Unit 3: Theorizing Ethics
Unit objectives
By the end of this unit you should able to
i) Explain the different theories of ethics
ii) Distinguish deontological from teleological ethics
iii)Discuss the difference between relative ethics and moral absolutism
iv) Show the relevance of situational, categorical imperative, utilitarianism, moral pluralism and
christian ethics to modern society.
Theorising ethics
Theories explain the activity of ethics, advance certain principles as guides to
action and take positions of ethical questions. In this unit we look at the different
theories of ethics. In the units that follow you will be expected to apply some of
these theories to different communication situations.
Deontological ethics
Derived from Greek word deon- which means duty.
They are a branch of normative ethical theory which regard action rather than
consequences of actions as right or wrong
i.e. is concerned with right action - doing the right thing simply because it is
the right thing to do.
The theory states that people should adhere to their obligation and duties when
engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. Meaning the person will
follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding
ones duty is what is considered ethically correct.
for instance a deontologist will always keep his promise to a friend and will
follow the law. A person who adheres to deontological theory will produce very
consistent decisions since they will be based on the individuals set duties.
Deontological ethic theories are non- consequentialist - meaning they place
emphasis on the decision or action itself, motivations, principles, or ideas
underlying the decision/ action- rather than being concerned with the outcomes/
consequences of that decision or action. In other words the focus is on whether
ethical decisions perse are right or wrong regardless of the consequences or
intentions of those ethical decisions.
Emphasis is on the moral value of the act itself, considering that some actions are
obligatory/ prohibited regardless of their motive/ consequences e.g. promise
keeping and lying are kinds of actions that carry their own implicit moral value.
The most distinctive feature of deontological moral conception is that they define
fundamental principles of right and justice other than taking the most effective
means to promote maximum good (Kant ideas-1724- 1804 of moral philosophy is
a primary example of deontological moral conception.
Although deontology ethics has many positive attributes, it also contains flaws.
One flaw is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individuals’
duties.
For instance, a business person may decide that it is his or her duty to always
be on time to meetings. Although this may appear to be something good, we do not
know why the person chose to make this his or her duty.
Activity
Provide some of the probable reasons that might have motivated this person to
make this decision.
Sometimes a persons duties are in conflict.
For instance, if the business person who must be on time to meetings is running
late, how is he supposed to drive?. Is speeding breaking his or her duty to society
to uphold the law, or is the business person supposed to arrive at the meeting late ,
not fulfilling his duty to be on time?
Activity 2
How would you solve the problem of conflicting obligations in the situation above
to arrive at a clear ethically – correct resolution.( you may also consider the
welfare of others as a result of the person’s business decisions)
Categorical Imperative
Developed by Immanuel Kant( 1724- 1804)
The theory is based on the notion that it is the act itself rather than the person
who acts in which moral force reside i.e. moves the notion of what is ethical
from the actor to the act itself.
i.e. in as much as there is moral character, Kant believed that it is possible for
one to act morally from a sense of duty even though their character might incline
them to do otherwise.
For Kant an act was morally justified only if it was performed from duty and in
his moral universe there were two sorts of duties.
i) Strict duties- which were generally negative- not to lie; murder/ break a
promise.
ii) Meritorious(commendable) duties – these were positive- to aid others; develop
ones’ talents; to show gratitude.
P/S: Though not fully defined- some philosophers feel strict duties are somewhat
more morally mandatory than meritorious duties( i.e. rendering aid)
Teleological ethics
The word teleological has its roots in Greek word telos – meaning goal /aim and
Logos which refer to science /study
Is a theory of morality that derives what is right from the end of the consequences of
an action.
It is concerned with being good- in other words being a good person with good
intentions. The focus / concentration is on the purpose of or the intention behind
human actions.
Its main goal is on what the goal of a given decision is. i.e. The consequences ; effect
of / result of our choices. The suggestion being that the moral end to be sought in all
Teleological ethics are also known as consequentialist ethics as they base moral
judgements on the outcomes of a decision or an action.
i.e. If the outcomes of an action are considered to be positive or to give rise to
benefits, then that action is held to be morally right. Conversely if the outcome
causes harm, then the action is held to be morally wrong i.e. the judgement of
right / wrong depends on the consequences of the decision /action.
It is a theory of obedience to what one knows is right and to what is commanded.
Utilitarianism
Developed by John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873).
The theory maintains that the rightness or the wrongness of an action is determined by
the goodness and the badness of the consequences.
i.e. acts such as truth telling, promising and punishment are justified on utilitarian
grounds- acceptance has beneficial consequences and rejection disastrous consequences.
To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the one
that is ethically correct.
There are two types of utilitarianism namely act and rule.
Act utilitarianism subscribes precisely to the definition of utilitarianism- a person
performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the
societal constraints such as laws.
Conversely , rule utilitarian takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. It
seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available.
Put differently, rule utilitarianism values justice and includes
beneficence(quality/ state of doing /producing good) at the same time.
However, utilitarianism good as it may appear it has limitations.
Firstly, although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict
outcomes, no one can be certain that his / her predictions will be accurate. Thus
uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian decision maker
appear unethical as time passes, as the choice made did not benefit the most
people as predicted.
Secondly, another decision that a utilitarian decision maker must make concerns
his or her ability to compare the various types of consequences against each other
on a similar scale. However, comparing material gains such as money against
intangible gains such as happiness is very difficult since their qualities differ to
Thirdly, an act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the
maximum good. Thus , one individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to
benefit the a greater number of people. In other words, act utilitarianism is not
concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing
the individual leads to the solution that benefits the majority.
Virtue ethics
The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his or her character rather than by an
action that may deviate from his /her normal behaviour.
It takes the person’s morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating
an unusual and irregular behaviour that is considered unethical
Moral pluralism
Developed by William David Ross
He was concerned with good at the promotion of duty as opposed to Kant who
was concerned with prescribed duty.
Intuition- common knowledge, to take right decision. It is was founded on
common sense.
Ross did not agree with utilitarianism because he was advocating for principles
which would make your personal happiness not universal
He maintained that an action is good not because it is universal but it is “good as
such”. His argument was that the universal value violates something that is good
Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each
worthy of respect.
Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when faced with competing viewpoints.
They analyse issues from several moral points of view before deciding and taking
action.
Moral pluralists believe that many moral issues are extremely complicated. Thus,
no single philosophical approach will always provide all the answers.
For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush
inside and save the children trapped in the burning building. But in doing this she
may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral pluralist would conclude that
there is no definitive way to decide which is the better course of moral action.
Thus , moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose between
competing values.
In summary, moral pluralism occupies a sensible middle ground between “there is
only one right answer” as moral absolutism says, and “there is no wrong answer”
Devine will (christian ethics)
Founded on Judaeo- Christian ethics- XI and is mainly based on the commitment
to the 10 commandments mosaic law which teaches the following:
i)Agape Love- Loving a human being merely because he is human-
(unconditional love)
ii) You must see Gods image in a fellow human being. This is a call for
preserving, promoting and respecting human dignity, values and interests.
iii) a call for loving God the creator; to fear, reverence; respect and exalt God and
his 10 commandments.
Religious faith aside other propositions is another important argument people use
when making ethical decisions .Thus instead of relying on rational argument,
some people view actions as being right or wrong in terms of whether they are
commanded by God.
Though some Philosophers do not view arguments based on religious faith as
being rationally defensible. They believe that we can determine through rational
reflection what is right or wrong. They further argue that one is able to know what
is right/ wrong without relying on any divine commandment as we can rational
reflection.
However, Traer(2009) argues that a discussion of faith based argument is relevant
to moral philosophy for several reasons;
i) People do not always agree on what is right/ wrong- thus it is not clear
that we can determine what is right and wrong simply through rational
reflection
ii)Additionally, given that so many people in the world do look to religion for
moral guidance, one should not underestimate the ability of the moral
teachings of a religious tradition… to persuade the public to embrace a higher
moral standard(Traer,2009:9)
iii)That while it is arguable that consideration of religious arguments should be
justifiable by rational arguments, consideration of religious arguments should
not be excluded from the study of ethics.
Moral absolutism
Moral absolutism asserts that there are certain universal moral principles by
which all peoples’ actions may be judged. It is a form of deontology.
The challenge with moral absolutism, however, is that there will always be strong
disagreements about which moral principles are correct and which are incorrect.
For example, most people around the world probably accept the idea that we
should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. But beyond that, people
from different countries likely hold varying views about everything from the
morality of abortion and capital punishment to nepotism and bribery.
Moral absolutism contrasts with moral relativism, which denies that there are
absolute moral values. It also differs from moral pluralism, which urges tolerance
of others’ moral principles without concluding that all views are equally valid.
So, while moral absolutism declares a universal set of moral values, in reality,
moral principles vary greatly among nations, cultures, and religions.
Ethical relativism
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture.
That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the
society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one
society but be morally wrong in another.
For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that
can be universally applied to all peoples at all times.
The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its
own.
However other ethicists have contended against such reasoning arguing that , if
ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving
moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of
different societies.
Also some ethicists argue that while the moral practices of societies may differ,
the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not.
For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a
certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better
While such a practice would be condemned in our society, still one would agree with these
societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Thus societies, then,
may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.
Also, others have argued that while it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally
relative than others, certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may
depend on local custom . At the same time ,other practices such as slavery, torture, or political
repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many
other differences that exist among cultures. Thus simply because some practices are relative
does not mean that all practices are relative.
Furthermore, other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for
individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an
action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's
society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member
of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must
accept those practices as morally right? Unfortunately, such a view promotes social
conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore,
members of the same society may hold different views on practices.
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that
universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures.
In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still
hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong.
For instance , the practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in
South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi
society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
Limitations and strength
Ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying
practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails
to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.
For ethical relativism truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of
people think that something is right does not make it so.
Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America it was the norm and
morally acceptable. Now it is not the case.
Within ethical relativism, right and wrong are not absolute and must be
determined in society by a combination of observation, logic, social preferences
and patterns, experience, emotions, and "rules" that seem to bring the most
benefit. Meaning that, a society involved in constant moral conflict would not be
able to survive for very long as morality is the glue that holds a society together.
Thus there must be a consensus of right and wrong for a society to function well
but Ethical relativism undermines that glue.
Although the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that
the concept raises the following important issues:
i) Firstly, it allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge, and
technology change in society.
ii) Secondly, ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different
moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture.
iii) Thirdly and finally, it encourages us to explore the reasons underlying
beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our
reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.
Situational Ethics
It was an American professor Joseph Fletcher who created a formal theory
explaining situational ethics in the 1960. He proposed that the context and
circumstances leading up to an act must be considered before subjection to
absolute moral standards.
He stated that an act must be evaluated by the laws of unconditional love, rather
than standard ethics. Fletcher cited the concept of agape, a Greek word used to
describe 'love' in the Bible. Agape is a kind of love that is absolutely
unconditional, and it expects nothing in return of the love it gives.
Fletcher based his theory on the concept of love, citing Biblical commandments as
inspiration, particularly the notion of Love thy neighbour. He went on to reason the
following:
i)The only principle to have intrinsic value is love. Therefore, a decision based on
unconditional love is the right thing to do in any situation.
ii)Unconditional love is free from rigid restrictions that determine our morals.
Love does not follow prescribed rules; instead, it evaluates each situation
individually, avoiding blanket judgments.
iii) In the end, as long as love is your intention, the end justifies the means.
As a theory, situational ethics dictate that the moral path should be decided by the
context of the issue at hand, rather than have a textbook judgment for everything.
Thus, situational ethics are born out of a need to consider each moral dilemma on its
own accord; this is owing to the fact that ethics―however sound they may be―may not
To advance his argument, Fletcher put forth different scenarios to explain
situational ethics. These were real-life instances which amplified the need of
keeping conventional morals aside and letting love form the basis of the course of
action.
1. Working for the greater good
A woman who was assumed to be a spy, was confronted with the moral
dilemma of compromising her own morals to gain information from people
belonging to the enemy nation which would be beneficial to the citizens of her entire
nation. Putting her personal integrity aside, she chose to do anything it took to
serve her country, basing her decision on the love she felt for her fellow citizens.
From the above example, we see how personal morals can be set aside when
greater things are at stake. The woman in question certainly compromised her
personal ethics but she did it as a service her nation which justifies her actions.
Suicide as a sacrifice
A man who had a limited number of days to live had the option of using his
insurance money to fund medication which would prolong his life by a few months.
However, if he cashed in on the insurance, his family would be left with nothing
following his eventual death. Thus, his decision to end his life immediately, with the
insurance sum benefiting his family was stimulated by the love he felt for them.
Likewise in this second example, suicide and euthanasia tend to garner extreme
reactions. In this case, we see how a mans’ love for his family led him to sacrifice
his life to keep them happy and comfortable.
Dialogic ethics
It is about being open minded towards opinion other than your own
It judges ethics by attitudes and behaviours demonstrated by each participant in a
communication transaction.
Dialogue is seen as ethical because it engages in a give and take discussion of
issues with the chance for all interested parties to have input.
The discussion is ultimately supposed to arrive at truth or to reveal the underlying
truth to which the parties can agree.
Ideas are evaluated on merit alone rather than on a positional basis. Dialogue is
different from advocacy.
