have been challenged, and are the subject of some interesting debates in metaethics on the nature of both moral and aesthetic norms and the truth-conditions of moral and aesthetic claims. But, considered intuitively, aesthetics seems at least less objective than morality.

A number of writers have noted that we need to be cognizant of the distinction between moral norms and the norms specific to other normative areas in order to avoid fallacies of evaluation, and much discussion has centered on a problem in aesthetics termed the “Moralistic Fallacy” (D’Arms and Jacobson 2000).

One challenge that the anti-theorists have raised for morality was to note that in a person’s life there will be certain norm clashes – including clashes between types of norms such as the moral and the aesthetic. It is giving too much prominence to the moral that judges a person’s life as going well relative to the fulfillment or respect of those norms. Can’t a human life go well, even when that life sacrifices morality for aesthetics?

This sort of debate has a long history in moral theory. For example, it arose as a form of criticism of G. E. Moore’s Ideal Utilitarianism, which treated beauty as an intrinsic good, and rendering trade-offs between behaving well towards others and creating beauty at least in principle justified morally (Moore 1903). But the anti-theorists do not pursue this method of accommodating the aesthetic, instead arguing that it is a separate normative realm which has its own weight and significance in human flourishing.

2. Theory and Theoretical Virtues

There is agreement that theories play some kind of systematizing role, and that one function is to examine important concepts relevant to morality and moral practice and the connections, if any, between them. For example, one very common view in the middle of the 20 th century, attributed to John Rawls, was to view moral theory as primarily interested in understanding the ‘right’ and the ‘good’ and connections between the two (Rawls). Priority claims are often a central feature in the systematizing role of moral theory. Related to this is the issue of explanatory, or theoretical, depth . That is, the deeper the explanation goes, the better.

Theories also strive for simplicity , coherence , and accuracy . The fewer epicycles the theory has to postulate the better, the parts of the theory should fit well together. For example, the theory should not contain inconsistent principles, or have inconsistent implications. The theory should cover the phenomena in question. In the case of moral theories, the phenomena in question are thought to be our considered moral intuitions or judgements. Another coherence condition involves the theory cohering with a person’s set of considered judgments, as well.

One last feature that needs stressing, particularly for moral theories, is applicability . One criticism of some normative ethical theories is that they are not applicable. For example, Virtue Ethics has been criticized for not providing an account of what our moral obligations are – appealing to what the virtuous person would do in the circumstances would seem to set a very high bar or doesn’t answer the relevant question about how we should structure laws guiding people on what their social obligations are. Similarly, objective consequentialists, who understand “right action” in terms of actual consequences have been criticized for rendering what counts as a right action in a given circumstance unknowable, and thus useless as a guide to action. Both approaches provide responses to this worry, but this supports the claim that a desideratum of a moral theory is that it be applicable.

One task (though this is somewhat controversial) of a moral theory is to give an account of right actions. Often, this will involve an explication of what counts as good – some theories then get spelled out in terms of how they approach the good, by maximizing it, producing enough of it, honoring it, etc. In addition, some theories explicate the right in terms of acting in accordance with one’s duties, or acting as a virtuous person would act. In these cases the notions of ‘duty’ and ‘virtue’ become important to the overall analysis, and one function of moral theory is to explore the systematic connections between duty or virtue and the right and the good.

Moral theories also have both substantive and formal aims. Moral theories try to provide criteria for judging actions. It might be that the criterion is simple, such as right actions maximize the good, or it may be complex, such as the right action is the one that gives adequate weight to each competing duty. Sometimes, in recognition that there is not always “the” right action, the theory simply provides an account of wrongness, or permissibility and impermissibility, which allows that a range of actions might count as “right”.

In addition to simply providing criteria for right or virtuous action, or for being a virtuous person, a given moral theory, for example, will attempt to explain why something, like an action or character trait, has a particular moral quality, such as rightness or virtuousness. Some theories view rightness as grounded in or explained by value . Some view rightness as a matter of reasons that are prior to value. In each case, to provide an explanation of the property of ‘rightness’ or ‘virtuousness’ will be to provide an account of what the grounding value is, or an account of reasons for action.

In addition, moral theories may also provide decision-procedures to employ in determining how to act rightly or virtuously, conditions on being good or virtuous, or conditions on morally appropriate practical deliberation. Thus, the theory provides substance to evaluation and reasons. However, moral theories, in virtue of providing an explanatory framework, help us see connections between criteria and decision-procedures, as well as provide other forms of systemization. Thus, moral theories will be themselves evaluated according to their theoretical virtues: simplicity, explanatory power, elegance, etc. To evaluate moral theories as theories , each needs to be evaluated in terms of how well it succeeds in achieving these theoretical goals.

There are many more specialized elements to moral theories as well. For example, a moral theory often concerns itself with features of moral psychology relevant to action and character, such as motives, intentions, emotions, and reasons responsiveness. A moral theory that incorporates consideration of consequences into the determination of moral quality, will also be concerned with issues surrounding the proper aggregation of those consequences, and the scope of the consequences to be considered.

There’s been a long history of comparing moral theories to other sorts of theories, such as scientific ones. For example, in meta-ethics one issue has to do with the nature of moral “evidence” on analogy with scientific evidence. On what Ronald Dworkin terms the “natural model” the truths of morality are discovered, just as the truths of science are (Dworkin 1977, 160). It is our considered intuitions that provide the clues to discover these moral truths, just as what is observable to us provides the evidence to discover scientific truths. He compared this model with the “constructive model” in which the intuitions themselves are features of the theory being constructed and are not analogous to observations of the external world.

Yet, even if we decide that morality lacks the same type of phenomena to be accounted for as science, morality clearly figures into our normative judgments and reactions. One might view these – our intuitions about moral cases, for example – to provide the basic data that needs to be accounted for by a theory on either model.

One way to “account for” our considered intuitions would be to debunk them. There is a long tradition of this in moral philosophy as well. When scholars provided genealogies of morality that explained our considered intuitions in terms of social or evolutionary forces that are not sensitive the truth, for example, they were debunking morality by undercutting the authority of our intuitions to provide insight into it (Nietzsche 1887 [1998], Joyce 2001, Street 2006). In this entry, however, we consider the ways in which moral theorists have constructed their accounts by taking the intuitions seriously as something to be systematized, explained, and as something that can be applied to generate the correct moral decisions or outcomes.

Along these lines, one method used in theory construction would involve the use of reflective equilibrium and inference to the best explanation. For example, one might notice an apparent inconsistency in moral judgements regarding two structurally similar cases and then try to figure out what principle or set of principles would achieve consistency between them. In this case, the theorist is trying to figure out what best explains both of those intuitions. But one also might, after thinking about principles one already accepts, or finds plausible, reject one of those intuitions on the basis of it not cohering with the rest of one’s considered views. But full theory construction will go beyond this because of the fully theoretical virtues discussed earlier. We want a systematic account that coheres well not only with itself, but with other things that we believe on the basis of good evidence.

Consider the following:

Malory has promised to take Chris grocery shopping. Unfortunately, as Malory is leaving the apartment, Sam calls with an urgent request: please come over to my house right now, my pipes have broken and I need help! Torn, Malory decides to help Sam, and thus breaks a promise to Chris.

Has Malory done the right thing? The virtuous thing? Malory has broken a promise, which is pro tanto wrong, but Sam is in an emergency and needs help right away. Even if it is clear that what Malory did was right in the circumstances, it is an interesting question as to why it is right. What can we appeal to in making these sorts of judgments? This brings to light the issue of how one morally justifies one’s actions. This is the task of understanding what the justifying reasons are for our actions. What makes an action the thing to do in the circumstances? This is the criterion of rightness (or wrongness). We will focus on the criterion of rightness, though the criterion issue comes up with other modes of moral evaluation, such as judging an action to be virtuous, or judging it to be good in some respect, even if not right. Indeed, some writers have argued that ‘morally right’ should be jettisoned from modern secular ethics, as it presupposes a conceptual framework left over from religiously based accounts which assume there is a God (Anscombe 1958). We will leave these worries aside for now, however, and focus on standard accounts of criteria.

The following are some toy examples that exhibit differing structural features for moral theories and set out different criteria:

Consequentialism . The right action is the action that produces good amongst the options open to the agent at the time of action (Singer). The most well-known version of this theory is Classical Utilitarianism, which holds that the right action promotes pleasure (Mill). Kantian Deontology . The morally worthy action is in accordance with the Categorical Imperative, which requires an agent refrain from acting in a way that fails to respect the rational nature of other persons (Kant). Rossian Deontology . The right action is the action that best accords with the fulfillment and/or non-violation of one’s prima facie duties (Ross). Contractualism . An action is morally wrong if it is an act that would be forbidden by principles that rational persons could not reasonably reject (Scanlon). Virtue Ethics . The right action is the action that a virtuous person would characteristically perform in the circumstances (Hursthouse 1999).

These principles set out the criterion or standard for evaluation of actions. They do not necessarily tell us how to perform right actions, and are not, in themselves, decision-procedures, though they can easily be turned into decision procedures, such as: you ought to try to perform the action that maximizes the good amongst the options available to you at the time of action. This might not be, and in ordinary circumstance probably isn’t, a very good decision-procedure, and would itself need to be evaluated according to the criterion set out by the theory.

These theories can be divided, roughly, into the deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethical categories. There has been a lively debate about how, exactly, to delineate these categories. Some have held that deontological theories were just those theories that were not consequentialist. A popular conception of consequentialist theories is that they are reductionist in a particular way – that is, in virtue of reducing deontic features of actions (e.g. rightness, obligatoriness) to facts about an agent’s options and the consequences of those options (Smith 2009). If that is the case, then it seems that deontological approaches are just the ones that are not reductive in this manner. However, this fails to capture the distinctive features of many forms of virtue ethics, which are neither consequentialist nor necessarily concerned with what we ought to do , our duties as opposed to what sorts of persons we should be.

One way to distinguish consequentialist from deontological theories is in terms of how each approaches value. Philip Pettit has suggested that while consequentialist theories required promotion of value, deontological theories recommend that value be honored or respected. On each of these views, value is an important component of the theory, and theories will be partially delineated according to their theory of value. A utilitarian such as Jeremey Bentham believes that hedonism is the correct theory of value, whereas someone such as G. E. Moore, a utilitarian but a pluralist regarding value, believes that hedonism is much too narrow an account. A Kantian, on the other hand, views value as grounded in rational nature, in a will conforming to the Categorical Imperative.

Because of the systematizing function of moral theory discussed earlier, the simplest account is to be preferred and thus there is a move away from endorsing value pluralism. Of course, as intuitive pressure is put on each of the simpler alternatives, a pluralistic account of criteria for rightness and wrongness has the advantage of according best with moral intuitions.

Reasons-first philosophers will delineate the theories somewhat differently. For example, one might understand goodness as a matter of what we have reason to desire, in which case what we have reason to desire is prior to goodness rather than the other way around. Value is still an important component of the theories, it is simply that the value is grounded in reasons.

Another distinction between normative theories is that between subjective and objective versions of a type of theory. This distinction cuts across other categories. For example, there are subjective forms of all the major moral theories, and objective versions of many. An objective standard of right holds that the agent must actually meet the standard – and meeting the standard is something ‘objective’, not dependent on the agent’s psychological states – in order to count as right or virtuous. Subjective standards come in two broad forms:

Psychology sensitive : are the justifying reasons part of the agent’s deliberative processes? Or, more weakly, are they “recoverable” from the agent’s psychology [perhaps, for example, the agent has a commitment to the values that provide the reasons].
Evidence sensitive : the right action isn’t the one that actually meets the standard, but instead, is the action that the agent could foresee would meet that standard. [there are many different ways to spell this out, depending on the degree of evidence that is relevant: in terms of what the agent actually foresees, what is foreseeable by the agent given what the agent knows, is foreseeable by someone in possession of a reasonable amount of evidence, etc.]

Of course, these two can overlap. For theorists who are evaluational internalists , evidence-sensitivity doesn’t seem like a plausible way of spelling out the standard, except, perhaps, indirectly. The distinction frequently comes up in Consequentialism, where the Objective standard is taken to be something like: the right action is the action that actually promotes the good and the Subjective standard is something like: the right action is the action that promotes the good by the agent’s own lights (psychology sensitive) or the right action is the action that promotes the foreseeable good, given evidence available at the time of action (evidence sensitive standard). It is certainly possible for other moral standards to be objective. For example, the right action is the action that the virtuous person would perform, even though the agent does not realize it is what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances, and even if the person with the best available evidence couldn’t realize it is what the virtuous person would do in the circumstances.

We certainly utter locutions that support both subjective and objective uses of what we ‘ought’ to do, or what is ‘right’. Frank Jackson notes this when he writes:

…we have no alternative but to recognize a whole range of oughts – what she ought to do by the light of her beliefs at the time of action, …what she ought to do by the lights of one or another onlooker who has different information on the subject, and, what is more, what she ought to do by God’s lights…that is, by the lights of one who knows what will and would happen for each and every course of action. (Jackson 1991, 471).

For Jackson, the primary ought, the primary sense of ‘rightness’ for an action, is the one that is “most immediately relevant to action” since, otherwise, we have a problem of understanding how the action is the agent’s. Thus, the subjective ‘ought’ is primary in the sense that this is the one that ethical theory should be concerned with (Jackson 1991). Each type of theorist makes use of our ordinary language intuitions to make their case. But one desideratum of a theory is that it not simply reflect those intuitions, but also provides the tools to critically analyze them. Given that our language allows for both sorts of ‘ought,’ the interesting issue becomes which, if either, has primacy in terms of actually providing the standard by which other things are evaluated? Moral theory needn’t only be concerned with what the right action is from the agent’s point of view.

There are three possibilities:

neither has primacy
the subjective has primacy
the objective has primacy

First off we need to understand what we mean by “primacy”. Again, for Frank Jackson, the primary sense of ‘right’ or ‘ought’ is subjective, since what we care about is the ‘right’ that refers to an inward story, the story of our agency, so to speak. On this view, the objective and subjective senses may have no relationship to each other at all, and which counts as primary simply depends upon our interests. However, the issue that concerns us here is whether or not one sense can be accounted for in terms of the other. Option 1 holds that there is no explanatory connection. That is not as theoretically satisfying. Option 2 holds either there really is no meaningful objective sense, just the subjective sense, or the objective sense is understood in terms of the subjective.

Let’s look at the objective locution again “He did the right thing, but he didn’t know it at the time (or he had no way of knowing it at the time)”. Perhaps all this means is “He did what someone with all the facts and correct set of values would have judged right by their own lights” – this would be extensionally the same as “He performed the action with the best actual consequences”. This is certainly a possible account of what objective right means which makes use of a subjective standard. But it violates the spirit of the subjective standard, since it ties rightness neither to the psychology of the agent, or the evidence that is actually available to the agent. For that reason, it seems more natural to opt for 3. An advantage of this option is that gives us a nice, unified account regarding the connection between the objective and the subjective. Subjective standards, then, are standards of praise and blame, which are themselves evaluable according to the objective standard. Over time, people are in a position to tell whether or not a standard actually works in a given type of context. Or, perhaps it turns out that there are several standards of blame that differ in terms of severity. For example, if someone acts negligently a sensible case can be made that the person is blameworthy but not as blameworthy as if they had acted intentionally.

As to the worry that the objective standard doesn’t provide action guidance, the objective theorist can hold that action guidance is provided by the subjective standards of praise/blameworthiness. Further, the standard itself can provide what we need for action guidance through normative review (Driver 2012). Normative review is a retrospective look at what does in fact meet the standard, and under what circumstances.

Now, consider a virtue ethical example. The right action is the action that is the actual action that a virtuous person would perform characteristically, in the circumstances, rather than the action that the agent believes is the one the virtuous person would perform. Then we evaluate an agent’s “v-rules” in terms of how close they meet the virtuous ideal.

Another function of moral theory is to provide a decision procedure for people to follow so as to best insure they perform right actions. Indeed, some writers, such as R. M. Hare hold action guidance to be the function of the moral principles of the theory (Hare 1965). This raises the question of what considerations are relevant to the content of such principles – for example, should the principles be formulated taking into account the epistemic limitations of most human beings? The requirement that moral principles be action guiding is what Holly Smith terms the “Useability Demand”: “…an acceptable moral principle must be useable for guiding moral decisions…” (Smith 2020, 11). Smith enumerates different forms satisfaction of this demand can take, and notes that how one spells out a principle in order to meet the demand will depend upon how the moral theorist views moral success. For example, whether or not success is achieved in virtue of simply making the right decision or if, in addition to making the right decision, the agent must also have successful follow-through on that decision.

There has been enormous debate on the issue of what is involved in following a rule or principle, and some skepticism that this is in fact what we are doing when we take ourselves to be following a rule. (Kripke 1982) Some virtue theorists believe that it is moral perception that actually does the guiding, and that a virtuous person is able to perceive what is morally relevant and act accordingly (McDowell 1979).

As discussed earlier in the section on criteria, however, this is also controversial in that some theorists believe that decision procedures themselves are not of fundamental significance. Again, objective consequentialist who believes that the fundamental task of theory is to establish a criterion for right argues that decision procedures will themselves be established and evaluated on the basis of how well they get us to actually achieving the right. Thus, the decision-procedures are derivative. Others, such as subjective consequentialists, will argue that the decision-procedures specify the criterion in the sense that following the decision-procedure itself is sufficient for meeting the criterion. For example, an objective consequentialist will hold that the right action maximizes the good, whereas the subjective consequentialist might hold that the right action is to try to maximize the good, whether or not one actually achieves it (Mason 2003 and 2019). Following the decision-procedure itself, then, is the criterion.

The distinction between criterion and decision-procedure has been acknowledged and discussed at least since Sidgwick, though it was also mentioned by earlier ethicists. This distinction allows ethical theories to avoid wildly implausible implications. For example, if the standard that the theory recommends is ‘promote the good’ it would be a mistake to think that ‘promote the good’ needs to be part of the agent’s deliberation. The consequentialist might say that, instead, it is an empirical issue as to what the theory is going to recommend as a decision-procedure, and that recommendation could vary from context to context. There will surely be circumstances in which it would be best to think in terms of meeting the standard itself, but again that is an empirical issue. Likewise, it is open to a Virtue Ethicist to hold that the right action is the one the virtuous agent would perform in the circumstances, but also hold that the agent’s deliberative processes need not make reference to the standard. Pretty much all theories will want to make some space between the standard and the decision-procedure in order to avoid a requirement that agent’s must think in terms of the correct standard, in order to act rightly, or even act with moral worth. There is a distinction to be made between doing the right thing, and doing the right thing for the right reasons . Doing the right thing for the right reasons makes the action a morally worthy one, as it exhibits a good quality of the will. It is possible for a theory to hold that the ‘good will’ is one that understands the underlying justification of an action, but that seems overly demanding. If consequentialism is the correct theory, then demanding that people must explicitly act intentionally to maximize the good would result in fewer morally worthy actions than seems plausible. The ‘for the right reasons’ must be understood as allowing for no explicit invocation of the true justifying standard.

This has led to the development of theories that advocate indirection. First, we need to distinguish two ways that indirection figures into moral philosophy.

Indirection in evaluation of right action.
Indirection in that the theory does not necessarily advocate the necessity of aiming for the right action.

To use Utilitarianism as an example again, Rule Utilitarianism is an example of the first sort of indirection (Hooker 2000), Sophisticated Consequentialism is an example of the second sort of indirection (Railton 1984). One might hold that some versions of Aristotelian Virtue ethics, such as Rosalind Hursthouse’s version, also are of the first type, since right action is understood in terms of virtue. One could imagine an indirect consequentialist view with a similar structure: the right action is the action that the virtuous person would perform, where virtue is understood as a trait conducive to the good, instead of by appeal to an Aristotelian notion of human flourishing.

The second sort relies on the standard/decision-procedure distinction. Railton argues that personal relationships are good for people, and explicitly trying to maximize the good is not a part of our relationship norms, so it is likely good that we develop dispositions to focus on and pay special attention to our loved ones. The account is open to the possibility that people who don’t believe in consequentialism have another way of deciding how to act that is correlated with promotion of the good. If the criteria a theory sets out need not be fulfilled by the agent guiding herself with the reasons set out by the criteria, then it is termed self-effacing . When a theory is self-effacing, it has the problem of alienating a person from the justification of her own actions. A middle ground, which is closer to Railton’s view, holds that the correct justification is a kind of “touchstone” to the morally good person – consulted periodically for self-regulation, but not taken explicitly into consideration in our ordinary, day-to-day lives. In this way, the theory would not be utterly self-effacing and the agent would still understand the moral basis for her own actions.

Alicke, Mark, David Rose and Dori Bloom, 2011, “Causation, Norm Violation, and Culpable Control,” Journal of Philosophy , 108(12): 670–696.
Annas, Julia, 2011, Intelligent Virtue , New York: Oxford University Press.
Arpaly, Nomy, 2002, Unprincipled Virtue , New York: Oxford University Press.
Baier, Annette, 1985, Postures of the Mind , Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Baron, Marcia, 1991, “Impartiality and Friendship,” Ethics , 101(4): 836–857.
–––, 1995, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Clarke, Stanley G, 1987, “Anti-Theory in Ethics,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 24(3): 237–244.
D’Arms, Justin and Daniel Jacobson, 2000 , “The Moralistic Fallacy: On the ‘Appropriateness’ of Emotions,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 61(1): 65–90.
Darwall, Stephen, 2006, The Second-Person Standpoint , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dreier, Jamie, 1993, “Structures of Normative Theories,” The Monist , 76(1): 22–40.
Driver, Julia, 2012, “What the Objective Standard is Good For,” in Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, 28–44.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foot, Philippa, 1967, “Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect,” Oxford Review , 5: 5–15.
Graham, Peter, 2010, “In Defense of Objectivism About Moral Obligation,” Ethics , 121(1): 88–115.
Hare, R. M., 1965, Freedom and Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
Herman, Barbara, 1985, “The Practice of Moral Judgment,” Journal of Philosophy , 82(8): 414–436.
Hill, jr., Thomas E., 1987, “The Importance of Autonomy,” in Eva Kittay and Diana Meyers (ed.) Women and Moral Theory , Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 129–138.
Hooker, Brad, 2000, Ideal Code, Real World , New York: Oxford University Press.
Hurka, Thomas, 2001, Virtue, Vice, and Value , New York: Oxford University Press.
Hursthouse, Rosalind, 1999, On Virtue Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, Frank, 1991, “Decision-theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection,” Ethics , 101(3): 461–482.
Jeske, Diane, 2008, Rationality and Moral Theory: How Intimacy Generates Reasons , New York: Routledge.
Joyce, Richard, 2001, The Myth of Morality , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keas, Michael, 2018, “Systematizing the Theoretical Virtues,” Synthese , 195: 2761–2793.
Kagan, Shelley, 1989, The Limits of Morality , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kamm, Frances, 2007, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1785 [2012], Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , tr. by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmerman, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Knobe, Joshua, 2003, “Intentional Action in Folk Psychology: An Experimental Investigation,” Philosophical Psychology , 16(2): 309–325.
Kripke, Saul, 1982, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Languages , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Louden, Robert, 1990, “Virtue Ethics and Anti-Theory,” Philosophia , 20(1–2): 93–114.
Markovits, Julia, 2014, Moral Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
Mason, Elinor, 2003, “Consequentialism and the ‘Ought Implies Can’ Principle,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 40(4): 319–331.
–––, 2019, Ways to Be Blameworthy: Rightness, Wrongness, and Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
McDowell, John, 1979, “Virtue and Reason,” The Monist , 62(3): 331–350.
Moody-Adams, Michelle, 2002, Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, Culture, and Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, G. E., 1903 [1993], Principia Ethica , ed. Thomas Baldwin, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Nagel, Thomas, 1979, “The Fragmentation of Value,” in Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press, 128–141.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1887 [1998], On the Genealogy of Morality , Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swensen (trans.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Norcross, Alastair, 2020, Morality By Degrees , New York: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Jonas, 2004, “Buck-Passing and the Wrong Kind of Reasons,” Philosophical Quarterly , 54(215): 295–300.
Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pettit, Phillip, 1997, “The Consequentialist Perspective,” in The Three Methods of Ethics , by Marcia Baron, Phillip Pettit, and Michael Slote, Oxford: Blackwell, 92–174.
Pettit, Phillip, and Michael Smith, 2000, “Global Consequentialism,” in Brad Hooker, et al. (eds.), Morality, Rules, and Consequences , Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 121–133.
Phillips, David, 2019, Rossian Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Piper, Adrian, 1987, “Moral Theory and Moral Alienation,” Journal of Philosophy , 82(2): 102–118.
Portmore, Douglas, 2011, Commonsense Consequentialism , New York: Oxford University Press.
Rabinowicz, Wlodek and Toni Ronnow-Rasmussen, 2004, “The Strike of the Demon: on Fitting Pro-Attitudes and Value,” Ethics , 114(3): 391–423.
Railton, Peter, 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 13(2): 134–171.
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Scanlon, T. M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
–––, 2008, Moral Dimensions , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, Samuel, 1982, The Rejection of Consequentialism , New York: Oxford University Press.
Schneewind, J. B., 1963, “First Principles and Common-sense Morality in Sidgwick’s Ethics,” Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie , 45(2): 137–156.
–––, 1990, “The Misfortunes of Virtue,” Ethics , 101(1): 42–63.
Schofield, Paul, 2021, Duty to Self: Moral, Political, and Legal Self-Relation , New York: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya, 2000, “Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason,” The Journal of Philosophy , 47(9): 477–502.
Sidgwick, Henry, 1874 [1907], The Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan. [The seventh edition was published in 1907.]
Singer, Marcus, 1986, “Ethics and Common Sense,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie , 40(158): 221–258.
Slote, Michael, 1985, Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism , New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
–––, 2007, The Ethics of Care and Empathy , New York: Routledge.
Smith, Holly, 2018, Making Morality Work , New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Michael, 2009, “Two Kinds of Consequentialism,” Philosophical Issues , 19(1): 257–272.
Stark, Cynthia, 1997, “Decision Procedures, Standards of Rightness and Impartiality,” Noûs , 31(4): 478–495.
Stocker, Michael, 1976, “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories,” Journal of Philosophy , 73(14): 453–466.
Strawson, Peter, 1961, “Social Morality and Individual Ideal,” Philosophy , 36(136): 1–17.
Street, Sharon, 2006, “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value,” Philosophical Studies , 127(1): 109–166.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1976, “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” The Monist , 59(2): 204–217.
Wiland, Eric J, “The Incoherence Objection in Moral Theory,” Acta Analytica , 25(3): 279–284.
Williams, Bernard, 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy , New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, Susan, 1982, “Moral Saints,” Journal of Philosophy , 79(8): 419–439.
–––, 2014, “Loving Attention: Lessons in Love from The Philadelphia Story ,” in Susan Wolf and Christopher Grau (eds.), Understanding Love: Philosophy, Film, and Fiction , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 369–386.
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkhaus, 2017, Exemplarist Moral Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

consequentialism | ethics: deontological | ethics: virtue | morality, definition of | value theory

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.6.1: Ethical Theories

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 95642

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

(NOTE: You must read only those linked materials that are preceded by the capitalized word READ .)

If Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed and cannot provide for a basis for moral society for humans on planet earth, then what is to provide that basis?

What would provide a basis for universal moral codes?

=======================================================

On Morality by Lowell Kleiman

If by "morality" we mean a code of conduct that is universally valid, then the basic issue in the study of ethics is, is there a universally valid code of conduct? Are there rules of behavior that prescribe how a person should conduct him or herself in all places and all times? For example, when anybody adds 2 + 2 the result should be 4. If any other answer is obtained, the person made a mistake. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, or 3 or anything other than 4. To say otherwise reveals an ignorance of addition, not an alternative but equally valid code of mathematics.

The rules of mathematics are universally valid. The same rule, for example, 12 + 19 = 31, tells us how to add, whether we are living on Long Island or Timbuktoo, in the late 20th century or the 4th century B. C. An Izbekustany peasant who counts 12 goats on this side of the pasture and 19 goats on that side of the pasture, concluding that there are 32 goats in the pasture, makes the same mathematical error as an instructor at Suffolk Community College who counts 12 students on this side of the room, 19 students on that side of the room, concluding that there are 32 students in the room. That the peasant and instructor live several thousand miles apart, are brought up in different cultures, are of different ethnic backgrounds, subscribe to different religious and political traditions, is irrelevant in determining the rights and wrongs of their behavior. The only relevant considerations are whether they are using the correct rule and whether they are applying that rule in the correct way. For example, if either instructor or peasant thinks that 12 + 19 = 32, then one of them does not know arithmetic, and the other does not know how to count.

The same is true of morality. Just as any proposed rule of addition that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of mathematics, so any proposed rule of conduct that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of morality. For example, cultures that have practiced incest, ritual human sacrifice, matricide, patricide, slavery or female sexual mutilation are immoral since their creeds are not universally valid. Clearly, mutilation, slavery or any of these other modes of conduct are not valid here, certainly not at Suffolk Community College, certainly not on Long Island, New York State, California, the mid-west, Canada, Mexico, or any part of any country or state that comprises the civilized world. Just as 2 + 2 does not = 5, so sexual mutilation does not = morality.

It may be objected that the argument above makes us, students and teachers of Suffolk Community College, residents of Long Island, citizens of New York State, of the United States, followers and proponents of Western Civilization, arbiters of right and wrong. We are imposing our values on the rest of the world, or at least on those few countries, such as Libya and the Sudan where slavery and mutilation are practiced. We are judging people by standards that are not their own; we are committing the "ethnocentric fallacy."

Perhaps we are. Perhaps we have no right to condemn killing, maiming, brutalizing and destroying when other people do these things. Perhaps our beliefs about right and wrong are limited, provincial, naive, uninformed. Maybe slavery for others is not so bad after all; perhaps child abuse for other people's children should be encouraged; murder in other societies condoned, rape in foreign countries commended. Perhaps we must rethink our beliefs about right and wrong. Maybe we don't know the difference.

But if we don't know what we think we know, how can we be certain, how can anyone be sure, that aside from mathematics, there is no universally valid code of conduct? If we don't know that incest was wrong among the ancients, then we don't know that it is wrong today. Aside from the fact that the Egyptians who practiced incest lived many years ago, the act itself has not changed since then. Nor has rape, enslavement, mutilation or murder. If we cannot condemn the acts of others, then neither can we condemn the same acts when performed by those among us. And if we cannot condemn our own rapists and murderers, then rape and murder, and all the rest, are not just to be condoned for others, but condoned for everyone. So there is a universally valid code of conduct, although it seems very different from what we naively take it to be. The question is, which code is correct, the one that condemns ritual mutilation, or the one that condones it? To answer that question we must turn away from the theory of normative ethical relativism.

=====================================

If the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed then what is the alternative. Can there be an ethics? Can there be a basis for moral rule making? Since Socrates Philosophers have sought that basis in REASON. All humans have reason and if through the use of reason certain principles of ethics, the principle of the GOOD, can be discerned or discovered, then all humans would have contact with the basis for the moral life that all cultures and societies need. Plato believed he had found those principles. After him several others in the West have reached similar conclusions concerning the existence of principles that might have universal application. Unfortunately, they have not all agreed as to what those principles are.

There are some fundamental distinctions to be made in the approaches taken to thinking about the GOOD. What makes something, an action, GOOD? Is it something in the act or in the intention behind the act? Is it the result of the act or what is in the act itself?

There is a terrorist with a gun pointed at a group of innocent hostages being held by the terrorists. There is the declaration that he will kill them. Someone nearby has a gun and points it at the terrorist and shots. The would-be hero misses the target and kills one of the innocent hostages. No is the act of the would-be hero good or bad. Is it the intention behind the act or the result of the act that makes it good or bad?

If something is good is it good because of what it is or because of what it results in?

Intrinsic vs. instrumental value

Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good ``in and of itself,'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring something else.

Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value.

Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics

There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the source of value: consquentialist and non-consequentialist.

A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism--``that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number'' (Jeremy Bentham).

A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences.

Libertarianism--People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.

Contractarianism--No policy that causes uncompensated harm on anyone is permitted (Pareto safety).

Consider these Definitions:

READ: Teleological Theories :Consequentialist Approach

READ: Deontological Theories: Non-Consequentialist Approach

In the next few sections we shall cover these theories and their advantages and disadvantages or their weaknesses and problems.

There is a third approach that originates with the Greeks and can be found in the East as well. It is Virtue Ethics

VIRTUE ETHICS== eudaimonia

Neither Teleological nor a Deontological approach

Not based on principles at all but on virtues

VIEW: Aristotle & Virtue Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ 9:20

VIEW: Ethics Defined: Virtue Ethics 1:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMblKpkKYao

View: what is virtue ethics (philosophical definition)4:56 https://www.youtube.com/watchv=jpv2kswmrfc, read: virtue ethics - - character-based ethics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/virtue.shtml

Suggested Reference Works:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/

https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html

READ Dallas Roark On VALUES and ETHICS

Thinking Ethically

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Ethics Resources
Ethical Decision Making

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is ; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Which course of action advances the common good?

Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — Ethical Theories: Virtue And Utilitarian Ethics

Ethical Theories: Virtue and Utilitarian Ethics

Categories: Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1746 |

Published: May 24, 2022

Words: 1746 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Duignan, B. R., & West, H. R. (2020, January 24). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
Fieser, J. (2017, January 9). From Moral Issues that Divide Us. Retrieved from https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/1-ethical-theory.htm
Makarenko, J. (2007, January 1). Ethics in Government: Concepts, Issues & Debates. Retrieved from https://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/ethics-government-concepts-issues- debates
Regoli, N. (2019, March 27). 13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Utilitarianism Theory. Retrieved from https://greengarageblog.org/13-advantages-and-disadvantages-of- utilitarianism-theory
Savulescu, J. (2015, November 15). Why I Am Not a Utilitarian. Retrieved from http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/11/why-i-am-not-a-utilitarian/

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 520 words

3 pages / 1447 words

7 pages / 3071 words

1 pages / 610 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics

In Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of the most memorable characters is Atticus Finch, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus's decision to take on this [...]

The case of Baby Theresa, a newborn born with anencephaly in 1992, ignited a profound ethical debate regarding organ donation, the definition of death, and the boundaries of medical intervention. This essay delves into the [...]

Being a responsible person means taking the necessary steps to ensure that one is doing the right thing in the right way. It involves being accountable for one's actions and making wise considerations when faced with difficult [...]

Utilitarianism is a prominent ethical theory that has influenced moral philosophy for centuries. In this essay, we will explore the definition and history of utilitarianism, examining its association with renowned philosophers [...]

In ethics, ethical relativism is one of the most controversial topics. In fact, many known ethicists reject and completely neglect the theory. They believe that even though moral practices in societies may differ, the [...]

The consequence decided the action of the person. The actions are justifiable based on the results of that action (Gregory, S. 2018). The more good consequence can an act produce the better it is. As mentioned, I was put under [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

IMAGES

Three Main Ethical Theories
Normative Ethical Theories Essay Example
Ethical Principles for Research (600 Words)
Business And Society Application Of Ethical Theories Commerce Essay
Meta-ethical theories ESSAY PLANS- Philosophy & Ethics A Level OCR
Business Ethics Essay

VIDEO

CSR
ETHICAL THEORIES
Secular Ethical Theories
Normative Ethical Theories Part 1
Ethical Issues in Research
Class 2 Ethical Issues in Counseling / Psychotherapy Practice

COMMENTS

376 Ethical Topics & Questions for Research Papers, Essays, Debates
Here is a list of ethical environmental topics for research: Ethical responsibility for climate change for future generations. Sea dumping: legal and ethical issues. The role of environmental justice in urban planning. Ethical considerations in the use and disposal of plastics.
180 Ethics Topics & Ethical Questions to Debate
🖥️ Computer Ethics Essay Topics. The advent of information technology has altered every aspect of our lives. Computer ethics applies traditional moral theories to everything surrounding computers and cyber security. The list below contains enthralling ethical topics concerned with the realm of computing.
177 Best Ethics Paper Topics
In academia, an ethical theory is used as one of the analytical tools in drawing analysis on several socio-cultural topics. Ethics can be applied to any particular subject matter in human society. And, on this, so many compelling, controversial or interesting ethical topics for academic essays and research papers have continued to spring up.
627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Start with choosing an issue you want to discuss in the paper. Some good ethics essay topics and examples we can suggest are: The aspects of utilitarianism as an ethical theory. Ethical dilemmas in the field of healthcare. Theories that explain human behavior. The significance of the personal code of ethics.
221 Ethical Dilemma Topics & Essay Samples
221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples. Updated: Feb 28th, 2024. 24 min. An ethical dilemma essay has become an essential part of education for many professions that involve working with people. Below, we've collected topics for writing a paper on this subject. We will write.
Ethical Theories Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Ethical Theories. Describe in detail. Teleological, deontological, and virtue ethics: A comparison. Teleological ethics are also called consequence-based ethics. Teleological ethical systems emphasize the results of ethical decisions, versus the moral principles behind such decisions. Utilitarianism is an excellent example of teleological ...
12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers
40 Writing Topics for Argumentative and Persuasive Essays. By Richard Nordquist. Courage can come in subtle forms, and that can include reporting seeing someone cheat on a test. Cheating on a test might not seem like such a big deal; perhaps you've cheated on a test yourself. But it is against the policies of schools and universities worldwide.
75 Ethical Essay Topics for College Students
The duty-based studies often relate to the so-called principle of the thing. Virtue ethics. If a person lives by following the virtue and possesses it too, it is considered as good. A right act is seen as the action of an individual that remains the same in any situation. Situation ethics.
Moral Theory
There is much disagreement about what, exactly, constitutes a moral theory. Some of that disagreement centers on the issue of demarcating the moral from other areas of practical normativity, such as the ethical and the aesthetic. Some disagreement centers on the issue of what a moral theory's aims and functions are. In this entry, both questions will be addressed.
7.6.1: Ethical Theories
Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics. There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the source of value: consquentialist and non-consequentialist. A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has.
Ethical Theory Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
PAGES 2 WORDS 597. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice developed as a cohesive field in the late twentieth century, with the establishment of the Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Journal, in 1998. The theory therefore represents a culmination of scholarly thought and analysis in the fields of philosophy, sociology, and psychology.
Ethical Theories: Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, and Deontology
Virtue Ethics is an ethical theory that places emphasis on the character of the moral agent. It is distinct from other ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and deontology, because it focuses on the development of the individual's character and understanding of the virtues that make up good character. This theory holds that a good and moral ...
PDF A Guide to Writing in Ethical Reasoning 15
plausible answer to a question among a set of alternative answers to the same question. Such alternative answers can appear in your essay as counterarguments. Each time you address a counterargument, your thesis becomes more plausible, since you have eliminated one of the possible alternative answers to your question. 2.
Ethical theories
Hence, ethical theories endeavor to be comprehensible and methodical enough to be able to provide answers to the most essential practical ethical questions. In most circumstances ethical theories are the foundation for ethical principles and whenever actions are being defended upon, by business people it is common to find the principles and not ...
Case Studies
More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.
Ethical Theories: Explanation and Examples
Examples of Ethical Theories. Utilitarianism: This represents Consequentialism because it looks at the outcome of actions. A utilitarian decision, like when a government decides to spend money on vaccines to save many lives instead of funding a few large sports stadiums, is judged good because it creates the greatest happiness for the largest ...
Thinking Ethically
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals. The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.
Ethical Considerations in Research
Revised on May 9, 2024. Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people. The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments ...
Applied ethics
25 mark essay questions. For 25 mark questions on applied ethics you additionally need to be able to evaluate the judgement made on the applied ethics topics by normative/meta-ethical theories. The question could be whether applied ethics topic X is right/wrong. Your answer/conclusion could be: It is right/wrong to X; It is not right/wrong to X
Ethics
The term ethics may refer to the philosophical study of the concepts of moral right and wrong and moral good and bad, to any philosophical theory of what is morally right and wrong or morally good and bad, and to any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values. The last may be associated with particular religions, cultures, professions, or virtually any other group that is at least ...
Ethical Theories: Virtue and Utilitarian Ethics
Virtue Ethics emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves. Deontology and consequentialism are two ethical theories and or philosophies that are associated closely with virtue ethics. In my understanding virtue ethics is a moral philosophy that emphasizes the role of ...
Essays In Ethical Theory
Abstract. In this volume, R. M. Hare has collected a number of essays which fill in the theoretical background of his thought and which together give an overall picture of his views on a variety of questions. Each essay is self-contained, and topics covered include the objectivity and rationality of moral thinking, the issue between the ethical ...
Exploring Ethical Theories: Perspectives on Substantive Ethical Questions
Ethical theories help us to understand and resolve sticky moral issues. This essay is devoted to exploring the following three substantive ethical questions in light of different isolated and social-individual ethics theories. The isolated-individual style encompasses utilitarianism, egoism, and deontological ethics, while the social-individual framework includes ethics of care and virtue ...
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development: Understanding Ethical Growth in
Essay Example: Embarking on an odyssey through the intricate labyrinth of ethical maturation, we delve into the profound insights unveiled by Lawrence Kohlberg's pioneering exploration of moral development. With each twist and turn of the human psyche, Kohlberg's theory unfurls a rich tapestry
Integrity: The Cornerstone of Trust and Moral Character
Essay Example: Integrity, a frequently debated yet sometimes enigmatic concept, surpasses mere veracity or candor. At its essence, integrity embodies an unwavering dedication to moral and ethical precepts, demonstrated through consistent deeds, values, methodologies, assessments, and principles
The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty
Essay Example: One of the most contentious issues in the fields of criminal justice and human rights is still the death penalty. Many contemporary nations are debating the morality, effectiveness, and ramifications of the death penalty despite its historical roots. There are many reasons why
Embarking on the Cognitive Odyssey: Piaget's Four Realms of Mental
Essay Example: Venturing into the labyrinthine corridors of cognitive development, we encounter the seminal work of Jean Piaget, an intellectual architect who forged a path through the intricacies of the human mind. His theory of cognitive development serves as a beacon, illuminating the journey
Opinion
Judge David Tatel of the D.C. Circuit emphasized this fundamental principle in 2019 when his court issued a writ of mandamus to force recusal of a military judge who blithely ignored at least the ...
Understanding Human Behavior through the Lens of Albert Bandura's
This essay about Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory explains how human behavior is learned through observing and imitating others. It highlights key processes such as attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. The essay discusses the impact of role models, vicarious reinforcement, and self-efficacy on behavior.
Samuel Alito, His Wife and the Ginsburg Standard
Judicial ethics experts led by Stephen Gillers filed a brief defending Reinhardt on grounds that his wife's "opinions, views, and public pronouncements of support for the district court ...