Why are normative theories useful

The principle of utility in utilitarianism, for example, is a fundamental moral principle according to which right actions are those that maximize happiness. In Kantianism, the categorical imperative is such a fundamental principle from which right actions are derived as duties. Here normative ethics attempts to answer the question: "What sort of person ought I to be?

A virtue is a morally desirable state of character such as courage. So, the theory of virtue is directed not at what actions one ought to do, but what person one should be. What is a virtuous person like? What makes traits of character virtuous or vicious? Important concepts for the theory of virtue include terms such as good, bad, virtuous, vicious, honest, courageous, and praiseworthy. All normative theories will have something to say about which actions are right, and which states of character are virtues.

These are utilitarianism, Kantianism, ethical intuitionism in its methodological sense , and virtue ethics. If we were to accept the division of normative theories into teleological and non-teleological theories, then utilitarianism and virtue ethics would count as teleological theories, whereas Kantianism and intuitionism as non-teleological theories see the article on teleological ethics.

By saying that happiness is the only determinant of the rightness of an action, classical utilitarianism endorses hedonism as a theory of value. His work has been tremendously influential and thus the need to designate a branch of ethics as Kantian, in order to accommodate the many theories which are broadly influenced by Kant. Kant's own theory revolves around what he calls the categorical imperative, a moral principle which he regards as the fundamental principle of morality, and from which all our duties may be derived.

Kant produces several different versions of the categorical imperative, and introduces the concept of respect for persons. The Kantian conception of respect has proved particularly significant, and here Kant has influenced important contemporary thinkers such as John Rawls. But, ethical intuitionism has another sense in which it can be considered to be part of normative ethics as it methodologically refers to unranked pluralism that claims that there are a plurality of moral principles, and that none of these moral principles is more basic or important than any other.

The most well-known theorist in ethical intuitionism in this sense is probably W. Ross , who is the author of The Right and the Good. Ross thinks that the right action in a given situation is determined by a careful weighing of various moral principles which apply in that situation. In contrast with the other normative theories which tend to start with right action, virtue ethics begins with an account of virtuous character.

In other words, virtue ethics offers an account of what states of character are desirable, or virtues, and then tends to define right actions in terms of these virtues. Contrast it with the utilitarian explanation: Lying is wrong because it tends to bring about unhappiness.

Virtue ethicists, particularly, Aristotle and those who follow him, argue that right action cannot be understood as conformity of actions to rules not even of the prima facie sort suggested by Ross. The virtuous person is someone who is able to perceive what the situation requires and act accordingly. Ethics tests claims about right and wrong with argumentation, which is not necessarily the case for morality. For example, Is right and wrong determined by the pleasure and pain generated by an action, or by the rationality of that action?

Is right and wrong determined by the individual, the customs or prevalent opinions in a society, or by universal moral principles?

Cultural Relativism - The lack of universal standards is due to the fact that different cultures have varying standards of right and wrong. According to cultural relativists, the standards of right and wrong arise from the predominant views of a particular culture. Individual Relativism - The lack of universal standards is due to the fact that individuals have varying standards of right and wrong.

According to this view, the standards of right and wrong arise from individual opinions. Some defenders of ethical egoism argue that we are always motivated by our own self-interest, whether we realize this or not psychological egoism. Other defenders of ethical egoism argue that ethical egoism is the only rational course of action because self-sacrifice and dependence on others are harmful and degrading.

These advocates argue that ethical egoism benefits everyone involved. These three theories can be compared to three Chinese theories of moral obligation. Social harms result from a lack of mutual concern.

A strong society is rooted in strong families. One way to achieve this is to formulate strict laws that closely regulate the lives of the citizens. Natural law theorists like Aquinas usually hold that it is right to follow our natural inclinations because they were created by God with our well-being in mind. This theory is used to argue against homosexuality, non-procreative sex, sex outside of marriage, etc.

Kant goes on to argue that rational beings have respect for their own rationality and that of others, and consequently will not do things that undermine the rationality of themselves or others. However, it is useful to look at some general criticisms of these normative ethical theories. The ethical theories presented in this section are from the Western philosophical tradition; they are based on varied assumptions; and together they provide a pragmatic framework for judging right and wrong in decision-making.

Yet they have been criticised for being too 'neat and tidy' - and perhaps too contrived or calculating - for the real world. Crane and Matten sum up the critiques of these theories in five related points. In their view, traditional ethical theories are limited because of the following:.

I want to get full details about communication theories. Muhammad Ashiru babaji December 14, , pm. Bella Archibong February 9, , pm. This article is very helpful in the course of my assignment, keep up the good work.

Chukwuemeka juliet onyinye March 10, , am. Javaria Tariq July 7, , pm. This content will really helpful for us if we learn about these theories in detail. Peter Singer: Animal Equality. Privacy Policy.

Skip to main content. Unit 5: Ethics. Search for:. In his work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , Bentham offered this basic description of his utilitarian doctrine: It is the consequences of human actions that count in evaluating their merit.

Consequences that matters are those that promote human happiness: namely, achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. To a person considered by himself, the value of a pleasure or pain considered by itself, will be greater or less according to the four following circumstances: 1 Its intensity. And one other, to wit:— 7 Its extent ; that is,. In The Rationale of Reward , Jeremy Bentham wrote : Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.

From Utilitarianism , chapter 1: Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. From Utilitarianism , chapter 2: …actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

The Relative Quality of Pleasures Mill did not agree that all kinds of pleasure experienced by human beings are qualitatively equal. With regard to qualitative differentiation among pleasures, Mill believed that: Different sorts of pleasure differ from each other in qualitative ways. Only those who have experienced pleasure of both sorts are competent judges of the relative qualities of two pleasures.

From Utilitarianism , chapter 2: Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties.

Rules to Ease the Quantification Task A primary argument against utilitarian theory is that it unreasonably demands that individuals devote primary energy to cold-hearted and tedious calculation of the anticipated effects of their actions. Motives for Moral Actions What inspires people to do the right thing?

From Utilitarianism , chapter 3 The ultimate sanction, therefore, of all morality external motives apart being a subjective feeling in our own minds, I see nothing embarrassing to those whose standard is utility, in the question, what is the sanction of that particular standard? Bentham did respond to this by saying his hedonist calculation factors are just a guideline, and Mill replied by suggesting that utility-based rules serve as shortcuts except for difficult or controversial cases.

Since it can be difficult to predict an outcome in advance, consequences are uncertain grounds for conferring moral value on an action. Another argument against utilitarianism from the Kantian perspective is that utilitarianism lacks serious respect for individuals. Utilitarianism conflicts with principles of justice. For example, a whistleblower may be fired in order to discourage future occurrences of such actions by other employees.

If one values only consequences. For example, water-boarding and other forms of torture might be inflicted on prisoners for the purpose of acquiring useful information.