Ethical Theories: Consequentialism, Egoism, and Kantianism

Ethical Theories

An ethical theory is a systematic set of rational ideas about morality. Ethical theories try to identify and substantiate what is good, right action, duty, virtue, responsibility, and moral merit. They propose and justify moral conduct, especially in new situations or problems. Normative theories, which are the majority, are divided into two groups: mandatory and theories of virtue. The first answers the question: "What should I do?" and the second answers "What kind of person should I be?" In turn, the overriding theories fall into consequentialist theories and theories of duties. The first places importance on the results and consequences of actions, and the latter denies that good consequences are what makes an action right or obligatory.

Consequentialist Ethical Theories

Consequentialist ethical theories justify and underpin the moral rightness of an action solely on its good consequences. Ethical egoism and utilitarianism are the most representative consequentialist theories.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is an ethical theory that holds that the moral rightness of an action is justified and based only on the greater good provided to the agent. The strength of ethical egoism is based on explaining clearly and persuasively why an action is morally right and why we must do it. Ethical egoism is clear because there is no difficulty in understanding its message, and it is persuasive because it brings duty to desire. However, ethical egoism is unable to resolve conflicts of interest, causing conflicts to escalate, and can make all end up losing.

Theories of Duties

Theories of duties deny that the moral correctness of an action is justified and supported by its good consequences.

One of the most famous is Kantian ethics.

Kantian Ethics

According to Kant, the only good thing, always and in every situation, is goodwill. To say that a person acts out of goodwill is to say that they act out of respect for duty and not only according to duty. Acting from duty is to obey the voice of reason in us. According to Kant, reason is prescribed by the law under which rational beings live: the moral law. If reason tells us to act as a standard that can at the same time will that it become universal, we are talking about a categorical imperative.

The Moral Law

The moral law expressed in the categorical imperative takes the form of moral standards that are our obligations or duties, these being universalized. For Kant, the moral correctness of an action is justified only by the existence of moral principles and rules to be observed. Kant proposes two criteria to see if a standard is universalizable.

The first is the criterion of self-contradiction: there are rules that it is impossible to think of as universal laws, and that if all the world were to meet those obligations, they could not be developed.

The second is the criterion of unacceptability: there are standards that are impossible to want to be universal laws, as if the whole world were to comply, it would be unacceptable to rational beings. Kant divides duties out of moral standards into different types, these being perfect duties to oneself, perfect duties to others, imperfect duties to oneself, and imperfect duties to others.

The pros of this ethic are the prominence it gives to the right, the obligation of moral actions, the universality of moral standards, and that the real moral value resides in the intention.

Against it is that you cannot solve the problem of the conflict of laws, and it may not be that universalizability is the proper basis of moral norms.