Claudia Fernández ESSAY 2:

NORMATIVE
ETHICS
Questioni di Filoso-ia Morale
So-ia Bonicalzi

Claudia Fernandez Villamayor

UUNIVERSITÀ ROMA TRE
NORMATIVE ETHICS
CLAUDIA FERNÁNDEZ VILLAMAYOR

INDEX:
1. Introduction to normative ethics
2. Teleological ethics or consecuencialism
3. Virtue ethics
4. Deontology
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
 1. INTRODUCTION TO NORMATIVE ETHICS

Ethics are composed of three subcategories that are interrelated and complement each
other. First, we find applied ethics, this addresses particular ethical problems such as
justice, abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. Secondly, we find normative ethics, which
is quite related, but instead of focusing on specific problems of morality, it tries to
discover and analyze the general rules and principles that guide our behaviors, developing
general theories of ethics such as utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative, virtue
ethics, etc. These provide frameworks and theories to address the problems that arise in
applied ethics. Finally, metaethics is something very different from the two that you just
mentioned, since it addresses questions such as the meaning of moral statements, whether
they can be true or false, whether objective moral facts exist, whether morality is universal
or false. relative, etc. We are not really addressing moral issues as such, for example,
whether abortion is right or not, but rather we are going to ask what it means to say
whether abortion is right or not, what these statements express. In short, it tries to make
an examination of ethics from a bird's eye view, with perspective, questioning the very
project of ethics and exploring its limits, it deals with the nature of moral language itself.

In this essay I will focus on normative ethics, which, as we have just seen, emphasizes
describing what people should consider good or bad. The theories of ethical or moral
philosophy can be distinguished according to the criteria of their bases for the
determination of moral good. The latter can be determined by the consequences
(teleological ethics or consequentialism), by the behavioral dispositions, character traits
and virtues (virtue ethics), by the intention of the agent (disposition ethics), by the
objectives towards moral facts , as the objective of moral evaluations about property or
action (deontological ethics), or for the optimization of the interests of the person or a
specific group (preference ethics, utilitarian ethics, ethics of happiness or eudaimonia, or
ethics of wellness). Within this normative ethics, what is related to what should be good
and what should be considered bad is studied and analyzed. Normative ethics studies both
the present and the facts that in the past were considered good or bad and now this
nomination and its implications need to be reviewed.
Normative ethics, therefore, tries to answer the basic question about which ethical
statements are correct or true or valid and why. It is an investigation aimed at establishing
and defending as valid or true a complete and simplified set of general ethical principles
(that is, that are universal), and also some less general principles that are important for
what we could call "providing the foundation “ethical” of the most important human
institutions. Normative ethics is responsible for reviewing the ethical statements that have
been throughout history regulating, in one way or another, the behavior of human beings
that is maintained, and which are not, and which are necessary to leave their existence
behind and that they stop being general.

Normative ethics is, therefore, the study of ethical action, of that behavior that human
beings have and that they have defined, of those principles that they have established in
their life that have been building and transforming them.

Normative ethics does not have as its object of study how we act, nor even the question
of whether we are free to act. Instead, it explores the question of how we should live or
how we should act. For example, is lying allowed? Some will think never while others
will think it depends on the situation. Normative ethics will not focus on the answer to
this question itself, but on how we philosophically justify the answer we give. Try to
respond, not from a moralizing perspective, classifying acts as good or bad, but from a
philosophical justification perspective, how we justify whether an act is good or bad. In
any situation that we want to study and analyze from a moral point of view we find three
interrelated elements: the agent who is the one who acts, the act which is what he does
and the consequences that are the result of the act performed.

So how do we justify whether an act is good or bad? In contemporary normative ethics,

three theories coexist that try to provide an answer to this question, each from a
perspective taking as priority one of these three elements: virtue ethics (the agent,
especially his moral character), deontology (the act performed in relation to a moral law)
or consequentialism or teleological ethics (the consequences of the act performed)

Let's suppose that we want to justify the non-permissibility of lying and let's analyze how
we would justify it from three different ethical perspectives. From virtue ethics, lying is
prohibited because whoever issues it becomes a lying person. My conduct must be aligned
with that of a virtuous individual, and it is undeniable that virtue does not include lying.
From deontology, lying is prohibited because it is a morally incorrect act, prohibited by
fundamental ethical principles. From consequentialism, lying is not allowed because its
consequences always carry negative aspects, even if we do not perceive it at first glance.

As can be seen, the three theories do not necessarily disagree in the specific advice they
offer regarding our actions: they can all maintain that lying is not allowed or that it is in
certain circumstances. Instead, the three theories of normative ethics differ in the way
they justify moral evaluations: virtue ethics prioritizes the moral agent and his character;
Deontology gives priority to the act in relation to the moral law; and consequentialism
gives priority to the consequences of the act, that is, to what results from it.

2. TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS OR CONSECUENCIALISM

Consequentialism maintains that the morality of an action depends solely on its

consequences, that is, we could describe it with Machiavelli's famous phrase that the deen
justifies the means. This is not something exclusive to stocks, but it is true that these are
the most prominent and clearest example. Believing that morality aims to generate the
greatest amount of happiness possible, or to try to have as much freedom as possible, or
to promote and promote the survival of our species, is a series of positions that support
the consequentialist position. Although these beliefs differ as to what type of
consequences should occur, they all conclude and agree that the important thing is the
consequences. The good always comes before the right, in contrast to deontological ethics
where the right comes before the good.

Consequentialists promote values. The agent will find himself with a wide range of option
possibilities that he has to act on, and all the ways of forecasting with respect to those
options, he will choose the one that best promotes the value that we want to promote, and
in turn, the one that best fulfills good before right. Therefore, when carrying out an action
the consequences that I produce are good, despite if my action is bad, my behavior will
not be blameworthy.
There are different currents of thought within consequentialism, which as we have seen
are distinguished depending on what consequences are intended to be achieved. A thought
is configured in which an action will be morally correct if it generates positive
consequences, if, on the contrary, it does not produce any positive consequences for those
around us, it will be called moral egoism, that is, I think about doing the morally correct
thing but only if it brings me to myself some kind of benefit. Moral altruism will,
therefore, be actions considered good that produce the good of others, without taking into
account the agent, that is, before looking at my own benefit, I look at the benefit of others.
Finally, we find utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of
people.

As we have seen, some of the currents are moral egoism, moral altruism or utilitarianism.
Moral egoism is an ethical theory that maintains that morally correct actions are those
that maximize the moral agent's own benefit. According to this view, each individual
should act in his or her own interest, without regard to the needs or interests of others,
unless doing so benefits him or her in some way. Moral egoism considers that a person's
fundamental moral duty is to pursue his or her own happiness and well-being, even at the
expense of others. From this perspective, any action that promotes one's own interests
and well-being is considered morally justified, while those that may harm them are
considered morally wrong.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that holds that an action is morally right
if it produces the greatest amount of happiness or well-being for the greatest number of
people affected by it. This theory is based on the principle of well-being or utility
maximization, where well-being is understood as the satisfaction of individuals' desires,
interests or preferences. According to utilitarianism, a person's moral duty is to act in a
way that maximizes total utility in a given situation. This involves evaluating the
consequences of actions and choosing the one that produces the greatest positive balance
of happiness over suffering. Utilitarianism can be classified in several ways, including act
utilitarianism (which evaluates the morality of each individual action) and rule
utilitarianism (which establishes general rules whose following maximizes utility).

Finally, moral altruism is an ethical perspective that maintains that morally correct actions
are those that benefit others, even if this involves sacrificing one's own interests or well-
being. From this perspective, a person's moral duty is to act for the benefit of others, even
if this involves personal cost. Moral altruism is based on the idea that all people have
intrinsic value and that it is important to promote the well-being of others and help them
achieve their goals and aspirations. This ethical theory values compassion, empathy, and
solidarity as fundamental moral virtues and seeks to create a more just and equitable
world through altruistic actions.

3. VIRTUE ETHICS

This is a theory that dates back to Socrates and Plato, and more articulately, to Aristotle,
who maintains that an action is ethically correct if doing it would be appropriate for a
virtuous person. Aristotle expands on the notion of his teachers, and describes virtue as
an action. Consider that virtue represents the excellence inherent in our essential part, the
soul. Therefore, he differentiates between the virtues of the soul, also known as
intellectual virtues, and the virtues of the will, or ethical virtues. For Aristotle, it is not
enough to just know the good; It is equally crucial to desire it and carry it out.

In essence, virtue refers to our intrinsic disposition, starting from the fundamental
question: How should it be? instead of What should I do? Virtue involves acting in
accordance with our faculty of reasoning, and the search for truth stands as the ideal of
the virtuous life. Discernment between good and evil is established in terms of adhering
to traditional virtues, which cultivates goodness in the person and leads to the most
satisfying and happy life. For Aristotle, ethical knowledge is not limited to a theoretical
understanding; It is necessary to cultivate virtuous habits and put into practice morally
virtuous actions. Virtue is defined as the acquired and habitual capacity to act correctly in
moral terms, being a quality of the will that promotes one's own well-being and that of
others.

Virtue is a habit that human beings must acquire voluntarily, and that we must carry out
through learning and repeating good acts. Therefore, virtue ethics involves developing
virtues. Because what makes us moral and prepares us for happiness is precisely this
habitual, day-to-day practice of ethical virtues.
For example, if for utilitarianism we must help the needy because this increases general
well-being, for deontology we must do it because it is our duty, well for virtue ethics we
must do it because helping the needy would be charitable and benevolent. .
Virtue is the attribute that makes us individuals of worth. It is imperative to reflect and
act with kindness, as this gives us the dignity to pursue happiness and differentiates us
from everything else.

4. DEONTOLOGY

Deontology can be defined as the normative theory according to which there are certain
actions that should be carried out, and others which should not be carried out, regardless
of the positive or negative consequences they may have, thus contrasting
consequentialism. That is, it defends that there are certain duties and obligations that must
be fulfilled beyond their consequences, being in a certain way related to the norm or the
law. For example “you should not steal.” This ethics is not concerned with what type of
people we want to become, nor is it concerned with what type of life it would be desirable
to live, but rather it is concerned with what laws and norms we must obey.

As we have seen, it focuses on the moral duties and obligations inherent in actions,
regardless of their consequences. Instead of evaluating the morality of an action based on
its results, as consequentialism does, deontological ethics focuses on the intention behind
the action and compliance with certain moral principles or rules. The term "deontology"
comes from the Greek "deon", meaning duty, and "logos", meaning study or science.
Therefore, deontology refers to the study of moral duties or obligations. This ethical
theory suggests that there are universal moral rules or principles that must be followed
regardless of particular circumstances or consequences.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the main exponents of deontological ethics,
creating his own Kantian ethics. In his approach, he highlights the concept of "categorical
imperative", which is an absolute moral rule that must be followed at all times. Kant
argues that actions are morally right if they are done out of duty, that is, if they are done
because they are the right thing to do according to a universal moral principle, and not
simply for convenience or personal benefit.
Deontological ethics are often based on the idea that human beings have intrinsic dignity
and that certain rights and duties are inherent to that dignity. For example, respect for the
autonomy and dignity of others is considered a fundamental principle in deontological
ethics, and actions that violate these principles are considered morally wrong, regardless
of the positive consequences they may have.

In summary, deontological ethics focuses on the fulfillment of universal moral duties and
obligations and maintains that the morality of an action is determined by the following of
certain ethical principles or rules, regardless of the consequences that may result from
them.

5. CONCLUSION

Returning to the different ethics, each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. In
the case of teleological ethics or consequentialism, it precisely offers us concrete content
to carry out or try to achieve a happy life. It favors the approach of a vital project that can
serve as guidance for our decisions. On the contrary, it can be dangerous since if what
matters is the end and not the means, the situation may arise of having to carry out actions
such as stealing, killing and a long etcetera that can be really questionable by most people.
humans and common sense. Furthermore, other ethics, such as those of duty
(deontological), affect the fulfillment of a duty that we freely impose on ourselves,
fostering a sense of responsibility and commitment. Normative ethics are essential for
human and social development. Specifically, teleological ethics allows us to set objectives
with ourselves, in life, with studies, in the family, at work or as citizens, allowing us to
develop in the best way, it being important to keep in mind that these objectives must be
under what is considered good or correct, true or logically valid in the society in which
we find ourselves.

While teleological ethics, as we have seen, are directed to the end or objective, to what I
want to achieve. Deontological ethics are related to duty. We can divide them into two
classes: intentional deontological theories and current deontological theories. On the one
hand, in intentional ones, the consequences of our actions do not serve to consider them
as good or bad, as correct or incorrect, since that would imply that there is an external law
that would enslave us. That is, we would depend on an end that is external to the human
being, which would cause us to lose our freedom. More than the consequences, what
counts is the intention. On the other hand, in the current ones, the consequences have
greater relevance than in the first, because more than a happy life, what interests this
current is the concept of what is fair. This means that to consider an action as good or bad
we must analyze whether it produces more or less justice.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

§ Carrasco Barranco, M. (2001). Algunas Objeciones al Consecuencialismo

Ético. Thémata, 27, 155-163.
§ Cejudo Córdoba, R. (2010). Deontología y consecuencialismo: un enfoque
informacional. Crítica (México, DF), 42(126), 3-24.
§ Copp, D., & Sobel, D. (2004). Morality and virtue: An assessment of some recent
work in virtue ethics. Ethics, 114(3), 514-554.
§ Dent, N. (2005). Virtue, eudaimonia and teleological ethics. In Virtue ethics and
moral education (pp. 21-34). Routledge.
§ J. Wolff (2020), An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, W. W. Norton & Company
§ P. Foot, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" in
Virtues and Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978) (originally appeared in the
Oxford Review, Number 5, 1967.)
§ Trianosky, G. (1990). What is virtue ethics all about?. American Philosophical
Quarterly, 27(4), 335-344.
§ Ward, K. (1971). Kant's teleological ethics. The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-
), 21(85), 337-351.