Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx

Normative theories in general:
What is the difference between normative and metaethical
theories?
What are the three main types of normative theory?
How does these three types differ from one another, in the most
general way?
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive?
Are normative theories descriptive, or prescriptive?
Teleological theories:
In general, what are the main features of teleological theories
(in terms of the good, the right, and the principle(s) that
are derived)?
What is utilitarianism?
In general, what does utilitarianism say about right actions?
What is classical utilitarianism?
How did Bentham and Mill understand utility?
How do Bentham and Mill’s theories differ?
What do Bentham and Mill have in common?
What is the main problem with the classical utilitarian view?
What is the general principle of act utilitarianism?

How does this variety of utilitarianism differ from rule
utilitarianism?
How would an act utilitarian decide what the right action is?
What is the general principle of rule utilitarianism?
How does this variety differ from act utilitarianism?
How does rule utilitarianism differ from deontology?
How are rules derived according to rule utilitarianism?
How would the rule utilitarian decide what the right action is?
What are the two main problems with utilitarian theory, in
general?
What is the problem of calculating consequences?
How can the utilitarian respond?
What is the problem of formulating the theory?
In what five ways can utilitarianism be counter-intuitive, or
unsatisfactory?
What is the no-rest objection?
What is the absurd-implications objection?
What is the integrity objection?
What is the problem with justice?

How is utilitarian theory not public?
Which of the above is a problem only for the act utilitarian?
Deontological theories:
In general terms, what are the main distinguishing features of
deontological ethics?
What is deontology, and how do its forms differ?
What is intuitionism, according to W.D. Ross?
What are the three main features of Ross’s system?
What does Ross claim about moral principles and their use?
What are the main ways that Ross’s theory differs from Kant’s
theory?
According to Ross, why is a certain action right or wrong?
What is rationalism, according to Kant?
What are the three main features of Kant’s system?
Based on what values does Kant derive his moral theory?
What does Kant claim about the nature of moral principles, and
their use?
What is the categorical imperative?
How does categorical differ from hypothetical?

What are the three formulations of the categorical imperative?
How does Kant think we need to reason through moral
situations?
According to Kant, why is a certain action right or wrong?
What are the main problems with Kant’s deontological theory?
How does Kant’s theory make certain trivial actions duties?
How does Kant’s theory justify certain horrendous acts?
What is the problem with the absolutism of Kant’s duties?
· What are the three general issues with deontology?
What is the problem with the rationalist version of deontology?
How does deontology fail to be fully motivating?
Why is deontology not spiritual enough for a true moral theory?
Other normative theories:
What other possible options do we have for normative theories?
What is virtue theory?
How does virtue theory differ, in general, from the other two
normative theories, teleological and deontological?
How does virtue theory conceive of what is right and wrong in
action?
What are Aristotle’s three main claims in virtue theory?

What are some examples of virtues?
The Ethics of Climate
Change
Example presentation for Ethics: PHIL 201
Climate Change
• In the past 50 years there has been a considerable
increase in the global temperature. This increase in
temperature is the result of many practices that arose
during industrialization—most notably the use of
aerosols, the burning of fossil fuels, and industrial
farming.
• There is a consensus in the scientific community that
climate change is real, it is the result of human activity,
and that there is a high probability of sever
consequences as a result of this upward shift in global
temperature.
Climate Change Impacts
• As a result of a rapidly increasing temperature, many other
changes to
the environment will occur. Among the most troubling are the

following:
1. Rise in sea level.
2. Increase in erratic and heavy precipitation.
3. Increase in desertification, which is made more severe by
farming
practices.
4. Instability in vegetation cover and ecosystems.
5. Decrease in ice-cover, melting of permafrost and receding
glaciers.
6. Flooding, and more extreme weather events.
Impacts on Humans
• As a result of the various climatic changes that will result
from the rise in global
temperature, there will be many impacts on human practices and
society. Among the
most troubling are the following:
1. Rising sea levels will leave to costal areas being inundated
by flooding. Some
island are only a few feet above sea level, and these island will
most likely
disappear entirely. Millions of people live in these areas, and
will be without a
home (climate refugees).
2. More extreme weather events will lead to more disasters, that

result in ruin and
harm and death.
3. Desertification, and less frequent precipitation means that
food systems will be in
jeopardy, as growing foods requires a stable climate, accessible
and dependent
fresh water sources and healthy soil.
4. Additionally, violence and war will likely increase on a
global scale as resources
will become more scarce and certain populations will be left to
struggle and fend
for themselves.
Impacts on Other
Organisms
• Already it has been documented that the sixth great extinction
is
underway. More species are going extinct, and more rapidly,
than
in any other documented point in human history.
• Entire ecosystems are being ruined to continue the practices
that
have resulted in the increased temperature. The Great Barrier
Reef was recently determined to be undergoing the largest
bleaching event in history—which is essentially death of the
coral
that are the keystone species in these ecosystems. AS a result of
the coral dying, all species in the ecosystem are damaged.

• The environmental as a whole is rapidly changing to be
inhabitable to more and more of the life that evolved.
Ethical Considerations
• Suffering and harm to others.
• Autonomy and freedom concerns.
• Death: the indirect result of human action.
• Inequality: will become more pervasive, as the gap
between first and third world countries will likely expand.
• Unjust distribution of resources.
• Questions of responsibility.
Deontological
Considerations
• From a deontological perspective, the strongest issues are
related to the concepts of justice, equality, fairness and
autonomy. There are questions about the just distribution
of resources, and the equal treatment of individuals on a
global level considering the problems that will come as a
result of climate change.
• There are also considerations related to the normative
principles of do not harm, and prevent harm. If we take
seriously these considerations, this places obligations on
some first world countries who have resources to prevent

harm in locations in which there is a high risk of
catastrophe related to climate change.
Utilitarian Considerations
• Utilitarians are going to be concerned with identifying
the actions that can create the most utility in the face of
climate change.
• Given what type of pain or happiness you take into
account as a utilitarian, this might include considerations
of actions that have consequences for ecosystems and
non-human animals.
• The utilitarian is going to want to determine the best way
to ameliorate the suffering of individuals and
communities that will be impacted by climate change.
Peter Singer “One
Atmosphere”
• Using the greatest happiness principle, how can solve the
moral issue of distributing energy
emissions in the future to ensure fairness?
• The greatest overall happiness goal might support distribution
of more units to the worse off
because of decreasing marginal utilities.
• Would also likely consider extra hardships of people in certain
locations—like Canada, who
need greater energy use for comfort. This is because in order for

their happiness to be
greatest, they will need extra resources than an individual living
in less harsh conditions.
• Rich countries should bear most of the burden, if not all of it
if we are to be consistent with
utilitarian principles. Rich nations have lower populations but
are use much more energy
than other nations. Even so, a cut in their energy shares will not
likely lead to a severe
decrease in happiness, and distributing those resources to those
in need of basic amenities
has more utility.
•
Solution
: to support equal per capita future entitlements to a share of the
atmosphere that is
tied to the projected population of 2050. This is a result of
using the greatest happiness
principle to solve the above dilemma.
Against Geoengineering
“Ongoing global warming is the result of inadvertent climate
modification. Humans emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases to heat and cool their homes; to grow, transport, and cook
their food; to run their factories; and to travel—not
intentionally, but
as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion. But now that humans
are aware of their effect on climate, do they have a moral right
to
continue emitting greenhouse gases? Similarly, since scientists
know that stratospheric aerosol injection, for example, might
impact the ecosphere, do humans have a right to plow ahead
regardless? There’s no global agency to require an
environmental
impact statement for geoengineering. So, how should humans
judge how much climate control they may try?” From Alan
Robok
(http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf)
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Let’s scale that to 46
years. We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial
revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time, we have
destroyed more than 50 percent of the world’s forests.

Video on Climate Science
“Debate”
John Oliver and Bill Nye on Climate Change
https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg
• And because John Oliver says
no discussion of climate
change is incomplete without
a picture of a polar bear…
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: AN ANALYSIS
Chapter Seven: H o w S h o u l d W e L i v e ?
Normative theories:
As noted in the teleological ethics notes, there are two main
varieties of normative theory,

teleological and deontological. The main difference lies in how
these two normative theories
determine which acts are right, and which are wrong. In general,
the distinction is the following:
• Teleological: the value of an act, and therefore its rightness or
wrongness, are functions of
the consequences or outcomes of the act. In other words, the act
is the right one if it brings
about valuable consequences, where there can be variation
about what is valuable.
• Deontological: the value of an act, and therefore its rightness
or wrongness, are function of
the act itself or the type of act. There is something in the nature
of the act, or of kinds of
acts, that determine their value. Some acts are of high value,
and ethical, whereas others are
of no or negative value, and are unethical, or wrong.
Deontology in general:
Deontology in general focuses on acts themselves, and derives

from a consideration of the acts or
kinds of acts that are valuable a set of rules that persons should
adhere to. There are varieties of
deontological theory that do not derive rules for action-
guidance, but for the most part deontological
theories are rule based. There are several different distinctions
that one can draw between different
types of deontologists:
• Act vs. rule: act based deontology tends to argue that we have
intuition that can discover the
right act in each instance. Rule based theories base morality on
a set of finite rules that are
derived through consideration of the nature of acts or types of
acts.
• Objective vs. absolute: the objectivist holds that there are
objectively valid moral principles,
but they are not universally binding. In other words, the
objective principles might be subject
to violation if there is a more important duty to act according
to. The absolutist rejects the
idea that principles can be overridden by other principles, and

holds that they are universally
binding, in that they should never, in any circumstances, be
violated.
• Intuitionism vs. rationalism: the intuitionist and the rationalist
differ on their ideas about
what capacity is related to morality. The intuitionist holds that
intuition is responsible for
knowledge of moral duties, and that it is through having
intuitions, or internal perceptions,
that we come to know the duties are regulating principles. The
rationalist thinks morality is a
matter of reason. Through reflection and the use of reason we
come to know moral
principles that regulate action.
To understand how a deontologist would reason, consider the
following example from the book: you
are a surgeon in a hospital who has the chance to save five
patients in the ICU by taking the life of a
patient who has walked in for a trivial injury. While the
teleological ethicist would consider the

consequences of killing the man with the small injury, and the
impact it might have on the patients in
the ICU, the deontologist considers the act of killing itself. If
the consequences of killing the one
patient to save the five are more valuable than not doing so, you
are justified in killing the patient.
2
The deontologist objects to this on the grounds that there is
something negative about the nature of
killing, and the action should be avoided.
Intuitionist Deontology:
The main variety of intuitionism comes from W.D. Ross. Ross
was an intuitionist about moral
principles and duties. He believed that it was through intuition
that we come to know a finite set of
moral principles, and through intuition that we determine which
duties are the ones we should act on
in particular situations where it appears several might conflict.
There are a couple of essential points
to note about Ross’s theory:

• Rule-based: the principles that make up morality are a finite
set of rules or duties that are
used in specific situations. There is a plural set of rules that are
not regulating by a single,
overarching principle.
• Intuitionist: the principles are self-evident. They cannot be
proven, but are evident to any
person on reflection.
• Objective: the principles are not absolute. Each principle in
the finite set can be overriding in
particular circumstances by any other principle in the set.
Ross has a system in which the nature of morality is as
described above. He states that there is a
finite set of duties that are prima facie, or self-evident. When
we find ourselves in a situation where a
duty is relevant, the duty will be self-evident. If I am in a

situation in which there is the consideration
of harming someone, the duty to prevent harm is self-evident.
Through experience we come to have
full knowledge of the finite set of duties, and how to properly
apply them. The application is not just
a matter of experience though. Intuition also guides us in times
of moral conflict by helping us to
determine which duty out of a relevant set is the one that should
be acted on.
Ross further draws a distinction between the prima facie, or
self-evident, duties, and actual duties:
• Prima facie duties: these are the duties that will be self-
evident in a given moral situation.
When we find ourselves in a situation, a prima facie duty, or
multiple prima facie duties will
become evident through reflection. When one of these is seen as
the overriding duty, it
becomes ones actual duty. A prima facie duty in not necessarily
an actual duty, it depends on
the situation.

• Actual duties: this is the duty that is ultimately chosen by
intuition and acted on. When a duty
is determined to be the most significant and is acted on it goes
from being a prima facie duty
to an actual duty.
Rationalist Deontology:
Immanuel Kant is the main rationalist to focus on. Although
both him and Ross are deontologists,
and have rule-based theories, they differ in two other important
respects. Below is a brief look at the
main components of Kant’s theory:
• Rule-based: Like Ross, Kant holds that there is a finite set of
principles, related to duties,
which should guide our action. No matter the situation, there
will be a rule that determines
what the right thing to do in the situation is. These rules are
going to be derived based on the
3

values that different acts have, rather than based on the
consequences associated with
different kinds of acts.
• Absolutist: The principles, or duties, that are derived within
the Kantian system are not
subject to violation, no matter the circumstances. While for
Ross it is possible for one duty
oriented principle to be overridden by another, this is never the
case for Kant. All principles
are universally binding, and it is never the case that they can be
violated, no matter the
situation one finds oneself in.
• Rationalist: Kant takes reason, rather than intuition, to be the
capacity that tied intimately to
morality. It is through reason that we generate the true and valid
moral principles, and
through reason alone that we come to learn their validity and
application. For Kant, reason
alone can establish moral principles that are universally binding

and necessary.
Kant’s line of reasoning and the derivation of his moral system
are difficult to follow, but the general
idea can be summed up in the following steps:
1. Morality has intrinsic value: This is the starting place for
Kant’s theory. He held that morality
has intrinsic value, or is valuable in itself. This is contrasted
with the utilitarian, who held that
morality and the value of acts is related to their consequences,
or is instrumentally valuable
for bringing about pleasure.
a. From the idea that morality is intrinsically valuable we get
two additional claims:
that a morally valuable act is one in which the motivation is to
do duty for duty’s
sake, and the claim that rationality is intrinsically valuable.
b. This also leads to the rejection of moral principles being in
the form of
hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives. A hypothetical

imperative treats
acts as instrumentally valuable, whereas with categorical
imperatives they are
treated as being valuable for themselves.
2. Morality is a feature of reason: As already noted, Kant is a
rationalist. He sees reason as being
intimately tied up with morality. Moral principles are derived
from reason, and through
reason we have knowledge of them. In this case, Kant is treated
reasons, and rational
creatures as intrinsically valuable as well. Therefore, humans,
as rational creatures, have
intrinsic value, as does reason as a capacity. This component of
Kant’s theory comes up in
his formulations of the categorical imperative.
3. Categorical principles: Kant derives three main principles,
known as the three different
formulations of categorical imperative, that he thinks are valid
and can be obviously

demonstrated as true given rational reflection. He introduces
three formulation of the
categorical imperative that all acts need to satisfy in order to be
morally permissible.
a. Test of universality (first formulation): at only according to
that maxims that can
be willed as a universal law. (This formulation makes
universality a necessary
component of moral duties.)
b. Kingdom of ends (second formulation): act always to treat
humanity as an end in
itself, and never as a means. (This formulation establishes the
intrinsic value of
humanity.)
4
c. Respect for autonomy (third formulation): every rational
being can regard oneself
as a maker of universal law. (This is in virtue of being rational
and autonomous,

and established the intrinsic value in Kant’s theory of
autonomy.)
With the three above formulations, the first is the most
important, and according to Kant, the only
test needed to determine whether an act is morally permissible.
However, due to some of the issues
that come up with making only the first formulation the
condition for moral permissibility, Pojman
suggests adding the second formulation as an additional test for
those that pass the first.
The reasoning that Kant thinks is required of the moral agent is
complex and lengthy. An individual
must be compelled to do the act for the sake of the duty that
relates to it. Any other reason,
according to Kant, fails to be a matter of good will, and is not
morally worthy. In addition to one’s
actions being a result of the good will alone, Kant also believes
that on must engage in a lengthy
process to determine their duties in particular situations. The
process consists in the following steps:

• Isolate the act under consideration.
• Develop a maxim around the act under consideration.
• Universalize the maxim.
• Determine if it results in a contradiction.
If it is determined that an act results in a logical contradiction,
then it is not morally permissible. If it
passes the test of the first formulation, it is permissible.
In Kant’s original moral work, he treats a couple of different
acts to his first formulation, which
results in a distinct between acts that are perfect duties, and acts
that are imperfect duties. The
difference can be captured in the following manner:
• Perfect duty: These are the duties that are basically black and
white. In other words, it is
obvious that one need to abide by these duties to the fullest
extent, there is no variability in
the degree to which the duty need to be upheld.

• Imperfect duty: Here, there is some variable with respect to
the extent that the duty need to
be upheld. One of the examples from Kant is the duty to
develop one’s talents. This is an
imperfect duty because each of us has talents we are required to
develop, given it is a duty,
but the extent of the development is up to us. In other words,
there is variability in the
degree to which we act on the duty.
Problems for Kant:
There are three main issues that come up for Kant, all related to
the first formulation of his
categorical imperative. These three issues can be summarized in
the following ways:
• Triviality: There are certain trivial maxims that pass the first
formulation. For example, “tie
your left shoe before your right shoe,” is a maxim that will pass
Kant’s test of universality
because it does not result in a logical contradiction. But, it
seems silly to think of this trivial
principle as an actual universal law that regulated behavior.

5
• Absolutism: Kant is absolutist about the principle, or laws,
that are derived from his system.
This means that the principles are universally binding. So, even
when it might be the case
that lying can save a life, Kant tells us that this is not morally
permissible. The absolutism
seems to make it such that certain acts that are intuitively
morally permissible are always
wrong, such as the act of lying to save a life.
• Horrendous acts: It is possible, given that we focus our maxim
on certain particulars, to
justify certain horrendous acts, like killing Americans. This is
because the maxims that are
constructed with specific references do not end up being logical
contradictions. So, because
Kant’s only test of universal law is the first formulation, it is

possible to justify actions as
universal law that are (intuitively) morally impermissible.
o One of the things Pojman attempts to do in order to help Kant
here is to make the
second formulation a necessary test as well. This is not
originally what Kant intended
though. It does, however, get around the above issue, because
the second
formulation would not allow and act like killing Americans
because it treats humanity
as a means, rather than as an end.
General Criticisms:
There are three general criticism of deontological theory, two of
which are put forth by the virtue
ethics tradition. These three issues are summarized as follows:
• Emphasis on rationality: This is not a criticism of all
deontology, but only those formulations
that place a heavy emphasis on reason. Any theory that
emphasizes reason as the basis for
morality is going to exclude animals as subject to moral

consideration, and the greater
environment. Many people find this unacceptable, as we should
include animals and the
environment in our moral considerations.
• Lacks motivating features: Most deontological principles are
formulated as negatives, “Do
not X.” Virtue theory criticizes deontology for being overly
negative in its prescriptions and
therefore not motivating. Virtue theorists generally think that
positive duties or moral
considerations are more motivating, and this is lacking in
deontology.
• Not spiritual: This is another criticism from the virtue
theories, who holds that there is a
spiritual dimension to morality that is neglected by the
deontologist who focuses not on the
spiritual aspect of being a good person, but on the necessity of
duty. According to virtue
theory, there is something inherently spiritual about being a
good person, and this is not

something that a deontological view of morality can account
for, given that they think only
of being moral in terms of following rules.
QUICK NOTES ON VIRTUE THEORY
Virtue theory is sometimes referred to as aretaic ethics. This is
because with this group of normative
theories the focus is on the character of the agent, as opposed to
on the nature of the action, or the
consequences of acting. We might say that the emphasis is on
being as opposed to doing—it informs
us of how we should be as opposed to what we should do.
Aristotle has the most notable version of the virtue theory.
There are three main components to
Aristotle’s theory that are important:
1. The good for Aristotle is Eudaimonia. It is something that is

not only good for society, or good in
itself. It is also good for you, the agent. Eudaimonia is roughly
translated to happiness, or human
flourishing.
2. Humanity has a function (this is to say that human nature is
teleological). The function, according
to Aristotle is to use reason in the pursuit of happiness, or
Eudaimonia.
3. The question is on how we should be so that we are fulfilling
the ultimate human function—and
this question is answered by appeal to the virtues.
• The virtues are certain characteristics that dispose one to
achieve Eudaimonia.
• Virtues are either intellectual or moral, and these are learned
habits, or dispositions, that one
acquires through exposure to others who have these virtues.
• The virtues are to be understood as the mean characteristics

between two extremes. One
extreme of deficiency (not having enough of the characteristic),
and one extreme of excess
(having too much). See below table for examples.
Sphere of Action Vice of Deficiency Mean Vice of Excess
Fear cowardice courage rashness
Self-expression mock-modesty truthfulness boastfulness
Pleasure insensibility temperance self-indulgence
Shame shamelessness modesty shyness
Social conduct cantankerousness friendliness obsequiousness
Lastly, note that there are two forceful criticisms that virtue
theory can make against deontology.
1. Deontology is not motivating—the belief that we should act
in certain ways because it’s a duty,
and duty is valuable, fails to be as motivating as the belief that
one should act in a certain manner
because it will be good for society, but them as well.

2. Deontology is not spiritual enough—moral judgments are
only about actions for the deontologist,
and this ignores the importance in morality of qualities like
gratitude, self-respect, and sympathy.
Being a good person is entirely irrelevant to deontological
systems.
Utilitarianism
7 November 2016
Assignment 6
• For this assignment you will need to watch a show, or
movie, of your choice.
• You will need to watch the show or movie carefully to
pick out at least one instance of a moral dilemma.
• Then, you will describe the moral dilemma, and explain
who you think a utilitarian, and a deontologist would

solve the dilemma.
• Be sure to explain to explain why they would solve the
dilemma in the way you have described.
Review
• What is the difference between normative theories
and metaethical theories?
• What does the term ‘normative’ mean?
• What are the three most significant normative
theories?
Normative Theories
• The three normative theories are:
• Utilitarianism
• Deontology

• Virtue Theory
• Describe how these theories differ with respect to
how they define the good, what is right, and the
focus for moral evaluation.
Utilitarianism
• The good is an experiential state: pleasure, happiness,
and what is bad are the opposite states of pain and
sadness.
• The utilitarian thinks that what is right are those actions
whose consequences promote, or bring about, the good
experiential states.
• The focus is on the consequences of the action, and
these determine what is right or wrong. The utilitarian
wants to maximize goodness in the consequences of an
act.

Deontology
• The good for the deontologist are certain moral
goods: autonomy, rationality, morality itself.
• Actions are right or wrong based on whether they
preserve or promote the goods or not.
• The deontologist focuses on the actions itself, and
whether the nature of an action is good or bad.
• Deontologists are rule-based: they will derive a set
of rules based on the intrinsic nature of actions.
Virtue Theory
• The virtue theorist thinks that morality is about character.
What is valuable is human well-being, in terms of human
happiness and flourishing.
• Human happiness and flourishing are the result of acting
in a certain manner—a virtuous manner.

• The utilitarian focuses on individual character, and thinks
that acts that are the result of a virtuous habit are right,
and those that result from the vices are wrong.
• The emphasis for this theory is on behavior and character.
Classical Utilitarianism
• There are two early varieties of utilitarianism:
• Mill
• Bentham
• Both of these theorists meant for utilitarianism to be a
practical theory of the social good.
• They focus on the promotion of pleasure, but differ on
what they take pleasure to be.

Bentham
• For Bentham, the greatest moral aim was the promotion of
pleasure, and the amelioration of suffering.
• He came up with the consequentialist principle: rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or the
badness
of the results that flow from it.
• And the utility principle: The only thing that is good in and of
itself is
some kind of state.
• These together formed his theory. For Bentham, you engage in
a
hedonic calculus, and choose the action that promotes the
greatest
good for the greatest amount (the most hedons).
• Good was to be understood in terms of basic hedonic pleasure.
Mill

• Mill had a more sophisticated variety of utilitarianism. A
eudiamonistic variety, that focused not on basic hedonic
pleasure, but on intellectual, social and aesthetic pleasures.
• He thus had a qualitative difference, and not just a
quantitive difference, to measure in his account of pleasure.
• The higher pleasures are more sophisticated than the lower.
• But how do we known this? Empirical evidence.
• His empiricism ended up leading him to be charged with
having an elitist theory.
Contemporary Utilitarianism
• T h e re a re t w o v a r i e t i e s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y
utilitarianism to discuss:
• Act utilitarianism.
• Rule utilitarianism.

• The latter is sometimes charged with not being
consistent with utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism
• The focus of calculation is on each individual act.
• An act is right if and only if it results in as much
good as any available action.
• How does this work?
Rule-Utilitarianism
• The focus here is on types of actions, and whether they in
general promote the most good or not.
• An act is right if and only if it is required by a rue that is
itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would
lead to greater utility for society than any other available
alternative.

• How does this work?
• Negative responsibility: that we are responsible not only for
the consequences of our actions, but also our non-actions.
Internal Issues
• There are two issues that are internal to utilitarian
theory—meaning that utilitarians argue about these
inconsistencies in their theory and how to fix them.
• Problems with formulating the theory.
• The problem of knowing the comparative
consequences of actions.
Formulating Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism says that we need to maximize the
greatest good for the greatest number.

• But, what do we do when these two superlative
conditions conflict?
Comparative Consequences
• Utilitarianism seems to assume that human’s have
some God-like power, involving knowledge of the
future.
• Three kinds of consequences:
• Actual consequences. (Absolute)
• Reasonably expected consequences. (Objective)
• Intended consequences. (Subjective)
External Issues
• These are the issues that people who reject

utilitarianism all-together have with the theory.
• The no-rest objection.
• The absurd-implications objection.
• The integrity objection.
• The justice objection.
• The publicity objection.
No-Rest
• With act utilitarianism we would be constantly trying
to figure out how to act—there are always an infinite
number of actions to choose from.
• I would have no rest, no right to enjoy life, if there is
always the possibility that I could be making others
happier
• Morality is too demanding.

Absurd Implications
• The theory is counter-intuitive.
• Things like truth seems to be intrinsically good, but
they are not always recognized on the utilitarian
theory.
• Truth is the main issue here. As utilitarianism would
be able to permit dishonesty and falsity on many
occasions.
Integrity Objection
• Certain thought experiments have demonstrated
that utilitarianism violates our personal integrity,
requiring we act against some of the most deeply
held principles.
• The story of Jim…

Justice
• There is a a cavalier sense of justice that is
employed by utilitarian theory—and this seems
frightening.
• The physician...
• The sheriff…
Publicity
• Not everyone should act a utilitarian because it i
hard work, and only trained specialists, like
philosophers, should do they heavy intellectual
lifting.
• So the theory isn’t practical because it doesn’t
meet the requirement of publicity.

Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx

Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx

Similar to Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx (18)

More from curwenmichaela

More from curwenmichaela (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Normative theories in generalWhat is the difference between nor.docx