Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It
is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates
the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally
speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and
wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language
and the metaphysics of moral facts. Normative ethics is also distinct
from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation
of people’s moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive ethics would be
concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is
always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to
hold such a belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive,
rather than descriptive. However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view
called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and
prescriptive at the same time.[1]
Most traditional moral theories rest on
principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong. Classical
theories in this vein include utilitarianism, Kantianism, and some forms of contractarianism. These theories mainly offered overarching
moral principles to use to resolve difficult moral decisions.
Normative ethical theories
There are disagreements about what precisely
gives an action, rule, or disposition its ethical force. Broadly speaking,
there are three competing views on how moral questions should be answered,
along with hybrid positions that combine some elements of each. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of those who
are acting, while both deontological ethics and consequentialism focus on the status of the action, rule,
or disposition itself. The latter two conceptions of ethics themselves come in
various forms.
·
Virtue ethics, advocated by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, focuses on the inherent character of a
person rather than on specific actions. There has been a significant revival of
virtue ethics in the past half-century, through the work of such
philosophers as G. E. M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Alasdair Macintyre,Mortimer J. Adler, Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and Rosalind Hursthouse.
·
Deontology argues that decisions should be made
considering the factors of one's duties and others' rights. Some deontological
theories include:
·
Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational
capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws.
·
The contractualism of John Rawls, which holds that the moral acts are those that we would all
agree to if we were unbiased.
·
Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke or Robert Nozick, which holds that human beings have absolute,
natural rights.
·
Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of
an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. Consequentialism
theories, differing in what they consider valuable (Axiology), include:
·
Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it
leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of
people. (Historical Note: Prior to the coining of the term
"consequentialism" by Anscombe in 1958 and the adoption of that term
in the literature that followed,
"utilitarianism" was the generic term for consequentialism, referring
to all theories that promoted maximizing any form of
utility, not just those that promoted maximizing happiness.)
·
State consequentialism or Mohist consequentialism, which holds
that an action is right if it leads to state welfare, through order, material
wealth, and population growth
·
Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested
person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self.
·
Situation Ethics, which holds that the correct action is the
one that creates the most loving result, and that love should
always be our goal.
·
Intellectualism, which dictates that the best action is the
one that best fosters and promotes knowledge.
·
Welfarism, which argues that the best action is the one
that most increases economic well-being or welfare.
·
Preference
utilitarianism, which holds that the
best action is the one that leads to the most overall preference
satisfaction.
·
Ethics of care or relational ethics, founded by feminist theorists, notably Carol Gilligan, argues that morality arises out of the
experiences of empathy and compassion. It emphasizes the importance of
interdependence and relationships in achieving ethical goals.
·
Pragmatic ethics is difficult to classify fully within
any of the four preceding conceptions. This view argues that moral correctness
evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many
lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social reform over concern with
consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these may be worthwhile
concerns, provided social reform is also addressed). Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, are known as the founders of pragmatism.
Binding force
It can be unclear what it means to say that a
person "ought to do X because it is moral, whether they like it or
not". Morality is sometimes presumed to have some kind
of special binding force on behavior, but some philosophers think that, used
this way, the word "ought" seems to wrongly attribute magic powers to
morality. For instance, G. E. M. Anscombe worries that "ought" has
become "a word of mere mesmeric force".[2]British ethicist Phillipa Foot elaborates that morality does not seem
to have any special binding force, and she clarifies that people only behave
morally when motivated by other factors.
If he is an amoral man
he may deny that he has any reason to trouble his head over this or any other moral
demand. Of course, he may be mistaken, and his life as well as others' lives
may be most sadly spoiled by his selfishness. But this is not what is urged by
those who think they can close the matter by an emphatic use of 'ought'. My
argument is that they are relying on an illusion, as if trying to give the
moral 'ought' a magic force.
Foot says "People talk, for instance,
about the 'binding force' of morality, but it is not clear what this means if
not that we feel ourselves unable to escape."[3] The idea is that, faced with an opportunity to steal a
book because we can get away with it, moral obligation itself has no power to
stop us unless we feel an obligation. Morality may therefore
have no binding force beyond regular human motivations, and people must be
motivated to behave morally. The question then arises: what role does reason
play in motivating moral behavior?
Motivating
The categorical imperative perspective suggests that proper reason
always leads to particular moral behavior. As mentioned above, Foot instead
believes that humans are actually motivated by desires. Proper reason, on this
view, allows humans to discover actions that get them what they want (i.e.,
hypothetical imperatives)—not necessarily actions that are moral.
Social structure and motivation can make
morality binding in a sense, but only because it makes moral norms feel
inescapable, according to Foot.[3] John Stuart Mill adds that external pressures, to please
others for instance, also influence this felt binding force, which he calls
human "conscience". Mill says that humans must first reason about
what is moral, then try to bring the feelings of our conscience in line with
our reason.[4] At the same time, Mill says that a good moral system (in
his case, utilitarianism) ultimately appeals to aspects of human nature —
which, must themselves be nurtured during upbringing. Mill explains:
This firm foundation is that of the social
feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which
is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which
tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences
of advancing civilization.
Mill thus believes that it is important to
appreciate that it is feelings that drive moral behavior, but also that they
may not be present in some people (e.g. psychopaths). Mill goes on to describe factors that help ensure people
develop a conscience and behave morally, and thinkers like Joseph Daleiden
describe how societies can use science to figure out how to make people more
likely to be good.
