Three Ways to Decide What's Right

Philosophers have developed different frameworks for moral reasoning. Each one answers the question "What should I do?" in a fundamentally different way.

U

Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) & John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Core Principle

"The right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences. An action is moral if it maximises happiness and minimises suffering overall. It doesn't matter what your intention was -- only the outcome matters.

Strengths

• Simple, practical framework
• Focuses on real-world outcomes
• Promotes the welfare of the majority

Problems

• Can justify harming minorities for the majority's benefit
• Difficult to predict all consequences
• Ignores individual rights

D

Deontology

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Core Principle

"Act only according to rules that you could will to become universal laws."

Deontology judges actions by whether they follow moral rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. Kant argued that lying is always wrong -- even if it leads to a good outcome -- because if everyone lied, society would collapse.

Strengths

• Protects individual rights and dignity
• Provides clear, consistent moral rules
• Doesn't allow the ends to justify the means

Problems

• Too rigid -- no exceptions for extreme situations
• What if two duties conflict?
• Ignores consequences entirely

V

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Core Principle

"Be a good person. Develop virtues like courage, honesty, compassion, and wisdom."

Virtue ethics doesn't focus on rules or outcomes -- it focuses on character. Instead of asking "What should I do?", it asks "What kind of person should I be?" A virtuous person naturally makes good choices.

Strengths

• Focuses on becoming a better person overall
• Flexible -- considers context and judgment
• Encourages lifelong moral development

Problems

• Who decides what a "virtue" is?
• Doesn't give clear guidance for specific dilemmas
• Different cultures have different virtues

Quick Comparison: "Should I lie to protect a friend?"

Utilitarian

What produces the best outcome? If lying prevents greater harm, then lie.

Deontologist

Lying is always wrong, regardless of consequences. You have a duty to tell the truth.

Virtue Ethicist

What would a courageous, compassionate, wise person do in this situation?

The Heinz Dilemma: Apply All Three Frameworks

The Scenario

A woman is dying of cancer. There is one drug that could save her life, but the pharmacist who invented it charges $20,000 -- ten times what it costs to make. Her husband, Heinz, can only raise $10,000.

He asks the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. The pharmacist refuses: "I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."

Heinz breaks into the pharmacy at night and steals the drug to save his wife's life.

Was Heinz right to steal the drug?

Utilitarian Analysis

YES, stealing is justified. The benefit (saving a life) far outweighs the cost (the pharmacist losing one batch of drugs). The greatest good for the greatest number is served.

Deontological Analysis

NO, stealing is wrong. Stealing violates a universal moral rule. If everyone stole when they thought it was justified, property rights would collapse. However, Kant also valued the duty to preserve life -- creating a conflict between duties.

Virtue Ethics Analysis

PROBABLY YES. A virtuous person shows compassion and courage. Letting your wife die when you could save her seems like a failure of character. But theft also conflicts with honesty and respect for others.

Think About It

• Which framework gives the most convincing answer? Why?
• Would your answer change if the drug was for a stranger instead of Heinz's wife?
• Is the pharmacist acting immorally by charging so much? Which framework would you use to argue this?
• Should Heinz turn himself in after stealing the drug?

Cultural Relativism: Who Decides What's Right?

All three frameworks above assume that moral truths exist. But cultural relativism challenges this: it says morality is created by cultures, and no culture's morality is "more correct" than another's.

Arguments FOR Relativism

• Different cultures genuinely have different moral codes
• Promotes tolerance and respect for diversity
• Who are we to judge other cultures?
• History shows that Western moral "certainty" has caused immense harm (colonialism)

Arguments AGAINST Relativism

• Some things seem universally wrong (torture, slavery, genocide)
• If morality is relative, we can't criticise any practice in any culture
• Moral progress becomes impossible -- how can a culture "improve" if there's no standard?
• Within cultures, people disagree about morality too

Think About It

• Are there any moral truths that are true for ALL cultures, everywhere, at all times?
• If a culture practises something you consider deeply wrong, is it OK to speak out? Or is that imposing your morality on them?
• Can morality change over time? (Slavery was once considered acceptable. It is now considered monstrous. What changed?)

Key Vocabulary

Utilitarianism

The ethical theory that the best action is the one producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Deontology

The ethical theory that actions are right or wrong based on moral rules/duties, regardless of consequences.

Virtue Ethics

The ethical theory that focuses on developing good character traits (virtues) rather than following rules.

Cultural Relativism

The view that moral codes are created by cultures and no culture's morality is objectively "better."

Moral Objectivism

The view that some moral truths are universal and apply to all people regardless of culture.

Ethical Framework

A structured system of principles used to determine what is morally right or wrong.

Knowledge Check

Apply the three ethical frameworks to evaluate these scenarios.

Question 1

A utilitarian would say that lying is:

Always wrong, no matter what Only acceptable for virtuous people Always acceptable Acceptable if it produces a better outcome than telling the truth

Question 2

Kant's "universal law" test says: before you act, imagine if EVERYONE did the same thing. What would this test say about cheating on an exam?

If everyone cheated, exams would be meaningless, so cheating fails the universal law test -- making it wrong It's fine as long as you don't get caught It depends on whether you pass or fail Kant would say exams are immoral

Question 3

A virtue ethicist would evaluate a person's moral character by looking at:

How many rules they follow Their overall character traits -- whether they consistently demonstrate virtues like courage, honesty, compassion, and wisdom How much money they donate How many good outcomes they produce

Question 4

A cultural relativist would struggle to morally condemn which of the following?

Parking illegally Cheating on a test Historical practices of slavery, since it was culturally accepted at the time Being late to class

Question 5

In the Heinz dilemma, all three frameworks can be used to argue for stealing the drug. This shows us that:

Stealing is always right All three frameworks are the same Philosophy is pointless because everyone agrees anyway Different frameworks can reach similar conclusions for different reasons -- the reasoning matters, not just the answer

Where Does Morality Come From?

Is there an objective right and wrong?

Three Ways to Decide What's Right

Utilitarianism

Deontology

Virtue Ethics

Quick Comparison: "Should I lie to protect a friend?"

The Heinz Dilemma: Apply All Three Frameworks

The Scenario

Utilitarian Analysis

Deontological Analysis

Virtue Ethics Analysis

Cultural Relativism: Who Decides What's Right?

Arguments FOR Relativism

Arguments AGAINST Relativism

Key Vocabulary

Knowledge Check

Key Concepts Summary