Normative Ethics
Abstract
Normative ethics s a branch of philosophy that outlines the moral standards set by society to determine what is morally acceptable as right or wrong behavior. The course of conduct has to be evaluated using different approaches and theories discussed in normative ethics as set guidelines to determine the actions of people (Hursthouse, 2016). Normative ethics are categorized in virtue, deontological, and consequential ethics as a means of understanding the various approaches to defining ethics. Virtue ethics focuses on the person doing the action, the character traits they have, and if what they are doing is right. Virtues are attached to Christian perspectives because it is believed that God created everything and saw that it was good. Therefore, humans have a good heart; thus, they are expected to act morally (Annas, 2016). The deontological ethics bases actions on whether a person must engage in a specific behavior. Activities are based on the obedience of a natural command to do what is right despite the result (Tännsjö, 2013). Lastly, the consequential ethics-based their arguments on the consequence of action and behavior. Mostly, people want to have a good life on the earth and also eternally. Therefore, they seek to live morally acceptable practices in society so that they have contentment and satisfaction. Other people want to achieve pleasure and minimize pain, and thus their actions seek to achieve the purpose (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). The paper concludes that normative ethics are crucial for every society because they determine how people live and relate to each other. A community without set rules and regulations may experience disorderliness because the people do not have a governing standard of their actions and behaviors (Taliaferro, 2019). Therefore, normative ethics are standards used by societies to determine and judge whether actions are right or wrong.
Introduction
Normative ethics refers to the standards put by people to define what is right and wrong. Normative ethics delves into what a typical moral decision or idea should be, what motivates people to make individual decisions, and the process in which they use in their decision making. There are a plethora of different normative ethics theories (Tännsjö, 2013). The major three normative ethics theories, Virtue, Theological, and deontological (Athanassoulis, 2018). The essay will discuss the subcategories of normative ethics, explain, three approaches in each category, and explain how each aligns or does not align with a Christina perspective.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics focuses on the person doing an action and not the act itself. It is concerned with the character instead of behaving in a certain way to bring a good outcome. Virtue ethicist emphasizes that individuals should act in a way a virtuous person would have responded if faced with a situation (Hursthouse, 2016). Virtue ethics draws inspiration from Aristotle, a philosopher who believed that a moral is an individual with ideal character traits that are derived from nature but are nurtured to become stable and be part of a person’s lifestyle (Annas, 2016). For example, a virtuous person is one who displays traits like being kind in many situations in life, not because they want to gain favor or become useful in society. Still, it is their character (Athanassoulis, 2018). Virtue ethics can be understood by looking into agent-based, Eudaimonist, and target-centered theories.
Agent-based Theory
The agent-based theory states that virtues are determined by common sense. The observers have to judge if a person has an admirable trait that should be considered right in society. People do not engage in a behavior because it is virtuous; instead they have to be guided by a subconscious part of the brain that determines whether a choice is good and acceptable in the community (Russell, 2008). The theory believes that all virtues are as a result of inner disposition and intuitions. Agent-based ethics are considered radical because the evaluation of the actions depends on the moral judgment about the intentions and the common sense of those who are doing the actions (Zyl, 2009). Examples of traits that are admirable are kindness, compassion, and caring and are identified by looking at people whose character is admired. Agent-based virtues align to the Christian perspective people believe that God has instilled in us a noble heart. Keller (2009) states that God made the world and everything in it was good. Therefore, agent-based theories argue that God has given us admirable traits.
Eudaimonist Theory
Eudaimonist ethics believes that an action is right if it brings human flourishment. If people live their lives in the right way, doing well to others, they will inevitably bring joy and happiness to their lives. Every individual has a goal of flourishing and happiness in their lifetime, thus considering it as moral excellence (Swanton, 2018). The theory derives meaning from Aristotle, who argues that every action and behavior has an aim (Porter, 2019). Mostly, the purpose of any work is to bring good. For example, a doctor gives a baby immunization to boost their health, and that good is the Eudaimonia. Therefore, the theory seeks to achieve happiness, fulfillment, and contentment (Porter, 2019). The approach aligns with the Christian perceptive because Christianity requires that people live in good morals because they have the hope of having an eternal life that has contentment and fulfillment.
Target- centered Theory
A target-centered theory believes that action and behavior have to hit the target of a virtue. Theorists emphasize that an act is only right if it meets the criteria of being virtuous. It has to be in the best action in all circumstances because it considers morals in all different fields of life. The society has to move from the analysis of a single act to consider overlapping contexts to derive whether a behavior is right (Athanassoulis, 2018). For example, having the trait of determination may be geared by the persistence to remain focused on finishing a difficult task while having love for one’s family might aim at giving time and attention to the members (Annas, 2016). The theory aligns with Christian principles because an individual character has to be determined by examining all spheres of life, not just by analyzing one act.
Deontological Ethics
Deontological or duty ethics emphasize an action or behavior a person engages in instead of the character. An effort is considered morally right because of the attributes of the act itself, not because the act is good. Duty theories judge morality based on choices of the states of affair the options bring out. Action is based on how morally the outcomes are; thus, some behaviors are forbidden no matter the consequences (Alexander, 2016). The conformity determines duty ethics to the moral norm. Deontologists live under rules such as, it is wrong to steal, kill innocent people, tell lies, and it is morally right to keep promises (Tännsjö, 2013). The theories to support Duty ethics include Kantian, Existentialism, and divine rule theories.
Kantian Theory
Immanuel Kant developed the theory in the 18th Century. He believed that no action is right without qualification except that which is done as goodwill. A goodwill behavior is that which is done in obedience and respect for a moral law rather than natural inclinations. An action is done out of a full command whose contents are established by human reason only (Wood, 2007). Kantian theory aligns with the Christian perspective because it believes that actions are done concerning moral commands. For example, Christians operate under moral laws that were given by God to Moses, instructing people on how to live (Taliaferro, 2019). For instance, ‘do not steal’ is a law that defines the moral living among Christians.
Existentialist
The theory holds that there is a set of norms of authenticity that re crucial for understanding human existence. The theory holds beliefs that are at heart and contests academic philosophy. Many philosophers such as Sartre believed that there is no God, and thus human beings do not have a particular reason (Crowell, 2015). Existentialists reject the Aristotelian notion that to understand human beings and their purpose on earth; one has to know their ultimate end. However, the existentialist theory beliefs that man does not have an eternal end and thus can choose how to live in the world (Alexander, 2016). Therefore, as long as a person decides authentically on how to act, then there is no moral standard to criticize or judge the behavior. The theory does not align with the Christian perspective who have the belief that humans have an ultimate end and act according to moral set standards.
Divine Rule Theory
Divine rule theory views morality as being dependent on God, and the people must follow God’s commands. Morality, in this view, is based on the character of God, and a morally acceptable action and behavior is the one that God requires and approves in His commandments (Alexander, 2016). The specific standards in the divine rule theory vary according to the different religions across the world. Still, they all revolve around the claim that morality and obligations depend on God (Taliaferro, 2019). The theory aligns with Christian principles in that they have to rely on the character of God, and people have to act under the commands of God. According to Pollock (2007), God commands specific actions, and behavior is morally upright if God controls it. Thus, the theory aligns with Christianity.
Consequential Ethics
These are normative properties that are based on the outcomes and consequences of the action. The theory believes that what is morally good and right is whatever makes the world the best place to live. Consequentialists judge an act according to the outcome. For example, people may believe that telling a lie is wrong; however, if the lie would save a person’s life, then consequential ethics would say it was the best action to take (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). Critics of consequentialism believe that it is impossible or difficult to determine the outcome of an action. Consequentialism can be described using the utilitarianism, Hedonism, and ethical egoism theories.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism claims that a person ought to do an action that maximizes their self-interest. A person should decide to do what benefits than the most. It can also apply to character traits, in that a person displays attributes that bring good and satisfaction to their life. Ethical egoists also need the cooperation and support of others to obtain reasonably (Shaver, 2019). For example, breaking promises when it is the self-interest to do so my piss off other people who may not cooperate and accept any promises made to them and can cause an attack (Murphy, 1971). Therefore, the theorists have to have support and acceptance from society. The approach does not align with Christian perspectives who disapprove of actions being done out of self-interest.
Utilitarianism Theory
The theory distinguishes what is right from wrong by looking at the results of an action. The approach holds that a behavior that is morally right and acceptable within the society is that which produces the highest good and satisfaction from the result. The theory has been used to justify wars and create moral reasoning in businesses because it can account for benefits and costs (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). The approach is limited to the ability to predict future outcomes with certainty making it impossible to know if the consequences of an action will be wrong or right. The utilitarian theory makes it hard to account for values such as justice and human rights. For example, if a person needs an organ transplant and the doctors decide to use a dying person to save the life of another, many people would consider the action as wrong despite bringing the best result (Tännsjö, 2013). The theory aligns with the Christian perspective because believers live a life focusing on the result (Murphy, 1971). Christians hope for an eternal life of happiness and satisfaction; thus, all their actions are based on the outcome.
Hedonism Theory
The theory focuses on the belief that an action is morally right if it brings pleasure and absence of pain. An activity or behavior is driven by a primary motivation, which is a pleasure. Therefore a person acts out of pain and pleasure. Before making a choice, a person has to consider the intended result of the behavior; if it brings joy and contentment, then it is morally right to do it (Moore, 2013). On the contrary, an action that brings pain should be avoided. The theory extends the creation of pleasure to all people as the best way to measure if a response is ethical (Taliaferro, 2019). The method does not align with Christian perspectives because it ignores all other values, such as fairness, when evaluating what is right and wrong.
Conclusion
Normative ethics refers to the standards and regulations put by society to determine behaviors and actions which are right or wrong. A person who acts following the set criteria is said to act ethically. The normative ethics are subdivided into virtue, duty, and consequential theories that have been described by different philosophers (Tännsjö, 2013). Different people have various beliefs and often choose what ethical belief to trust and base their actions and behaviors. Some ethical theories draw their conclusions from the Christian principles and thus are seen to be followed by people who believe in God. Some people are philosophical in their understanding and therefore engage in actions and behaviors that do not necessarily base their arguments of Christianity (Taliaferro, 2019). Critics have expressed their concerns on determining what conduct is right or wrong, with many having different views, especially on the consequential ethics that rely on accessing the result.
References
Alexander, L. (2016). Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Annas, J. E. (2016). Which variety of virtue ethics? Philosophy, 35-51.
Athanassoulis, N. (2018). Virtue Ethics. Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy.
Crowell, S. (2015). Existentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Hursthouse, R. (2016). Virtue Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Moore, A. (2013). Hedonism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Murphy, J. (1971). Ethical Egoism. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://eres.regent.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.regent.edu/docview/302642983?accountid=13479
Porter, J. (2019). Eudaimonism and Christian Ethics. Journal of Christian Ethics, 23-42.
Russell, D. C. (2008). Agent-based virtue ethics and the fundamentality of virtue. American Philosophical Quarterly, 45(4), 329-347.
Shaver, R. (2019). Egoism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Swanton, C. (2018). Eudaimonistic versus target centered virtue ethics. Teoria, 38(2), 43-53.
Taliaferro, C. (2019). Philosophy of Religion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Tännsjö, T. (2013). Understanding Ethics. The Edinburgh University Press.
Wood, A. (2007). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Zyl, L. V. (2009). Agent-based Virtue Ethics and the Problem of Action Guidance. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6(1).