Four broad approaches to ethics:

1 - teleological / consequentialist ethics

2 - deontological / duty ethics

3 - virtue ethics

4 - dialogical ethics

Underlying considerations:

ontological and epistemological assumptions

foundationalism / universalism

social constructionism / relativism

teleological ethics

from the Greek “telos” – goal, end, purpose

the view that ethical judgments should be made through consideration of the goals, ends, or purpose of an action

1 - teleological

consequentialist ethics

the view that ethical judgments should be made through a cost/benefit calculation regarding the net outcomes of a given action

1 - teleological

utilitarian ethics

a sub-category of consequentialism in which the outcomes are conceived primarily in terms of pleasure/happiness versus pain/suffering

note: one person’s “pain” can be another’s “pleasure”

1 - teleological

situational (or contextual) ethics

the view that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on the particular situations or contexts in which those actions occur

because the same action in different situations can result in different consequences

1 - teleological

standpoint ethics

the view that you should consider the rightness or wrongness of an action from the standpoint of those who are the most vulnerable to the negative consequences of that action

an extension of the “depersonalized veil of ignorance”

1 - teleological

ethical egoism

the view that we should act in our own self-interest and this will lead to ethical action as the invisible hand of the moral market ensures the greatest maximum benefit

society is best served by survival of the fittest

altruism and charity are moral hazards

1 - teleological

lifeboat ethics

given scarce resources, not all people can survive or be happy so the weak should be abandoned to safeguard the interests of the rest

related to ethical egoism

society is best served by survival of the fittest

1 - teleological

deontological ethics

from the Greek “deon” – obligation or duty

the view that ethical judgments should be made through consideration of intrinsic moral duties

2 - deontological

duty ethics

the view that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on the actor’s adherence to inherent ethical duties or obligations

moral absolutism is a sub-category of duty ethics which asserts that actions can be inherently ethical or unethical regardless of the consequences that flow from them

2 - deontological

categorical imperative

1) “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

2) “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end”

2 - deontological

virtue ethics

the view that ethical actions flow from the prior cultivation of a virtuous character, rather than formulaic application of principles or the calculation of consequences

places the emphasis on “being” as much as “doing”

can be deontological or teleological

3 – virtue ethics

exemplar ethics

the view that exemplars of virtuous character help us understand what would be the right thing to do in any given situation

what would _______________ do?

a sub-category of virtue ethics

3 – virtue ethics

dialogical ethics

the view that dialogue, or collaborative inquiry, among diverse experiences, perspectives, and interpretive frameworks can lead to greater ethical insight regarding complex and multifaceted issues

4 – dialogical ethics

Four broad approaches to ethics:

1 - teleological / consequentialist ethics

2 - deontological / duty ethics

3 - virtue ethics

4 - dialogical ethics

Underlying considerations:

ontological and epistemological assumptions:

foundationalism / universalism

social constructionism / relativism

ontological assumptions

assumptions about the underlying foundations of reality

assumptions about what is or is not

epistemological assumptions

assumptions about what we can know about reality

assumptions about how we can know, with any confidence, what is or is not

foundationalism

the ontological view that a system of ethics can rest on some solid, universal foundation that is inherent in the nature of reality

may be rooted in a material or spiritual worldview

even if foundational ethical truths exist, we may or may not be able to discover or “know” such truths with confidence or certitude (an epistemological problem)

epistemic foundationalism

the epistemological view that a system of ethics can rest on some solid, universal foundation that is inherent in the nature of reality, and that through some method we can know, with confidence, what that foundational system of ethics is

we can make universally valid truth claims about ethics, if we investigate ethical truths in some valid way

may be rooted in a material or spiritual worldview

relativism

the view that there are no foundations underlying moral or ethical judgments

universal truth claims are impossible because

no moral truths exist (moral nihilism)

subjective relativism

the view that moral and ethical judgments are nothing more than personal opinion (or individual preferences)

cultural relativism

the view that moral and ethical judgments are nothing more than cultural expressions (or social constructs)

social contract ethics

the culturally relativistic view that ethical systems are nothing more than social contracts or social covenants that we enter into, through enlightened self-interest, in order to minimize the potential for personal harm, pain, and suffering

these social contracts can be explicit or implicit

natural law theory

the foundationalist view that right or wrong is determined by universal laws that can be found by studying human nature

ethical codes derive from reason / science

divine law theories

the foundionalist view that something is right or wrong as a result of a Divine will

ethical codes derive from revelation / religion

ethical ideals

a foundationalist concept implying that what “ought” to be can be distinguished from what currently “is”

and that the gap between ideals and current reality provides direction and purpose to human action

ethical commitments

some people argue that commitment to ethical ideals is important even if we can never completely attain them because striving yields positive outcomes

some people argue that commitment to ethical ideals is important even if we can never prove their foundations because the only way to gain a reasonable degree of confidence in their foundations is to examine the outcomes such ethical commitment yields over time