CORNELIA FAMILY

The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably.
However, it is useful to make the following distinction:
● Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct --
i.e., the guide to good or right conduct.
● Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
WHAT, THEN, IS A MORAL THEORY?

A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of

facts or concepts. A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or
why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine right
and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think
and discuss in a reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues.
ARE MORAL THEORIES DESCRIPTIVE OR
PRESCRIPTIVE?

In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their

everyday 'doings' and 'thinkings,' form a judgment about what is right and wrong,
or are we prescribing how people ought to make these judgments?
Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what
people do are left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they
study morality, want to know what is the proper way of determining right and
wrong. There have been many different proposals.
THEORIES OF MORALITY

1. Moral Subjectivism
Main Point: Moral Subjectivism is where right or wrong are determined by what you -- the
subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel') is right or wrong. This is simply based on your
personal assessment and judgment.
In its common form, moral subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any
significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In nature, 'right'
and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action
is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot
object to anyone's behavior. This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly
everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples'
actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.
2. Cultural Relativism
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the
relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. This is also based on the idea that
different people have different cultures that are why right or wrong is based on how one’s
culture dictates morality.
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about
what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of
moral advancement (which also seems not to be true).
3. Ethical Egoism
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your
self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism
does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but
rather that we will (ideally) act so as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate
pleasures for the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others.

However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that
the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or
because they think there will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine
altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism --
that the person who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that
the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning
through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed
possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
4. Divine Command Theory
Main Point: Right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the gods) Many claim that
there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that, without religion (in
particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong behaviour.
Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to
behave in a morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection between
morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the
gods).
This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an action is
right -- or obligatory -- if God commands us to do it, wrong if God commands we refrain from
doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done.
5. Virtue Ethics
Main Point: Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the
traditional virtues -- making a good person.

6. Feminist Ethics
Main Point: Right and wrong are to be found in women's responses to the relationship of caring.
Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male
bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories.
Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to consider the self as at least partly
constructed by social relations.
So morality, according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral
emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases
towards those with whom we have close social relationships.
7. Utilitarianism
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences
of the action.
Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas: All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end.
This is pleasure or happiness. Also, there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility',
alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal
of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP implies that we
ought to act so as to maximize human welfare. We do this in a particular instance by choosing
the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
8. Kantian Theory
Main Point: Right and wrong are determined by rationality, giving universal duties.
Basic ideas: That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in
terms of Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought
that acting morally was quite simple. That is:
1. you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).
2. Reason guides you to this conclusion.
3. Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without
qualification. So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on
Good Will. This will be further discussed in the preceding chapters.
9. Contractarianism
Main Point: The principles of right and wrong (or justice) are those which everyone in society
would agree upon in forming a social contract.
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical
contract forming procedure.
THAT’S ALL, THANK YOU