Moral Philosophy

Todo, Lecture Notes, Moral Philosophy;
University of Juba
Page | 1
The Republic of South Sudan
University of Juba
School of Arts and Humanities
Department of Philosophy
Course Title: Moral Philosophy
TODO R. Sam
First Draft, 2012/2013

University of Juba
Page | 2
Strictly only for use of students of University of
Juba, Yr. II
Moral Philosophy
1. i. Definition of Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophy, also known as Philosophical Ethics or simply
Ethics, is a branch of Philosophy that studies Moral Values and Rules. It is a
Philosophical study that addresses and investigates questions about
Morality, that is, concepts such as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Virtue
and Vice, Value, Justice, etc. It is the area of Philosophy that is concerned with
Theories of Morality/Ethics, i.e. with Theories about how one ought to live
one’s life. In other words, it is the study of human Conduct and Values. It is a
systematic endeavour to understand Moral Concepts and justify Moral
Principles and Theories. It undertakes to analyse such Concepts as ‘Right,
Wrong, Permissible, Ought/Must, Godd’ and ‘Evil’ in their Moral contexts. It
builds and scrutinizes arguments setting forth large scale of Theories on ‘how
one ought to act’ and seeks to discover ‘valid Principles’ of conduct and the
relationship between those Principles.
Whereas “Philosophy” in its varied fields of study such as Metaphysics,
Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of the Mind, etc, is
concerned with “Knowledge of What Is”, “Moral Philosophy” or “Philosophical
Ethics” is concerned with “Action and Practice”. It is concerned with “Values”,

University of Juba
Page | 3
and not just “What Is” but “What ought to be”. It is concerned with “How one
should live, what is the Right thing to do in a given situation such as ‘ought a
woman ought to ever have an abortion?’
Moral Phlosophy has a distinct ‘action-guiding’ aspect, and as such belongs to
the group of practical institutions that includes Religion, Law and Etiguette.
A good way to grasp better the distinctive features of Philosophical Ethics is to
compare it with these above-mentioned practical Institutions that set standards
of behaviour.
Morality makes reference to Right/Wrong/Permisible behaviour with regard to
‘basic Values’. Moral Theories differ on the scope of Morality and they differ
also on the exact “hierarchy of Values”, such as ‘how does one rank survival,
Justice Happiness, Freedom and other good qualities? Despite these however, in
general they all have a “concern to alleviate suffering and promote human well-
being”.
“Morality” differs from “Law” in that it does not threaten “Sanctions or
Puishments” from a civil or Institutional body. It differs from “Religion” in that
it does not threatend Sanctions or Punishments unseen Spiritual forces either in
this life or in the future ones. Morality appeals to “Conscience, Reason” and
“Ideals”. These qualities are more subtle and less tangible than Legal sanctions,
and less threatening than Religious sanctions, but they are deeper than Legal
sanctions and broader than Religious sanctions for everyone who is ‘rational’
should be able to comprehend and appreciate them.

University of Juba
Page | 4
Etiquette also differs from Law and Religion, though like them it appeals to
‘Conscience’.
“Law, Etiquette” and Religion” are important Institutions, but they have
‘limitations’.
The ‘limitation’ of “Law” is that there cannot be a “Law” for every social
malady, nor can every ‘Law’ be enforced
The ‘limitation’ of “Etiquette” is that it cannot get to the heart of ‘what is of
vital importance’ for personal existence. Whether one eats with one’s fingers, if
it were considered ‘bad etiquette’, pales in significance when compared with the
importance of being ‘Honest or Trustworth or Just’.
The ‘limitation’ of “Religious injunctions” is that they rest on “Authority”. But
there are always also uncertainties and disagreements about the ‘credentials’ of
‘Authority’ and on how it could be brought to bear in ambiguous or new
situations. Essentially, ‘Religious Morality’ is an authoritative system wherein
reason plays a very small universal role due to plurality of Religions.
“Philsophical Ethics” distinguishes itself from “Law” and “Etiquette” because”
it goes deeper into the Essence of rational existence”. It distinguishes itself from
‘Religion’ in that “it seeks reason” rather than “Authority” to justify its
principles. Deep and rational in its probig Philosophical Ethics establishes itself
as one of the most difficult, fascinating and important of Human sciences.
A few more distinctions need to be made before we embark on on our study of
Moral Ethical Theory/ies:

University of Juba
Page | 5
The first is the distinction between “Descriptive” and “Normative” ethics.
Anthropology and Sociology, as descriptive Sciences, examine ethical beliefs
and practices of given societies or of people as such, e.g., Sociobiologists calim
that human nature exhibits a common set of moral practices. They tell us what
is in different cultures. But while Moral Philosophy may take into account the
results of Science, it is distinctly ‘Normative’ rather than ‘Descriptive’.
Philosophical Ethics is about “Ideal behaviour, about what should Be”, even
though it is not a present reality, and “it seeks to justify sets of principles
pointing towards those Ideals”. Secondly, we need to note that the term “Moral”
is ambiquous and has two possible opposites: “Non-Moral” aind “Immoral”.
We may use the term “Moral” in discussing whether some issue is within the
scope of ‘Moral consideration’. Deciding whether to write a pen or a pencil or
whether to wear a white or blue shirt is not normally a “Moral” issue at all.
Some issues in etiquette may “Moral” issues. They are simply “Non-Moral”. On
the other hand, when we normally speak of some Deed as “Moral” we use the
term for what is “Morally right” thing to do, as oppalue Judgments”. However,
not all “Value Judgments” are withing the scope of “Moral considerations”.
Some Value judgments are simply ‘Prudential’ and others are ‘Aesthetical’.
When we say “That is good” we need to pay attention to the context. For we
may mean either that an act is the most fitting one if we want to reach our goal,
or that an object described is ‘beautiful’ or essentially ‘satisfying’ or speaking
“Morally”, we mean that an Act is the “Morally correct Deed”.
These two words of the ‘Course Title’, ‘Moral’ and ‘Philosophy’ deserve
elaboration.

University of Juba
Page | 6
ii. Moral: Meaninng
“Moral” means:
 That which pertains to, or concerned with the principles or rules of
right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong, good and
bad action or behaviour;
 It refers to an Action, Thought or Situation that is guided by or in
accordance with a sense of right and wrong.
a. Moral: Word Origin and History
The word was coined by Cicero to translate the Greek word ‘ethikos-ethics’ to
Latin word ‘mos’ in ‘singular’ and ‘mores’ in plural.
The word is first recorded as far back as late 14th
century. Eventually, by mid
14th
century, it came to gain an ‘Ethical connotation’ meaning "what is
pertaining to character or temperament" as ‘good or bad’ in the sense of
"proper behaviour of a person in society".
The English word “Moral” is derived from the Latin plural form ‘mores’.
b. “Moral-Morality”: Definition
“Moral” or “Morality” refers to a ‘disposition, Attitude, Habit, Behaviour’.
The word “Moral” means ‘morally Good, conforming to Standards/Rules of
Right Moral Disposition, Habit, Customs, Behaviour’.
“Morality” is concerned with “beliefs about ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong human
conduct’”. These beliefs are normatively expressed through such general terms

University of Juba
Page | 7
such as ‘Good, Bad, Virtuous, Praiseworthy, Right, Ought/Must’ and
‘Blameworthy’.
Another way in which Morality is understood and expressed is through Social
Institutions such as ‘Religion, Law, Etiquette’, etc. These are ways that are used
to ‘evaluate’ human conduct.
The sense of ‘Moral’ is that of ‘opposite of non-Moral, Immoral, Morally
Wrong’ and/Incorrect’.
“Moral” means “morally Good, Right, Virtuous”.
“Morality” is a ‘Concept’ regarding a distinctive form of learned behaviour
about a set of Rules/principles/norms, regulations and Commandments for
appropriate moral behaviour in reference to ‘Self’ and ‘Others’ in society
as they promote and guarantee ‘well-Being’.
The original ‘value’ of the word was ‘neutral in sense’; thus, the usage in
expressions such as ‘morally good or upright or morally bad or evil’ in the
sense of ‘Good” or “Bad Habit, Behaviour, Manners, Customs”.
Though the word is derived from the Latin ‘Mores, Moralis’, it however
basically originates and is based on the Greek word εθος/εθικος-ethos/ethikos.
The word εθος/εθικος-ethos/ethikos means a ‘Habit, Custom, Disposition,
Attitude, Custom, Behaviour, Character’ that ‘conforms correctly, rightly’ to
that which befits of a human conduct. In Greek world-thought, the word has an
intimately Philosophical conception and aspect.

University of Juba
Page | 8
In summary, ethos is a Greek word that means ‘Custom, Tradition,
Cultic/Ritual, Regulation, Law’. It is from this word that the English word
“Ethics” is derived. “Ethics” denotes ‘disposition, character, or fundamental
values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement. It is a
distinctive character, spirit, and attitudes of a people, culture, era’ etc’ as
pertaining to “Right practice/Conduct/behaviour”. The word comes from, and
is based on the Greek word ethnikos which means ‘people, nation’. It is from
this root that English language derives the word ‘Ethnic’. ‘Ethos’ has been
transferred, borrowed and used in English language in its entirity retaining the
same meaning of ‘distinctive spirit and attitudes of a people, culture, etc,’.
‘Morals’ in Ethics, refer to right rules and standards of human conduct and
practice; it refers to ‘generally accepted Customs of conduct and right
living’ in society and to the individual's practice in relation to these Standards.
Morals are sets of Rules that we ought to obey, they tell us what is Right or
Wrong. Moral Philosophers strife to discover ways and principles of how these
Rules are justified, and what are the logical consequences of Moral or Ethical
beliefs.
Ethics now implies high standards of ‘honest’ and ‘honourable’ dealing in
human relationship and of methods used especially in professional life and
business: e.g., ethics of the medical profession, journalistic ethics, business
ethics, wtc.

University of Juba
Page | 9
2. Philosophy:
i. Etymology:
The English word “Philosophy”is derived and originates from Greek language.
It is built from two words, ‘philew’, as a verb and ‘sophos’, an Adjective; thus
‘philosophos’, which means ‘love of wisdom’.
ii. Definition
Philosophy is an academic discipline that exercises reason and logic in an
attempt to understand ‘Reality’ and answer fundamental questions about
Knowledge, Life, Morality and Human Nature. The ancient Greeks, who were
among the first to practice philosophy, coined the term ‘Philosophy’, which
means “love of wisdom”. Those who study Philosophy and are experts in the
field are called ‘Philosophers’, meaning ‘lovers of wisdom’. A Philosopher is a
‘lover of Wisdom’. Through the ages, Philosophers have sought to answer such
questions such as
 ‘What is the meaning and purpose of life?
 How do we know what we know?
 Does God exist?
 What does it mean to possess Consciousness/awareness? and,
 What is the value of Morals?
Philosophers attempt to answer these questions through the ‘Philosophical
Method of inquiry’. The method usually begins when a philosopher examines
his own beliefs and begins to ‘doubt their validity and truth’. From his ‘Doubt’,

University of Juba
Page | 10
questions emerge. Before answering a question, a philosopher thoroughly
‘analyses’ it to ensure it is clearly and properly defined. This helps to narrow
the path to the most precise answer. Next, a philosopher proposes possible
answers to the question and provides ‘reasoned arguments’ to support it. The
arguments are then ‘critiqued’ by other philosophers, who may give
rebuttals/criticism. Through this process of ‘criticism and judgment’, known as
‘dialectic method or dialectic criticism’, philosophers attempt to prove the
‘rationality’ of their beliefs and discover fundamental truths. Philosophy as a
course of study focuses on ‘analytical thinking and problem solving’.

University of Juba
Page | 11
II. 1. The Concept and Basis of Morality
‘Morality’ and ‘Morals’ are founded principally on two fundamental
“Concepts”. These two fundamental concepts are the concept of ‘the Good’ and
the concept of ‘Value’.
1. ‘GOOD’: Definition
“Good” pertains to what is ‘morally positive’, what is ‘beneficial’. It refers to a
‘quality’.
The word ‘good’ has the sense of "having the right or desirable quality-‘arete’.
‘Good’ is associated with ‘happiness, love’, and ‘prosperity life’. It is the
opposite of ‘bad’, which has the sense of "undesirable".
The nature of goodness has been given many treatments. One such fundamental
treatment is that which understands ‘the good’ as principally based on that
which is ‘positive’, what is of ‘quality’ and that which is ‘beneficial’.
a. Theories of ‘the Good’
'The Theories of Moral Goodness” are those studies that inquire into what sorts
of things are ‘good’ and what the word "good" really means in the abstract.
There are two Theories of Moral Good. These are ‘the Objective Theories of the
Moral Good’ and ‘the Subjective Theories of Moral Good’.

University of Juba
Page | 12
i. “The Objective Theory of the Good”
The ‘Objective Theory of the Good’ understands ‘Good’ as a ‘quality’
attributed to Objects, Actions, and Ideas. Generally, what is ‘Good’ is thought
to be what is ‘Beneficial’ and what is thought to be ‘Harmful’ is ‘Bad, Evil’.
Thus, the ‘Objective Theory of the Good’ states that ‘an Object, Action or Idea’
is Good ‘in itself, independently, abstractly’.
However, defining good and evil remains a central and debatable question of
ethics and one that has been explored in both philosophical and religious
spectrums.
The ‘Good’ is ‘what is necessary or desirable for the welfare of a Being or
Society’.
‘Good action’ is that which ‘leads to a higher state of Being’. It is an absolute
measure of justice. From the ‘Good’, things ‘gain their usefulness and value’.
The basic elements of ‘Good’ are: Truth, Justice, Equality, and beauty. On the
other hand, ‘Evil’ is a standard or measure that is ‘bad, wrong, or causes pain or
misery’.
As a philosophical concept, ‘Goodness’ represents openness to ‘positiveness’.
‘Goodness’ represents what contributes and promotes well-being, social
welfare, state of higher degree of harmony and peace. It represents a hope that
natural love should be continuous, expansive, and all-inclusive, universal.
In a Monotheistic religious context, it is by this hope that an important concept
of God is derived—God as an infinite projection of love, manifested as
goodness in the lives of people.

University of Juba
Page | 13
In other contexts, ‘the good’ is viewed to be ‘whatever produces the best
consequences upon the lives of people, especially with regard to their states of
well being’.
One attempt to define goodness describes it as a ‘property’ and as a ‘Quality’.
According to this point of view, to talk about ‘the good’ is to talk about
something real that exists in the object itself, independent of the perception of it.
Plato advocated this view in his expression that there is such a thing as an
‘eternal realm of forms or ideas’, and that the greatest of the ‘ideas’ and the
‘essence of being’ was ‘goodness’ itself or ‘The good’.
‘Good’ was defined by many ancient Greeks and other ancient philosophers as a
‘perfect and eternal idea’. ‘Good’ pertained to ‘right relation between all that
exists’, it pertains to ‘harmony’.
For these philosophers, the ‘Good’ was the ‘just harmony of a political
community’. It meant love, friendship, the ordered human soul’ and ‘the right
relation to the Divine and to Nature’.
ii. Subjective theory of the “Good”
It remains difficult to figure out where an immaterial trait such as "goodness"
could reside. There however is a proposal that locates ‘value inside people’.
Some philosophers go as far as to say that if some state of affair does not tend to
arouse a desirable subjective state in self-aware beings, then it cannot be good.

University of Juba
Page | 14
Most philosophers that think ‘good’ have to create desirable mental states also
say that ‘good’ are experiences of self-aware beings. Philosophers distinguish
‘Intrinsic good’ from "Instrumental good".
a. Intrinsic versus Instrumental or Extrinsic Value/Good
This concept is often also understood and discussed as ‘Intrinsic’ and
‘Instrumental Good’ and are definable as related to each other as follows:
i. ‘Intrinsic value’:
Instrumental value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or
philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an
intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an ‘end’ or
in Kantian terminology, ‘an end-in-itself’.
It is contrasted with ‘Instrumental value’ or ‘extrinsic value’, the value of which
depends on how much it generates intrinsic value.
For an eudaemonist, happiness or human well-being and flourishing has
intrinsic value. While having a family may not have ‘intrinsic value’, yet it is
‘instrumental’ since it generates happiness. ‘Intrinsic value’ is a term employed
in “Axiology”. Axiology is the study of ‘Quality’ or ‘Value’.
‘Intrinsic good’ is something worthwhile not because it leads to something else,
but ‘for its own sake alone; i.e., Good-in-itself’.
An intrinsic good is not a means to something else, as money can be a means to
pleasure. You can find out what an intrinsic good is for you by asking a series

University of Juba
Page | 15
of "why" questions until a nonsense answer is reached, e.g., why did you come
to class today? Answer: Coming to class will help me pass the course.
Why do you want to pass the course? Answer: I want to graduate. Why do you
want to graduate? Answer: So that I can have an opportunity to work at
something I enjoy and make a living. Why do you want to do that? Answer: So
that I can be happy? Why do you want to be happy? Answer: That question
makes no sense.
ii. ‘Instrumental good’:
When something is used as a ‘means to some other good’, it is considered as an
‘instrumental good’. This is because it ‘leads to something else that is good’.
One instrumental good might lead to another instrumental good or it might lead
to an intrinsic good, C.f., the series of why-questions above. e.g., many persons
believe Education --> wealth --> success --> happiness.
Some theories describe no higher collective value than that of maximizing
pleasure for an individual(s). Some even define ‘goodness’ and ‘intrinsic value’
as the experience of ‘pleasure’, and ‘bad’ as the experience of ‘pain’. This view
is called hedonism, a monistic theory of value. It has two main varieties: simple
and Epicurean hedonism.
Simple hedonism is the view that physical pleasure is the ultimate good.
However, the ancient philosopher Epicurus used the word 'pleasure' in a more
general sense that encompassed a range of states from bliss to contentment to

University of Juba
Page | 16
relief. Contrary to popular caricature, he valued pleasures of the mind to bodily
pleasures, and advocated ‘moderation’ as the surest path to happiness.
Jeremy Bentham prioritized goods by considering ‘pleasure and pain’ and
‘consequences’. A similar system was later named ‘Utilitarianism’ by John
Stuart Mill.
More broadly, ‘Utilitarian Theories’ are examples of ‘Consequentialism’. All
Utilitarian theories are based upon the ‘maxim of utility’.
‘Utilitarianism’ states that ‘good is whatever provides the greatest happiness for
the greatest number’. This principle argues that ‘what brings happiness to the
greatest number of people, is good’.
On the other hand, Evil is typically associated with ‘conscious and deliberate
wrongdoing or actions’ designed to harm others. Humiliation of people
designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and
acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence that are not legitimate acts of
self-defense but aggressive and designed to cause ill-being to the others are all
‘wrong, bad and evil’.
b. The “Form of the Good”
Plato describes "The Form of the Good" (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν) in his dialogue, the
Republic, speaking through the character of Socrates as an ‘Idea’ or
‘Image/Form’. The Sun is described in a simile as the child or offspring
(ἔκγονος ekgonos) of the “Form of the Good” in that, like the sun which makes
physical objects visible and generates life on earth, the ‘Good’ makes all other

University of Juba
Page | 17
universals intelligible and provides ‘Bing’ to all other Forms, though the Good
itself exceeds ood’ is an absolute measure of justice.
Plato also explains his theory of justice in the Republic in relation to his
conception of a city in speech both of which necessitate rule of the rational
mind. There, he argues that a city must be ruled by ‘philosopher-kings, who can
grasp the Form of the Good’. Plato writes that the “Form or Idea” of the Good is
the “ultimate object of knowledge”, although it is not knowledge itself. He
argues that from the ‘Good’, good things ‘gain their Goodness, usefulness and
Value’. He argues that Humans are compelled to pursue the “good”, though no
one can hope to do this successfully without philosophical reasoning. According
to Plato, true knowledge is being conversant not about those material objects
and imperfect intelligences which we meet within our daily interactions with all
mankindTrue knowledge investigates the nature of those purer and more perfect
patterns which are the models after which all created beings are formed. Plato
supposes these perfect types to exist from all eternity and calls them the ‘Forms’
or ‘Ideas’. As these ‘Forms’ cannot be perceived by human senses, whatever
knowledge we attain of the Forms must be seen through the mind's eye (cf.
Parmenides 132a). He argues that ‘ideas’ derived from the “concrete world of
flux are ultimately unsatisfactory and uncertain” (see the Theaetetus). Plato
maintains a degree of skepticism regarding ‘sense knowledge’. He denies
permanent authority to the evidence of sense. In essence, Plato suggests that
justice, truth, equity/equality, beauty and many many other Good things
ultimately derive from “the Form of the Good”.

University of Juba
Page | 18
Aristotle too discussed the problem of the Good. He was critical of the Forms of
Good, and discussed it several times in both of his major surviving ethical
works, the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics.
2. Value/Axiology
a. Conceptual Framework
It is possible to treat the essential Theories of Value by the use of a
philosophical and academic approach. In properly analyzing ‘Theories of
Value’, everyday beliefs are not only carefully catalogued and described, but are
also rigorously analyzed and judged.
There are Two basic ways of presenting a Theory of Value. These Two
Theories are based on Two different kinds of fundamental questions as follows:
 What do people find “Good or Valuable” and what do they find “Bad or
disvaluable” and they despise or dislike?
 What is “Good or valuable” really, and what really is “Bad or
Disvaluable?”
Understanding, answering, explaining and defining ‘Good’ is the same as
understandfing, answering, explaining and defining ‘Value’.
The two questions above are subtly different and their answers have a shade of
different implications. The first question can be answered by researching the
world by use of Social Science, and examining the preferences that people
assert as ‘Good’ or ‘’Bad’. However, the second question can be answered by
use of reasoning, introspection, prescription, and generalization. The former

University of Juba
Page | 19
kind of method of analysis is called "descriptive". This method attempts to
describe what people actually view as ‘Good’ or ‘Bad/evil’. The second method
is called "Normative method". This is because ‘Good’ or ‘Bad/evil’, it
formulates ‘rules, principles, norms’ that try to actively ‘prohibit evils’ and
‘permit’ what people cherish as ‘Good’.
These ‘Descriptive’ and ‘Normative’ approaches, are however complementary.
They represent two approaches in ethical investigation. These two approaches
are known as Meta-ethical and Normative ethical approaches or methods. They
therefore divide ethics into distinct divisions known as ‘Meta ethics’and
‘Normative ethics.
Meta-ethics is the study of the fundamental questions concerning the nature and
origins of the good and the evil. It inquires into the nature of good and evil, as
well as the meaning of evaluative language. In this respect, Meta-ethics is not
necessarily tied to investigations into how others see the good, or of asserting
what is good. That part is the concern of Normative ethic. Thus, we can speak
of ‘Normative Ethics’ and ‘Value ethics.
‘Meta Ethics’ is also known as ‘Value Ethics, Axiology and ‘Theory of Value’.
‘Meta Ethics’ is concerned with finding ‘reasons’ for ‘why’ a ‘Norm, Rule’ is
‘Good/of Value’ or ‘Bad’.
1. Value: Definition
‘Value’ pertains to something that has a ‘positive’ aspect/mark quality, has
‘prize’; something to ‘cherish, esteem, respect’ and ‘hold it ideal’; something
that has ‘relative worth, merit’, or ‘importance, worth, desirability’ or ‘utility’.

University of Juba
Page | 20
Value ethics is concerned with a ‘property/quality’ of objects, including
physical objects as well as abstract objects (e.g. actions), representing their
degree of importance/worth/Value, thus ‘Value ethics’.
‘Value ethics’ denotes a ‘degree of importance of ‘something’, with the aim of
determining what action is best to do or what life is best to live, what action or
life ‘ought to be observed (Deontology). Value ethics attempts to describe the
‘value’ of different actions (Axiology). It may best be described as a way of
treating actions themselves in ‘abstract objects’, putting ‘value’ to them. It deals
with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively
highly, valuable action may be regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense),
and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as "bad".
2. Axiology: Definition
‘Axiology’ is a word that is derived from Greek word ἀξίᾱ, axiā. The word axia
means "Value, worth"; and -λόγος-logos, stands for a philosophical study of
‘Value’ and ‘Goodness’. The term was first used in the early 20th century by
Paul Lapie, in 1902, and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
As a Moral Philosophical descipline “Axiology” studies mainly two kinds of
“Values”: Ethics and Aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and
"good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of
"beauty" and "harmony".
What makes an action ‘valuable’ may in turn depend on the ethic value of the
objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be
termed an "ethic or philosophic good" (noun sense).

University of Juba
Page | 21
‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are ‘qualities’ attributed to objects, actions, and ideas.
Generally, what is ‘good’ is thought to be ‘beneficial’ and what is ‘evil’ is
thought to be ‘harmful’. Defining good and evil remains a central question of
ethics, it is a question that has been explored in both philosophical and religious
terms.
Values play an important part in our lives. They help us to decide what we
expect of ourselves and of others. Our values help us to formulate ‘value
system, codes and norms’ that aid our decision-making.
A value system is a set of consistent ethic values, more specifically the personal
and cultural values and measures used for the purpose of ethical integrity. A
well defined value system is a Moral code.
The term “value” originally meant the ‘worth’ of something, chiefly in the
Moral and economic sense of exchange value.
Ralph Barton Perry gave a general Theory of Value (1926), where he theorized,
it as “any object of any interest.” Later, he denominated eight “realms” of value
as: Morality, Religion, Art, Science, Economics, Politics, Law, and Custom.
A distinction is commonly made between ‘instrumental and intrinsic value’, i.e.
between ‘what is good as a means’ and ‘what is good as an end/in itself’, cfr.
Theories of the Good.

University of Juba
Page | 22
b. Personal and Communal Value
One or more people can hold a value system of one kind or another. Thus, a
‘value system’ can apply to either one person or many people.
 A personal value system is held by and applied to one individual only.
 A communal or cultural value system is held by and applied by a
community/group/society. Some communal value systems are reflected in
the form of ‘legal codes or law’.
3. Virtue: Etymology, Meaning and Definition
1. Etymology
The term ‘Virtue’ is derived from the word in Latin that signifies ‘Man’.
Etymologically, the English word ‘Virtue’ comes through the Latin word
‘virtus’.
2. Meaning
The Latin word ‘virtus’ means ‘manliness’. The underlying concept signifies
‘courage/fortitude’, which was attributed to be a man's chief quality.’Fortitude,
Bravity’ was understood to be a man’s chief quality. The concept however
derives from an Ancient Greek word “ἀρετή-arete", which means “moral
excellence”. Taken in its widest sense, Virtue means the ‘excellence or
perfection’ of a thing. Virtue is a trait or quality deemed to be ‘morally
good’ and thus, a thing or object possessing it, is ‘valued’. Virtue is a

University of Juba
Page | 23
foundational standard and principle of ‘moral being’. It refers to a
behaviour showing high moral standards.
Paragons/Synonyms of virtue:
goodness, virtuousness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity,
rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, nobility, worthiness, purity.
The opposite of Virtue is ‘Vice’. Vice denotes a ‘defect or absence of
perfection’ proper to a thing.
In its strictest meaning, however, as used by Moral philosophers (and
theologians), ‘Virtue’ signifies a ‘habit’ superadded to a faculty of the
mind/intellect/soul, disposing it to elicit with readiness, acts conformable to a
human rational nature. According to St. Augustine, "Virtue is a good habit
consonant with our nature."
From Saint Thomas's entire discussion on the Question on the essence of Virtue,
the following brief but complete definition of virtue, in paraphrase, may be
grasped.
3. Virtue: Definition
Virtue is a ‘quality’ that resides in a subject making it to ‘operate/act well’ in its
operation/action. It is an operative habit/quality residing in a power or faculty of
a subject.
Virtue then, is a potency/power/ability that disposes a subject to a certain
determined activity. It disposes a Subject to ‘good acts’, i.e. acts in consonance

University of Juba
Page | 24
with ‘right reason’. Thus, for example, ‘temperance’ inclines the sensuous
appetite to acts of ‘moderation’ conformably to right reason just as
‘intemperance’ impels the same appetite to acts of excess contrary to the
dictates of our rational nature.
During Egyptian and Jewish civilizations, the ‘Ma'at’ was a concept of
‘Truth’, balance, order, law, morality, and justice. ‘Maat’ was also
personified as a goddess regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both
mortals and the deities. The deities set the order of the universe from chaos at
the moment of creation. The counterpart of ‘Ma’at’was ‘Isfet’, who symbolized
chaos, lies and it came to stand for the concept of ‘injustice...Vice’.
From this concept that refers to ‘deities’, ‘Truth’ is a virtue of ‘rectitude’ that
stands in opposition to ‘falsehood’ which can bring ‘chaos’. ‘Truth’ came to
signify a principle/standard that stands for a ‘good action, a moral action’.
4. Divisions/Kinds of Virtue
Virtues may be divided into Intellectual, Moral, and Theological.
a. Intellectual virtues
“Intellectual Virtue” may be defined as a ‘habit’ perfecting the intellect to elicit
with readiness acts that are ‘good’ in reference to their proper object, namely;
Truth. As intellect, “Virtue’ is called ‘speculative’ or ‘practical’ according to
whether it confines itself to the sole ‘contemplation. reflection’ of truth or
considers truth in reference to ‘action’. The ‘intellectual virtues’ may be
classified according to this twofold function of the mental faculty. The

University of Juba
Page | 25
speculative ‘intellectual virtues’ are: wisdom, science, and understanding.
Wisdom is the knowledge of conclusions through their highest causes. Thus
Philosophy, and particularly metaphysics, is properly designated as wisdom,
since it considers Truth of the natural order according to its highest principles.
Science is the knowledge of conclusions acquired by demonstration through
causes or principles which are final in one class or other. Thus there are
different sciences, Mathematics, Physics, etc., but only one wisdom, the
supreme judge of all.
Understanding is defined as the habit of first principles; as habit or virtue it is to
be distinguished, at least logically, from the faculty of intelligence. It is also
called ‘intuition’, as it has for its object truths that are self-evident, the
perception of which requires no discursive process.
b. Moral virtues
Moral virtues are those virtues which perfect the ‘Appetitive faculties’ of the
soul, namely, the ‘Will’ and the ‘sensuous appetite’.
‘Appetitive faculties’ refer to the learners ‘feeling and emotions and rational
will’..., it comes from “appetite”, which means a ‘natural desire to satisfy a
bodily need’, especially for food; a ‘strong desire or liking’ for something.
Some Synonyms: Craving, longing, yearning, thirsting, desiring.
“Appetitive” means ‘pertaining to appetite”.
A ‘Faculty’ is a ‘capacity or power for vital operation’. Like any living
organism, Man has Nutrition, Growth and Vital generation; he has

University of Juba
Page | 26
Sensation, Appetition and locomotion, but as a ‘rational being’, he has the
‘higher faculties’ of ‘Understanding and Will’.
‘Moral virtue’ is called ‘Moral’ because it comes from the Latin word ‘mos-
mores’. This word signifies a certain natural or quasi-natural ‘Moral’
inclination to do a ‘Moral’ thing. But the inclination to act is properly attributed
to the ‘appetitive faculty’, whose function it is to move the other powers to
action. Consequently, that virtue is called ‘moral’ which perfects the appetitive
faculty. For as appetite and reason have distinct activities, it is necessary that
not only reason be well disposed by the habit of intellectual virtue, but that the
appetitive powers also be well disposed by the habit of moral virtue.
Hence ’Moral virtues’ are virtues “absolutely”, i.e., without qualification.
When we say ‘without qualification’ that a man is good, we mean that a man is
‘morally good’ really. The descriptive statement does not have any other sense
other than what it says.
The proper function of the moral virtues is to rectify the appetitive powers to
dispose them to act in accordance with right reason.
There are principally three Moral Virtues. These are:
1. Justice, which perfects the rational appetite or will,
2. Fortitude, and
3. Temperance, which moderate the lower or Sensuous appetite.

University of Juba
Page | 27
Prudence, as we have observed, is called a moral virtue, not indeed essentially,
but by reason of its subject matter, inasmuch as it is directive of the acts of
the moral virtues.
1. Justice
Justice is an essential moral virtue that regulates man in relations with his
fellow-men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others, “to give each man his
due”.
Among the virtues annexed to Justice are:
 religion, which regulates man in his relations to God, disposing him to
pay due worship to his Creator;
 piety, which disposes to the fulfillment of duties which one owes to
parents and country (patriotism);
 gratitude, which inclines one to recognition of benefits received;
 liberality, which restrains the immoderate affection for wealth from
withholding seasonable gifts or expenses;
 affability/sociability, by which one is suitably adapted to his fellow-men
in social interaction so as to behave toward each appropriately.
All these moral virtues, as well as justice itself, regulate man in his dealings
with others.
But besides these there are moral virtues which regulate man with regard to his
own inner passions. Now there are passions which impel man to desire that
which reason impels him forward; hence there are principally two moral virtues,

University of Juba
Page | 28
namely, Temperance and Fortitude, whose function it is to regulate those
lower appetites.
2. Temperance:
‘Temperance’ is that quality which restrains the undue impulse of
concupiscence for sensible pleasure.
3. Fortitude
‘Fortitude’ is that virtue which causes man to be brave when he would
otherwise shrink, contrary to reason, from dangers or difficulties.
To consider it more particularly, Temperance, is that moral virtue which
moderates a person in accordance with reason in the desires and pleasures of the
sensuous appetite attendant on those acts by which human nature is preserved in
the individual or propagated in the species. The subordinate species of
temperance are:
 Abstinence, which disposes to moderation in the use of food;
 Sobriety, which inclines to moderation in the use of spirituous liquors;
 Chastity, which regulates the appetite in regard to sexual pleasures;
to chastity may be reduced modesty, which is concerned
with acts subordinate to the act of reproduction.
The virtues annexed to temperance are:
 Continence, which restrains the will from consenting to violent
movements or concupiscence;

University of Juba
Page | 29
 Humility, which restrains inordinate desires of one's own excellence;
 Meekness/gentleness, which checks inordinate movements of anger;
 Modesty or decorum, which consists in duly ordering the external
movements of anger to the direction of reason.
To this virtue may be added what Aristotle designated as ‘good cheer’, which
disposes to a person to moderation as in sports, games, in accordance with the
dictates of reason, taking into consideration the circumstance of person, season,
and place, e.t.c.
As ‘Temperance’ and its annexed virtues remove from the will hindrances to
rational good arising from sensuous pleasure, so ‘Fortitude’ removes from the
will those obstacles arising from the difficulties of doing what reason requires.
Hence Fortitude, which implies a certain moral strength and courage, is the
virtue by which one meets and sustains dangers and difficulties, even death
itself, and in never through fear of these, deterred from the pursuit of good
which reason dictates. The virtues annexed to Fortitude are:
 Patience, which disposes us to bear present evils with equanimity; for as
the brave man is one who represses those fears which make him shrink
from meeting dangers which reason dictates he should encounter, so also
the patient man is one who endures present evils in such a way as not to
be inordinately cast down by them.
 Munificence, which disposes one to incur great expenses for the suitable
doing of a great work. It differs from mere liberality, as it has reference
not to ordinary expenses and donations, but to those that are great. Hence
the munificent man is one who gives with royal generosity, who does

University of Juba
Page | 30
things not on a cheap but magnificent scale, always, however, in
accordance with right reason. Munificence is the quality or action of
being lavishly generous; the quality of great generosity.
 Magnanimity, which implies a reaching out of the soul to great things, is
the virtue which regulates man with regard to honours. The magnanimous
man aims at great works in every line of virtue, making it his purpose to
do things worthy of great honour. Nor is magnanimity incompatible with
true humility. St. Thomas say that "Magnanimity makes a man deem
himself worthy of great honours in consideration of the Divine gifts he
possesses; whilst humility makes him think little of himself in
consideration of his own short-comings". Magnanimity is the fact or
condition of being magnanimous; generous; it is ‘generosity’.
 Perseverance, the virtue which disposes to continuance in the
accomplishment of good works in spite of the difficulties attendant upon
them. As a moral virtue it is not to be taken precisely for what is
designated as final perseverance, that special gift of the predestined by
which one is found in the state of grace at the moment of death. It is used
here to designate that virtue which disposes one to continuance in
any virtuous work whatsoever.
c. Theological virtues
All virtues have as their final scope to dispose man to acts conducive to his true
happiness. The happiness, however, of which man is capable is twofold,
namely, ‘Natural’, which is attainable by man's ‘natural powers’, and
‘Supernatural’, which ‘exceeds the capacity of unaided human nature’. Since,

University of Juba
Page | 31
therefore, merely natural principles of human action are inadequate to a
‘Supernatural end’, it is necessary that man be endowed with supernatural
powers to enable him to attain his ‘Final destiny’. Now these Supernatural
principles are nothing else than the Theological virtues. They are called
Theological
1. because they have God for their immediate and proper object;
2. because they are Divinely infused;
3. because they are known only through Divine Revelation/Faith.
a. Different kinds of Theological Virtues
There are Three Theological virtues.They are, Faith, Hope and Charity.
1. Faith
Faith is an infused virtue, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural
light, in virtue of which, under a supernatural movement of the will, it assents
firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of intrinsic
evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God revealing. For
as man is guided in the attainment of natural happiness by principles of
knowledge known by the natural light of reason, so also in the attainment of his
supernatural destiny his intellect must be illumined by certain supernatural
principles, namely, Divinely revealed truths.
2. Hope
But not only man's ‘intellect’ must be perfected with regard to his supernatural
end, his ‘will’ also must tend to that end, as a good possible of attainment. Now
the virtue, by which the ‘will’ is so perfected, is the Theological virtue of

University of Juba
Page | 32
Hope. It is commonly defined as a “Divinely infused virtue, by which we
trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to
attain life everlasting”.
3. Charity
But the ‘Will’ must not only tend to God, its ultimate end, it must also be united
to Him by a certain conformity. This spiritual union or conformity, by which the
soul is united to God, the sovereign Good, is effected by ‘Charity’. ‘Charity’,
then, is that Theological virtue, by which God, our ultimate end, known by
supernatural light, is loved by reason of His own intrinsic goodness or
amiability, and our neighbour love on account of God. It differs from
‘Faith’, as it regards God not under the aspect of ‘Truth’ but of ‘good’. It differs
from ‘Hope’ in as much as it regards God not as ‘our good’ precisely (nobis
bonum), but as ‘good in Himself’ (in se bonum). But this love of God as ‘good
in Himself’ does not, exclude the love of God as He is our good. With regard to
the ‘love of our neighbor’, it falls within the Theological virtue of ‘Charity’ in
so far as its motive is the supernatural love of God, and it is thus distinguished
from ‘mere natural affection’. Of the three Theological virtues, ‘Charity’ is the
most excellent. ‘Faith’ and ‘Hope’, involving as they do a certain imperfection,
namely, obscurity of light and absence of possession, will cease with this life,
but Charity involving no essential defect will last forever. Moreover, while
Charity excludes all mortal sin, Faith and Hope are compatible with grievous
sin; but as such they are only imperfect virtues; it is only when informed and
vivified by charity that their acts are meritorious of eternal life.

University of Juba
Page | 33
However, from purely Moral Philosophical consideration, Virtue is divided into
four kinds, referred to as ‘Cardinal Virtues’. These are
 Temperance (σωφροσύνη-(sōphrosynē)
 Prudence (φρόνησις-phronēsis)
 Courage (ἀνδρεία-andreia)
 Justice (δικαιοσύνη-dikaiosynē)
This enumeration is traced to Greek philosophy and was listed by Plato, thus it
is sometimes as referred to “Platonic virtue”
For Aristotle, The point of ‘Virtue’ lies not in the exact middle, but at what he
called ‘a golden mean’. In his work ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, he defined it as “a
point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait”. He argues that a
‘virtuous action’ is not simply the "mean" (mathematically speaking), between
two opposite extremes but “an action at the right times, about the right
things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way”.
b. Properties of Virtue: Mean of virtues
One of the properties of virtues is that they consist in the “golden mean”, that is
to say, ‘in what lies between excess and deficiency/deficit’, ‘moderation’. For
as the ‘perfection’ of things subject to rule ‘consists in conformity with that
rule’, so also ‘Bad/evil’ in those same things ‘results from deviation from that
rule’ either by’ excess or defect’. Hence the perfection of the moral virtues
consists in rendering the movements of the appetitive powers conformable
to their proper rule, which is ‘reason’, neither going beyond nor falling
short of it. Thus ‘Fortitude’, which makes one ‘brave’ to meet dangers,

University of Juba
Page | 34
avoids on the one hand ‘reckless daring and on the other undue timidity’.
This ‘golden mean’, which consists in conformity with right reason, sometimes
coincides with the mean of the objective thing, as in the case of the virtue of
Justice, which “renders to every man his due”, no more and no less. The
golden mean, however, is sometimes taken in reference to ourselves, as in the
case of the other moral virtues, viz. fortitude and temperance. For these virtues
are concerned with the inner passions, in which the standard of right cannot be
fixed (invariably), as different individuals vary with regard to the passions.
Thus what would be moderation in one would be excess in another. Here also it
is to be observed that the mean and extremes in actions and passions must be
determined according to circumstances, which may vary. Hence with regard to a
certain virtue, what may be an extreme according to one circumstance may be a
mean according to another.
With regard to the intellectual virtues, their golden mean is “Truth or
conformity to reality”, whilst excess consists in false affirmation, and defect in
false negation. Theological virtues do not absolutely (per se) consist in a
‘mean’, as their object is something infinite...e.g., a human person can never
love God excessively. Accidentally however, what is ‘extreme or mean’ in
theological virtues may be considered relatively to ourselves. Thus although we
can never love God as much as He deserves, still we can love Him according to
our powers/capacity.

University of Juba
Page | 35
3. 2. The Defining Marks of the Moral Good
Discusions on the concept of ‘the Nature of Morality’ raise the question “what
are the defining marks of Morality?”.
This question is answered in line with methods used in ‘Social Institution
Analysis’.
Social Institution analysis uses one ore more of four criteria of ‘Moral
Judgements, Principles’ and ‘Ideals’ when it comes to establishing what
constitutes ‘Morality’. These criteria are referred to as “Marks of the Moral”.
Each criterion is presented as a factor which is centrally characteristic of Moral
beliefs. These ‘Four marks of the Moral” however, leave unresolved questions
about the ‘Nature of Morality” and therefore are not entirely satisfactory as final
anlyses of the concept of morality. But through each of them, it is possible to
learn some truth about what Morality is and what it is not.
These four criteria are:
1. The ‘Supremely Authoritative or Overriding Criterion’,
2. The ‘Prescriptive Criterion’,
3. The ‘Universalizability Criterion’, and finally
4. The ‘Human flourishing or Human Wellfare Criterion’.
1. The ‘Supremely Authoritative or Overriding Criterion’
According to this first criterion, Judgment, principle or Ideal is ‘Moral’ only if a person or society
accepts it as “Supremely Authoritative or Overriding” as a guide to action. To put it another way, this
criterion says that Morality must have priority over everything else in human life. It emphasises that

University of Juba
Page | 36
the ‘Human person’ and the ‘Human life’ cannot under any circumstances be placed under
‘secondary status’.
According to Alan Gewirth, one representative of this criterion, Morality
“purports to set, for every one’s conduct, requirements that take precedence
over all other modes of guiding action, including even thte self-interest of the
persons to whom it is addressed”.
To hold that ‘supremacy’ or “overridingness” is a necessary condition of
morality is to prejudge the weight or priority that people must give moral
principles when they are required to choose between them and other
considerations like political, legal, religious or prudential considerations.
2. The ‘Prescriptive Criterion’
According to this criterion, Moral considerations or statements are distinguished
from others by their “Prescriptive form”; that is, they are ‘action-guiding
imperatives’ that do not describe states of affairs. By this criterion, the
injunction such as “you ought not to ...” like all moral utterances, guides the
behaviour by prescribing a particular restraint or course of action. Those who
support this criterion do not claim that morality ‘alone’ is composed of
‘presciptive statements’; for abviously statements of Law and etiquette can as
well be prescriptive. Rather what they underline is that the claim in the
‘prescriptivity’ is a ‘necessary condition of a moral judgment, principle or ideal.
3. The ‘Universalizability Criterion’
The third and most widely accepted criterion for moral judgments, principles
and ideals is “Universalizability criterion’.

University of Juba
Page | 37
According to this criterion, morals considerations should apply in a similar way
to all people situated in relevanly similar circumstances for, as Alan Gewirth
states, “morality sets rules for everyone’s conduct”. This also, is in line with
Immanuel Kant’s ‘Deontological Theory of Morals’ where he maintains that
Moral principles impose unconditional, ‘categorical’ demands on all alike
without regard to differences in persons, cfr. The principle of “Categorical
Imperative”.
4. The ‘Human-flourishing or Human well-being Criterion’
Some philosophers have proposed a fourth mark or criterion of morality which
focuses basically on ‘Moral content’ rather than on ‘formal considerations’ as
those so far discussed above do.
These philosophers argue that it is necessary for a moral cation-guide to have
some direct reference to “Human flourishing” to consider the “welfare of
others”, or at the very least, to be concerned with “harm and benefit to other
persons”. This condition excludes judgments, principles or ideals pertaining
exclusively to personal benefit, and it thus accords with common usage for the
term “Morality”.
Many recognizable virtues such as honesty, courage, temperance, justice,
compassion, obedience, trust, etcclearly have something to do with the ‘welfare
of others. On this ground, it is argued that it seems right to hold that anyone
who has a moral judgment must have the welfare of others in mind as well.

University of Juba
Page | 38
III. Branches/Divisions of Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophy is divided into three areas: Meta-ethics, Normative ethics,
and Applied ethics.

University of Juba
Page | 39
1. Meta-ethics
The term “meta” means after or beyond. Meta-ethics is defined as the study of
the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. It covers issues ranging from Moral
Semantics to Moral Epistemology. Two issues, though, are prominent in Meta-
ethics:
1. Metaphysical issues concerning whether Morality exists
independently of humans, and
2. Psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our
moral judgments and conduct.
a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism/Subjectivism
Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some
things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and other things
are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical
component of meta-ethics involves discovering specifically whether moral
values are ‘eternal truths’ that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply ‘human
conventions.
There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take. One is
concerned with ‘other-worldly’ issues and the other is concerned with ‘this-
worldly’ concerns.
Proponents of the ‘other-worldly view’ typically hold that Moral values are
‘Objective’ in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm ‘beyond subjective
human conventions’. They also hold that they are ‘absolute, or eternal’, in
that they never change, and also that they are ‘universal’ in so far as ‘they apply

University of Juba
Page | 40
to all rational creatures around the world and throughout all time’. The classic
proponent and most dramatic example of this view is Plato who was inspired by
the field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations,
such as 1+1=2, they seem to be ‘timeless concepts’ that ‘never change’, and
‘apply everywhere in the universe’. Humans do not invent numbers, and
humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the ‘eternal character’ of
mathematics by stating that they are ‘abstract entities/conceptual attributes’ that
exist in a spirit-like realm. He noted that Moral values also are ‘absolute truths’
and thus are also ‘abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, Moral
values are ‘spiritual objects.
Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together under
the heading of “eternal law” which were also frequently seen as spirit-like
objects. The 17th
century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as
‘spirit-like relationships’ rather than ‘spirit-like objects. In either case, though,
they exist in a ‘sprit-like realm’.
A different other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality is
‘divine commands’ issuing from God’s will. This is sometimes called
‘voluntarism’ or divine command theory’. This view was inspired by the notion
of an all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply wills things,
and they become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills
human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into existence.
Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham,
believe that God wills moral principles, such as “murder is wrong,” and these
exist in God’s mind as commands. God informs humans minds of these

University of Juba
Page | 41
commands by implanting it with moral intuitions or revealing these commands
in scripture.
The second and more ‘this-worldly approach’ to the metaphysical status of
morality follows in the ‘Skeptical’ philosophical tradition, such as that
articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus. This denies the ‘objective
status’ of moral values.
Skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values
exist as ‘spirit-like objects, or as divine commands’ in the mind of God. They
argued that Moral values are strictly ‘human inventions. This position is
referred to as ‘Moral relativism’.
There are two distinct forms of Moral relativism. The first is ‘Individual
relativism’, which holds that individual people create their own moral
standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates
his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of
the masses. The second is ‘Cultural relativism’ which maintains that morality
is based in the approval of one’s society – and not simply in the preferences of
individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus Empiricus, and in more
recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition
to espousing skepticism and relativism, ‘this-worldly approaches’ to the
metaphysical status of morality ‘deny the absolute and universal nature of
morality’ and hold instead that ‘moral values’ in fact ‘change from society to
society throughout time and throughout the world’. They frequently attempt to
defend their position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from

University of Juba
Page | 42
one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and
human sacrifice.
b. Psychological Issues in Meta-ethics
A second area of Meta-ethics involves the ‘Psychological’ basis of our moral
judgments and conduct. It is particularly concerned with understanding ‘what
motivates us to be moral’. We might explore this subject by asking the simple
question, “Why be moral?” It answers such question by arguing that even if I
am aware of basic moral standards, such as don’t kill and don’t steal, this does
not necessarily mean that I will be ‘psychologically’ compelled to act on them.
Some answers to the question “Why be moral?” are ‘to avoid punishment, to
gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society’. The
factor here is ‘Psychology’, meaning an attitude of the mind regarding certain
behaviour and actions. This position reduces moral choices, behaviour and
action into two basics ‘principles’: “Egoism” and “Altruism” or “Emotion vs.
Reason”.
i. Egoism and Altruism
An important area of Metaphysical Moral psychology concerns with a believe
that there is ‘inherent selfishness in humans. A 17th
century British
philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, of our actions are
prompted by” selfish desires”. Even if an action seems ‘selfless/altruistic’, such
as donating to charity, there are still “selfish” causes for this, such as
‘experiencing power over other people’. This view is called Psychological
egoism. It maintains that ‘self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human

University of Juba
Page | 43
actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological
hedonism which is the view that ‘pleasure’ is the specific driving force behind
all of our actions. An 18th
century British philosopher, Joseph Butler, agreed
that ‘instinctive selfishness and pleasure’ prompt much of our conduct.
However, he also argued that we also have an’ inherent psychological capacity’
to show ‘benevolence/goodness’ to others. This view is called ‘Psychological
Altruism. It maintains that our actions are motivated by ‘instinctive
benevolence’.
ii. Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of
‘Reason’ in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement
“abortion is morally wrong,” am I making a ‘Rational assessment’ or only
expressing my ‘Feelings?’ On the one side of the dispute, 18th
century British
philosopher David Hume argued that moral assessments involve our ‘emotions’,
and not our ‘reason’. We can amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will
not constitute a moral assessment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in
order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of service in giving us
the relevant data, but, in Hume’s words, “reason is, and ought to be, the slave of
the passions.” Inspired by Hume’s anti-rationalist views, some 20th century
philosophers, most notably A.J. Ayer, similarly denied that moral assessments
are factual descriptions. For example, although the statement “it is good to
donate to charity” may on the surface look as though it is a factual description
about charity, it is not. Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things.
First, I (the speaker) I am expressing my personal feelings of approval about

University of Juba
Page | 44
charitable donations and I am in essence saying “yes for charity!” This is called
the ‘emotive element’ insofar as I am expressing my ‘emotions’ about some
specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to get you to donate to
charity and am essentially giving the command, “Donate to charity!” This is
called the ‘prescriptive element’ in the sense that I am ‘prescribing some
specific behavior’.
From Hume’s day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed
these ‘emotive theories’ of ethics and instead argued that moral assessments are
indeed acts of ‘Reason’. 18th
century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is a
case in point. Although emotional factors often do influence our conduct, he
argued that we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway/move. True moral
action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires,
Moral values, he argued. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier
(1958), was proposed in direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist
theories of Ayer and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and
argumentation process that takes place when making moral choices. All of our
moral choices are, or at least can be, ‘backed by some reason or justification’. If
I claim that it is wrong to steal someone’s car, then I should be able to justify
my claim with some kind of argument. For example, I could argue that stealing
John’s car is wrong since this would upset him, violate his ownership rights, or
put the thief at risk of getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper ‘moral
decision making’ involves ‘giving the best reasons’ in support of one course of
action versus another.

University of Juba
Page | 45
2. Normative Ethics
Normative ethics assesses and evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action
by using “Norms, Rules, Standards” that regulate moral behaviour and action. It
argues that an Action or conduct is “right” or “wrong” if it conforms and
follows or does not conform or follow a “Norm, Rule Standard” that sets it as
“Right/Good” or “Wrong/Bad”.
Normative ethics searches for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The
Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle:
“We should do to others what we would want others to do to us”.
Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal
her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should
help feed starving people.
Using this same reasoning, one can theoretically determine whether any
possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be
wrong for me to lie, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is
an example of a “Normative theory”, thus constituting “Normative Ethics”
Normative ethics establishes a single Rule/principle against which all actions
are judged. Other normative theories focus on a set of other foundational
rules/principles or a set of established good character traits.

University of Juba
Page | 46
The key assumption in Normative Ethics is that there is only ONE
ULTIMATE CRITERION/RULE of moral conduct. It holds that one ultimate
criterion of Moral conduct can be a single rule or a set of principles.
There are Three principle Theories which are highlighted to note
“Norms/Rules” that determine human conduct and behaviour. These are:
1 Virtue theories,
2 Duty theories, and
3 Consequentialist or Utilitarian Theories.
a. Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined
rules of conduct, such as “don’t kill,” or “don’t steal.” Presumably, I must learn
these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue
ethics, however, places less emphasis on learning “Rules”. Virtue ethics
instead stresses the importance of developing “good habits of character”
such as benevolence. Once I’ve acquired benevolence, for example, I will then
habitually act in a benevolent manner.
Historically, “Virtue Theory” is one of the oldest ‘Normative’ traditions in
Western philosophy having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato
emphasized in particular four “Virtues”. These were later called “Cardinal
Virtues”.

University of Juba
Page | 47
The four Cardinal Virtues namely are: wisdom, courage, temperance and
justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good
temper, and sincerity.
In addition to advocating good habits of character, Virtue theorists hold that
we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices such as cowardice,
insensibility, injustice, and vanity.
Virtue Theory emphasizes moral education. It proposes that since virtuous
character traits are developed in one’s youth, Adults, therefore, are responsible
for teaching, inculcating and instilling “Virtues” in the young as they grow.
Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire which regulate our
emotions. He argued for example that in response to my natural feelings of fear,
I should develop the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing
danger.
Analyzing a series of specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a
mean between more extreme character traits. With courage, for example, if I do
not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice which is a
vice. If I have too much courage, I develop the disposition of harhness which is
also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean
between extreme character traits, thus the need of assistance from our reason to
do this.
b. Duty Theories
Many of us feel that there are clear ‘Obligations’ we have as human beings,
such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder.

University of Juba
Page | 48
“Duty Theories” base morality on specific, ‘foundational rules or principles
of Obligation’. These theories are also called “Deontological theories”. The
word ‘Deontological’ is derived from the Greek word ‘deon’ which means
‘duty’. Man, in his nature is constituted in such a way as to have a foundational
nature of a sense of ‘Duty’ or ‘Obligation’.
The “Deontological theories” are also sometimes called “Non-consequentialist
theories” since these principles are obligatory irrespective of the consequences
that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our
children even if it results in some great benefit such as financial savings.
There are four central “Duty theories”. These are:
The first is that which was championed by 17th century German philosopher
Samuel Pufendorf. He classified dozens of duties under three headings: Duties
to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others.
Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds:
1. a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and
2. a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worships God.
Concerning our duties towards ones’ self, he argued that these are also of two
sorts:
1. duties of the soul, which involve developing one’s skills and talents, and
2. duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might
through gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself.

University of Juba
Page | 49
Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between
‘absolute duties’, which are universally binding on people, and ‘conditional
duties’, which are the result of contracts between people.
‘Absolute duties’ are of three sorts:
1. avoid wronging others,
2. treat people as equals, and
3. promote the good of others.
‘Conditional duties’ involve various types of agreements. The principal one is
the duty to keep one’s promises.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is ‘Rights theory’.
Most generally, a “Right” is a justified claim against another person’s behavior
such as my right to not be harmed by you (see also human rights).
Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply
the duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by
George, then George has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the ‘correlativity
of rights and duties.
The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th
century British
philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we
should not harm anyone’s life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke,
these are our natural rights, given to us by God.

University of Juba
Page | 50
Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by
Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
‘Rights theorists’ maintain that we deduce other more specific rights from these
including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression.
There are four features that are traditionally associated with ‘Moral rights’.
These features are ‘Naturality, Univeersality, Equality’ and ‘inalienability’
‘Rights are ‘Natural’ because they are ‘not invented or created’ by anyone or
by governments.
They are ‘Universal’ insofar as they do not change from country to country.
They are ‘Equal’ in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective
of gender, race, or handicapcy and
They are ‘inalienable’ because one cannot hand over one’s rights to another
person such as by selling one’s self into slavery.
A third “Duty-based theory” is that proposed by Immanuel Kant. This theory
emphasizes a ‘principle of Utilty’.
Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant argued that we have moral duties to oneself and
others such as developing one’s talents, and keeping our promises to others.
Kant however, argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that
encompasses our particular duties. He identified it as a principle of ‘Reason’.
He calls it the “a principle of categorical imperative.” He argued that

University of Juba
Page | 51
‘categorical imperative’ is fundamentally different from hypothetical
imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, “If
you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college.” By contrast, a
‘categorical imperative’ simply ‘mandates an action irrespective of one’s
personal desires’ such as “You ought to do X.”
Kant gives at least four versions of the ‘Categorical imperative’ but one is
especially direct. This is stated as:
“Treat people as an end and never as a means to an end”.
He argues that one should always treat people with dignity, and never use them
as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as “an end” whenever our
actions toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to
charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent
value of the recipient.
By contrast, we treat someone as “a means to an end” whenever we treat that
person as “a tool to achieve something else”. It is wrong, for example, to steal
my neighbor’s car since I would be treating her as a means to my own
happiness.
The’principle of categorical imperative’ also regulates the morality of actions
that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would
be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that
the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single
principle of duty.

University of Juba
Page | 52
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D.
Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century
counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are “part of the fundamental nature of
the universe”. However, Ross’s list of duties is much shorter, which he believes
reflects our actual moral convictions:
 Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
 Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
 Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
 Justice: the duty to recognize merit
 Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
 Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
 Non-maleficence: the duty to not injure others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two
conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor’s gun
and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my
neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance
on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the
gun; on the other hand, the duty of non-maleficence obligates me to avoid
injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively
know which of these duties is my actual duty and which is my apparent or
prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of non-maleficence emerges as my
actual duty and I should not return the gun.

University of Juba
Page | 53
c. Consequentialist or UtilitarianTheories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the
consequences or results of our actions.
According to Consequentialism, a correct moral conduct is determined
solely by a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of an ‘action’s consequences or results’:
Consequentialism or Utilitarian Theory states that an action is morally
right if the consequences or results of that action are more favourable or
useful or beneficial to a subject than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that:
First, we must tally/count/list both the good and bad consequences of an action.
Second, we have to ‘determine whether the total good consequences
outweigh the total bad consequences.
In this case if the good consequences are greater, then the action is ‘morally
good/right’. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is ‘morally
bad/wrong/evil’.
Consequentialist theories are also called ‘Teleological theories. The word
‘Teleological’ is derived from the Greek word ‘telos’ which means ‘end’. This
theory is so-called since the ‘end or result’ of the action is the sole
determining factor of its morality’.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th
cent ury by philosophers
who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience

University of Juba
Page | 54
rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In
fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly
observable consequences of actions.
Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the
general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories
specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant.
There are three subdivisions of consequentialism. These are:
1. Ethical Egoism
2. Ethical Altruism, and
3. Utilitarianism
 Ethical Egoism: This states that an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to
the agent performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: This theory holds that an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to
everyone except the agent.
 Utilitarianism: This is a theory that espouses that an action is morally
right if the consequences of that action are more useful, beneficial or
favorable than unuseful/unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the “consequences or results” of actions for
different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three

University of Juba
Page | 55
theories are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider
the following example:
A woman was traveling through a developing country when she
witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times.
She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the
driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road
the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an accident
victim, then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the
accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held
responsible for the death. The driver continued explaining that road
accident victims are therefore usually left unattended and often die from
exposure to the country’s harsh desert conditions.
On the ‘principle of ethical egoism’, the woman in this illustration would only
be concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be
affected. Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice.
On the ‘principle of ethical altruism’, she would be concerned only with the
consequences of her action as others are affected, particularly the accident
victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim would
be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that
result for her. On the ‘principle of utilitarianism’, she must consider the
consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear,
and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus
disbenefit of her action.

University of Juba
Page | 56
3. Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific,
controversial moral issues such as abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, etc. In
recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups
such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethics.
Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an
“applied ethical issue.” First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that
there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand.
The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must
be a distinctly moral issue. Media, for example may present an array of
sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military,
involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic
business practices, public versus private health care systems, or energy
conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an
important impact on society, they are not all ‘moral issues. Some are purely
issues of ‘social policy’. The aim of Social policy is to help make a given
society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws,
and zoning codes.
Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such
as our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies.
Frequently, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which
is both socially prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are
often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is
immoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual

University of Juba
Page | 57
conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies
forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long
as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a
resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an
applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it
must be morally relevant as well.
a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a
challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused,
such as a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action’s short-term
benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both
sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to
God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a non believer
engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly
appealed to in applied ethical discussions:
 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces
beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces
beneficial consequences for society.
 Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
 Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests
when they cannot do so themselves.
 Principle of non-harm: do not harm others.
 Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

University of Juba
Page | 58
 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her
actions or physical body.
 Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair
compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
 Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free
expression, and safety.
The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles
and are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first
two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since
they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or
society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of
benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we
have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights
are based on moral rights.
b. Issues in Applied Ethics
As noted above, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists
today. We mention some briefly here.
Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings.
Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life
and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are
more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues
arise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses,

University of Juba
Page | 59
the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about
patient rights and physician’s responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the
patient’s records and the physician’s responsibility to tell the truth to dying
patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues of the mandatory
screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether physicians can refuse to treat
AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical experimentation on humans,
the morality of involuntary commitment, and the rights of the mentally disabled.
Finally, end of life issues arises about the morality of suicide, the justifiability
of suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia.
The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social
responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate
entities, deceptive advertising, basic employee rights, job discrimination,
affirmative action, etc.
Issues in environmental ethics often overlap with business and medical issues.
These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation,
preserving endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental
resources, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and
our obligation to future generations.
Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy,
sexual relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.
Finally, there are issues of Social morality which examine capital punishment,
nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and
racism.

University of Juba
Page | 60
IV. Moral Philosophical Theories
Moral Theories
The question of ‘how best to lead a moral life’, and how the word "Morality"
can best be defined, is one of the foundational questions of Moral Philosophy.
Moral philosophers or Ethicists have, over the years, formulated numerous
theories designed to help people to make the best moral decisions. These
theories however often come into conflict with each other. A firm grasp
therefore of their basic concepts, similarities and differences is essential. As we
reflect on the ‘nature of Morality’, the question arises as to what and which
principle specifies our actions of moral standards; that is, where does
‘Moral action’ derive, what is its source?
Moral Philosophical Theories are the foundations of ‘Moral Analysis’. They
are the viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to
a reasoned Moral decision. Moral Ethical Theories emphasize different
aspects of an ethical evaluation that can lead to the most ethically correct
solution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. Many
prominent writers in Moral Theory concur on three main Moral theories. There
are Three main Moral Philosophical Theories. These are:
1. Utilitarian Theory,
2. Deontological Theory, and
3. Virtue Theory.

University of Juba
Page | 61
People base their individual choice of ethical theory upon their life experiences.
Each theory emphasizes different points that should be followed in order to
reach an ethically correct decision.
(a). Utilitarianism
Derived from the word “Utility”, meaning usefulness, it refers to the ability of
something to be ‘useful’ or ‘satisfy’ needs or wants, “Utilitarianism” is an
ethical theory which accepts as the foundation of Morals, “Utility” or the
“greatest Happiness principle”. It holds that actions are right in proportion
to as they tend to promote or useful to produce happiness, and wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness; it is usually defined as
maximizing happiness and minimizing or reducing suffering.
The Basic Idea of Utilitarianism:
The basic idea of Utilitarianism is “The Greatest Happiness Principle”.
John Stuart Mill says
“Actions are right in proportion to as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”.
For John Stuart Mill,
Happiness is the equivalence of Pleasure, and the absence of pain
Unhappiness is the equivalence of Pain and the absence of pleasure
He argues that Happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value:

University of Juba
Page | 62
“pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as
ends...all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in
themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention
of pain.”
Utilitarianism states that actions are morally right if and only if they
maximize the good or, alternatively, minimizes the bad. Classical Utilitarians
like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, as well as many contemporary
Utilitarians take ‘the good’ to be ‘pleasure’ or ‘well-being’. Thus, actions are
‘morally right’, if and only if they contribute and maximize ‘the good,
pleasure or well-being’ or ‘minimize suffering’. There are different classes of
Utilitarianisms. These are:
a. Hedonistic Utilitarianism
For Hedonistic Utilitarians, the rightness or our actions are determined solely on
the basis of consequences of pleasure or pain.
b. Preference Utilitarianism
Utilitarian theories may take other goods into consideration. Preference
utilitarianism, for example, takes into account not just pleasures, but the
satisfaction of any preference.
c. Act Utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism claims that we must apply a utilitarian calculation to each and
every individual Action. By making this calculation, we can thereby determine
the moral rightness or wrongness of each ‘Action/act’ we plan to take. Act
utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it maximizes utility. In Act

University of Juba
Page | 63
utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that are of ‘benefit, useful’ to most
people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws.
The principle of utility is applied directly to each action in a situation of choice.
The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results or the
least amount of bad results.
d. Rule Utilitarianism
Rule-utilitarianism eases the burden that act-utilitarianism places on practical
reasoning by establishing moral rules that, when followed, brings about the
best consequences. Rule-utilitarianism can be illustrated by the rule “do not
kill”. As a general rule, we would be better off, that is, the best consequences, or
state of affairs, would be brought about, if we all followed the rule “do not
kill.”
Rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it ‘conforms to a rule’ that
maximizes utility. The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of
‘rules’ of conduct (moral principles). A ‘rule’ like promise-keeping is
established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke
promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. ‘Right’ and
‘wrong’ are then defined as following or breaking those ‘rules’. ‘Rule
Utilitarianism’ takes into account the ‘law’ and is concerned with fairness. A
rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most
just means available. Therefore, the added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that
it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time.

University of Juba
Page | 64
While there are many types of Utilitarian Theory, they however all hold in
common that the rightness and wrongness of actions and practices are
determined solely by the ‘Consequences’ produced by the actions. They argue
that what makes an action morally right or wrong is the total good or evil
produced by the act, the usefulness of the act, not the ‘mere act’ itself. To a
utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the
choice that is ethically correct, the choice that is useful. This choice system
provides a logical and rational argument for each decision and allows a person
to ‘use’ it on a case-by-case context.
All Utilitarians share the conviction that human actions are to be assessed in
terms of their ‘usefulness’ in production of maximal value. “Good” and “evil”
are thus conceived in terms of value and disvalue, usefulness and non-
usefulness of an action, choice.
The Utilitarian ethical theory is also known as ‘Consequentialitst’ and
‘Teleologist’ Ethical Theory. This theory measures the ‘worth’ of actions by
their ‘Consequences and ends’, thus ‘Consequentialist and Teleological’.
‘Teleological’ derives from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning ‘end’.
‘Consequentialism’ holds that only the ‘Consequences, or outcomes’, of
actions matter morally. According to this view, acts are deemed to be morally
right solely on the basis of their ‘consequences’, in other words, if the results of
an action is ‘useful’. Thus ‘Consequentialism’ is a form of ‘Utilitarianism’
and vice-versa.
We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or
GENERAL RULES. The former is called "Act-utilitarianism" and the latter is

University of Juba
Page | 65
called "Rule-utilitarianism." Thus, there are two types of utilitarianism: Act
utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism.
Utilitarian views have been embraced throughout the history of ethical theory,
but the significant utilitarian Philosophers are David Hume (1711-1776),
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
As with all ethical theories, however, both ‘Act’ and ‘Rule Utilitarianism’
contain numerous flaws. Inherent in both are the flaws associated with
predicting the future. Although people can use their life experiences to attempt
to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will
be true and correct in all circumstances and experiences. This uncertainty
can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look unethical as time
passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as he predicted. For
example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and
then the fire burns down the house because the soot in the chimney caught on
fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have chosen an unethical decision. The
unexpected house fire is judged as unethical because it did not benefit his
friends.
Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to
compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar
scale. However, comparing material gains such as money against intangible
gains such as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a large
extent.

Moral Philosophy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Moral Philosophy

Similar to Moral Philosophy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Moral Philosophy