The document provides an overview and analysis of several classical ethical theories: - Moral absolutism claims there are absolute ethical standards applicable to all, but it can condone fundamentalism. - Moral relativism holds that morality depends on individuals and societies, making universal principles impossible. - Consequentialism judges acts based on their outcomes and consequences rather than motives. It is difficult to foresee all consequences. - Deontology focuses on duties and obligations over outcomes. Kant's categorical imperatives provide rules for determining duties. The document examines each theory's strengths and limitations in determining ethical standards and guiding human behavior.

1. The classical ethical theories
• Introduction
Normative ethics is pluralistic and this pluralism creates
disagreements among people. Each classical theory has its own view
of reality and morality. The implication from this pluralism of the
moral reality is that each theory gives its important truths about the
moral life. None of the ethical theories can claim to possess the whole
truth. In fact one theory attempts to check the excesses of the other,
and another theory comes in to curb the excesses of this latest theory
and so on, thereby showing the limits of each single theory

2. Moral absolutism
• This theory claims that there absolute truth.
• Things are bad or good absolutely. Therefore right and wrong
are universal truths that cut across all cultures and time. In this
respect, there are objective ethical standards or principles that
are applicable to everybody and everywhere in the world.
Morality does not depend on circumstances or persons and
places but on certain absolute standards. If killing a person is
wrong, it is wrong everywhere and always
Analysis
• Seen from an egoistic point of view, moral absolutism
condones fundamentalism. Religious, political, economic etc..
Fundamentalists are absolutists. They consider their point of
view as the only truth. But this goes against the basic principle
of tolerance and thus breaks down society
• It would imply that all people, all countries, all cultures should
have the same ethical codes, but is this feasible?

3. Moral relativism
• This theory holds that truth varies from time to time, group to group,
place to place.
• There is no absolute truth, no absolute values, no universal principles.
There fore there are no absolute ethical standards and obligatory norms
because nothing is good or bad absolutely.
• Morality is but relative to the individual or society one belongs to. One
person’s values and cultural values do not govern the conduct of others.
There is no morality for the whole human race throughout all history
and the whole world
• Everybody should therefore be contented with the morality of his/ her
time and place
• There are as many ethical standards as there are people or societies and
times or conditions/ situations.
• Individual uniqueness must be considered, mode of life, levels of
development, psychological and environmental difference etc should be
always be considered

4. Relativism (2)
Two forms of moral relativism
Subjectivism: views that each individual must guide his behaviour
according to what he considers appropriate for each situation
Cultural relativism: good or evil depends on the ethical values
prevailing in the society of each period
Analysis
• It would then mean no morality, everybody on his own, no
responsibility, no blame
• Yet good and evil are inherent
• cannot compare acts of different people, thus cannot judge others
• then how can we have universal laws, or achieve universal rights?

5. Consequentialism
Consequentialism is a teleological theory
• Terios means end result/ goal
• The theory judges an act according to the intention/end/purpose of the
subject acting and the goods or consequences that result from the act
• Ethical consequentialism maintains that morality (moral goodness) lies
in the fact that the sum total of good exceeds the evils that arise from a
concrete action.
• It is based on the premise that the person is responsible for the overall
outcomes of his acts, whether they are intended or not and therefore,
when choosing, he should try to optimise such consequences.
• Accordingly, morality is situated not so much in relation to the person
who acts, but to practical and temporal outcomes of his act.
• Consequentialism is an ethics of results and not a person and thus does
not relate ethics to a person performing an act because it considers the
action as something internal. Only its external effects are considered

6. Consequentialism(2)
• For instance when commits a mistake, it is not a moral
issue but a logical problem because the person has failed
to predict well the consequences of his act. In essence the
evil is reduced to a logical mistake.
Analysis
• Is it possible to foresee all the possible effects of our
actions?
• Besides consequences are not always the same
• Ethics is no longer a morality focused on relation of the act
and object but a morality focused on purpose of the actor.
What if the purpose is right and the act is wrong?
• Does not seem to accept the fact that human acts affect
the person; they make man i.e. One may feel guilty,
gratified contented, accepted ashamed, etc

7. Forms of consequentialism
Ethical egoism
• This theory states that what is good is what produces good
consequences to the individual.
• Each person is bent to maximise his or her own interest on every
occasion. One should bother about the consequences his act
will bring to him
• Ethical egoists who consider personal pleasure as the good
consequence of their acts are called hedonists. They consider an
act good or bad depending on the amount of pleasure it
produces for the individual
• Hedonists say that the wise man should regulate his life such
that he can get into it the greatest amount of pleasure and least
amount of pain
• Whatever can increase our pleasure and our general piece of
mind is good and anything that does the opposite is bad.
• Proponents include: Thomas Hobbes, Aristippus of Cyrene and
Epicurus

8. Ethical egoism(2)
Analysis
• But we search for pleasure and want to avoid pain really
• We do forego sensual pleasure to enjoy higher pleasure:
Christians and heaven
• We do curb our pleasure for the sake of society; but we
earn pleasure from this
• May be we postpone the enjoyment of pleasure
But:
• we can also deliberately refuse pleasure. Do we earn from
it? Then it would imply that every action is pleasure (nuns,
Muslims who fast etc)
• one may sacrifice for the society well knowing that he
does not share in the good of that society. For instance
people who sacrifice to die for others (Muslim
fundamentalists)

9. Utilitarianism
• This theory holds that the morality of an action is determined by the
action’s overall goodness for the biggest number of people. Therefore
we must do what produces the greatest overall good results for
everyone and not just for the individual alone.
• We need to fore go our individual interests for the good of the whole
(Bentham Jeremy and John Stuart Mill)
• The aim of human life is expressed in the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people principle.
Analysis
• Public workers are encouraged to think about others- service
• Not easy to attain happiness for all- it is just for a few fortunate
But
• why should i forego my pleasure for the good of others especially if
society does not contribute to my pleasure?
• is morality of the majority always right?

10. Pragmatisms
• Pragmatism holds that there cannot be room for ethical
absolutism.
• Ethical standards change in relation to their usefulness or
practicability and their ability to produce positive results.
• Pragmatism considers what works as what is true
• That which is profitable and has practical consequences is valid,
thus an act will be ethically right if it is
-practical and produces positive results
-can help us to solve practical problems
-attain a good result

11. Feminist consequentialism (Carol Gilligan)
• Most of the theories draw their vitality from experience, but mainly
from male human beings
• The worldview of most reality is dominated by male
• Therefore, according to feminist ethics, what seems to be neutral
language of ethical discourse is not gender neutral at all. For instance it
focuses on the so- called public sphere from which women traditionally
have been excluded.
According to Gilligan there are differences between male and female ethics
-men tend to see morality as about logic and law while women
tend to see it about communication and relationship
-men tend to see morality about abstract/general/ universal while
women focus on the particular
-men see morality as relating to competing rights or claims while
women see is as about responsibilities
-to women, the critical moral issue is about hurting others and
destroying relationships

12. Feminist ethics(2)
• Feminist ethics therefore concerns care, relationships, and feelings
• According to Gilligan, feminist ethics is a psychological logic of
relationships, which contrasts the formal logic of fairness that informs
the justice approach
• The difference is that while an ethic of justice proceeds from the
premise of equality- that every one should be treated the same, the
ethic of care rests on the premise of non- violence- that no one
should be hurt
• Therefore feminist consequentialism stresses that the morally good
act is one which maintains what carol Gilligan calls the ‘’greatest
connectedness’’ among those that are touched by it. Wrongness
regards results that destroy relationships with others by emotionally
hurting them.
Analysis
• Is it possible not to ever hurt?
• Can relationships and sentiments take the place of fairness and
justice?

13. Non consequentialism
• While non consequentialists agree with the consequentialists
that man’s life is characterised by a search for happiness,
nevertheless, they say we must consider other factors other
than the results of an action. We must for example consider
the act itself, the intention and the motive
• The reason is that some acts are morally wrong even though
they produce positive effects / results. For instance beating up
peaceful demonstrators to bring peace and order
Analysis
• Ethics is not about consequences, the motive, the intention
and the act itself must be considered

14. Divine command
• Here it is God’s word that guides human action. What is right is
commanded by God and vise versa
Analysis
Two major problems
• The theory cannot appeal to non believers
• It is difficult to discern/ distinguish what is God’s will and what is
not
• For instance, when I help some one who has got an accident, how
can i know that it is God’s will?
• Again since there are many religions, every believer will base
morality of his religion but this can end in anarchy (state of
disorder/absence of authority) or even fundamentalism (strict
adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline).

15. Ethics according to nature
• The theory maintains that we should act according to nature. Men
should respect nature as created by God. Therefore, what is
natural is considered morally right while what is unnatural is
considered bad and morally wrong
Analysis
• But can we say natural calamities are good since they are natural?
This would imply taking no effort to avert natural calamities

16. Communitarianism
• Up holders of this theory contend that everything derives from community
values for the common good, social goals, traditional practices and
cooperative virtues.
• conventional modes of behaviour, traditions, social cohesion. Solidarity
are taken as important elements
• Morality of an act depends on whether the act contributes to the
common good.
• It is the community to determine principles that should guide individual
behavior
• It is society to assign roles to each member. What is not in line with the
common good is wrong
Analysis
But is am born in a community of thieves, corrupt people, must I fight for
their common good? If you are oppressed by the community, should you keep
quite about it? ( Mandela, Besigye etc)

17. Virtue/ character theory
• What matter is not what should one do, but how can one live a virtuous life
• It is not about learning rules, instead effort is put on the cultivation of character such as:
-Benevolent
-courage
-self- respecting
-sincere honest
-exemplary etc
• The argument is that once a person masters these virtues, then he/she will do good.
• One becomes either virtuous or vicious by one’s way of acting daily. It becomes a habit
through the repetition of acts
Example: A child who is asked to share out to friends becomes a charitable person (Virtue). A
child who steals food, fruits, money and is not reprimanded continues doing so (Vice)
The moral virtues include:
-Prudence (Sensible and careful when making decisions/judgements)
-Justice/fairness
-Reasonable
-Fortitude( brave, courageous despite difficulties)
-Temperance (moderation/ability to control behaviour)

18. Deontology Theories
Deontology is from Greek words Deon and Logos respectively. Deon means
duty, obligation. What ought to be done, what is necessary to do.
(Proponents: Hugo Grotius (1583-1635), Sam Pufendorf (1632-1694), D. W
Ross and Immanuel Kant)
Deontological ethics therefore views morality from the point of vies of duty
or one’s obligations. Acting in accordance to duty is moral and not doing so
is morally wrong
What are our duties?
According to Hugo Grotius (1583-1635), and Sam Pufendorf (1632-1694)
duties are founded on various obligations
1. Towards God- for example honoring, serving and praising him
2. To oneself- preserving one’s life, pursuing happiness and developing
one’s talents
3. To others- family obligations, such as honoring parents, caring for
spouses and children, and social obligations such as not harming others,
keeping promises and being benevolent

19. Duties (2)
For WD Ross (1917-1971), our basic duties, that is duties that are
part of the fundamental nature of the universe include
-Fidelity- duty to keep promises
-Gratitude. Duty to show gratitude to those who help us
-Justice- duty to recognize merit
-Beneficence- duty to do good for others/ improve conditions
of others
-Self- improvement- duty to improve our virtues and
intelligence
-Nonmaleficence- Duty not to injure others

20. Duties (3)
Kantian Deontological Ethics
• For Immanuel Kant, acting for the sake of duty amounts to doing
something simply because it is a right thing to do. It is only when a
person acts of respect for the law, with no other reason than compliance
itself, acts according to morality. People must fulfill their duties and
obligations as the law requires
• Kant asserts that acting from duty means doing something which one is
not simply inclined to or willing to do but which he does because he
recognises that he ought to do it- one is obliged to and one should or
ought to do it
• Thus you don’t act out of fear or not simply because you feel like doing
it (Paying tax because you fear to be imprisoned, attending this lecture
simply because you fear to miss/ fail exams etc)
• You do something because you are inclined to it (gives you a sense of
pleasure or satisfaction)
What is right according to Kant?
• What is right is what is one’s duty or one’s obligations. For instance
paying tax because you are convinced it is your duty to do so for national
development. So it is morally right for a businessman to pay taxes

21. How can I know what is right?
• Sleeping, talking to a friend, listening to the lecturer, shouting? May all
seem right
• According to Kant, judge which of the options is in line with your
obligation/duty as a student during the lecture. What you ought to do
• In all, Kant sees the right motive of the doer as duty/ obligation/ the
ought
• A student who simply attend lectures for fear is not a moral person,
instead one who does so, seeing it is his duty to do so is a moral person
• He critics the consequentialists, hedonists, utilitarian's pragmatists who
never mind about the motives of the doers
• He gives some categorical imperatives to guide human actions
• These imperatives lay down general rules that if followed, will ensure
that the person behaving in accordance with them will behave morally

22. Categorical imperatives
1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law. In other words, always act
as if the maxim of your will could become a universal law of
nature
2. So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
that of any other, in every case as an end never as means. That is
to say, act in such away that you always treat humanity, whether
in yourself on in any other person as an end rather than as a
means
Some limitations
• But how can one deal with conflicting duties
• If I tell the truth i shall break a promise
• if I keep the secret, i will not tell the truth
• Kant wants people to be objective, for example not tell lies, but
suppose it will save life?