Theory of Morality: Monism, Pluralism, Particularism

Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one’s actions are the superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who “everyone” truly is and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non-human animals, who are both susceptible to suffering, are morally equal.

Sophisticated consequentialism is a hybrid, as it adopts the ideological tenants of both modalities of consequentialism and allows for the nuance of personal relationships to at times, override the adherence to a presumed action based upon the tenants of consequentialism. The sophisticated consequentialist may accept the reality that saving their one true love, is ideologically less beneficial than saving the three strangers, however the consequentialist would also take into the account of their personal feelings and the perceived total good that they may experience with that person over a lifetime as more beneficial than saving a higher quantity of strangers. At this, the sophisticated consequentialist is adopting the subjective consequentialist view of the intent to save one’s love, and experience more moments with them and bring about a higher amount of happiness than saving those three strangers. In this, I believe that sophisticated consequentialism is giving credence and importance to the personal point of view, as a textbook definition of a consequentialist theory would point to saving the

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

Consequentialism is a broad ethical theory that describes one 's actions to be good or bad depending solely upon the consequences of those actions. The distinguishing element of this theory from others is that the action itself has no value without analyzing the expected consequences, as explained by William H. Shaw in “Consequentialism”, “...when it comes to rightness or wrongness, nothing matters but the results of our actions” (Shaw 28). Then the question is, what exactly does it mean for a consequence to be deemed 'good '? Utilitarianism, a more specific form of consequentialism, answers this by describing a 'good ' action to be one that brings about the most happiness or well-being for everyone. John Stuart Mill states, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness: wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). This theory seems simple when applied to everyday situations. However, it can become tricky when applied to more complex, multi-faceted, situations. Obviously there are differentiating levels of happiness. For example, in a situation where it seems there may be no such thing as a happy outcome, the anticipated consequence that is deemed to be the 'lesser of two evils ' would be perceived to bring about the most well-being compared to the other choice. This theory may also seem difficult because it is based on

Consequentialism states that an act is moral if the consequence of the act will bring the greatest amount of good and immoral if the act will bring bad consequences.

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant, we are presented with this conception of Kant’s called “the Form of Law.” With the discussion of the Form of Law, we will also come to encounter both moral law and the categorical imperative. Kant’s notion of the Form of Law, we will later see has a great deal of significance within the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the discussion of the Form of Law’s significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also provides us with a response to a claim offered by David Hume. Also, provided in this paper will be both a discussion of correctness of action and the normative requirement. In this paper, I will present Kant’s conception of the Form of Law, as well as its significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and finally I will conclude the paper by evaluating this analysis of the structure of correctness in action and the normatively required.

Consequentialist: Focuses on the result of an action. The act is considered a good act if the result is good, likewise and act is considered bad if the result produced is bad. Under the consequentialist theory, we have Egoism and Utilitarianism.

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

Traditional utilitarianism is a theory of the good and the right. It defends that the greatest good is happiness and freedom from pain and suffering. According to utilitarianism only one action is right in the final analysis. The things we do that produces happiness is morally right and the things we do that reduce this happiness is morally wrong. If the rewards are far greater when compared to the eventual rewards of other alternative decisions, than this action would be right. The future and the direct costs and benefits provided by each alternate towards each person need to be taken into consideration together with other unforeseen consequences. A tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill believe that an action is right if it leans towards happiness and wrong if it leans towards the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the person doing the action but also that of everyone else that may be affected by it. One must consider the benefits to others as well as your own and that everyone’s happiness and utility count the same. In contrast to egoism which is the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the truth or injustice of

Ethical Pluralism is the theory that there is no one single, absolute fundamental moral rule (monism) to follow, but rather that there are two or more fundamental moral rules that people should act by. Ethical Pluralism is split into two groups, the absolutists who believe that it is always wrong to violate the fundamental moral rules and those who believe that it is occasionally allowed to break the fundamental moral rules. W.D. Ross, an Oxford professor, developed the first version centered on the latter belief. Ross called the nonabsolute moral rules the prima facie duties, or excellent, nonabsolute, permanent reasons to do, or abstain from doing, something e.g. keeping our promises. An important point in Ross’s version of pluralism is that

Moral pluralism is an idea which encompasses several theories that have been formulated in relation to things that are morally right and those that are wrong, with incompatibility to an individual’s personal moral beliefs. As an acknowledgement of plurality of main moral laws, pluralism must brace the contention of duty situations (Timmons, 2002). One is always faced with a dilemma on the action to take under norm or another that will require serious deliberation. In relation to

Moral Particularism is the philosophical theory that there are no moral principles that determine what one should or should not do. This theory is a stark contrast to other moral theories such as Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics, which are moral theories that rely on absolutes to determine which actions or morally correct or incorrect. Moral Particularism relies on the context of each varying situation to guide one’s moral compass. One can pick and choose which moral assertions to subscribe to for a single situation. There are no absolutes or overarching themes that can apply to more than one situation. In this defense, facets of moral Particularism will be explored at a deeper level and oppositions will be argued against. This is the most appealing moral theory due to the fact that everything about the situation is taken into account before concluding which action is the most moral. In a world inundated with gray scenarios, absolutes seem irrational and myopic. Every culture, person, and situation has its own beliefs, conditions, and moral conclusions.

Another moral theory, also born of Deontological Perspectives, comes from WD Ross. In contrast to Kant, who stated that moral positions can be deduced by reason and are absolutely binding, Ross believes that we determine moral positions through intuition of the rightness or wrongness on the action. This intuition allows us to determine what our duties are while these duties are not dependent on the outcomes or circumstances, but how we rank these duties is dependent on a situation. In turn, this creates what Ross refers to as Prima Facie duties. Prima Facie duties are duties that are obligatory duties that can be trumped by other duties depending on our situation. Ross gives an example of seven of these prima facie duties in his writings: beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, self-improvement, fidelity, reparation, and gratitude. These duties arise because we intuit them to be true and binding duties. In Ross’s view, all of these duties are binding, but he does not exclude, as Kant does that these duties may overlap and run contrary to one another in any given situation. We can only act in accordance with what our perception is of the situation and try to do our best, but we may often fail as a result. While this theory is superior to Kant in that it does allow for more universal applicability and wiggle room to fit various cultures, the main issue with Ross’s theory is that it relies on the intuition of flawed humans to determine self-evident duties and does not

I demonstrated in my opening argument that Utilitarianism operates under the premise that morality is objective. This means it is not based on personal preference or belief. I even provided a source to affirm this fact of objectivity. (1) Famous’ first contention is that normative ethics are subjective and thus cannot be used to affirm objectivity. This is entirely untrue. It is worth noting that he provides no source to back this claim up. Likely because no such sources exists. Normative ethics “rest on principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong.” (2) Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory.

In the world of philosophy, the ideas of both morality and justice have their place amongst the ideas and theories that philosophers hold. The term “morality”, which is typically used to describe a code of conduct put in place by society with regard to having good character and doing the “right” thing as opposed to doing the “wrong” thing. The idea of morality is unique in that the ways that society places such an importance on in distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the law or etiquette, are detached from typical moral standards. Another interesting point surrounding the idea of morality is that one would assume justice is always moral, but as Thomas Nagel points out, this may not always be the case. With this in mind, I will assess Nagel’s argument that it is fair to tax those who are wealthier, more talented, luckier, etc. in order to reduce inequalities by redistributing taxes to those less fortunate.