To address some of the challenges, and to provide a solid framework for ethical decision-making, some philosophers have proposed moral theories. These theories help us by offering normative guidance, providing principles or rules for figuring out the right thing to do. They also try to come up with a reasonable and rational basis for moral decisions. We already have gut feelings or moral intuitions, but sometimes those might lead us astray. It would be helpful if we had some guidelines for solving the tough cases or helping us with real conflicts. A good moral theory will have a few key qualities. It should be consistent (free from internal contradictions) and be able to provide clear guidance across a wide range of different situations. It should be comprehensive, helping us address a wide variety of different moral issues and dilemmas. It should also apply universally; a moral theory should, ideally, be something that any rational person, regardless of their specific cultural or personal background, could accept. Practicality is also important; a moral theory should be usable in real-world situations. If a theory is too abstract, it’s not really helpful. Finally, while a moral theory may sometimes challenge our intuitions or gut feelings, it should usually line up with many of our actual moral judgments, or when it doesn’t, it should be able to explain why it doesn’t.

There have been many moral theories that have been proposed, and several are used by ethicists today. In this next section, we’ll consider two of today’s most dominant theories. Just like in other fields, the theories in ethics belong to categories. We’ll examine one theory in each of the two most influential categories: consequentialist ethics and deontological ethics. Consequentialist theories focus on how things turn out. The common phrase “no harm, no foul,” expresses a consequentialist perspective. It says, basically, that nothing actually wrong happened, even if it might have at first seemed like it did, so long as no one got hurt. That is, after something happened, we check to see how things turned out. If no one got hurt, nothing morally wrong happened. Deontological theories focus on whether someone did the right thing, no matter how things turn out. That is, even if things turn out well, a deontologist might say that what happened was still ethically inappropriate. There are common phrases that express deontological ethics, like “rules are rules” or “you gotta do what you gotta do.” That is, sometimes, we agree, that even if following the rules will come with an unwanted outcome, we have to do something anyway. Also, if someone refuses to go along with something, even if seems good, because it’s connected to something they cannot believe in, this can be deontological. For instance, someone might like for someone to give them a gift, but not if that gift was stolen or if it was purchased from a vendor that they think violates their values. (Some people won’t shop at some places because they oppose the values or actions that they think those places support – this can be an example of deontological thinking.)

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. It was originally developed by Jeremy Bentham in the 1700s and then later refined by John Stuart Mill in the 1800s, both were philosophers from England. Basically, the theory says that the morally correct action is the one that maximizes overall well-being. According to this view, the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined solely by its consequences, specifically its impact on the overall balance of pleasure and pain (or happiness and suffering) for everyone affected. Bentham argued that we should include the feelings and perspectives of animals, because they can suffer, and their suffering matters. Utilitarianism is notable for its impartiality; it considers the pleasure and pain experienced by all sentient beings, giving equal weight to each individual’s experiences. Over time, the theory has evolved into two main branches (though there are others): act utilitarianism, which applies the basic idea of making ethical calculations one action at a time, and rule utilitarianism, which applies it to general rules of conduct. Utilitarianism has been very influential. Many of its proponents have advanced social and political causes, inspired change in education, prisons, and charities, and influenced economics, health care, and other areas. Utilitarianism also has its critics and it has shortcomings. It can sometimes lead to counterintuitive or even seemingly unjust conclusions, as illustrated by thought experiments like the Trolley Problem, where it might seem to justify sacrificing one person to save many.

Deontology

Probably the most well-known deontological theory (at least, well-known to philosophers) is one that bears the name of its author: Kant’s ethics. Immanuel Kant’s presentation of the “categorical imperative,” an idea about the power and scope of universal moral laws, focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, rather than their consequences. Kant argued that morality derives from reason, not emotion, not religion, and not social convention, and that there are certain moral duties or rules that we are obligated to follow regardless of the outcomes. He argued that the only thing that can truly be good is a good will (not “good will” in the sense of begin nice to people, his use of “will” here is more like how it’s used in the phrase “free will”). Kant recognized that many of the things that we think of as good: being smart, having courage, having patience, are things that could be used by an evil person to serve very bad ends. So, by themselves, those things can’t truly be good. He argued that we are always obligated to treat everyone (ourselves included), as intrinsically valuable. That is, people should never be treated as means to our own ends—it is always wrong to manipulate or take advantage of people, this treats them like objects rather than as people. Deontological ethics has been praised for its emphasis on human dignity and individual rights, but it has also been criticized for its rigidity and potential difficulties in resolving conflicts between different moral rules or duties.

Conclusion

Understanding these moral theories and their implications can help you navigate the complex landscape of ethics and help you make informed decisions in morally challenging situations. We will face ethical dilemmas in our personal lives, professional settings, and in society at large, and these philosophical frameworks can provide helpful tools for us to deliberate about what we should do. They offer us ways to think systematically about right and wrong, to critically examine our moral intuitions, and to engage in meaningful ethical discourse with others who may hold different views.

At the same time, no single moral theory has achieved universal acceptance, each faces its own set of challenges and criticisms, and so ethics, as a discipline, continues to be a rich area of research. Some contemporary philosophers argue for various forms of moral pluralism, suggesting that different moral considerations (such as utility, rights, virtues, and care) may all play important roles in our thinking and judgment. Others reject the idea that morality can be captured in any set of universal principles and instead emphasize the importance of careful attention to specific situations and circumstances.

As students of philosophy, you should critically engage with these ideas, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and develop your own ethical reasoning skills. By exploring these theories and grappling with challenging moral questions, you’ll not only gain a deeper understanding of the philosophical traditions that have shaped our ethical discourse, but also develop valuable skills in critical thinking, argumentation, and moral reflection that will serve you well in all areas of life.