Forming communities allows us to enjoy better

lives than if we lived in isolation. Communities

prohibit certain actions and make other actions
obligatory. Those who do not conform to these
prohibitions and obligations can be punished.
Responsible community members take the
needs and desires of other people into account
when they make decisions. They recognize that
virtually everybody shares the “core values” of
life, happiness, and the ability to accomplish
Society is like a town full of people driving cars.
goals.
Morality is the road network within the town.
In this chapter, we describe the difference People ought to keep their cars on the roads.
between morality and ethics, discuss a variety Those who choose to “do ethics” are in balloons
of ethical theories, evaluate their pros and floating above the town.
cons, and show how to use the more viable
ethical theories to solve moral problems. From this perspective, an observer can
evaluate individual roads (particular moral
guidelines) as well as the quality of the entire
Terms road network (moral system).

A society is an association of people organized The observer can also judge whether individual
under a system of rules designed to advance drivers are staying on the roads (acting morally)
the good of its members over time. or taking shortcuts (acting immorally).

Every society has rules of conduct describing Finally, the observer can propose and evaluate
what people ought and ought not to do in various ways of constructing road networks
various situations. We call these rules morality. (alternative moral systems).

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, a While there may, in fact, be a definite answer
rational examination into people’s moral beliefs regarding the best way to construct and
and behavior. operate a road network, it may be difficult for
the observers to identify and agree upon this
answer, because each observer has a
different viewpoint.
Overview of Ethical Theories
The formal study of ethics goes back at least
2,400 years, to the Greek philosopher Relativism is the theory that there are no
Socrates. Socrates did not put any of his universal moral norms of right and wrong.
philosophy in writing, but his student Plato did.
According to this theory, different individuals or
In Plato’s dialogue called the Crito, imprisoned groups of people can have completely opposite
Socrates uses ethical reasoning to explain why views of a moral problem, and both can be
he ought to face an unjust death penalty rather right.
than take advantage of an opportunity to flee
into exile with his family. Two particular kinds of relativism

There are many proposed ethical theories and 1. subjective relativism

we're going to examine some of them. In this 2. cultural relativism
chapter, we consider nine ethical theories - Subjective relativism holds that each person
nine frameworks for moral decision making. decides right and wrong for himself or herself.
The workable theories will be those that make This notion is captured in the popular
it possible for a person to present a expression, “What’s right for you may not be
persuasive, logical argument to a diverse right for me.”
audience of skeptical, yet open-minded people. *Holds the idea that each individual person
decides what is right or wrong for themselves
The Case for Subjective Relativism
Nine Ethical Theories to
be discussed in this lesson: 1. Well-meaning and intelligent people may
have opposite opinions about moral issues
1. Subject Relativism • For example, the issue of legal abortion in
2. Cultural Relativism the United States. There are a number
3. Divine Command Theory of rational people on each side of the
4. Ethical Egoism issue. Subjective realists would base their
5. Kantianism own opinion upon their morality of what
6. Act Utilitarianism they see to be right or wrong not what
society or the government claim to be
7. Rule Utilitarianism
fair and true. Instead, each of us creates
8. Social Contract Theory his or her own morality.
9. Virtue Ethics
2. Ethical debates are disagreeable and • If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with
pointless. you if some people decide they want to be
• Going back to the example of abortion, intolerant? What if a person decides that
the debate in the United States has been he will only deal fairly with people of his
going on for more than 40 years. An own racial group?
agreement about whether abortion is • Relativism is based on the idea that there
right or wrong may never be reached. are no universal moral norms, so a blanket
The Case against Subjective statement about the need for tolerance is
Relativism incompatible with subjective relativism.
4. We should not give legitimacy to an ethical
1. With subjective relativism, the line between theory that allows people to make decisions
doing what you think is right and doing what based on something other than reason.
you want to do is not sharply drawn. • If individuals decide for themselves what is
2. By allowing each person to decide right and right and what is wrong, they can reach
wrong for himself or herself, subjective their conclusions by any means they see fit.
relativism makes no moral distinction They may choose to base their decisions on
between the actions of different people. something other than logic and reason,
• The fact is that some people have caused such as the rolling of dice or the turning of
millions to suffer, while others have led tarot cards. This path is contrary to using
lives of great service to humanity. logic and reason.
• a statement of the form, “I can decide
what’s right for me, as long as my actions *If your goal is to persuade others that your
don’t hurt anyone else,” is inconsistent solutions to actual moral problems are correct,
with subjective relativism. adopting subjective relativism is self-defeating
3. Subjective relativism and tolerance are two because it is based on the idea that each
different things. person decides for himself or herself what is
right and what is wrong.
• Some people may be attracted to
relativism because they believe in *According to subjective relativism, nobody’s
tolerance (open-minded). conclusions are any more valid that anyone
• It allows individuals in a pluralistic society else’s, no matter how these conclusions are
like the United States to live in harmony. drawn. Therefore, we reject subjective
• However, tolerance is not the same thing relativism as a workable ethical theory.
as subjective relativism. Subjective
relativism holds that individuals decide for
themselves what is right and what is
wrong.
 doesn’t imply that they ought to have
different views.
2. Cultural relativism does not explain how
Cultural relativism is the ethical theory that the an individual determines the moral
meaning of “right” and “wrong” rests with a guidelines of a particular society.
society’s actual moral guidelines. 3. Cultural relativism does not explain how
to determine right from wrong when
• A particular action may be right in one
there are no cultural norms.
society at one time and wrong in other
4. Cultural relativism does not do a good
society or at another time
job of characterizing actions when
o Ex. (driving with a friend and killing a
moral guidelines evolve.
pedestrian)
5. Cultural relativism provides no
▪ (90% in Norway, 10% in Serbia, 50%
framework for reconciliation between
in Mexico will not testify)
cultures in conflict.
Case for Cultural Relativism 6. The existence of many acceptable
1. Different social contexts demand cultural practices does not imply that
different moral guidelines. any cultural practice would be
o It’s unrealistic to assume that the same acceptable.
set of moral guidelines can be expected 7. Societies do, in fact, share certain core
to work for all human societies in every values.
part of the world for all ages. 8. Cultural relativism is only indirectly
2. It is arrogant for one society to judge based on reason.
another. Cultural relativism has significant weaknesses
o We may have more technology than as a tool for ethical persuasion. According to
people in other societies, but we are cultural relativism, the ethical evaluation of a
no more intelligent than they are. It is moral problem made by a person in one society
arrogant for a person living in twenty- may be meaningless when applied to the same
first-century Italy to judge the actions moral problem in another society.
of another person who lived in the Inca
Cultural relativism suggests there are no
Empire in the fifteenth century.
universal moral guidelines. It gives tradition more
weight in ethical evaluations than facts and
The Case against Cultural Relativism reason. For these reasons, cultural relativism is
1. Just because two societies do have not a powerful tool for constructing ethical
different views about right and wrong evaluations persuasive to a diverse audience,
and we consider it no further.
 means we can talk about the good
without talking about God;

5. The divine command theory is based on

The divine command theory is based on the idea obedience, not reason.
that good actions are those aligned with the will o If good means “willed by God,” and if
of God and bad actions are those contrary to religious texts contain everything, we
the will of God. need to know about what God wills,
then there is no room left for
2.4.1 The Case for the Divine collecting and analyzing facts.
Command Theory
1. We owe obedience to our Creator.
2. God is all-good and all-knowing. Ethical egoism is the philosophy that each
3. God is the ultimate authority. person should focus exclusively on his or her
o our moral laws should be based on self-interest.
God’s directions to us.
• In other words, according to ethical
2.4.2 The Case against the Divine egoism, the morally right action for a
Command Theory person to take in a particular situation
1. There are many holy books, and some is the action that will provide that
of their teachings disagree with each person with the maximum long-term
other. benefit.
2. It is unrealistic to assume a multicultural • Ethical egoism does not prohibit acting
society will adopt a religion-based to help someone else but assisting
morality. another is the right thing to do if and
3. Some moral problems are not only if it is in the helper’s own long-
addressed directly in scripture. term best interest.
4. It is fallacious to equate “the good” with
“God.”
The Case for Ethical Egoism
o “the good” is something that exists 1. Ethical egoism is a practical moral
outside of God and was not created by philosophy.
God. 2. It’s better to let other people take
o If good means “commanded by God,” care of themselves.
then good is unreasonable. 3. The community can benefit when
o there is an objective standard of right individuals put their well-being first.
and wrong separate from God. That 4. Other moral principles are rooted in
the principle of self-interest.
 A Kantian is able to go beyond simply stating
that an action is right or wrong by citing
chapter and verse; a Kantian can explain why it
The Case against Ethical Egoism is right or wrong.
1. An easy moral philosophy may not be Kant viewed morality not in terms of
the best moral philosophy. hypothetical imperatives, but through what he
2. We do, in fact, know a lot about what called categorical imperatives.
is good for someone else.
3. A self-interested focus can lead to
blatantly immoral behavior. Categorical Imperative (First
4. Other moral principles are superior to Formulation)
the principle of self-interest.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you
5. People who take the good of others
can, at the same time, will that it should become
into account live happier lives.
a universal law.
Ethical egoism does not respect the ethical
*universal law - something that must be done
point of view: it does not recognize that in
order to reap the benefits of living in a in similar situations
community, individuals must consider the good *autonomous - acting in accordance with one's
of other community members. For this reason, moral duty rather than one's desires.
we reject ethical egoism as a workable ethical
This version, known as the formula of the
theory.
universal law, tells us to “act only on that maxim
that you could consistently will to be a universal
law.” The maxim of our action is the subjective
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical principle that determines our will. We act for
theory of the German philosopher Immanuel our own reasons. Different intentions might
Kant (1724–1804). lead to similar actions. When I want to make
Kant believed that people’s actions ought to be myself a bit more presentable, I shave and
guided by moral laws and that these moral laws shower. Others might perform the same action
were universal. He held that in order to apply for a different reason. We can identify
to all rational beings, any supreme principle of different maxims in terms of these different
morality must itself be based on reason. reasons or intentions. For Kant, intentions
matter. He evaluates the moral status of
Many of the moral laws Kant describes can also actions not according to the action itself or
be found in the Bible, Kant’s methodology allows
according to its consequences, but according to
these laws to be derived through a reasoning the maxim of the action. The moral status of
process.
an action is determined by the actor’s Act so that you always treat both yourself and
intentions or reasons for acting. other people as ends in themselves, and never
only as a means to an end.
According to the formula of the universal law,
what makes an action morally acceptable is
*It is wrong for one person to “use” another.
that its maxim is universalizable. That is, morally
Instead, every interaction with other people
permissible action is action that is motivated by
must respect them as rational beings.
an intention that we can rationally will that
others act on similarly. A morally prohibited a means to an end - something that you do
action is just one where we can’t rationally will because it will help you
that our maxim is universally followed. Deception to achieve something else
and threat are both paradigm cases of acting
ends in themselves - A purpose or goal desired
wrongly according to Kant. In both cases, our
for its own sake (rather than to attain
maxim involves violating the autonomy of
something else).
another rational being and this is something that
we, as rationally autonomous beings ourselves, The second formulation, tells us to treat
could not consistently will to be a universal law. individuals as ends in themselves. That is just to
say that persons should be treated as beings
According to Kant, there is a contradiction
that have intrinsic value. To say that persons
involved in a rational autonomous being willing
have intrinsic value is to say that they have
that autonomy be universally coercively or
value independent of their usefulness for this
deceptively violated. This would involve a rational
or that purpose.
autonomous being willing the violation of its own
rational autonomy. Acting out of moral duty is a The second formulation of CI does not say that
matter of acting only on maxims that we can you can never use a person for your own
rationally will others act on as well. The person purposes. But it tells us we should never use a
of good will recognizes the humanity of others person merely as a means to your own ends.
by not making any special exception for herself What is the difference? We treat people as a
even when her interests or inclination would be means to our own ends in ways that are not
served by doing so. morally problematic quite often.
*So as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask When I go to the post office, I treat the clerk
myself, what's the general rule that stands as a means to my end of sending a letter. But I
behind the particular action I'm considering? do not treat that person merely as a means to
an end. I pursue my end of sending a letter
Categorical Imperative (Second
through my interaction with the clerk only with
Formulation) the understanding that the clerk is acting
autonomously in serving me. My interaction with
the clerk is morally acceptable so long as the 3. All persons are treated as moral equals.
clerk is serving me voluntarily, or acting o A popular belief is that “all people are
autonomously for his own reasons. created equal.” Because it holds that people
in similar situations should be treated in
By contrast, we use people merely as a means
similar ways, Kantianism provides an ethical
to an end if we force them to do our will, or if
framework to combat discrimination.
we deceive them into doing our will. Threat and
deception are paradigm violations of the The Case against Kantianism
Categorical Imperative. In threatening or
1. Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes
deceiving another person, we disrupt his or her
an action.
autonomy and his or her will. This is what the
2. Sometimes there is no way to resolve a
Categorical Imperative forbids. Respecting
conflict between rules.
persons requires refraining from violating their
3. Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect
autonomy.
duties.
The Case for Kantianism
*While these objections point out weaknesses
1. The Categorical Imperative aligns with the with Kantianism, the theory does support moral
common moral concern, “What if decision making based on logical reasoning from
everybody acted that way?” facts and commonly held values. It is culture
o According to Kantianism, it is wrong for you neutral and treats all humans as equals. Hence
to act in a particular way if you cannot wish it meets our criteria for a workable ethical
everyone in a similar circumstance to do theory and we will use it as a way of evaluating
the same thing. moral problems.
2. Kantianism produces universal moral
guidelines.
o Kantianism aligns with the intuition of many
people that the same morality ought to Scenario
apply to all people for all of history. These Carla is a single mother who is working hard to
guidelines allow us to make clear moral complete her college education while taking
judgments. care of her daughter. Carla has a full-time job
o For example, one such judgment might be and is taking two evening courses per
the following: “Sacrificing living human semester. If she can pass both courses this
beings to satisfy the gods is wrong.” It is semester, she will graduate. She knows her
wrong in Europe in the child will benefit if she can spend more time at
the twenty-first century, and it was home. One of her required classes is modern
wrong in South America in the fifteenth European history. In addition to the midterm and
century. final examinations, the professor assigns four
lengthy reports, which is far more than the for reports. Her proposed moral rule is self-
usual amount of work required for a single defeating. Therefore, it is wrong for Carla to
class. Students must submit all four reports in purchase a report and turn it in as her own
order to pass the class. Carla earns an A on work.
each of her first three reports. At the end of Commentary
the term, she is required to put in a lot of Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral
overtime where she works. She simply does problem focuses on the will behind the action.
not have time to research and write the final It asks the question, “What was Carla trying to
report. Carla uses the web to identify a do when she submitted under her own name a
company that sells term papers. She purchases term paper written by someone else?” The
a report from the company and submits it as analysis ignores extenuating circumstances that
her own work. Was Carla’s action morally non-Kantians may cite to justify her action.
justifiable?
Analysis
Many times it is easier to use the second The English philosophers Jeremy
formulation of the Categorical Imperative to Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart
analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point Mill (1806–1873) proposed a theory that is in
of view, so that’s sharp contrast to Kantianism.
where we begin. By submitting another According to Bentham and Mill, an action is good
person’s work as her own, Carla treated her if its benefits exceed its harms, and action is
professor as a means to an end. She deceived bad if its harms exceed its benefits.
her professor with the goal of getting credit
for someone else’s work. It was wrong for Their ethical theory, called utilitarianism, is
Carla to treat the professor as a grade- based upon the principle of utility, also called
generating machine rather than a rational the Greatest Happiness Principle.
agent with whom she could have communicated
her unusual circumstances. We can also look at
this problem using the first formulation of the
Principle of Utility
Categorical Imperative. Carla wants to be able Utility is the tendency of an object to produce
to get credit for turning in a report she has happiness or prevent unhappiness for an
purchased. A proposed moral rule might be, “I individual or a community.
may claim academic credit for a report written Depending on the circumstances, you may think
by someone else.” However, if everyone of “happiness” as an advantage, benefit, good,
followed this rule, reports would cease to be or pleasure, and “unhappiness” as a
credible indicators of the students’ knowledge, disadvantage, cost, evil, or pain.
and professors would not give academic credit
 Principle of Utility (Greatest Act utilitarianism is the ethical theory that an
Happiness Principle) action is good if its net effect (overall affected
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent beings) is to produce more happiness than
that it increases (or decreases) the total unhappiness.
happiness of the affected parties.
We are required to promote those acts which
*The moral action is the one that produces the will result in the greatest good for the greatest
maximum increase in happiness. (If every number of people. The consequences of the act
possible action results in a decrease in of giving money to charity would be considered
happiness, then the moral action is the one that right in act-utilitarianism, because the money
minimizes the decrease in happiness.) increases the happiness of many people,
Note that the morality of an action has nothing rather than just yourself.
to do with the attitude behind the action.
Bentham writes, “There is no such thing as any
Case for Act Utilitarianism
• Focuses on happiness
• Down-to-earth (practical)
• Comprehensive
• Workable ethical theory
Case Against Act Utilitarianism
• Unclear whom to include in calculations
o In the highway example children in one
side might find it difficult to cross the
highway
sort of motive that is in itself a bad one. If • Too much work
[motives] are good or bad, it is only on account • Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
of their effects”.We call utilitarianism o Ex: Sending flowers to a patient and
a consequentialist theory because the focus is causing an allergy for him. This cost him
on the consequences of an action. much. Then your act is BAD.
There are two formulations of Evaluating a Scenario Using Act
utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule
Utilitarianism
utilitarianism.
Scenario
A state is considering replacing a curvy stretch
of highway that passes along the borders of a
large city. Would building the highway be a good million, building the highway would be a good
action? action.

Analysis Commentary
To perform the analysis of this problem, we Performing the benefit/cost (or
must determine who is affected and the happiness/unhappiness) calculations is crucial to
effects of the highway construction on them. the utilitarian approach, yet it can be
Our analysis is in terms of dollars and cents. For controversial. In our example, we translated
this reason, we’ll use the terms “benefit” and everything into dollars and cents. Was that
“cost” instead of “happiness” and reasonable? Neighborhoods are the site of
“unhappiness.” About 150 houses lie on or very many important relationships. We did not assign
near the proposed path of the new, straighter a value to the harm the proposed highway
section of the highway. Using its power of an would do to these neighborhoods. There is a
eminent domain, the state can condemn these good chance that many of the homeowners
properties. It would cost the state $20 million would be angry about being forced out of their
to provide fair compensation to the houses, even if they were paid a fair price for
homeowners. Constructing the new highway, their properties. How do we put a dollar value
which is three miles long, would cost the on their emotional distress? On the other hand,
taxpayers of the state another $10 million. we can’t add apples and oranges. Translating
Suppose the environmental impact of the new everything into dollars and cents is one way to
highway in terms of lost habitat for morally put everything into common units.
significant animal species is valued at $1 million.
Every weekday, 15,000 cars are expected to
travel on this section of highway, which is one
mile shorter than the curvy highway it replaces.
Assuming it costs 40 cents per mile to operate Rule utilitarianism is the ethical theory that holds
a motor vehicle, construction of the new that we ought to adopt those moral rules that,
highway will save drivers $6,000 per weekday if followed by everyone, lead to the greatest
in operating costs. The highway has an increase in total happiness overall affected
expected operating lifetime of 25 years. Over parties. Hence a rule utilitarian applies the
a 25-year period, the expected total savings to principle of utility to moral rules, while an act
drivers will be $39 million. We’ll assume the utilitarian applies the principle of utility to
highway project will have no positive or individual moral actions.
negative effects on any other people. Since the The rule utilitarian is looking at the
overall cost of the new highway is $31 million consequences of the action, while the Kantian
and the benefit of the new highway is $39 is looking at the will motivating the action.
Evaluating a Scenario Using “If I can write and release a helpful worm
Rule Utilitarianism that improves the security of the computers
it infects, I should do so.”
Scenario
A worm is a self-contained program that What would be the benefits if everyone
spreads through a computer network by taking followed the proposed moral rule? Many people
advantage of security holes in the computers do not keep their computers up to date with
connected to the network. In August 2003, the the latest patches to the operating system.
Blaster worm infected many computers They would benefit from a worm that
running the Windows 2000, Windows NT, and automatically removed their network
Windows XP operating systems. The Blaster vulnerabilities.
worm caused computers it infected to reboot What harm would be caused by the universal
every few minutes. Soon another worm was adoption of the rule? If everyone followed this
exploiting the same security hole in Windows to rule, the appearance of every new harmful
spread through the Internet. However, the worm would be followed by the release of
purpose of the new worm, named Nachi, was many other worms designed to eradicate the
benevolent. Since Nachi took advantage of the harmful worm. Worms make networks less
same security hole as Blaster, it could not infect usable by creating a lot of extra network
computers that were immune to the Blaster traffic. For example, the Nachi worm disabled
worm. Once Nachi gained access to a computer networks of Diebold ATM machines at two
with the security hole, it located and destroyed financial institutions. The universal adoption of
copies of the Blaster worm. It also automatically the moral rule would reduce the usefulness of
downloaded from Microsoft a patch to the the Internet while the various “helpful” worms
operating system software that would fix the were circulating.
security problem. Finally, it used the computer
Another negative consequence would be
as a launching pad to seek out other Windows
potential harm done to computers by the
PCs with the security hole. Was the action of
supposedly helpful worms. Even worms
the person who released the Nachi worm
designed to be benevolent may contain bugs. If
morally right or wrong?
many people are releasing worms, there is a
Analysis good chance some of the worms may
To analyze this moral problem from a rule accidentally harm data or programs on the
utilitarian point of view, we must think of an computers they infect.
appropriate moral rule and determine if its
universal adoption would increase the happiness A third harmful consequence would be the
of the affected parties. In this case, an extra work placed on system administrators.
appropriate moral rule might be the following: When system administrators detect a new
worm, it is not
immediately obvious whether the worm is themselves
harmful or beneficial. Hence the prudent against the attacks of others.
response of system administrators is to o To avoid this miserable condition, which
combat every new worm that attacks their Hobbes calls the “state of nature,” rational
computers. If the proposed moral rule were people understand that cooperation is
adopted, more worms would be released, essential. However, cooperation is possible
forcing system administrators to spend more only when people mutually agree to follow
of their time-fighting worms. certain guidelines. Hence moral rules are
“simply the rules that are necessary if we
In conclusion, the harms caused by the universal
are to gain the benefits of social living”
adoption of this moral rule appear to outweigh
the benefits. Therefore, the action of the Hobbes argues that everybody living in a civilized
person who society has implicitly agreed to two things:
released the Nachi worm is morally wrong.
1. the establishment of such a set of moral
rules to govern relations among citizens,
and
2. a government capable of enforcing these
rules. He calls this arrangement the social
contract.
Social Contract Theory o Ex: residents of Baghdad after Iraq
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing Invasion – no social contract with the
how people are to treat one another, that state.
rational people will agree to accept, for their
Jean-Jacques Rousseau -
mutual benefit,
continued the evolution of social contract
on the condition that others follow those rules
theory
as well.”
o In an ideal society, no one is above rules
that prevent society from enacting
Thomas Hobbes bad rules

o he argues that without rules and a means

of enforcing them, people would not James Rachels’s Definition
bother to create anything of value,
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing
because nobody could be sure of keeping
how people are to treat one another, that
what they created
rational people will agree to accept, for their
o Instead, people would be consumed with
mutual benefit, on the condition that others
taking what they needed and defending
follow those rules as well.”
Similar to Kantianism but rules are not to be 3. It explains why under certain
universalized, but specific society should agreed circumstances the government may
upon. deprive some people of some rights.
4. It explains why under certain
circumstances civil disobedience can be
John Rawls’s Principles of the morally right decision.
Justice
Case Against Social Contract Theory
▪ To avoid unequal distribution of wealth and
power: ▪ No one signed contract
o Each person may claim a “fully ▪ Some actions have multiple
adequate” number of basic rights and characterizations – Ex: Don’t steal.
liberties, so long as these claims are ▪ Conflicting rights problem
consistent with everyone else having a o Ex: Abortion - the privacy right of
claim to the same rights and liberties mother, against the fetus’s right
o Any social and economic inequalities to live.
must ▪ May unjustly treat people who cannot
▪ Be associated with positions that everyone uphold contract
has a fair and equal opportunity to achieve. o Ex: Drug addicts – some countries put
o Ex: People with same intelligence, in prisons
talent, …etc, should have the right to
achieve the same position regardless
of their social position.
Evaluating a Scenario Using
▪ Be to the greatest benefit of the least- Social Contract Theory
advantaged members of society Scenario
(the difference principle) Bill, the owner of a chain of DVD rental stores
o Ex: differences in Taxes according to in a major metropolitan area, uses a computer
income to keep track of the DVDs rented by each
customer. Using this information, he is able to
construct profiles of the customers. For
Case for Social Contract Theory example, a customer who rents a large number
1. It is framed in the language of rights. of Disney titles is likely to have children. Bill sells
2. It explains why rational people act out of these profiles to mail-order companies. The
self-interest in the absence of a common customers begin receiving many unsolicited mail-
agreement. order catalogs. Some of the customers are
happy to receive these catalogs and make use
of them to order products. Others are unhappy
at the increase in the amount of “junk mail” Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will
they are receiving. likely make the right choice when faced with
ethical challenges.
Analysis
To analyze this scenario using the social
contract theory, we think about the rights of
the rational agents involved. In this case, the
rational agents are Bill, his customers, and the
1. intellectual virtues
mail-order companies. The morality of Bill’s
2. moral virtues
actions revolves around the question of
o these are virtues associated with
whether he violated the privacy rights of his
reasoning and truth.
customers. If someone rents a DVD from one
o Moral virtues, often called virtues of
of Bill’s stores, both the customer and Bill have
character by today’s writers, are
information about the transaction. Are their
rights to this information equal? If both the
customer and Bill have equal rights to this
information, then you may conclude there is
nothing wrong with him selling this information
to a mail-order company. On the other hand, if
customers have the right to expect
transactions to be confidential, you may
conclude that Bill was wrong to sell this
information without gaining the permission of
the customer.

habits or dispositions formed through

the repetition of the relevant virtuous
actions
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by
Note, then, that moral virtue is not simply a
Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the
disposition to act in a particular way, it is also a
quest to understand and live a life of moral
disposition to feel in a particular way. According
character.
to Aristotle, you can tell a lot about someone’s
This character-based approach to morality character by observing what pleases them and
assumes that we acquire virtue through what bothers them.
practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just,
He wrote, “We may even go so far as to state
generous, and so on, a person develops an
that the man who does not enjoy performing
honorable and moral character. According to
noble actions is not a good man at all. Nobody
would call a man just who does not enjoy acting
justly, nor generous who does not enjoy
generous actions, and so on.”
Scenario
The Case for Virtue Ethics
Josh is a senior majoring in computer science at a
1. In many situations it makes more sense small university. All of the seniors in computer
to focus on virtues than on obligations, science are friends because they have taken most
rights, or consequences. of their computer science courses together. Josh
2. Personal relationships can be morally is particularly close to Matt. Josh and Matt are
relevant to decision making. from the same city about 200 miles from campus,
3. Virtue ethics recognizes that our moral and Matt has given Josh rides to and from home a
decision-making skills develop over time. half dozen times at the start and end of school
4. There are no irresolvable moral holidays. Notably, Matt never asked Josh to help
pay for the gas on any of these trips, and Josh
dilemmas.
never offered to do so. When it is time for seniors
5. Virtue ethics recognizes the important
to choose partners for their capstone project, no
role that emotions play in living a moral one is surprised when Josh and Matt end up on
life. the same team. Unfortunately, Josh and the other
The Case against Virtue Ethics teammates soon rue inviting Matt onto their team.
Everyone has known Matt to be hard-working,
1. Different people may have quite trustworthy, and reliable, but his father just died
different conceptions of human in a car accident, and he has lost all interest in
flourishing. school. To make matters worse, Matt is drinking
2. Virtue ethics cannot be used to guide too much. He doesn’t show up for a lot of the team
government policy. meetings, and the code he produces doesn’t meet
3. Virtue ethics undermines attempts to the specifications. Josh and the other teammates
hold people responsible for their bad can’t persuade Matt to take the project more
seriously, and since they don’t have any real control
actions.
over his behavior, they decide it’s easier simply to
rewrite Matt’s part of the system themselves.
Matt does contribute his share of the PowerPoint
A right action is an action that a virtuous slides, and during the oral presentation he stands
person, acting in character, would do in the up and talks about “his” portion of the code, never
same circumstances. A virtuous person is a mentioning that it was all rewritten by his
person who possesses teammates.
and lives out the virtues. The virtues are those Everyone in the class is supposed to send the
character traits human beings need in order to professor an email grading the performance of
flourish and be truly happy. their teammates. The department prides itself on
graduating students who have proven they can
work well on software development teams, and have had a conversation with the professor in charge
students getting poor or failing performance of the senior projects when it first became apparent
reviews from all of their teammates may be that Matt was not participating fully as a teammate.
forced to repeat the class. Matt comes to Josh, An early intervention could have resulted in a completely
tells him that he really needs to pass this class
because he can’t afford to stay in college any
longer, and pleads for a good performance
review.What should Josh do?

Decision
Josh must decide whether or not to disclose to the
professor that Matt did not even come close to
doing his share of the team project, fully aware
that a poor or failing performance evaluation may
prevent Matt from graduating. Josh is an honest
person, and he has a hard time imagining that he
could tell the professor that Matt did a good job
different outcome. After reflecting on what he should
when that is far from the truth. However, Josh is do, Josh concludes he must be truthful with the
also a just person, and he feels indebted toward professor. However, he will not simply tell the
Matt, who has done him a lot of favors over the past professor that Matt’s performance was poor. Josh
four years—particularly those free rides to and from decides he will also take responsibility for his role in the
his hometown. Josh also feels compassion toward fiasco by providing a full account to the professor of
Matt, who lost his father. It’s bad enough to lose a how his own failure to respond to the situation earlier
parent, but because of the sudden nature of his in the year contributed to the unsatisfactory outcome.
father’s death, Matt didn’t even have the chance to
say goodbye to him. As he ponders his dilemma, Josh
begins to realize that he finds himself in this difficult
spot because at several points in the past he didn’t
step up and do the right thing. He took advantage of
Matt’s generosity (and gave in to his own greedy
Comparing Workable Ethical Theories
impulses) by taking all those free rides to and from his
hometown. If he had paid his share of the gas money, The divine command theory, ethical egoism,
he wouldn’t be feeling so obligated toward Matt. Josh Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism,
also knows he wasn’t a very good friend when he social contract theory, and virtue ethics share
failed to talk with Matt about how he was feeling about the viewpoint that moral good and moral
his father’s death and how that was affecting his
precepts are objective. In other words, morality
performance on the senior project. Matt’s lack of
has an existence outside the human mind. For
attention to his schoolwork was definitely out of
character, a sign that he was suffering a lot. Josh now this reason, we say these theories are
understands that he and the other teammates should examples of objectivism.
What distinguishes ethical egoism, Kantianism,
utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue
ethics from the divine command theory is the
assumption that ethical decision making is a
rational process by which people can discover
objective moral principles with the use of logical
reasoning based on facts and commonly held
values.
Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory,
and virtue ethics explicitly take other people
into consideration when defining what makes
an action morally correct, which sets these
theories apart from ethical egoism.
Of all the theories we have considered, we
conclude that Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule
utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue
ethics are the most workable.