UNIT 4 THEORIES OF RIGHT ACTION

Chapter 1: Moral Concepts and Theories: Why They Are Important

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you should be able to:
o Identify basic theories as frameworks in Ethics;
o Classify and discuss the ethical theories, and;
o Construct points of divergence and convergence as to why are moral
theories important.

Introduction
In observing moral issues in ethics, a distinction is usually made to know its
differences and importance (e.g. between morals and ethics). When this
distinction is made, the term morals is taken to refer to generally accepted
standards of right and wrong in a society and the term ethics is taken to refer
to more abstract principles which might appear in a code of professional
ethics or in a textbook in ethical theory. However, the terms moral
philosophy or moral theory would refer to a set of abstract moral principles
as appropriately as the term ethics, so it may be more practical to use the
words interchangeably. Both of the terms refer to standards of right conduct
and the judgments of particular actions as right or wrong by those standards.
As we go about our lives, we face many decisions. Some of the
decisions seem to concern people with whom we are intimate such as
decisions about behavior within the family and ourselves. Other decisions
concern our responsibilities in our jobs. Some concern our relationship to the
state or the law. People who have governmental roles sometimes make
decisions about controversial social issues, such as the morality of capital
punishment or the justice of the tax system. All of us who live in democratic
societies need to make decisions about such issues if we intend to vote
responsibly. Moral philosophy addresses the many abstract ethical and
philosophical issues that arise when we attempt to make such decisions in a
reflective and responsible way.
Now, in making judgments about right conduct; most of us recognize
the value of moral consistency. The requirements of consistency take several
different forms, example in the case of the Data Privacy Act.
(Case 1) If a consulting teacher breaks confidentiality with their
student because it is in their interest to do so but condemns another teacher
for doing the same thing, we are inclined to say that they are inconsistent.
They are not applying the same standards and expect everyone else to
follow.
(Case 2) We also expect people to be consistent with their own moral
standards. If they keep strict confidentiality one time and breaks it another
time, even when there is no important difference between the two cases, we
again say that they are inconsistent.
(Case 3) Finally, our moral beliefs must be consistent with one another.
Our moral beliefs about confidentiality must be consistent with our beliefs
about bribery, whistle blowing, and the environment. Ultimately, we must
know how our moral beliefs in professional ethics relate to our beliefs about
abortion, the moral justification of racial and sexual quotas in hiring,
euthanasia, and any other moral issue.
One way to think consistently in this way is to have a moral theory, i.e.
a set of moral principles, which systematically link moral beliefs to one
another by means of a set of coherent moral principles. A theory in any area
offers the opportunity to define terms in uniform ways and to relate a set of
ideas to one another in a consistent manner. Moral theory does the same
thing with moral ideas.
A moral theory can be conveniently divided into three parts. First, there
is a moral standard, a criterion or test of what is right or wrong. Second,
moral principles serve to categorize different types of actions as right or
wrong. Third, moral judgments are statements about the rightness or
wrongness of particular actions. Moral judgments apply moral standards or
moral principles to specific situations. They are thus the ultimate goal of
moral reasoning.
Analysis (Let’s Think About it!)
Now think about the following questions:
➢ How do you welcome a rich neighbour to your house and regard a beggar
knocking on your gate?
➢ In their basic positions as persons, what is the difference between a king
and a slave, a healthy baby and a dying old man, or a president of a country
and a notorious criminal?
➢ Is it okay to legalize death penalty to heinous criminals, abortion and
euthanasia? Why or why not?
➢ What are the main classifications of ethical theories? Why are they
important?
Abstraction (Let’s Explore!)
In the previous chapter, the necessity of testing our moral views to have an
overall moral consistency was provided as one of the motivating factors in
seeking out a moral theory. In this respect, we would wish to have one moral
theory whereby our entire views would be captured in that theory.
Nevertheless, moral philosophers have tended to conclude that the morality
views which are widely accepted in our culture cannot be harmonized into
one and coherent moral theory. Instead, two systems of moral concepts that
appear to be most influential are apparent, with a significant overlap. As a
rule, there are three (3) general areas of study: 1) meta-ethics, 2) normative
ethics, and 3) applied ethics. Within these respective areas are different
moral theories or frameworks. Let us consider each of these.
Although moral theories vary in their premises and findings, all ethical
inquiry is usually divided into three related topics: meta-ethics, normative
ethics, and applied ethics. Such divisions are not standalone fields but are
the varying moral reflection levels. Meta-ethics is the study of the sense and
value of moral assertions; normative ethics is the elaboration of criteria of
being right and wrong; and applied ethics is the application of these criteria
to particular moral issues. The combination of the two forms a complete
theory of conceptual thinking on abstract bases to practical decision making.
Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is the study that tries to determine the assumptions behind
moral theories and thus it is the ethical branch which tries to realise the
nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments. It
discusses a wide questionnaire of the manner in which we comprehend what
moral truth is (or even whether there is such a thing as moral truth), and
how we are taught moral facts. The nature of meta-ethical questions is
abstract. One may think that they do not directly, and, in fact, have little to
do with the process of creating practical, decision- making tools.
When we start to think of whether one ought to be a just person, as an
example, then we are soon confronted with questions concerning the
concept of justice and the meaning of being a just person. Is justice a human
invention? We cannot accept the fact that ideas of justice may be varied in
various societies. Or is justice an absolute, constant, and universal idea
which must be respected by all people, at all places, and all times? It is not
just an abstract, academic question. The issue of whether or not the concept
of justice as held by one culture can and must be forced upon another is a
time old issue that has and still does divide people into deep ends of warfare.
Among its main questions are the questions, whether any claims are true
which are moral, and whether it is rational to dedicate themselves to acting
morally. It is impossible to answer such questions without forming an opinion
on whether or not the moral convictions of people are justified or correct.
To be on the positive side of the situation with the question whether
moral convictions may be right or may be effective, we will discuss the
notion of moral realism. According to Copp (2001), there are moral facts and
people make moral judgments, and the moral judgment is false or true
because of the moral facts, and the mere fact that we have moral beliefs
that we have is not what causes the moral facts to be as they are. It is a very
abstract perspective and it might be hard to follow. It implies, any assertions
that the presence of moral facts and the truth (or falsehood) of moral
judgments are not conditional on the thoughts and perceptions of people. It
holds that morality is of objective facts, i.e. not facts of subjective judgment
of any person of group.
Meta-ethics may seem far away in relation to the day-to-day moral decision-
making; however, it has a significant role to play in determining the
understanding of moral difference, moral authority and moral justification.
The belief in the objectivity of moral truths versus culturally relative
influences the approach to a moral conflict, accepting other moral point of
view, and supporting ethical arguments in a Beauvoirian discourse.
Therefore, normative and applied ethics are founded on meta-ethics.
Normative Ethics
When we move out of meta-ethics and into normative ethics, we leave
behind the problems of ethics to the problems of ethics. We resort to
questions like; which are the right and wrong actions? What is the type of
person one needs to be? Theories exist in large numbers concerning these
issues. When pondering upon the disparities in-between them, we find it
useful to reflect on the responses they are giving to two somewhat similar
questions. What then is the fundamental issue of moral concern?
Moreover, what are the basic or the fundamental moral truths? The
normative ethics revolve around the controversies presented by these
questions. The core or fundamental issue of moral concern is, first, what is it?
Is it what life we ought to live? Is it the type of an individual that we ought to
be? Is it the actions we perform? Is it the type of character that we are? Is it
our intentions or motives? And is it goodness or value, goodness in the life of
the individual, or goodness in the condition of the world, in the state of the
people in the world? Second, what are the basic or fundamental moral
truths? Are they suggestions on the type of life we ought to live? Do they
concern the nature of the actions we must undertake, or the nature of the
character which we must possess, or the motives or wills of us? Or ought
they to be propositions concerning goodness or value?
A theory commonly that suggests or holds that some truths about
morality are fundamental to ethics and then tries to justify other propositions
about morality by deriving them in one form or another out of the basic
truths. Nevertheless theories may vary in the manner in which they seek to
do so, and they may vary in their opinions concerning the precise state of
what they consider to be basic truths. Naturally, such a theory might also
deny the existence of moral truths that are basic in any interesting sense.
Moreover, a theory might assume that all or a number of the issues of
concern are equally fundamental and thus reject the existence of a basic
matter of moral concern. Ethical reasoning takes place in general under
three approaches, or what can be termed the science, namely 1)
utilitarianism, 2) deontology, and 3) virtue ethics.
Moreover, what are the basic or the fundamental moral truths? The
normative ethics revolve around the controversies presented by these
questions. The core or fundamental issue of moral concern is, first, what is it?
Is it what life we ought to live? Is it the type of an individual that we ought to
be? Is it the actions we perform? Is it the type of character that we are? Is it
our intentions or motives? And is it goodness or value, goodness in the life of
the individual, or goodness in the condition of the world, in the state of the
people in the world? Second, what are the basic or fundamental moral
truths? Are they suggestions on the type of life we ought to live? Do they
concern the nature of the actions we must undertake, or the nature of the
character which we must possess, or the motives or wills of us? Or ought
they to be propositions concerning goodness or value?
A theory commonly that suggests or holds that some truths about
morality are fundamental to ethics and then tries to justify other propositions
about morality by deriving them in one form or another out of the basic
truths. Nevertheless, theories may vary in the manner in which they seek to
do so, and they may vary in their opinions concerning the precise state of
what they consider to be basic truths. Naturally, such a theory might also
deny the existence of moral truths that are basic in any interesting sense.
Moreover, a theory might assume that all or a number of the issues of
concern are equally fundamental and thus reject the existence of a basic
matter of moral concern. Ethical reasoning takes place in general under
three approaches, or what can be termed the science, namely 1)
utilitarianism, 2) deontology, and 3) virtue ethics.
Normative ethics is the fundamental part of the ethical theory because
it aims at developing the criteria according to which the actions, character,
and intentions can be judged by their moral right or wrongness. Normative
ethics is not just descriptive, or a study of moral beliefs and their meaning,
but prescriptive: normative ethics is supposed to be able to direct action and
judgment. Normative ethics offers the guidelines through which moral
reasoning can be made in personal, professional, and social situations by
determining what should be done and why.
Applied Ethics
Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical
theory to real life situation. It is marked out from ethics in general by its
special focus on issues of practical concern (Rachels, 1997). It is concerned
with ethical issues in various fields of human life, including medical ethics,
business ethics and environmental ethics. Applied ethics translates ethical
reflection into action by addressing morally problematic situations as they
arise in specific fields of human activity. Its primary aim is not merely
theoretical understanding but responsible decision-making, policy formation,
and professional accountability. Applied ethics demonstrates how ethical
principles function in practice and exposes tensions between moral ideals
and real-world constraints. Within these broad areas, it engages with policy
issues resulting from scientific and technological change and with the
evaluation of social and legal decision-making in public areas such as health
care, policing, media and information, and the world of business and finance.
It is also concerned with professional codes and responsibilities in such
areas.
The word ‘applied’ is a technical term describing a variety of new
philosophical enterprises. Applied means “to put into practice”. Applied
Ethics focuses more closely on ethical discussion, and likes to resolve
controversial moral issues (Singer, 2011). Take note that applied ethics
cannot be separated from philosophy because as an important field of ethics,
it is part of philosophy. It does not only studies ideas and theories from the
general point of view of goodness and right actions but also finds out the
way to solve these problems.
As mentioned earlier, the task of applied ethics is to develop
appropriate tools for shaping the desired moral attitudes and to apply ethical
principles to practice. For example, in business ethics, tools such as ethical
codes, trainings, ethical sensitivity trainings, etc. are used. Environmental
ethicists can use similar tools as in business ethics, e.g. consulting, courses,
trainings for, among others, the managerial staff, employees involved in
spatial planning, employees of municipal enterprises, local government
officials, etc. In applied ethics, as in specific ethics, we currently have a large
"specialization".
 In addition, it is an application of normative principles to any fields as
mentioned earlier. As there are basically three basic theories associated with
it i.e. utilitarianism, deontological ethics and virtue ethics. Some important
principles on applied ethical discussion as stated by Rachels (1997) and
Singer (2011):
• Personal benefit – Personal benefit is an action which produces
benefit to the individual.
• Social Benefit -Social benefit is an action, which produces benefit to
the society as a whole.
• Principle of benevolence – This principle insists on helping those in
need
• Principle of paternalism – This principle assists others in pursuing
their best interest or the interests of their choice.
• Principle of harm – Not to harm others.
• Principle of honesty – Not to deceive others.
• Principle of lawfulness –One is not supposed to violate the law.
• Principle of autonomy – This principle acknowledges a person’s right
to due process and fair distribution of benefit. Compensation is to be
given for any harm done to the person.
• Rights – It acknowledges a person’s right to life, right to information,
• right to privacy, free expression and safety.
Interrelationship of the Three Branches of Ethics
Even though meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are
analytically different, they can be thought of as mutually dependent spheres
of ethical inquiry, not separate (Rachels and Rachels, 2019). Meta-ethics
focuses on the principles of moral judgment by asking questions of what is
moral, whether moral judgments are objective, and whether moral
judgments are justified. Their meta-ethical commitments, e.g., are the moral
truths objective or culturally relative, inevitably influence the types of
normative principles that they consider to be legitimate or authoritative
(Shafer-Landau, 2012).
Normative ethics is based on these premises and develops criteria of
the evaluation of actions, character, and intentions. Nonetheless, normative
principles do not exist in empty space. Their topicality and coherence are
frequently evaluated by their applicability to the definite cases. This is where
applied ethics is very important. Applied ethics challenges the practical
sufficiency of normative principles by subjecting them to practical test cases
and by revealing the conflict between moral ideals and real-world
(Beauchamp and Childress, 2019).
Reforms in the normative and even meta-ethical levels can be also
triggered by applied ethical inquiry. The recurring moral dispute, unintended
results, or the intricacies of context could demonstrate the shortcomings of
the principles or assumptions of moral truth and warrant. The best way that
ethical reasoning works, then, is as an ongoing process of reflection among
all three branches that ethical understanding can evolve as the dialogue
between theory and practice runs on and on (Singer, 2011).

Why Moral Frameworks Are Important

Moral frameworks offer people and communities scientific means of
analyzing moral decisions, taking ethical judgment beyond intuition,
emotional impulse, or social norms. In the absence of these structures, moral
reasoning will be the only consistent, arbitrary, or biased kind of reasoning
(Rachels and Rachels, 2019). Ethical theories enhance coherence by
providing organised guidelines by which the actions, policies, and character
can be evaluated and supported.
Moral frameworks are important in professional and institutional
practices in order to enhance fairness, transparency and accountability.
Other disciplines like law, medicine, education, business and other fields of
the government depend on the ethics to make judgments, control behaviours
and guard human rights (Beauchamp and Bowie, 2004). Ethical systems also
facilitate the process of making decisions as a group since they offer
common ground in terms of which moral disputes can be discussed in an
intellectual process and not settled by force or preference.
At the individual level, ethical models promote conceptual self-
reflection in the sense that they assist a person in elucidating his/her values,
duties, and obligations towards others. They encourage the idea of respect of
human dignity because they disclose the idea of moral actions justifying not
only a personal gain but the attitude to the well-being and rights of other
people (Kant, 1785/1993). Through this, it is through the ethical theories that
moral responsible individuals and communities can be formed, which
strengthens the relationship between ethical reflection and ethical living.
In this chapter, the relevance of moral concepts and theories in ethical
reasoning was discussed. It brought up the three main areas of ethics,
namely meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics and how they are
distinct and yet interrelated in the process of moral judgment, moral
principles and practical decision making. Through an understanding of the
manner in which these branches interrelate, a student acquires a better
insight into how moral beliefs are established, defended, and put into
practice.
The appreciation of moral systems can help people critically assess
moral assertions, respond to ethical dilemmas intelligently and equally
practice moral principles in different situations. Being the initial chapter, this
discussion bases the conceptual framework upon which further discussion of
the ethical reasoning process can be developed and introduction of students
to more higher level of a moral issue in life both personal and societal.
Chapter 2: Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism (Act and Rule)
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you should be able to:
o Explain the core principles of utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory;
o Distinguish between Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism and John Stuart
Mill’s rule utilitarianism;
o Analyze the concepts of pleasure, happiness, and utility in moral reasoning;
o Evaluate the strengths and limitations of utilitarianism in moral decision-
making, and; o Apply utilitarian reasoning to concrete moral and social
issues.

Introduction
One of the most significant and popular theories of morals in the history of
ethical thought is Utilitarianism. It developed at the end of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries as an alternative to traditional, authoritarian or
divine command morality. Instead, utilitarianism suggested that there should
be a consequentialist theory on ethics that the morality of an action depends
solely on its consequences or outcomes. Things are morally right to the
extent that they contribute to happiness or well-being and wrong to the
extent that they contribute to the suffering or harm.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the most notable personalities
related to utilitarianism. Although both philosophers adhered to the doctrine
of utility, they were quite different in their interpretation of happiness, the
calculation of moral, and the importance of moral rules. Bentham is
traditionally related to act utilitarianism, which judges actions of people by
their immediate consequences. Although Mill was also a utilitarian, he
created a more sophisticated philosophy that focused on qualitative
differences between the types of pleasures and on the moral significance of
general rules, which led to the emergence of what is sometimes known as
rule utilitarianism.
This chapter discusses the philosopetic foundations of utilitarianism,
the contribution of Bentham and Mill as their respective contributors and the
difference between act and rule utilitarianism. In this discussion, students
will learn more about how utilitarian reasoning works, as well as why it is
such a dominant paradigm in modern moral and political arguments.

Activity (Let’s Get Started)

Scenario:
In case of a public health emergency, a government is faced by a serious
shortage of life saving medicine. The supply that is available can be shared
equally among all regions which means that it would be of little benefit or it
can be clustered in high risk areas where it would save the most lives and
leave some communities with no access to the supply immediately.
• Discuss the case through act utilitarianism. And decide what action will
increase the total happiness or well-being in this particular situation.
• Consider the instance through rule utilitarianism. Take into account which
general principle of resource allocation would be optimal in its long-term
utility in the event of regular adherence to it.
• Determine possible moral conflicts that ensue between efficacy, fairness
and personal rights.
• Defend (300-500 words) which of these two utilitarian approaches provides
the better moral defense and why.

Analysis (Let’s Think About it!)

• According to act utilitarianism, the decision to focus the medicine in
regions of high risks can be ethically just in case it saves more lives and
causes less suffering to the majority. The decision on whether or not the
action is morally right is based solely on the immediate consequences of the
action irrespective of inequality of distribution. Such a strategy emphasizes
the practical power of utilitarianism in relation to emergency decisions, in
which consequences are extremely important and time sensitive.
• Nevertheless, the more organized policy utilitarianism can help advocate
fairness and consistency in the allocation can be supported by rule
utilitarianism. An overarching principle that puts the vulnerable populations
in the first place without sacrificing transparency would facilitate social
collaboration, trust among people, and long-term welfare. Such a rule may
not increase utility in any single instance, but when it is widely adopted, it
can create more overall happiness by averting feelings of injustice or leaving
them unattended.
• The case also brings in long term criticism of utilitarianism. Although the
theory provides a straightforward decision making structure, it might not be
able to adequately comment on the issue of individual rights and moral
claims of the marginalized populations. The dilemma of efficiency and
respect of persons is a challenge to ethics of this center. By this analysis,
students are urged to appreciate the strength as well as the weaknesses of
utilitarian reasoning; they are also expected to critically think of how to use it
to make moral and policy choices.

Abstraction
The main concept of Utilitarianism
In its essence, utilitarianism is characterized by the concept of utility as it is
believed that morally right actions are those actions that are likely to result
in happiness and wrong actions that are likely to result in unhappiness (Mill,
1861/2001). The concept of happiness in the utilitarian theory is normally
seen as the state of pleasure and lack of pain, whereas unhappiness is the
absence of pleasure and presence of pain. The definition is an empirical
definition of human well-being that is based on ordinary human experiences
as opposed to abstract moral intuitions and metaphysical assumptions.
The utilitarianism theory suggests a drastic change in moral analysis
since it is based on consequences rather than motives or ethical principles. It
does not matter how an action was carried out and whether it fits the already
existing moral obligation; the question is whether it will add some value to
the greater human good. This aspect places utilitarianism in the bigger
category of consequentialist theories of ethics, which are based on the
assessment of the morality of a course of action based on its outcomes only.
In that sense, what would be deemed as immoral can be justified in case it
brings more benefit in general.
Besides being consequentialist, utilitarianism is also a teleological
theory. Teleological theories evaluate moral actions based on some end or
purpose (telos), and in the case of utilitarianism the end is the maximization
of well-being in general. Moral reasoning is therefore a comparison of the
actions that can be performed and choosing the one that produces the best
net balance of happiness over suffering. This practical orientation has made
utilitarianism especially powerful in fields that involve policy analysis and
decision-making within circumstances of constrained resources, like
economics, law and government (Shafer Landau, 2012).
 Another characteristic of utilitarianism is the belief in impartiality and
moral equality. The well-being of every person who is influenced by an act
must equally be considered, irrespective of his/her social status, personal
association with the ethical agent, or perceived moral value. Everybody is to
count one, and nobody more than one: that is the famous quote of Jeremy
Bentham (Bentham, 1789/1996). This principle denies preference and
privilege over morality and as insists that the interest of the affected parties
should be put on the same scale when ethical decisions are made.
This focus on neutrality has a serious social and political consequence.
Utilitarianism offers an ethical basis to democratic politics, offering social
reform and human rights activism with the answer to: moral decisions have
to be evaluated through the prism of the general welfare, not personal
benefit. It breaks the structures of inequality by arguing that wherever
suffering, it is morally important and hence a way of analyzing systems,
institutions and policies on whether they really affect human lives or not
(Singer, 2011).
Philosophical background of Bentham
The development of a utilitarian philosophy Jeremy Bentham (17481832)
developed a utilitarian philosophy in reaction to the social and legal realities
of 18th century England, a world of profound social inequality, severe
punitive policy, and legal ineffectiveness. In certain ways, the criminal justice
system, especially, had harsh punishments when minor offenses occurred,
and moral grounds were not evident.
Bentham considered these practices irrational and inhuman due to
their motivation by tradition and power than human welfare. Bentham was a
fundamental reformist in his intellectual project. He attempted to establish a
moral and legal system which could become a scientific point of reference to
judge laws and institutions. Rather than referring to natural law or divine
command or customary traditions, Bentham maintained that moral and legal
regulations ought to be evaluated by their practical implications on the
happiness of human beings (Bentham, 1789/1996). In the case of Bentham,
the validity of any law or policy was determined by whether it led to the well-
being of the people affected by it.
The key idea of the Bentham philosophy is his denial of any
metaphysical moral concepts including inherent rights or a priori moral
values. His widely known rejection of the concept of natural rights is that it is
nonsense upon stilts since natural rights lack any empirical foundation and
give minimal guidance in the context of making decisions in the real world.
Rather, Bentham based morality on psychological explanation of human
motivation, which states that human beings are basically motivated by
pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
Bentham says that nature had put human beings under the monarchy
of two masters, pain and pleasure (Bentham, 1789/1996). He believed that
such forces could not only explain the behavior of humans but they also form
the basis of moral judgment. Reasoning morally, in the light, ought to be on
visible human experiences and not moral ideals. Connecting ethics with
human psychology, Bentham tried to develop the scientifically informed, but
practically applicable moral system.
The Principle of Utility
The principle of utility which Bentham proposes suggests that the morally
right action is the one that champions the greatest amount of pleasure and
the least amount of pain to the majority. This principle offers one and the
same criterion of objectively assessing the morality of actions and policies so
that various actions and policies can be evaluated based on the same
parameter: their general effect on human happiness.
The approach by Bentham considers the actions of individuals directly,
which means that the individual acts are considered by their individual
consequences. This is why his theory is usually known as act utilitarianism.
According to act utilitarianism, there is no kind of action that is intrinsically or
inherently good or bad. The ethical value of any action is based solely on the
fact that it results in a larger ratio of pleasure than the pain than other
actions that could have been taken under the same circumstances.
Consequently, the moral permissibility of such actions as lying,
stealing, causing harm, and others can be assessed as morally permissible in
case they are followed by the overall improvement. Due to a given example,
it would be deemed morally right to lie to avoid serious damage or pain
when the result of this action brings more happiness than the consequences
of the actuality. In that regard, act utilitarianism places greater value on
moral wiggling and responsiveness to circumstances than on strict rule
following.
Nevertheless, this feature also triggers some serious ethical issues.
According to critics, act utilitarianism can justify injustices or infringement of
individual rights in case these deeds would enhance happiness in general.
The theory seems to do not provide much safeguard to the minorities or the
vulnerable people when their misery might be trumped by the happiness of
the majority. Later these anxieties would inspire John Stuart Mill to amend
utilitarianism by focusing on moral rules and qualitative differences among
pleasures. However, act utilitarianism by Bentham is a strong theory despite
these objections. It is still felt in the analysis of policy today, cost-benefit
argument, and legal reform, with its focus on consequences, objectivity, and
quantifiable results. The legacies of Bentham are that he insisted that
morality should be an ultimate as a service to human well-being as opposed
to abstract ideas that are not related to lived experience.

The Hedonic Calculus

In order to direct the morally right decision making, Bentham, suggested that
there is a method called the hedonic calculus, which is an organized
approach of quantifying and contrasting pleasures and pains. In his view,
Bentham states that pleasures could be rated considering a number of
factors such as:
• Intensity (the degree to which the pleasure or pain is pronounced),
• Duration (how long it lasts),
• Frequency (probability of occurrence)
• Propinquity (so soon it will be),
• Fecundity (its probability of giving birth to more pleasures),
• Pureness (its absence of cherishing agony), and
• Extent (the number of affected people).
Moral agents can in theory identify the action that will maximize net
happiness by weighing them (Bentham, 1789/1996).
Weaknesses and Disapproval of the Bentham View
Utilitarianism of Bentham is commended because it is very clear, practical
and egalitarian. It provides a simplified rule of judgment in the field of
morality and stresses the attitude to social welfare. It has played a major role
especially in law reform, economics and the public policy. Bentham has,
however, been seriously criticized in his approach too. A large criticism is
that it equates all pleasures as having equal qualitative values and it is only
the quantity that varies. Opponents believe that this perception does not
acknowledge significant differences between elevated and lower types of
human satisfaction. Also, act utilitarianism might be used to defend the
actions that infringe upon individual rights or moral intuitions provided that
they increase overall happiness, which concerns the issues of justice and
moral boundaries.
Mill’s Revision of Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (18061873), an heir of Bentham thought, tried to justify
utilitarianism to the opponents by polishing its philosophical principles. Mill
also concurred with the fact that happiness is the final goal of good will, but
he did not subscribe to the purely quantitative sense that Bentham had of
pleasure. Mill argues that human beings are interested in the quality of
pleasure besides the quantity of pleasure. Mill is the much-known advocate
of the idea that it is preferable to be a human being unhappy than a pig
happy (Mill, 1861/2001). This quote echoes the fact that he only believes
intellectual, moral, and aesthetic pleasures to be better than the pure bodily
or sensory pleasures.
Higher and Lower Pleasures
Mill introduced a distinction between higher pleasures (those of the intellect,
imagination, and moral sentiment) and lower pleasures (those of bodily
sensation). He argued that individuals who have experienced both types of
pleasure consistently prefer higher pleasures, even when they involve
greater effort or discomfort (Mill, 1861/2001).
This qualitative distinction aimed to address criticisms that
utilitarianism reduces human life to crude pleasure-seeking. By recognizing
higher forms of happiness, Mill sought to show that utilitarianism can support
education, moral development, and cultural progress.

Rule of Utilitarianism
Even though John Stuart Mill did not clearly refer to his form of utilitarianism
as rule utilitarianism, numerous researchers discuss the fact that his iteration
of utilitarianism was a major deviation of the purely act-utilitarian philosophy
of Bentham. According to what Mill has written, especially in his work
Utilitarianism and On Liberty, he was not only concerned about the effects of
what individual people do, but with the moral significance of general rules
and social practices that would favor human happiness in the long term (Mill,
1861/2001; Mill, 1859/2003).
Rule utilitarianism is a view that a morally right action is one which
adheres to a system of moral rules the observance of which when universally
applied by the members of the society should result in the maximum amount
of happiness. Instead of making the calculation of the utility of each act
individually, this method evaluates the utility of rules. The deontological
response turns around, instead of asking what action results in the greatest
happiness in this particular instance? The question becomes what rules,
when accepted by everyone and adhered to everywhere, would maximize
the overall well-being?
 Mill perceived that it was unfeasible and often perilous to evaluate all
moral circumstances by direct calculus of results because of human
shortcomings in knowledge, prejudice as well as self-interest. When people
are allowed to break the moral norm whenever they feel that this action will
enhance happiness, the outcome may be general uncertainty, mistrust, and
lack of morality. The general rules are moral guidance which are cognitively
manageable and socially credible.
Laws like, do not lie, do not break promises, do not hurt other people,
and individual liberty, etc. are justified within the rule utilitarianism not
because they would maximize happiness under all possible circumstances,
but because societies where these rules are practiced would be more well-
functioning. Social life requires trust and cooperation, and mutual respect,
and these parameters cannot be supported where rules are often broken in
order to obtain the short-term benefits (Mill, 1861/2001).
Mill also focuses on the nature of rules especially in his defense of
individual rights and liberties. In On Liberty, he says that safeguarding the
freedom of thinking acting and speaking without causing any harm to others,
contributes to the happiness over the long-term in that the intellectual
development, moral autonomy and social progress will be promoted (Mill,
1859/2003). Although it may seem to be the case that liberty needs to be
curtailed to help in some instances, Mill believed that a general rule that
safeguards liberty results in more overall utility, as it helps in avoiding
oppression and enhancing flourishing in human beings.

Advantages and Disagreements with the Approach of Mill

The kind of utilitarianism as expressed by Mill is normally considered to be
more advanced, human and sensitive to morality as compared to the version
developed by Bentham. Introducing qualitative differences between
pleasures and the significance of moral rules, Mill responded to some of the
most significant criticisms of early utilitarianism. His theory provides better
safeguards of justice, personal rights and moral integrity and is therefore
closer to popular moral intuitions of fairness and respect towards persons
(Shafer-Landau, 2012).
A key strength of the Mill approach is that it provides reasons as to why
some actions such as the breach of rights or promises are morally bad
despite the fact that these actions may tend to maximize total happiness in
the short run. Mill offered a utilitarian rationale of institutional protections
and constant moral expectations by founding moral rules on their long-term
utility. This renders his theory to be especially appropriate in influencing legal
systems, government policy and social institutions, which rely on consistency
and predictability.
It is also in the qualitative explanation of pleasure by Mill, who
understands that human well-being is complex. Mill did not want to reduce
morality to lowly hedonism by attaching more importance to intellectual,
moral and social pleasures than just the simple physical gratification. This
enabled utilitarianism to explain about values like education, creativity,
autonomy and self-respect which are among core values of human
prosperity.
In spite of these strengths, the utilitarianism introduced by Mill has
received a lot of critique. The first is the impossibility of quantifying and
comparing qualitative pleasures objectively. The fact that Mill asserts that
higher pleasures are better than the rest since they are favored by
competent judges brings forth the issue of who is competent to judge and
who is not in terms of judgment based on cultural or even social factors (Mill,
1861/2001). Opponents claim that this can bring with it the elitist
assumptions in a theory that was initially focused on moral equality.
The other issue is that of the stability of rule utilitarianism. Critics have
claimed that rule utilitarianism is in danger of becoming act utilitarianism in
the event that justifications of exceptions to moral rules are made whenever
it would seem to maximize utility. When the rules are frequently broken on a
case-by-case basis, their normative power might be compromised, defeating
the social trust that they are all supposed to uphold. This conflict of the rule-
following and outcome maximization is one of the major debates of utilitarian
ethics (Hooker, 2000).
Lastly, the approach by Mill still falls under the larger utilitarian issue
that even in extreme instances where the rights of individuals can still be
overridden, the outcome of breaking them brings much greater happiness.
As far as Mill reinforced the principles of liberty and justice, critics doubt the
possibility of absolute protection or just the contingent protection based on
its utility. Now, utilitarianism by Mill is an important development of the
theory, being a compromise between practical moral orientation, the sense
of individual dignity, and the interest to the social well-being. Its advantages
are its flexibility and ethical richness, whereas its difficulties indicate
perennial conflicts between regulations, outcomes, and ethical equality.
Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism highlights two different
ways of applying the principle of utility. Act utilitarianism evaluates individual
actions directly based on their consequences, while rule utilitarianism
evaluates the moral validity of rules that guide action. Act utilitarianism
offers flexibility and responsiveness to specific circumstances, but it may
lead to moral uncertainty and justify harmful actions in particular cases. Rule
utilitarianism provides stability and predictability, but it may struggle to
handle exceptional situations where following a rule seems to reduce overall
happiness.
Both approaches share a commitment to maximizing well-being, yet
they differ in how moral reasoning is structured and applied. This debate
remains central to contemporary discussions of utilitarian ethics.
Application of utilitarianism
Utilitarian reasoning continues to play a significant role in contemporary
ethical decision making, particularly in fields that require large-scale policy
evaluation and resource distribution. Governments and institutions often rely
on cost–benefit analysis, risk assessment, and outcome-based evaluation, all
of which reflect utilitarian assumptions about maximizing overall social
welfare. Public policies on taxation, infrastructure development,
environmental regulation, and disaster response frequently aim to produce
the greatest net benefit for the largest number of people, even when some
individuals or groups bear disproportionate costs.
In healthcare, utilitarianism is especially influential in decisions
involving limited resources. During public health emergencies, such as
pandemics or natural disasters, medical authorities may prioritize
treatments, vaccines, or life-saving interventions based on their potential to
save the most lives or maximize quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). From a
utilitarian perspective, allocating scarce resources to patients with higher
survival probabilities or greater expected benefit is morally justified. While
such reasoning promotes efficiency and overall benefit, it also raises ethical
concerns about equity, the moral worth of vulnerable populations, and the
risk of reducing patients to mere statistical units.
Criminal justice and legal policy are also utilitarian. Punishment can be
as not primarily retributive, but rather as a mechanism to maintain social
safety by way of deterrence, rehabilitation or incapacitation. The laws and
penalties are usually assessed in terms of efficacy in curbing crime as well as
safeguarding the community. As an illustration, the policy of sentencing can
be justified by the fact that it deterrents bad behaviour and as a result leads
to the general welfare of the society. Critics however believe that this
method can be biased against individual rights and procedural justice
especially when cruel punishments are delivered in the name of collective
security.
 Utilitarianism in the economic context serves to guide discussions on
income distribution, welfare and labor policy. Policies that tend to alleviate
poverty, raise education access or social safety nets tend to be rationalized
on the grounds of their ability to enhance general happiness and social
stability. The redistributive actions and progressive taxation, such as these,
can be justified by the fact that the movement of resources between the rich
and the poor results in the maximization of marginal utility and the well-
being of a group. However, there are also continuous controversies regarding
equity, individual accountability, and the extent of state action in these
applications. Utilitarianism is ethically perplexing and practically attractive as
shown by these applications. Its emphasis on social good and consequence
turns it into an effective instrument of helping people make a decision but its
practice is always fraught with questions of justice, minority rights, and
moral boundaries. Consequently, utilitarianism, despite its controversial
impact on applied ethical debates, has not ceased to be an influential factor,
and the imperative to exercise caution in moral reasoning when applying
theoretical concepts to the practical sphere.

Chapter 3: Kant’s Duty Ethics and Respect for Persons

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you should be able to:
o Explain the core principles of utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory;
o Distinguish between Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism and John Stuart
Mill’s rule utilitarianism;
o Analyze the concepts of pleasure, happiness, and utility in moral reasoning;
o Evaluate the strengths and limitations of utilitarianism in moral decision-
making, and;
o Apply utilitarian reasoning to concrete moral and social issues.

Introduction
The reason why many philosophers and moral thinkers are motivated by
Kant ethical theory is that this theory provides a strong alternative to the
moral systems based on the happiness, pleasure, or subjective preference. In
case the end end of life was the pursuit of happiness, moral action would be
the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. However, as Kant notes,
happiness is highly dependent on external influences like fortune, well-being
and social factors, which are mostly out of his/her control. Since happiness is
somewhat a question of fortune, it cannot offer any standard or general basis
to moral obligation (Kant, 1785/1993). To Kant, morality should be based on
something more certain than desires which change or uncertain results.
In order to prevent the moral skepticism, relativism, or nihilism, Kant
claims that moral principles should be unconditional and universal. The
moral demands should be applicable to all rational beings without exception
irrespective of the circumstances, individual interests or cultural diversity.
This means that ethics, should it seek to exercise true authority, cannot be
based upon what people arbitrarily desire or what actions are likely to bring
about in accidents. Rather, Kant is in search of a moral law based on reason
as such, which involves a moral law that connects all rational agents merely
by reason being their rational nature (Johnson & Cureton, 2023).
Abstraction
The Good Will as the Only Unqualified Good
The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals starts with the notorious
statement by Kant that nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
out of it, which can be called good without any modification, except a good
will (Kant, 1785/1993). The notion of good, according to Kant, is good in
every situation and could not be made evil in any situation. Even such
talents as intelligence, courage, perseverance, even happiness as such can
be good, yet it can lead to evil, and ruin when wielded with a perverse will. In
the service of vice, intelligence, on the contrary, makes a criminal more
effective than more good.
A good will, in contrast, is not good due to its productive quality but
rather because of its moral quality i.e., its devotion to perform the right thing
in the duty. The worth of the good will is on its intention rather than on its
success. Although a morally upright action does not lead to the intended
result, it has the moral value provided it was done with a sense of adhering
to the moral law (Kant, 1785/1993). This is a stringent departure of the
consequentialist schools of thought, where the actions are judged mainly on
their outcomes.
Duty, Moral Worth, and Motivation
The key point in the ethics by Kant is the difference between a duty
conforming action and a duty performing act. A moral action can be morally
required, but have no moral value when it is done out of inclination, self
interest or fear of punishment. A shopkeeper who will not lie to save a good
reputation, will only do that because it is his duty and not duty. To Kant,
actions performed out of duty i.e. performed out of reverence to the moral
law are the only ones that have actual moral value (Kant, 1785/1993). This
assertion has gained a lot of discussion. Kant seems to imply that all acts
driven by inclination including good ones are unethical. The moral character
and emotional virtue have been criticized as being undermined by this post.
The role of habituation is stressed by Aristotle as a case in point as virtuous
people learn to enjoy doing the right thing as a matter of habit
(Nicomachean Ethics). On the same note, W. T. Stace (1937) asks whether
being able to carry on his duty cheerfully or being grudgingly against the
inclinations is not morally better? Kant however answers that inclination is
not bad, but it cannot be used as the basis of moral obligation, as they are
different in different individuals, and they are not universal.
Duty and the Authority of Moral Law
Duty plays a key role in the Kantian ethics in establishing the morality of
human behavior. To Immanuel Kant, a moral action can only be undertaken
with a genuine feeling of duty, i.e. out of respect to the moral law and not
out of inclination, self-interest or to achieve good effects (Kant, 1785/1993).
Although a certain action that is determined by sympathy or self-interest
may be in line with the needs of morality, they cannot be considered of
moral value unless the agent is driven by the sense of obligation based on
reason.
Moral law has the power because it is rational and universal in nature.
The moral laws that are presented by Kant are not externally stipulated by
social traditions, religious teachings, and political systems; Kant claims that
moral laws are self-enacted by rational beings via practical reason. This
source of obligation is an internal state of being and as such, separates
moral obligation and compliance with rules or laws that are supported with
external sanctions. Rational agency, in turn, cannot exist without moral
responsibility: people become responsible due to their ability to identify
moral laws and commit themselves to them. Also, the moral law is binding in
that it is universal and imperative. Ethical demands do not depend on
specific wishes, social functions, or cultures. To be moral is to be able to do
things that can be willed to do to all rational beings by oneself without
contradiction. This way, duty is the utmost respect of rationality as such, the
ability of individuals to regulate their actions on rational grounds instead of
emotional ones.
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives
Kant differentiates between two kinds of imperatives that direct human
action namely: categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives.
Hypothetical imperatives are prescriptive in nature as they are directed to
actions on a conditional basis, that is, they are based on the desires or
objectives of an individual. They are of the form: when you want X, then you
should do Y. This is to say, that an individual should study in case he or she
would wish to pass an examination. These imperatives are instrumental and
practical, yet lack moral necessity since the power of the imperatives is
based on subjective ends (Kant, 1785/1993). Categorical imperatives, on the
contrary, do not order any actions as there are no conditions or objectives
attached to it. They contain moral obligations which attach to all rational
beings merely because they are rational beings. Moral obligations like
honesty, respect to person, promise keeping are obligatory irrespective of
personal interests and anticipated results. According to Kant, morality as a
thing that should be objective has to be founded on categorical imperatives
and not on contingent rules of prudence. The best-known version of the
categorical imperative is as follows: “Act as you can at the same time will
that it become a universal law (Kant, 1785/1993). This principle is used to
evaluate how morally permissible actions are by posing whether the
proposed maxims can be universalized or not. In this context, Kant presents
a logical approach to assessing moral obligations without requesting the
consequences or feelings.
Humanity as an End in Itself
The principle of humanity is one of the most powerful variants of the
categorical imperative, according to which it is said: -Act in such a way that
you treat humanity, in yourself or in another, never as an end but as a
means (Kant, 1785/1993). This principle bases moral obligation on the
internal dignity of rational beings, which underscores the fact that people
have been accorded intrinsic values that cannot be degraded to utility or
use.
Treating a person as a means is to engage them in an act without
considering their ability to reason and give consent. Such practices like
deception, coercion, exploitation and manipulation fail this principle since
they objectify people to serve other end. Kant does not deny that individuals
can be used as instruments in cooperative practices, but he maintains that
this should always be in conjunction with the realization that they are
independent agents whose purposes are important. The notion of human
dignity is the direct result of this formulation. More than objects or animals,
rational beings can deliberate morally and make laws to themselves, which
gives them an absolute price or exchange. Respect of person is, therefore,
not earned and does not depend on social status, merit, and usefulness. It is
a priori necessity based on common rationality, which is an ethical basis of
human rights and moral equality.
The concept of humanity as an end unto itself also offers a good
ethical analysis of the social practices and institutions that diminish people
to the status of tools. Whenever a system considers efficiency, profit or
political benefit at the cost of the individual dignity, there is a risk that this
Kantian requirement has been violated. The examples include policies which
do not recognize the moral imperative of acknowledging persons as rational
agents with their own ends, even though they treat workers as economic
units, patients as cases and citizens as tools to political stability. This
formulation by Kant, therefore, goes past interpersonal morality and into
institutional morality whereby laws, policies and social systems are
scrutinized in the view of whether they respect and maintain human dignity
and not necessarily attain a desirable result.
Analytically, the humanity formulation is strong by virtue of its ability
to establish moral boundaries on consequential thinking. In comparison to
utilitarian methods, which can be used to justify that some people should be
sacrificed in the name of the greater good, the principle by Kant is
categorically opposed to any such trade-offs especially that of treating
persons as the means to an end. This creates an ethical borderline that
should not be negotiated under any circumstances: there may be a lot of
positive effects of such actions but they cannot be justified by a lack of
rational agency or consent of a person. The principle of humanity in this
sense serves as a kind of protection against ethical calculations that threaten
to destroy human dignity in the name of efficiency, progress or the common
good.
 Meanwhile, critics claim that the implementation of this principle may
be complicated in complex social reality when people cannot but rely on
each other as labor and governance systems, as well as exchange systems.
The answer that Kant gives to this is not to reject instrumental relations but
to make them organized according to the terms of respect, reciprocity, and
informed consent. When the concept of humanity is properly interpreted, it
does not mean that one should not use other people in their practical
cooperation, but it requires that such use should always be carried out in a
way that is consistent with the consideration of people as self-determining
moral actors. It is this interpretive subtext that enables the Kantian ethics to
be demanding morally without being unrealistic.
Autonomy and Kingdom of Ends
The concept of autonomy used by Kant is the ability of rational agents to
make moral law to themselves by the use of reason. The autonomy is not the
freedom to act as I wish but it is to govern self in accordance to the universal
moral principles. Moral freedom consists in the fact that a person does the
things that he or she is rationally willing to do and is obligated to do because
they are laws that a person owes to himself as a member of a moral
community (Kant, 1785/1993). The concept leads to Kantian vision of the
Kingdom of Ends, a rational community of will, a structured community that
jointly formulates universal moral laws, and each other as ends in
themselves. This perfect moral order is that, every human is a subject and
an author of the moral law, having obligations and having yet an intrinsic
dignity. Moral behavior refers to the type of behavior that may be accepted
by all reasonable individuals as being in agreement with mutual respect and
the general law.
The Kingdom of Ends brings into focus the social aspect of Kantian
ethics. Moral responsibility does not only apply to individuals but also to
institutions, legislation and practices that honor autonomy as well as dignity.
Ethical life is thus not just the personal virtue but the organization of social
relations in such a way that persons are respected as free and equal moral
agents. This theory continues to impact the modern discourse of human
rights, justice, and democratic governments.
Besides, the Kingdom of Ends is not a utopian fantasy but a type of a
regulative ideal according to which moral judgement and ethical reform are
governed. Although this moral community is not entirely comprised of any
society, the notion provides a criterion of evaluation by which the current
social organization can be evaluated and reformed. It questions both
individuals and institutions about whether their practices and regulations can
be made acceptable to everyone whom they will be affected by as free and
equal individuals of a moral order. In this sense, the Kantian vision highlights
the fact that moral development is a process of extending respect to
autonomy and dignity in the social, political, and international settings, which
supports the concept that the moral responsibility is an individual and social
one.
The moral obligation based on ethical theory of Kant is one of the strict
and well known. Insisting on the foundation of morality on the rational
instead of the happy, the desiring and the consequences, Kant provides a
strong justification of the universal law of morality, human dignity, and
autonomy. His theory may have difficulty, mainly when it comes to moral
rigidity, and its application into the real world, but it still has its presence in
modern discussions on the subject of rights, justice, and moral responsibility.
Analytically, the concept of autonomy introduced by Kant could be a
challenge to the general beliefs regarding moral freedom redefining it as self-
legislation and not the ability to make a free choice. Freedom to Kant is not
doing something based on impulse, desire, or external pressure, but doing
something based on principles which one could rationally will to be universal
laws. Such a reframing gives a sound explanation of moral responsibility:
people will be responsible to their acts because they are in a position to
appreciate and commit themselves to moral law. Moral obligation is therefore
based on autonomy and not its denial.
The Kingdom of Ends takes this observation even further, by
highlighting the relational and political nature of moral autonomy as opposed
to an individual one. Moral agents are not isolated legislators but are part of
a community of equals who have to defend themselves to each other on
their principles. This does have serious consequences on the ethics of the
society since it means that institutions that are unjust, as they coerce,
ostracize or silence people, have deleterious effect on autonomy itself. The
ethical legitimacy, in this case, will be determined by whether social rules
and regulations can fairly be acceptable to the all the parties involved as co-
creators of the moral order. By so doing, the Kingdom of Ends, would fill the
gap between moral philosophy and political theory and provide a normative
ideal of just social cooperation based on respect towards autonomy and
dignity.