THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right
behavior based on the usefulness of the action's consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that
the goodness of action is determined by its usefulness.

Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that one’s action and behavior are good in as much as
they are directed toward the experience of which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s
action and behavior. When we argue that the drug war program of the present government is permissible
because doing so results in better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian
because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness of
the many.

--

Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions:

This means that the goodness or the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in
contributing to a specific purpose for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is consequentialist:

This means that the moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the
usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether the
action or behavior is good or bad.

The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness:

This means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of happiness as the
experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some
individual rights.

--

JEREMY BENTHAM (UTILITARIANISM) (1748-1832)

- Born on February 15,1748 in London, England. Died on June 6, 1832.
- He was the teacher of James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill.
- Bentham first wrote about the greatest happiness principle of ethics and was known for a
system of penal management called PANOPTICON.
❑ Intellectual inheritor of David Hume

❑ Recognized as ‘Act Utilitarian’

❑Right actions result in ‘good or pleasure,’ wrong actions result in pain or absence of pleasure.
❑The Principle of Utility
❑Law and Social Hedonism
❑Felicific Calculus

--
THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY – JEREMEY BENTHAM
In the book “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789), Jeremy
Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters”--which
he calls pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine
what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their
throne.
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: PLEASURE and
PAIN.
On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of
pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday actions, we do what is
pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means
that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make
us happier. Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the
principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
Actions that lead to PLEASURE ARE RIGHT, ones that produce PAIN ARE WRONG.

--
LAW AND SOCIAL HEDONISM, FELICIFIC CALCULUS – JEREMY BENTHAM
LAW

➢ Government should not pass laws that protect tradition, customs or rights
➢ Government should base all laws on the happiness principle
The greatest happiness for the greatest number
➢ Bentham’s theory is both empirical (how much pain or pleasure is caused by the act or
policy) and democratic (each individual’s happiness is as important as another’s)
SOCIAL HEDONISM
Ethics as Greatest Happiness
➢ Moral worth judged by presumed effect
➢ Action guided by pleasure/pain

FELICIFIC CALCULUS – common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some
actions can produce.

In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure;
❖ DURATION or length of the experience of pleasure.
❖ CERTAINTY, UNCERTAINTY, or the likelihood that pleasure will occur; and
❖ PROPINQUITY, REMOTENESS, or how soon there will be pleasure.
These indicators allow us to measure and pain in actions, we need to consider THREE MORE
DIMENSIONS:
❖ FECUNDITY or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind
❖ PURITY or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
❖ Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain,
another dimension is to be considered -- EXTENT.

Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This
means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and
values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not qualitatively
differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.

--

JOHN STUART MILL – (1806-1873)

His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled
UTILITARANISM (1861).
He studied Greek at the age of three and Latin at the age of eight. He wrote a history of Roman
Law age eleven. He was married to Harriet Taylor after 21 years of friendship.

Was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville, London, United Kingdom. Died on May 8, 1873 in
Avignon, France from Erysipelas.
❑ A more sophisticated form of Utilitarianism.
❑ Concerned with quality of pleasure and quantity of people who enjoy it.
❑ Recognized higher and lower types of human pleasure.
❑ PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER
❑ JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS

➢ Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility
must distinguish pleasures QUALITATIVELY and not merely quantitatively.
➢ For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any
other animals. He thinks that there are HIGHER INTELLECTUAL and LOWER BASE PLEASURES.
Lower pleasures: eating, drinking, sexuality, etc.
Higher pleasures: intellectuality, creativity and spirituality.

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

--

PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER – JOHN STUART MILL

❑ Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness
alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not
constitute a moral good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure
more happiness for others.
❑ Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is
not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot discernible in the intention
or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it
makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.

Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the
greatest number.

--
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS – JOHN STUART MILL
➢ When we call anything a person’s right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to
protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that education and opinion.
If he has what we consider a sufficient claim, on whatever account, to have something
guaranteed to him by society, we say that he has a right to it.
➢ The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because
they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are
able to live their lives knowing that their interest are protected and that society (as a whole)
defends it.
-

➢ A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in as much as they produce an overall happiness

that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
➢ Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that
when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle,
then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that there are
instances when the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable.

In short, Mill’s moral rights and considerations of justice are not absolute, but are only
justified by their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

--

BETHAMITE – DEMOCRATIC UTILITARIANISM

O No one pleasure is inherently better than any other
O If drunken parties make you happy, then go for it!
O Reading poetry isn’t better than watching The Bachelor, it’s just different.

MILLSIAN – ELITE UTILITARIANISM

Some pleasures are better than others
O If you party and get drunk every day, then you won’t be as happy as you otherwise might be.
O Enjoying poetry is better than watching bad TV. And if you disagree, it is because you don’t
understand quality.

--
“Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to
remove.” - Jeremy Bentham
--
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” - John Stuart Mill

-----------------------------

THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the actions consequences.
This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of action is determined by its
usefulness.
• Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of actions and
decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the
usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.

UTILITARIANISM

Happiness and Freedom

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

• Intellectual inheritor of David Hume

• Utilitarianism
o A moral theory based on experiences of pleasure and pain

• “The Principle of Utility”

o Actions should be evaluated according to their ability to produce pleasure and pain
o Actions that lead to pleasure are right, ones that produce pain are wrong

Law and Social Hedonism

• Government should not pass laws that protect tradition, customs or rights
 • Government should base all laws on the happiness principle

o The greatest happiness for the greatest number

• Bentham’s theory is both empirical (how much pain or pleasure is caused by the act or
policy) and democratic (each individual’s happiness is as important as any other’s)

Bentham
Ethics as Greatest Happiness
Social Hedonism

• Moral worth judged by presumed effect

• Action guided by pleasure/pain Did have his skeleton put on display!
• His “auto-icon” still attends department meetings
• College students stole his mummi2ed head and partied with it

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

• Raised according to utilitarian ideals

• Studies poetry to restore his sanity
• Falls in love with Harriet Taylor

Utility and Quality

• Like Bentham, he was an empiricist

o Policy should be based on our experiences of pleasure and pain, not tradition

• Mill worried that Bentham’s theory wasn’t complete

• Problem with Bentham’s Theory
o What would most people choose between reading poetry and getting drunk while watching
TV?
o What would most people vote for between money for education and tax cuts? This life won’t
make you happy in the long run!
o It lacks QUALITY
-

Benthamite
Democratic Utilitarianism

• No one pleasure is inherently better than any other

• If drunken parties make you happy, then go for it!
• Reading poetry isn’t better than watching The Bachelor, it’s just different

Millsian
Elite Utilitarianism

Some pleasures are better than others

• If you party and get drunk every day, then you won’t be as happy as you otherwise
might be
• Enjoying poetry IS better than watching bad TV. And if you disagree, it is because you
don’t understand quality

Utilitarianism, 1863

• Mill’s great work on ethics

• We are made happy by “elevated” pleasures
• Pleasures can be higher or lower quality
• Better to be Socrates dissatis2ed than a fool satis2ed
• We need to pay attention to quality, because our ability to enjoy higher pleasure can be
damaged by too much low pleasure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, I'm going to talk about utilitarianism. So I spend my time thinking about morality, about
what makes actions morally right or morally wrong, and I wanted to talk today about a very
simple, quite popular answer to that question, a moral theory that goes by the name
"utilitarianism."

Utilitarianism has a lot going for it, but it also raises some very interesting worries, and I'm
going to talk a bit about some of those. So utilitarianism is the view that actions are morally
permissible if and only if they produce at least as much net happiness as any other available
action.

In other words, the more happiness and less suffering that results from our actions, the better
the action is, and the right action is the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness
over suffering. In fact, according to utilitarianism, any other action is morally wrong.

This utilitarian principle is supposed to be absolute and all-encompassing. It will tell you for
any decision whatsoever exactly what you should morally do, and it admits of no exceptions.
Utilitarianism has been around for a long time, but it gained a lot in
prominence and popularity in the late eighteenth century, due in part to the work of a British
philosopher named Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham published a long defense of utilitarianism, called "An Introduction to the Principles of
Morals "and Legislation" in 1789, but he was also a very politically and socially active guy.

In fact, he was an early defender of economic liberalization, freedom of expression, the

separation of church and state, women's rights, animal rights, the right to divorce, the abolition
of slavery, the abolition of capital punishment, the abolition of corporal punishment, prison
reform, and even the decriminalization of homosexual acts.

Remember, this was 1789. Bentham recognized the moral importance of these rights, many of
which are now uncontroversial. In this, he was well ahead of his time, and in large part, I would
think, because of his embrace of utilitarianism. That, for me, counts heavily in favor of it as a
moral theory. And in fact, aspects of utilitarianism can look very hard to resist.

We can break the utilitarian

thesis up into two parts: a theory of what is valuable, and a theory of right action given what's
valuable. First, the theory of what's valuable. It says that the only thing that's valuable in its own
right is happiness and the absence of suffering. Other things, like money, might be derivatively
valuable, because it helps us get happiness. Second, the theory of right action. The right action
is the one that maximizes, produces the most of, what's valuable, or if that's uncertain, that
produces the most expected value.
If you put those two pieces,
the theory of what's valuable and the theory of right action given what's valuable, together, you
get utilitarianism.

Here's a very simple example. Let's say I'm a doctor, and I have only five doses left of some very
scarce medicine. In an emergency situation, I'm left with six patients, all of whom need the drug
to survive. But one of them, let's call her Needy, will survive only if I give her all five doses of the
drug. The other five patients can survive on a single dose each, and we can assume that I know
nothing else about these patients. Utilitarianism will tell us to divide up the drug, saving the five
and allowing Needy to die. Why? Because saving the five lives preserves much more happiness
and prevents much more suffering than saving just one life. And in that case, that seems like
the right answer. It's important to notice that these two elements of utilitarianism can be
separated. We can accept the utilitarian view of what's valuable without embracing its claim
about what that means for how we should act, And we can accept the utilitarian claim that the
right action is the one that makes the most value without accepting the claim that happiness
and the absence of suffering are all that's valuable.
 NATURAL LAW THEORY (input)
Natural law theory is a philosophical and legal belief that all humans are governed by basic innate laws,
or laws of nature, which are separate and distinct from laws which are legislated.

Legislated laws are sometimes referred to as “positive laws” in the framework of natural law theory, to
make a clear distinction between natural and social laws. This theory has heavily influenced the laws and
governments of many nations, including England and the United States, and it is also reflected in
publications like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The origins of natural law theory lie in Ancient Greece. Many Greek philosophers discussed and codified
the concept of natural law, and it played an important role in Greek government. Later philosophers such
as St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke built on the work of the Greeks in natural law
theory treatises of their own. Many of these philosophers used natural law as a framework for criticizing
and reforming positive laws, arguing that positive laws which are unjust under the principles of natural
law are legally wanting.

--

THE THEORY OF NATURAL LAW

In the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory of ethics is not the Divine Command
Theory. That honor goes to the Theory of Natural Law. This theory has three main parts.

1. The Theory of Natural Law rests upon a certain view of what the world is like. On this
view, the world is a rational order with values and purposes built into its very nature.
This conception derives from the Greeks, whose way of understanding the world
dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. A central feature of this conception
was the idea that everything in nature has a purpose.

Aristotle incorporated this idea into his system of thought around 350 B.C. when he said that, in
order to understand anything, four questions must be asked: What is it? What is it made of?
How did it come to exist? And what is it for? (The answers might be: This is a knife, it is made of
metal, it was made by a craftsman, and it is used for cutting.) Aristotle assumed that the last
question - what is it for? - could sensibly be asked of anything whatever. Nature, he said,
belongs to the class of causes which act for the sake of something.

It seems obvious that artifacts such as knives have purposes, because craftsmen have a purpose
in mind when they make them. But what about natural objects that we do not make? Aristotle
believed that they have purposes too. One of his examples was that we have teeth so that we
can chew. Such biological examples are quite persuasive; each part of our bodies does seem,
intuitively, to have a special purpose - eyes are for seeing, the heart is for pumping blood, and
so on. But Aristotle’s claim was not limited to organic beings. According to him, everything has
a purpose. He thought, to take a different sort of example, that rain falls so that plants can
grow. As odd as it may seem to a modern reader, Aristotle was perfectly serious about this. He
considered other alternatives, such as that the rain falls of necessity and that this helps the
plants only by coincidence, and rejected them.
The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system, with each thing having its own proper place
and serving its own special purpose. There is a neat hierarchy: The rain exists for the sake of the
plants, the plants exist for the sake of the animals, and the animals exist - of course - for the
sake of people, whose well- being is the point of the whole arrangement.
[W]e must believe, first that plants exist for the sake of animals, second that all other animals
exist for the sake of man, tame animals for the use he can make of them as well as for the food
they provide; and as for wild animals, most though not all of these can be used for food or are
useful in other ways; clothing and instruments can be made out of them. If then we are right in
believing that nature makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must
be that nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man.
This seems stunningly anthropocentric. Aristotle may be forgiven, however, when we consider
that virtually every important thinker in out history has entertained some such thought.
Humans are a remarkably vain species.
The Christian thinkers who came later found this view of the world to be perfectly congenial.
Only one thing was missing: God was needed to make the picture complete. (Aristotle has
denied that God was a necessary part of the picture. For him, the worldview we have outlined
was not religious; it was simply a description of how things are.) Thus the Christian thinkers said
that the rain falls to help the plants because that is what the Creator intended, and the animals
are for human use because that is what God made them for. Values and purposes were,
therefore, conceived to be a fundamental part of the nature of things, because the world was
believed to have been created according to a divine plan.

2. A corollary of this way of thinking is that the laws of nature not only describe how
things are, they specify how things ought to be as well. Things are as they ought to be
when they are serving their natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, serve those
purposes, things have gone wrong. Eyes that cannot see are defective, and drought is a
natural evil; the badness of both is explained by reference to natural law. But there are
also implications for human conduct. Moral rules are not viewed as deriving from the
laws of nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be natural, while other are unnatural;
and unnatural acts are said to be morally wrong.
Consider, for example, the duty of beneficence. We are morally required to be concerned for
our neighbor’s welfare as we are for our own. Why? According to the Theory of Natural Law,
beneficence is natural for us, considering the kind of creatures we are. We are by our nature
social creatures who want and need the company of other people. It is also part of our natural
makeup that we care about others. Someone who does not care at all for others - who really
does not care, through and through - is seen as deranged, in the terms of modern psychology, a
sociopath. A malicious personality is defective, just as eyes are defective if they cannot see.
And, it may be added, this is true because we were created by God, with a specific human
nature, as part of his overall plan for the world.
The endorsement of beneficence is relatively uncontroversial. Natural law theory has also been
used, however, to support moral views that are more contentious. Religious thinkers have
traditionally condemned deviant sexual practices, and the theoretical justification of their
opposition has come more often than not from theory of natural law. If everything has a
purpose, what is the purpose of sex? The obvious answer is procreation. Sexual activity that is
not connected with making babies can therefore be viewed as unnatural, and so such practices
as masturbation and oral sex - not to mention gay sex - can be condemned for this reason. This
way of thinking about sex dates back to at least to St. Augustine in the fourth century, and it is
explicit in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. The moral theology of the Catholic Church is
based on natural law theory. This line of thought lies behind its whole sexual ethic.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural Law has few advocates today. It is generally
rejected for two reasons. First, it seems to involve a confusion of is and ought. In the 18th
century David Hume pointed out that what is the case and what ought to be the case are
logically different notions, and no conclusion about one follows from the other. We can say that
people are naturally disposed to be beneficent, but it does not follow that they should be
beneficent. Similarly, it may be that sex does produce babies, but it does not follow that sex
ought or ought not to be engaged in only for that purpose. Facts are one thing; values are
another. The Theory of Natural Law seems to conflate them.
Second, the Theory of Natural Law has gone out of fashion (although that does not, of course,
prove it is false) because the view of the world on which it rests is out of keeping with modern
science. The world as described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin has no place for facts about
right and wrong. Their explanations of natural phenomena make no reference to values or
purposes. What happens just happens, fortuitously, in the consequence of the laws of cause
and effect. If the rain benefits the plants, it is only because the plants have evolved by the laws
of natural selection in a rainy climate.
Thus modern science gives us a picture of the world as a realm of facts, where the only natural
laws are the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly and without purpose.
Whatever values may be, they are not part of the natural order. As for the idea that nature has
made all things specifically for the sake of man, that is only human vanity. To the extent that
one accepts the worldview of modern science, then, one will be skeptical of the Theory of
Natural Law. It is no accident that the theory was a product, not of modern thought, but of the
Middle Ages.

3. The third part of the theory addresses the question of moral knowledge. How are we
to go about determining what is right and what is wrong? The Divine Command Theory
says that we must consult God’s commandments. The Theory of Natural Law gives a
different answer. The natural laws that specify what we should do are laws of reason,
which we are able to grasp because God, the author of the natural order, has made us
rational beings with the power to understand that order. Therefore, the Theory of
Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right thing to do is whatever course of
conduct has the best reasons on its side. To use the traditional terminology, moral
judgments are dictates of reason. St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the natural-law
theorists, wrote in his masterpiece the Summa Theologica that To disparage the dictate
of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God.

This means that the religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The believer and the
nonbeliever are in the same position. God has given both the same powers of reasoning; and so
believer and nonbeliever alike may listen to reason and follow its directives. They function as
moral agents in the same way, even though the nonbelievers lack of faith prevents them from
realizing that God is the author of the rational order in which they participate and which their
moral judgments express.
In an important sense, this leaves morality independent of religion. Religious belief does not
affect the calculation of what is best, and the results of moral inquiry are religiously neutral. In
this way, even though they may disagree about religion, believers and nonbelievers inhabit the
same moral universe.

Natural Law

What is natural law? ‘Natural’ because the goals and the major values human beings seek are
innate, that is, they are from the nature and are not selected freely by individual persons or
communities. Since human nature does not change, the basic goals are constant and basic
morality does not change. It is considered ‘law’ because by reasoning about the innate goals
and values we can determine actions, which is oftentimes expressed in norms or laws that
enables the person to achieve their goals.
Natural Law is a system in which actions are seen as morally or ethically correct if it accords
with the end purpose of human nature and human goals. Natural Law follows the fundamental
maxim, ‘do good and avoid evil’. A follower of natural law contends that God is the creator.
They believed that God’s law is reflected in nature and in His creation. So by following man’s
heart therefore they can recognized the law of God.
The natural law method of seeking moral norms and evaluating human acts has a long history in
the catholic community. On the other hand, it is closely associated to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas begins his natural law theory by differentiating human acts from acts of man. Human
acts as Aquinas expressed proceeds from the will and the act of man is an action that does not
proceeds from the will. It is only the human act that is being determined as moral or immoral
because its origin is the exercise of the will. The morality of the human act depends primarily on
the ‘object’ rationally chosen by the deliberate will (John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, 1993). The
moral object can be described as the intention inherent in the action that one is actually
performing, the moral object specifies the human act and is the purpose that the act
accomplishes as a means to the ultimate goal of life. For example, ‘If I gave money to the poor, I
am performing an act of charity, a human act judged by its moral object or the intention
inherent in the act. Although the moral object or finis operis is the fundamental element of the
morality of the human act, there is also the circumstance. Circumstance is a part of the human
act that must be considered in order to evaluate the total moral act (Summa Theologica, 1947,
I-II, q. 18, a. 3). Circumstance can be considered in various moral questions, thus, we might ask,
‘who’, ‘when’, ‘how much’ or ‘in what manner’. Example, a physician who injects a debilitated
patient with a fate dose drugs to end his suffering. The moral object of the act (what actually
the physician intends to do) is to kill the patient and it is this intention that makes the physical
act of the injection a moral evil. The circumstance of the physician’s act, e.g., time, place, and
condition of the patient cannot make this act good. Finally, the ultimate reason that determines
the moral act is the intention. Intention/motive is a means towards the attainment of true
happiness both of the agent and the common good. Thus, in the example, killing an innocent
person to help relieve pain cannot be justified. That is why as Ashley and O’Rouke said, ‘we
may not do evil for good to come out of it’ (Originally is taken from Rom. 3:8, Ashley, OP and
O’Rouke OP, 2001).
The presentation at hand speaks about the norms of moral act, however, if given a situation or
alternative wherein there is the conflicting issues as to what course of action will prevail,
Aquinas designed a method known as ‘Principle of Double-Effect’. This principle is used in
order to judge the moral acceptability of the human act that has two effects, one is good and
the other is evil. Traditional Moral theology, presents four conditions for the double effect
principle to be applied:

4. The action is good in itself or at least indifferent.

5. The good effect must come first before the evil effect or a least simultaneously.
6. The good effect must be intended.
7. There must be a proportionately grave reason for the evil effect to happen.

The application of the principle of double effect emphasized that the good effect is really and
honestly the one that is intended, instead of the evil one. For example, a nurse is treating
pneumonia to a patient with terminal cancer. In prescribing medication, one may possibly claim
that his/her intention is to treat the pneumonia but it is possible as well that in one’s mind it
would also be good so that death could be hastened and the patient would not be in pain and
prolonged suffering for a longer period of time. In this example, it is required that the purity of
ones internal action of consent or intention must be intended.
Situations by which the principle of double-effect can be seen and applied and is not limited to
it: pain, restlessness, delirious, uncontrolled seizures and depression caused by illness. Some of
the treatment may have an adverse and untoward effect that it is not intended. Example, the
use of marijuana to control a certain pain and wasting; the euphoric effects are the primary
intention even if the undesired effects are permitted. Another one is applying sedition to a very
restless and delirious patient (as in rabies) it may require dangerous drugs or even anesthesia
even if these will shorten the life of the patient. It is to be remembered here, that the primary
purpose of the health care provider is to provide comfort and ease suffering. Indeed, good
intention demands impartiality and absence of conflict of interest. Though, this is not always
possible, still, decision-making at the end must recognize the individual conscience that
requires prudence of action. Prudence, as Aquinas said, ‘is right reason in action’.

--

NATURAL LAW THEORY (ppt)

St. Thomas Aquinas

❖ Also known as Doctor Angelicus and Doctor Communis

❖ Born in 1225 Aquino, Italy
❖ Died in 1274 in Italy
❖ Referred to as Thomas because his last name Aquinas refers to where he was born.
❖ Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church
❖ Theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism
❖ Begins his natural law theory by differentiating human acts from acts of man.

Natural Law

–Natural law is a system in which actions are seen as morally and ethically correct if t accords with the
end purpose of human nature and human goals.
–Follows the fundamental maxim, ‘do good and avoid evil’.
-

HUMAN ACTS

– Human acts as Aquinas expressed proceeds from the will.

ACTS OF MAN

– Is an action that does not proceeds from the will

MORAL OBJECT

– The intention inherent in the action that one is actually performing.

– It specifies the human act and is the purpose that the act accomplishes as a means to the
ultimate goal of life.
– Although the moral object or finis operis is the fundamental element of the morality of the
human act, that is also the circumstance.

-
CIRCUMTANCE
- is the part of the human act that must be considered in order to evaluate the total moral act.
Can be considered in various moral questions, thus, be might ask, ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘how much’ or
‘in what manner’.

-
INTENTION/MOTIVE
–The ultimate reason that determines the moral act
–Is a means towards attainment of true happiness both of a agent and the common good.

-
-
 PRINCIPLES OF DOUBLE EFFECT

O Designed by Aquinas
o Used in order to judge the moral acceptability of the human act that has two effect:
o GOOD
o EVIL

-
Traditional Moral Theology, presents four conditions for the Double-effect Principle to be
applied:
1. The action is good itself or at least in different

2. The Good effect must come first before the evil effect or a least simultaneously
3. The Good effect must be intended
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for the evil effect to happen

MEDIEVAL THINKER THOMAS AQUINAS

–This natural law of theory is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas’ vision of the Christian
faith

-
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’ ETHICS
O How in our pursuit of happiness we direct our actions toward specific ends.
O How our actions are related to certain dispositions in a dynamic way since our actions arise
from our habits and at the same time reinforce a good disposition leading us toward making
moral choices.
-
oThe Christian Life is about developing the capacities given us by God into a disposition of
virtue inclined toward the good
oAquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking
oWe are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and maintain a life of
virtue.
-

oHowever, we need a basis for our conscience to be properly informed, and we need a clearer
guidepost on whether certain decisions we make lead us toward virtue or vice.
oBeing told that one should heed one’s conscience or that one should try to be virtuous, does
very little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation

-
oThere is a need or a clearer basis of ethics, a ground the will more concretely direct our sense of what
is wrong and right
oFor Aquinas, there should be Natural Law

THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW

ESSENCE OF LAW

– As a rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to judge between
possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or the other.

–ACTIONS are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire.

–There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act in such ways to pursue them.
–ACTS are rightly toward their ends by reason.

•AQUINAS reminds us that we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own ends or good without any regard
for other people's end or good. We are not isolated beings, but beings who belong to a community.

•Since we belong to a community, we have to consider what is good for the community as well as our
own good. This can be called COMMON GOOD.
-

•We should reconize the proper measure or the limits in our acts in a way that we can pursue ends,
about our own and that of others, together. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as LAW.

•We should reconize the proper measure or the limits in our acts in a way that we can pursue ends,
about our own and that of others, together. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as LAW.

•A LAW, therefore, is concerned with the COMMON GOOD.

•It is also necessary for rules or laws to be communicated to the people involved in order to enforce
them and to better ensure compliance. This is referred to as PROMULGATION.

•"The definition of law may be gathered; and it is nothing else than an ordinance or reason for the
common good, made by him who has care of the community and promulgated " —Aquinas

VARIETIES OF LAW

We do not only recognize God as the source of these beings, but also acknowledge the way they have
been created and the way they could return to Him, which is the work of His divine reason itself.

–"He governs all the acts and movements that are to be found in each single creature, so the type of
Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end, bears the character of law."

ETERNAL LAW
What God wills for creation
• How each participant in it is intended to return to Him

We must recognize that we are part of the eternal law and we participate in it in a special way.

Irrational creatures are participating in the eternal law, although we could hardly say that they are in
any way "conscious" of this law.

Aquinas notes that "we cannot speak of them by obeying the law, except by the way of similtude"

"Wherefore it has a share of the External Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to it's proper act
and end" - this participation of the external law in the natural creature is called NATURAL LAW

-
HUMAN LAW
refers to all instances wherein human being construct and enforce laws in their community

ETERNAL LAW
refers specifically to the instances where we have what is handed down to us in sacred
scripture

-
"So then no one can know the eternal law, as it is in itself, except the blessed who see God in
His Essence."

-
NATURAL LAW
-
IN COMMON IN OTHER BEINGS
We have consider how we, human beings, are both unique and at the same time participating
in the community of the rest of creation. Our presence in the rest of creation does not only
mean that we interact with creatures that are not human, but that there is also in our nature
something that shares in the nature of other beings.

IN COMMON WITH OTHER ANIMALS

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is our human nature, common with other animals, a
desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s offspring. As the matter of
fact, animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse at a specific time of “heat”, and this
could result an offspring. In human too, that natural inclination to engage in the sexual act and
to reproduce exists.
Thomas writes certain special sins are said to be against nature, thus contrary to sexual
intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special
name of the unnatural crime.

-
UNIQUELY HUMAN
oWe have an inclination to good according to the nature of our reasons.
oWith this, we have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in Society
oIt is of interest that this is followed by matters of both an epistemic and a social concern.
oGeneral guideposts:
oEpistemic Concern – which is that we know we pursue the truth
oSocial Concern – which is that we know we live in relation to others

oRecognizing how being rational is what is proper to man, the apparent vagueness of the third
inclination that Aquinas mentions is counter-balanced by the recognition that he is not
interested in providing precepts that one would simply, unthinkingly follow

oIn making human laws, additions that are not at all problematic for the natural law are
possible.
oAs Aquinas puts it, nothing hinders a change in the natural law by way of addition, since our
reason has found and can fine many things that benefit individual and communal human life.
-

oThomas tells us that there is a priority among the powers of our soul, with the intellectual
directing and commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities
 DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY - OVERVIEW

In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices by criteria
different from the states of affairs those choices bring about. The most familiar forms of deontology,
and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot
be justified by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are
morally forbidden. On such familiar deontological accounts of morality, agents cannot make certain
wrongful choices even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be
minimized (because other agents will be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful choices). For such
deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to be
simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each agent. In this
sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said to have priority over the Good. If an act is not in accord
with the Right, it may not be undertaken, no matter the Good that it might produce (including even a
Good consisting of acts in accordance with the Right).

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS (input)

Introduction

The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. The theory of deontology
states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless
of outcome. In religious deontology, the principles derive from divine commandment so that under
religious laws, we are morally obligated not to steal, lie, or cheat. Thus, deontological theories and
duties have existed for many centuries. Immanuel Kant, the theory’s celebrated proponent, formulated
the most influential form of a secular deontological moral theory in 1788. Unlike religious deontological
theories, the rules (or maxims) in Kant’s deontological theory derive from human reason.

To better understand deontology, compare it to some opposing theories, such as utilitarianism, which
says we have an obligation to take the course of action that achieves the most positive outcome or
consequence. According the theory of utility, the best consequence is happiness/pleasure, because it is
considered the absolute good. Consequentialism tells us we need to take into account the final
consequence of our action, even if the act itself is not morally good.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian city of Königsberg. He essentially spent his whole adult
life at the university and never truly travelled outside of the city. He only stopped working at the
university three years before his death. He was a philosopher and scientist specializing in many areas,
including mathematics, astrophysics, geography and anthropology. He wrote several dense, difficult-to-
read but highly influential texts regarding metaphysics, metaethics and practical morality, science,
history and politics. He was the first recorded scholar to suggest that some of the faint nebulae visible
with a telescope are actually separate universes in the sky.

As with many scholars of his time, Kant’s new ideas and published works about the nature of reality and
free will were widely condemned, but they have remained prominently influential to this day. In terms
of ethics, the most significant of his works are Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique
of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1798). These texts constitute the foundation of
Kant’s own moral philosophy.

Deontological theories differ from utilitarian theories in several key ways. The most notable difference is
utilitarianism aims at a goal of greatest happiness (or the best consequence) and justifies any act that
achieves that goal. Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to
an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act
can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.

Kant is responsible for the most prominent and well-known form of deontological ethics. Kant’s moral
theory is based on his view of the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality. No other
animal possesses such a propensity for reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability that
requires human beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law or duty. Kant believes
human inclinations, emotions and consequences should play no role in moral action; therefore, the
motivation behind an action must be based on obligation and well thought out before the action takes
place. Morality should, in theory, provide people with a framework of rational rules that guide and
prevent certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires.

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is determined by the human will, which is the only thing
in the world that can be considered good without qualification. Good will is exercised by acting
according to moral duty/law. Moral law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature – we
are bound by duty to act in accordance with categorical imperatives.

Categorical Imperatives

There are three formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative.

The First Formulation of the Imperative

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law without contradiction.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

Kant states that a true moral proposition must not be tied to any particular conditions, including the
identity of the person making the decision. A moral maxim must be disconnected from the particular
physical details surrounding its proposition and should be applicable to any rational being. According to
Kant, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions.

Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason but allow for interpretation
regarding how they are performed. Because these duties depend loosely on the subjective preferences
of mankind, they are not as strong as perfect duties but are still morally binding. Unlike perfect duties,
people do not attract blame if they do not complete an imperfect duty, but they receive praise if they
complete it, for they have gone beyond basic duty and taken responsibility upon themselves. Imperfect
duties are circumstantial, meaning that one can not reasonably exist in a constant state of performing
that duty. What differentiates perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties are never truly
completed.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative appears similar to the Golden Rule: “Do not impose
on others what you do not wish for yourself.” Kant’s first categorical imperative sounds like a
paraphrase of the Golden Rule. However, the Golden Rule is neither purely formal nor universally
binding. It is empirical in the sense that applying it requires context; for example, if you don’t want
others to hit you, then don’t hit them. Also, it is a hypothetical imperative in the sense that it can be
formulated, and its “if-then” relationship is open for dispute.

The Second Formulation of the Imperative

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.” – Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

This imperative states that every rational action must be considered not only a principle, but also an
end. Most ends are subjective in nature because they need only be pursued if they are in line with a
hypothetical imperative. (A hypothetical imperative is a demand of reason that is conditional. It tells us
how to act to achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I need to slake my thirst.)

For an end to be objective, it would need to be pursued categorically. The free will is the source of all
rational action. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action, it contradicts
the first formulation of the categorical imperative to claim that a person is merely a means to some
other end instead of an end in him or herself.

Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation from the first. A person has a perfect duty not to use
themselves or others merely as a means to some other end. For example, someone who owns slaves
would be asserting a moral right to own a slave by asserting their rights over another person. However,
this reasoning violates the categorical imperative because it denies the basis for free rational action and
disregards the person as an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one cannot treat another person as a
means to an end. Under the second formulation of the categorical imperative, a person must maintain
her moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all people.

The Third Formulation of the Imperative

“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating
member in the universal kingdom of ends.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

A truly autonomous will is not subjugated to any interest; it is subject to those laws it makes for itself,
but the will must also regard those laws as if others are bound by the laws. If the laws are not universal,
they are not laws of conduct at all. Kant suggests that people treat themselves and others always as
ends and never merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims that harmonize with a possible
kingdom of ends. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or impossible
states of natural affairs when we attempt to universalize them, and we have an imperfect duty not to
act by maxims that lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs for all parties involved.

Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally
permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local
park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires
adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law
(categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption
of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the
act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order
or plant one’s own flowers.

There are a few acts that are always forbidden, such as lying, which negatively affects trust between
people and the meaning of truth. This rule remains the case even when lying has advantageous or even
morally admirable consequences. Imagine a psychotic criminal wants to kill your colleague, who fired
the psychotic. If you lie about the whereabouts of your colleague, then an innocent life will be saved. It
seems moral duty forbids you from lying. However, a higher moral duty trumps the duty not to lie. That
is, the obligation not to kill or help others in killing, is a higher moral duty that we should follow.

Alternative Formulation of Categorical Imperative

Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different ways. The most important of these is the
formula of humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”

This is a personal perspective on the same moral theory. To fail to do this would be to treat others in a
way that contradicts the moral law. For example, if I steal a book from a friend, I am treating him as a
means only (to obtain a book). If I ask to have his book, I am respecting his right to say no and am
thereby treating him as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. If I only ask for the book in order to
appear nice and hope that my friend is likely to do more things for me in the future, then I am still
treating him as a means only. It is true that everyone uses people as a means to an end. Bus/taxi-drivers
get us where we want to go; factory workers are the means to producing objects and ultimately profit
for their employer. But using people only to get what we want and consistently disrespecting their
human worth is against moral law. An example of this would be a factory owner providing unsafe
working conditions, such as Foxconn in China or factories in countries that impose inhumane working
conditions and pay less than minimum wage.

Criticisms

One of the biggest criticisms of Kantian ethics is that it discounts outcome as a valid factor in evaluating
the morality of an action. While it is not necessarily wise to rely solely on outcome (as in
utilitarianism/consequentialism), it is not a good idea to completely ignore the outcome altogether.
Based on Kant’s formula of humanity, human life is sacred and inviolable, meaning one cannot enslave a
few people even if it would enable more people to lead better lives. Killing one person to save the lives
of millions is impermissible in Kantian ethics.

At times Kantian moral duty seems to contradict our natural inclinations and common sense. If we obey
the moral law rather than our intuitions, we are acting morally. Deontological ethics is weaker when it
comes to informing us how to live well or developing virtues of character.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS THEORY (ppt)

Utilitarianism – The end justifies the means.

Deontology – The end does not justifies the means.

DEONTOLOGY
➢ “duty-based” or “obligation-based” ethics
➢ It is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness and/or wrongness of an action-itself; rather
than on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences or the character of the person.

➢ What makes a choice RIGHT is its conformity to moral norms

➢ Deontology may sometimes be consistent with Moral Absolution, the belief that certain actions are
just wrong, no matter what follows.

EXAMPLE➢ Suppose you’re a software engineer and you learned that a nuclear missile is about to
launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it is against your
professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. Thus, a form of lying
and cheating.

What does deontology suggests you to do?

REGGIE CABUTUTAN
➢ Reggie, is a taxi driver who drove his Australian passenger, Trent Shields to his workplace.

SITUATION:

Takes the suitcase & sell all contents - Sure win. As he is already assured for their daily needs.

Returned the suitcase. - No promise of any reward.

-

DUTY AND AGENCY

DEONTOLOGY- Moral theory that evaluates the actions that are done because of duty
- Refers to the study and obligation
- Immanuel Kant is the main proponent
• RATIONAL WILL – capacity to act according to principles that we determine for ourselves.

SENTIENCE- Organism has the ability to perceive and navigate its external environment
RATIONALITY- Humans are rational because they have the ability to stop and think about what they are
doing.

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

• Born on April 22, 1724.

• College: University of Konigsberg (AKA Albertina)
• After College: 6 years as private tutor toyoung children and began teachingPhilosophy at the Albertina
the following year.

• After retiring he came to believe that there was a gap in this system separating the metaphysical
foundations of natural science from physics itself, he then closed this gap in his series of notes – Opus
Postumum

• Herald the “Copernican Revolution in Philosophy”

• Kant developed revolutionary insights concerning the human kind and the conditions for the
possibility of knowledge similar to Copernicus
• He intends to develop “Supreme Principle of Morality”. It is supposedly supreme because by basing it
on the faculty of reason, it becomes binding for all creatures that have that faculty. The binding force
then become universal rather than relative.
• A key thinker in moral reflection

NICOLAUS COPERNICUS (1473-1543)

• A 15th century mathematician and astronomer who proposed that the sun was stationary in the
center of the universe and the earth revolved around it.
• He proposed the heliocentric model of the universe in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.
• Heralded a radical paradigm shift in the way humans considered their place in the universe.
-

RATIONAL WILL

• Ability to enact our thoughts

• Refers to the faculty to intervene in the world to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason.

AGENCY

• Ability of a person to act based on her intentions and mental states.

• The capacity of a person to be the cause of her actions based on reasons and not merely to mindlessly
to react to the environment and base impulses.

AUTONOMY

Immanuel Kant on Autonomy

- He claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy which is the opposite of heteronomy.

These three Greek word are instructive:

-Autos
-Heteros
-Nomos
Which means;
-Self
-Other
-Law

Example: Brushing one’s teeth which is not yet a moral dilemma but is sufficient to explain the
difference between autonomy and heteronomy;
Now think about the children twenty years later; the children might concluded that they:
✔Agree with the principle behind it. (Act of legislating principles)
✔Every night they impose it upon themselves to brush their teeth before going to bed. (Enacting
principles)

“The will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also subject to the law in such a way that it gives the
law to itself, and primarily just in this way that the will can be considered the author of the under which
it is subject.”

The distinguishing point in autonomy is the locust of the authorship of the law which can be divided by
the external or internal.
•External author law- the will is subjected to an external authority, thus heteronomy will.
•Internal author law- if the author was the will itself, imposing the law unto itself, then it is
autonomous.

Scenario:
Reggie found a suitcase and she returned it to the owner but what if Reggie did not return the suitcase,
destroyed the lock, then took and sold its valuable contents?

Reggie may have concluded “I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase. I am the author of this
principle. I am acting autonomously.” He may conclude this since no external authority is legislating laws
for him by using rewards or punishments.

What is the focus of the authorship of Reggie based on the scenario?

▪ Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal pulse.
▪ The choice can be determine by pure person is called free choice. That which is terminable only by
(sensible impulse stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum)
▪ Human choice is a choice that may indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is
therefore in itself (without an acquired skill of reason) not pure, but can nevertheless be determined to
do actions from pure will.

SENSIBLE IMPULSE
• These are usually bodily and emotional.
Examples:
▪Jealously from seeing your girlfriend or boyfriend make eyes at someone
▪The rage from being pushed foully by your opponent in a basketball game.
-

PURE REASON
▪There is a choice or action
▪Kant calls this kind of action free choice, and one may argue that human freedom resides in this
capacity of reason to intervene to “mediate” within arbitrium.
▪Kant describes that human choice can be affected but is not determined by sensible impulses.

What does it mean for a human to be affected but is not determined by sensible impulse?

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO:
Reggie tells himself “I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase.

The action of Reggie in the scenario is considered as heteronomous.

Why heteronomous?

CONCLUSION:

•Heteronomy of the will occurs when any foreign impulse, whether it is external (as in other persons or
institutions that impose their will on the agent) or sensible (as in bodily instincts or base emotions) is
what compels a person to act.
• In contrast, autonomy is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the cause of
the action

UNIVERSABILITY

KINDS OF MORAL THEORIES

✓SUBSTANTIVE
✓FORMAL MORAL THEORY

SUBSTANTIVE THEORY

- it immediately promulgates the specificactions that comprise that theory.

Example:
✓ ten commandments
✓ “honor your father and mother”.
✓ “you shall not kill”

FORMAL MORAL THEORY

- It does not supply the rules or commends straight away.

Immanuel Kant
- Embodies a formal moral theory in what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides procedural
way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an action.
- Kant describes the categorical imperative in 3 ways.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

✔“Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it becomes a universal law.”
– Universability/Universalisability
✔Humanity as end
✔Kingdom of ends

✔FOUR KEY ELEMENTS

✔Kant state that we must formulate an action as maxim, which he defines as a “subjective principle of
action”.

- We have many maxims in our lives, and we live according to them.

“Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it becomes a universal law.”

What does it mean to will a maxim that can become a universal law?

▪In groundwork towards a metaphysics of morals, Kant takes up the issue of making false promises. He
narrates the predicament of who needs money, but has no immediate access to obtain it except by
borrowing it from a friend.
▪This is a specific act under the general category of acts called false promising. Kant says that the man
would like to make such a promise, but he stops and asks himself if what he is about to do is right or
wrong: is it really wrong to borrow money without intending to pay it back?

▪MAXIM: I will borrow money even though I know that I will not be able to return it.
▪UNIVERSAL LAW/UNIVERSABILITY: A world where everyone borrows money without the intention of
returning it.

Now there are two possibilities in this hypothetical world:

✔ By “making sense”, we refer to the logical plausibility.
✔ By “not making sense”, we refer to the logical impossibility.

Kant between being “consistent with itself” and “contradict itself”, but must necessarily contradict itself.
• “When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back. “
• The meaning of the act “to borrow” implies taking and using something with the intent to return to it.
In the maxim, the claim is “to borrow” even when I know I cannot pay it back, which contradicts the very
meaning “to borrow”.
• The act of borrowing money without intending to pay is rationally impermissible.

TWO WAYS WHICH KANT REJECTS MAXIMS ARE THE FOLLOWING

✓Self-contradictory
✓Act and its purpose become impossible

RATIONAL PERMISIBILITY

Intrinsic quality of an action that is objectively and necessarily rational.

UNIVERSALIZABILITY TEST

•a form of a moral test that invites us to imagine a world in which any proposed action is also adopted
by everyone else.
•it is the foundational principle for deontological, or duty-based, ethics.
-

“When a suitcase that does not belong to me is left in my cab, I shall take its contents and sell them for
my own benefit.”

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

It is precisely for the rational will that is autonomus.

Kant gives two forms of the categorical imperative:
✓Behave in such a way that a reasonable generalization of your action to a universal rule will lead to a
benefit to a generic person under this universal rule.
✓Always treat others as ends and not means.

PATERNALISM- is the term used for actions we take or decisions we make for another person with the
intention of benefiting that person.
- metaphor of father

OR ENGLIGHTENMENT MORALITY ?

✓Deontology is the spirit of enlightenment of morality. It is based on the light of one’s own reason when
maturity and rational capacity take hold of a person’s decision making.
✓Moreover, with deontology particularly the method of universalizability, we can validate and adopt
the rules and laws which are right and reject those that are irrational. Thus, impermissible because it is
self-contradictory.

The practice of deontology in our moral reflection, we are encouraged to have courage to think on our
own, to use our rational will against external authorities as well as internal base impulses that tend to
undetermined our autonomy and self-determination.

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason.
There is nothing higher than reason.” ―Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
DO WHAT IS RIGHT, THOUGH THE WORLD MAY PERISH.
 VIRTUE ETHICS (input)

Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character.
This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By
practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and
moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the
right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and
Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the
Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this one
life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the
Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the
person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’
lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And, it gives
us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas.
Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's
character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves
(Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).

There are three main strands of Virtue Ethics:

Eudaimonism is the classical formulation of Virtue Ethics. It holds that the proper goal of human
life is eudaimonia (which can be variously translated as "happiness", "well-being" or the "good
life"), and that this goal can be achieved by a lifetime of practicing "arête" (the virtues) in
one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of "phronesis" (practical wisdom) to resolve
any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise. Indeed, such a virtuous life would in itself
constitute eudaimonia, which should be seen as an objective, not a subjective, state,
characterized by the well-lived life, irrespective of the emotional state of the person
experiencing it.
A virtue is a habit or quality that allows individuals to succeed at their purpose. Therefore,
Virtue Ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological (i.e. it includes an account of the purpose or
meaning of human life), a matter of some contention among philosophers since the beginning
of time. Aristotle, with whom Virtue Ethics is largely identified, categorized the virtues as moral
virtues (including prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) and intellectual virtues
(including "sophia" or theoretical wisdom, and "phronesis" or practical wisdom). Aristotle
further argued that each of the moral virtues was a golden mean, or desirable middle ground,
between two undesirable extremes (e.g. the virtue of courage is a mean between the two vices
of cowardice and foolhardiness).

Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers (e.g. Annette Baier) in the second half
of the 20th Century, and was motivated by the idea that men think in masculine terms such as
justice and autonomy, whereas woman think in feminine terms such as caring. It calls for a
change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues exemplified by
women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc, which
have been marginalized because society has not adequately valued the contributions of
women. It emphasizes the importance of solidarity, community and relationships rather than
universal standards and impartiality. It argues that instead of doing the right thing even if it
requires personal cost or sacrificing the interest of family or community members (as the
traditional Consequentialist and deontological approaches suggest), we can, and indeed should,
put the interests of those who are close to us above the interests of complete strangers.

Agent-Based Theories, as developed recently by Michael Slote (1941 - ), give an account of

virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which character traits are admirable (e.g.
benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc), which we can identify by looking at the people we
admire, our moral exemplars. The evaluation of actions is therefore dependent on ethical
judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions.

Virtue Ethics, essentially Eudaimonism, was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the
Ancient and Medieval periods. It suffered something of an eclipse during the Early Modern
period, although it is still one of the three dominant approaches to normative Ethics (the others
being Deontology and Consequentialism).

The term "virtue ethics" is a relatively recent one, essentially coined during the 20th Century
revival of the theory, and it originally defined itself by calling for a change from the then
dominant normative theories of Deontology and Consequentialism.
Virtue ethics was derived from or is closely associated to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. The
term virtue comes from the latin word ‘virtus’ which means manhood or perhaps ‘worth’. Thus,
the worth of any action of man is based from virtue instead from duty or consequence, it does
not posit a question, ‘what shall I do or perhaps what rule I ought to follow?’ Rather, how
should I carry out my life if I am to live well?’ The emphasis therefore is on what an individual
can do to produce the sort of character that instinctively does the right thing. Thus, virtue
ethics holds that it is not only important to do the right thing but equally one must have the
right disposition, motivation, and traits for being good and doing right. Consider for example, a
head nurse who meets her moral obligations simply because it is her obligations, the head
nurse detest her functions and hates having to spend time with every patient and with her
colleagues who come through the door of her office. She cared not of being of service to the
people that so demand according to what she sworn before the public as a public servant. All
she wants is simply to follow the rules and duties that was given to her by virtue of having the
position, although the nurse does not violate the rules and does not act immorally from the
point of view of ‘duty’ however, something in her character is defective morally. What is absent
from the nurse is the ideal character of admirable compassion and dedication guiding the lives
of her colleagues and the many health professionals, who simply merely end to rule-following
behavior.

Perhaps virtue ethics is a supplement to duty-oriented theory and consequence-oriented

theory. It reminds specifically the health practitioners, like, the nurse to emphasize the virtue
that is found in each and that it is important as in the ability to reason to a correct answer.
Advantage of virtue ethics

1. It creates to have a virtuous person who does not only follow rules or achieve good
consequences of actions.
2. It unifies reason and emotion because it attempts to establish a proper disposition not
only to act in certain ways but also to feel in certain ways.
3. Virtue ethics emphasizes ‘moderation’, that is, between excess and deficiency.

SUMMARY
Aristotle virtue ethics starts with recognizing that is the ultimate purpose or telos of a
person. As the ultimate purpose, happiness is deemed as the final and self-sufficient end of a
person. It is by realizing the highest goal of a person that she achieves happiness that is also
considered as the greatest good. Attaining happiness is arrived at when she performs her
function, which is to act in accordance to reason in an outstanding manner. It is in doing her
function well that virtue, excellence, or arete is realized.
To carry out the task of performing her function well, person has to understand the
structure of the soul where her reason will operate. Aristotle shows that human soul is divided
into the irrational and rational faculties. The vegetative aspect of the irrational part of the soul
cannot be directed by reason because it does the natural processes of the soul that are
responsible for the physical growth. The appetitive aspect of the irrational part of the soul, on
the other hand, is driven by impulses which are, in general, contrary to reason but can be acted
out obeying the dictates of reason. Therefore, reason can manage the appetitive aspect, and
impulses can be handled well by reason.
The rational faculty of the soul is the part where excellence can be attained. Part of the
rational faculty of the soul is the intellectual aspect concerned with the act of knowing.
Excellence on this faculty is achieved through learning. One learns well that is why she gains
philosophical and practical wisdom. Philosophical wisdom is the knowledge of the general
principles that constitute reality, while practical wisdom is the knowledge of determining the
appropriates action in a given situation. One can learn from experience and therefore can gain
sufficient understanding on what to do.

Aristotle points out that having intellectual excellence does not make one into a morally
good person. Knowing the good and being able to determine the appropriate action in a given
situation do not make her do the good automatically. Practical wisdom, as such, is still in the
realm of the intellectual aspect of the soul. The moral aspect of the rational faculty concerns
itself with the act of doing the good. She becomes virtuous or excellent in doing the good by
habitual performance. To be a morally virtuous individual is a constant carrying out of the act of
goodness. The unethical person, on the other hand, is someone who habitually performs bad
deeds. This habitual action for Aristotle is what forms the character of the person. Her identity
is associated with accomplishing the good or bad action. Virtue ethics is concerned primarily
with the task of developing a good character.
Aristotle sees the development of one’s character as the constant interaction between
the faculties of the rational part of the soul. Practical wisdom is deemed as a necessary
ingredient in guiding the moral faculty in doing the appropriate action. Practical wisdom
identifies the right action and the moral faculty aptly executes it. What practical wisdom
identifies as the right action according to Aristotle is the mesotes or the middle measure of an
action, feeling, or passion. The middle is always in between an action., feeling, or passion that is
deficient or excessive. Nothing is lacking or is too much from an act that is morally good. For
Aristotle, virtue is the good in between vices.
To sum up, moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a “state of character” which habitually
acts according to the middle measure that practical wisdom identifies as the moral choice that
should be acted upon, given the concrete situation that presents to the person. The goal of
virtue ethics is to promote the maturity of the character of the person. Building a good
character is a task and responsibility of every person.

-
 VIRTUE ETHICS (ppt)

From Aristotle to the 21st century – virtue ethics

Virtue Ethics:
The goal of life is well-being (happiness) and the means to attain it is by acquiring a virtuous character.

Origins of Virtue Ethics:

The theory of virtue ethics originates in Ancient Greece, though some connections can be drawn as far
back as Ancient China.
In Greek, virtue (arête) means ‘excellence’.
Socrates once claimed: “it’s the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue all day
... on the grounds that the unexamined life is not worth living” (The Apology).

Virtue and happiness

For Greeks (and all subsequent virtue theories), the goal of action is the ultimate human good:
happiness (eudaimonia).
Human happiness is to be understood as the highest achievement of what it means to be human, of
the human essence. It is a kind of flourishing, health, or well-being of the soul or mind.
While happiness seems to be subjective, the idea of human flourishing implies an objective notion of
happiness. (Think of it on analogy with health.)
Virtue makes a person good, or excellent, and so it is the means by which we acquire happiness.

Socrates/Plato’s theory of virtue

Virtue is supposed to be a kind of knowledge;
It is identified with wisdom (sophia);
Wisdom is both necessary and sufficient for virtue;
Knowledge about virtue is somehow analogous to mathematical knowledge;
Both kinds of knowledge are the result of a self-reflective process called ‘recollection’.

A Problem of Knowledge:
Since virtue concerns action, it is possible to act well without knowing how to act well;
 As long as someone has the right belief about which actions are good, he or she will act virtuously;
But belief without knowledge is unstable and fleeting;
This is why it is necessary to have, not just true belief, but knowledge, which is justified true belief.

Practical Wisdom or Prudence

With Aristotle, we distinguish the kind of wisdom necessary for ethical action from wisdom in the
sciences.
The wisdom necessary for action is “practical wisdom” (phronêsis) or good moral judgment. Aquinas
calls this “prudence” (prudentia).
Judgment applies to a range of different situations, which is why it requires experience to acquire.
Good judgment enables a person to make the right sort of decision in the right kind of circumstances
at the right time.

Intellectual and Moral Virtues

Aristotle and Aquinas distinguish between intellectual and moral virtues:
◦ Intellectual virtues can be taught formally. They involve knowledge and understanding of causes and
ends (the why and how).
Examples: theoretical wisdom, scientific knowledge, insight or understanding, technical skill or art, and
practical wisdom.
◦ Moral virtues can only be acquired through practice and experience. They involve acquiring habits of
character and have to do with the appropriate management of emotions.
Examples: temperance or moderation, justice, courage or fortitude, generosity, friendliness, wittiness,
truthfulness, etc.

Virtue and Character

To be virtuous is to have a virtuous character.
Character is an engrained habit or disposition to act in certain ways.
Virtuous action must come from a virtuous character (as opposed to some external force).
The virtuous person wants to act virtuously and does so for that reason.

Character continued:
Dispositions or character traits are to be understood broadly, so that a virtuous person is virtuous in
many different situations.
For example, an honest person not only tells the truth, but doesn’t cheat, respects contracts, obeys
the laws, and doesn’t misrepresent him/herself.
And the honest person does this because he or she prefers to be honest, not because he/she wants to
avoid some bad consequence.
For this reason, it is unwise to attribute a virtue to someone on the basis of one or a few actions.

Habit: how to acquire virtue

With respect to the moral virtues, Aristotle thinks we “learn by doing”.
Virtue requires discipline and practice.
Repeated virtuous actions help to engrain the character traits or dispositions that make a person
virtuous.
Making virtuous decisions requires good moral judgment (reason), so there is an essential, rational
component as well.

An analogy:
One of the easiest ways to think of how to acquire moral character is by comparing it to skills like the
ability to play a sport or a musical instrument.
A person who practices hard and trains her body acquires the skills to be able to do that skill well.
The skilled athlete or musician is also the one who is better able to practice, reinforcing her skill.
The skilled athlete or musician actually physically changes his or her body through repetitious actions.
In the same way, the virtuous person finds it easier to act virtuously; she actually changes her physical
and emotional characteristics.

Character and the Will

Aquinas emphasizes the importance of will in his account of the moral virtues.
For Aquinas, even if a person has the right characteristics and is inclined by nature to do the right
thing, that person still has a choice either to follow commands of reason or not.
The individual, human will is right when it conforms to divine will.
Divine will is the ultimate lawgiver: God ordained right and wrong, good and bad, when God created
the world. So, failure to conform to God’s will is to violate the natural law.

Supernatural Grace and Beatific

Vision
Aquinas recognizes Aristotle’s idea that virtue leads to happiness, but he sees this as an imperfect,
natural, or human form of happiness.
 Complete and perfect happiness is not to be found in this life, for Aquinas. It is the beatific vision:
complete intellectual union with the divine (seeing God in God’s essence).
This sort of blessed happiness is impossible as long as our intellect is embodied and operates through
the senses (since God’s true essence is not perceivable by the senses.)
Additionally, human beings are unable to obtain this perfection without the grace of God. So, this
ultimate end or purpose of humanity is supernatural, it requires divine intervention.

Review:
Virtue ethics is the theory that moral goods involve acquiring a virtuous character.
Virtues are either moral or intellectual.
Moral virtues involve acquiring a character through practice, by engraining habits or dispositions to act
well.
Making good choices, practicing good habits, and acting well all involve good moral judgment (the
application of reason to changing, practical situations).
Good moral judgment, good actions, and a good character ultimately make a person happy. They
lead to the well-being of the soul.

WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL? BECAUSE OF MY CHARACTER!

Aristotle’s Ethics
384-322 B.C.
The Nicomachean Ethics
Two Kinds of Persons
◦Continent:
Do what is right, but not necessarily because they want to
◦Temperate:
Do what is right because they want to; the more holistic person

The Goal of Human Existence

Eudaimonia
Flourishing, Happiness
A Lifelong Pursuit, accomplished
◦ Rationally, through theoretical wisdom and contemplation
◦ Functionally, through practical wisdom and politics
-

The Goal of Human Existence & Eudaimonia

Aimed at the “perfect happiness” which is the perfect activity
An excellence in any activity in accordance with the nature of that activity
Thus, “Human happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue (excellence)”. (I.8;
Pojman, 394).

The Virtues
Intellectual Virtues
◦ Wisdom, Understanding, Prudence
◦ Taught through instruction
Moral Virtues
◦ Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance
◦ The result of habit
◦ Not natural or inborn but acquired through practice
◦ Habit or disposition of the soul (our fundamental character) which involves both feeling and action
“Those strengths of character that enable us to flourish” (Hinman)

THE VIRTUES

-defined / understood in terms of spheres of human experience

-

The Doctrine of the Mean

Proper position between two extremes
◦ Vice of excess
◦ Vice of deficiency
Not an arithmetic median
◦ Relative to us and not the thing
◦ Not the same for all of us, or
◦ Any of us, at various occasions
◦ “In this way, then, every knowledgeable person avoids excess and deficiency, but looks for the mean
and chooses it” (II.6)

THE MEAN

Virtues and the Mean

Defined through Reason
◦ Education, contemplation, reflection
Balanced with Other Virtues and applied using phronesis:
◦ To have any single strength of character in full measure, a person must have the other ones as well.*
Courage without good judgement is blind
Courage without perseverance is short-lived
Courage without a clear sense of your own abilities is foolhardy
“The virtuous person has practical wisdom, the ability to know when and how best to apply these
various moral perspectives.” (*Hinman)

Virtues and Community

Virtues are defined and lived in community
Sharing a common identity and story
Modelling the Virtues
◦ Importance of Moral Exemplars (Saints and Heroes)
Practicing the Virtues – Habit is Crucial!
“In a word, then, like activities produce like dispositions. Hence we must give our activities a certain
quality, because it is their characteristics that determine the resulting dispositions. So it is a matter of no
little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age ̶ it makes a vast difference, or rather
all the difference in the world.” (II.i.) (Pojman, 396)
Reinforcing the Virtues

Other Virtue Ethicists

G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe

In 1958 she published an article called Modern Moral Philosophy arguing that we should return to the
virtues, as the idea of a law without a lawgiver was incoherent.

Other Virtue Ethicists

Alasdair MacIntyre
After Virtue (1981)
Modern moral philosophy is bankrupt; it must recover the tradition of virtue.
Importance of Narrative as a “live tradition” – you need to know where ethics has come from.
Virtues change over time.

Other Virtue Ethicists

Philippa Foot
Tries to modernise Aristotle. Ethics should not be about dry theorising, but about making the world a
better place (she was one of the founders of Oxfam)
Virtue contributes to the good life.

Other Virtue Ethicists

Rosalind Hursthouse
A neo-Aristotelian – Aristotle was wrong on women and slaves, and there is no need to be limited to his
list of virtues. We acquire virtues individually, and so flourish, but we do so together and not at each
other’s expense.

Other Virtue Ethicists

Carol Gilligan

In a Different Voice (1982)

Developmental theories have been built on observations and assumptions about men’s lives and
thereby distort views of female personality.
The kinds of virtues one honors depend on the power brokers of one’s society.
The Ethics of Care

Other Virtue Ethicists

Michael Slote
Develops the feminist ‘ethics of care,’ and links it to a virtue ethics inspired more by Hume and
Hutcheson’s moral sentimentalism than by Aristotle. Slote’s version of virtue ethics is agent-based (as
opposed to more Aristotelian forms which are said to be agent focused) i.e. the moral rightness of acts is
based on the virtuous motives or characters of the agent. The motives are all important.

Other Virtue Ethicists

Martha Nussbaum

She interprets Aristotle’s views as absolutes... justice, temperance, generosity etc. are essential to
human flourishing in all societies and in all times. Nussbaum sees a relativist approach as being
incompatible with Aristotle’s virtue theory.

-
Are the virtues the same for everyone?
People are very different.
But we face the same basic problems and have the same basic needs.
Everyone needs courage as danger can always arise.
Some people are less well off, so we will need generosity.
Everyone needs friends so we need loyalty.

Strengths of Virtue Ethics

Importance of the Person, Motive, Heart, Conscience
Connection to Community
Realization that morality is not defined by moments but by a long-term process
Allowance for gray areas, varying contexts, different levels of moral maturity and life contexts

Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics

Dependence on strong communities
Not easily applied to ethical issues or to give us practical solutions
Demands time
Can be turned into a really poor duty-based ethics
Might be taken as situational ethics

How do we acquire virtue?

• Practical wisdom
– Comes from observing human affairs carefully
– Comes from remembering how our actions & the actions of others have played out
• The more we develop a virtuous character & acquire practical wisdom
– The greater chance we will act well in life
• Good actions from from good character
• Good character is essential to human happiness

Virtue &Habit
For Aristotle, virtue is something that is practiced and thereby learned—it is habit (hexis).
This has clear implications for moral education, for Aristotle obviously thinks that you can teach
people to be virtuous.
Role models become very important
Virtue As the Golden Mean
Aristotle says virtue involves finding the proper balance between two extremes.
◦ Excess: having too much of something.
◦ Deficiency: having too little of something.
Not mediocrity, but harmony and balance.
The Mean varies from person to person
There are many ways of behaving & thus many ways to be happy

A Virtuous Life Means Balance

Take one of the cardinal virtues away, then one happens?
At school?
Competence
Teamwork
Social justice
Mellowness of heart

Virtue Ethics

•It is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of developing
the virtuous character of a person.

•Virtue ethics, on the other hand, focuses on the formation of one’s character brought about by
determining and doing virtuous acts.

•Virtue ethics was derived from or is closely associated to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The term
virtue comes from the latin word ‘virtus’ which means manhood or perhaps ‘worth’. Thus, the word of
any action of man is based from virtue instead from duty or consequence, it does not posit a question,
‘what shall I do or perhaps what rule I ought to follow?’ Rather, how should I carry out my life if I am to
live well?’ The emphasis therefore is on what an individual can do to produce the sort of character that
instinctively does the right thing. Thus, virtue ethics holds that it is not only important to do the right
thing but equally one must have the right disposition, motivation, and traits for being good and doing
right.

THE ETHICS OF VIRTUE

Virtue ethics date back to aristotle (384-322 bce) in his Nichomachean ethics.

•Aristotle’s central question: “What is the good of man?”

ARISTOTLE

•Aristotle was born in Macedonia and studied philosophy under Plato in Athens. He was considered to
be the brightest among Plato’s students in the former’s school, the Academy. He later founded his own
school, Lyceum, where he became a very productive intellectual, having written numerous works on
different topics. Such as the theoretical and practical sciences, and logic. He was also known to be the
tutor of Alexander the Great who tried to conquer the world. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is his
major work in moral philosophy.

For Plato, the real is outside the realm for any human sensory experience but can somehow be grasped
by one’s intellect. The truth and, ultimately, the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas transcending
daily human condition. On the other hand, for Aristotle the real is found within our everyday encounter
with objects in the world. What makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form and matter.
Therefore, the truth and the good cannot exist apart form the object and are not independent of our
experience.

When one speaks of the truth, for example, how beautiful Juan Luna’s Spoliarium is, she cannot
discuss its beauty separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding the
good: the particular act of goodness that one does in the world is more important that any conception
of the good that is outside and beyond the realm of experience. One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle
as engaging the good in our day-to-day living.

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed toward
a particular purpose, aim, of what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does something,
and for Aristotle, a person’s action manifest a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person of a
hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of the good, that it gives sustenance to the body. A
person pursues a chosen career, aiming for a good, that is, to provide a better future for her family. A
person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.

Even a drug user “thinks” that substance abuse will cause her good. This does not necessarily mean that
using drugs is good but a “drug addict” would want to believe that such act is good. Therefore, for
Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.

One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of
these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular
purpose but also believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be
used to achieve an even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues
form a hierarchy of telos (plural form of telos)

But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the
activities that produces them. Where there are ends from the actions, it is the nature of the products to
be better than the activities.

What is the highest goal for Aristotle?

What goal is both final and self-sufficient?

According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of
man is happiness, or for the Greeks, Eudaimonia.

EUDAIMONIA – happiness according to the Greeks

Now, such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never
for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for
themselves (for if nothing resulted form them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them
also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the
other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor in general, for anything other than itself.

Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth or
power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness. One can imagine a life of
being wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet, such life is still not satisfying
without happiness. Once happiness is achieved, things such as wealth, power, and pleasurable feelings
just give value-added benefits in life. The true measure of well-being for Aristotle is not by means of
richness of fame but by the condition of having attained a happy life.

-
How does a person arrive at her highest good?

According to Aristotle, if an individual’s action can achieved the highest good , then one must investigate
how she functions which enables her to achieved her ultimate purpose. If she performs her function
well, then she is capable of arriving at happiness.

What defines human beings is her function or activity of reason?

Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude,
therefore, the life nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but is also seems to be
common even to the horse, the ox, and other animals. There remains, then an activie life of the element
that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one,
the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought.

What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of reason. A person’s action to be considered
as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function of human being is to
act following the dictates of her reason. Any person for that matter utilizes her reason but Aristotle
further says that a person cannot only perform her function but she can also perform it well.

-
The local says “Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao”

It can be understood in the light of Aristotle’s thought on the function of a good person. Any human
being can perform the activityof reason; thus, being human is achievable. However, a good human being
strives hard in doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human becomes more
difficult because doing such activity well takes more effort on the part of the person.

VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason
and to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arête
by the Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that is virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does
not become an excellent person overnight.
“For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does
not make a man blessed and happy”

What exactly makes a human being excellent?

Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human soul and therefore, one needs to understand
the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed be her rational activity in an excellent way.
For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts; the Irrational element and the rational faculty.

Irrational Element – this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised, because, as the term
suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason.

Vegetative soul

-the vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a
person

-the vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and
growth of a person.

Appetitive soul

-it works as a desiring faculty of man.

-the act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reasons and most of the time
refuses to go along with reason.

Rational Faculty – knows what is wrong and what is right

Moral

-concern the act of doing

Intellectual

- Concern the act of knowing

-
One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As
stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns form the vast
experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and gains wisdom by being
taught or by learning.

There are two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence:

Philosophic wisdom

It deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe.

It helps one understand in general the meaning of life.

Practical wisdom

It is an excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying

out a particular act.

One can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide

on how to behave in our daily lives.

Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of
the soul, this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. However, Aristotle suggest that
although the rational functions of a person (moral and intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is
necessary for human to attain the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a
morally virtuous act.

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of practical wisdom in steering
the self toward the right choices and actions. Aristotle is careful in making a sharp distinction between
moral and intellectual virtue.

In itself, having practical wisdom or the excellence in knowing what to act upon does not make
someone already morally virtuous. Knowing the good is different from determining and acting in what is
good. But a morally good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform
the task of being moral.

This distinction draws a sharp contrast between Aristotle’s understanding of the dynamics of
knowledge and action from that of Socrates’s view that knowledge already contains the ability of choice
or action
-

This is why some say that all the virtues are forms of practical wisdom and why Socrates, in one aspect,
was on the right track while in another, he went astray; in thinking that all the virtues were forms of
practical wisdom, he was wrong, but in saying they implied practical wisdom, he was right. This is
confirmed by the fact that even now, all men, when they define virtue, after naming the state of
character and its object, add “that (state) which is in accordance with the right rule”; now the right is
that which is in accordance with practical wisdom. All men, seem somehow to divine that this kind of
state is virtue, viz, that which is in accordance with practical wisdom.

It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence.
Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having
intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good.
Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtue moral
and intellectual. In discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by means of habit. A morally
virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions.
Moral virtue is acquired through habit. Being morally good is a process of getting used to doing the
proper act. The saying “practice makes perfect” can be applied to this aspect of a person. Therefore, for
Aristotle, a person is not initially good by nature.

MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES

Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experience

Knowledge is not inherent to a person

Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy.

One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. In
attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular
moral choice or action. But through these mistakes, she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help
steer another’s ability to know morally right choices and action. In other words, she is able to mature
and grow in her capacity on knowing what to do and living a morally upright life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community, those who
gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom, because they would be able to assist someone’s moral
deliberation. Parents can advice their children how to behave in front of family members and relatives.
Senior members of the community like priests, counsellors, and leaders may also guide the young
members on how relationships with others are fostered.

Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is person is concerned with achieving her appropriate
action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the
intermediary point in between extremes. One has to function in a state that her personality manifest the
right amount of feelings, passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are
neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. When one shows a
feeling of anger, we cannot immediately construe it as morally wrong act. But the rightness or
wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. It
is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you
were offended by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she manifest these feelings,
passions, and abilities. But can also be deficient in the way she express these

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always
difficult because every situation is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving
depending on the circumstance where she is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed
out by Aristotle , the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral
involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly every particular
detail relevant to the determination of the mean. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and
state of anger depends accordingly with the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid of reason
dictates how humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual. Mesotes
determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Likewise, an individual cannot be good
at doing something haphazardly but reason demands a continuous habituation of a skill to perfect an
act. Targeting the middle entails being immersed in a moral circumstance, understanding the
experience, and eventually, developing the knowledge of identifying the proper way or the mean to
address a particular situation.

Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her
habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous
preference of the good. Secondly, in moral virtue, the action done that normally manifest feelings and
passions is chosen because it is the middle. The middle does not fail short or is exercise of the proper
proportion by which these feelings or passion should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is
relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends in what the person identifies as the
middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle adheres to relativism. But Aristotle’s middle is not relative
to the person but to the situation and the circumstance that once is in. This means that in choosing the
middle
 JUSTICE (ppt)
Justice comes from the Greek work, means right

The word “justice” sometimes overlap of the word “right”.

FORMAL JUSTICE

Refers to equals must be treated equally and unequal's must be treated unequally
Aristotle – Nicomachean ethics

MATERIAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE

Material – principle that specify the relevant characteristics for equal treatment To each Person
An equal share According to need According to Contribution According to free-market According to
merit According to exchange

TYPE OF JUSTICE

[Link] Justice

[Link] Justice

[Link] Justice

APPROACHES TO JUSTICE

UTILITARIAN

Justice as whatever brings about the greatest good of the greater number
- John stuart mill

Justice is not an independent moral principle, rather it is a principle dependent on the governed by, that
sole of morality, the principle of utility
Utilitarian work out all the predictable benefits and all the predictable losses of some proposed change
or state of affairs , calculate the net sum of the proposed changes and choose that state of affairs which
will bring out about the greatest good for the greatest number , which will turn maximize utility

2 principles criteria for working out one’s utility

Quality of life measures
Social contributor measures

EGALITARIAN

Justice as the equal distribution of good and service - John Rawls

Justice means is essentially considered what is due is what is fair, equal or perhaps fairness

2 principles that lead will towards the exercise of fairness

a.) Each person should have the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with similar liberties
for all.
b.) Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged and are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

Justice for john rawls consists in fair equality of opportunity

• Each person irrespective of social condition such as poor and the wealthy should be provided with
equal fair opportunity to health.

Distribution Rawls believed must be on the basis of need which is understood as what is necessary for
equality of opportunity. better services should be available for purchase at personal expense by those
who are able and wish to do so.

LIBERTARIAN

Justice as the lack of restraints on individual liberty -Robert Nozick

Individual have right such as right to liberty, life, property and others which those individuals are
entitled to enjoy and to exercise so long as it is does not interfere into the rights of others.
The only Just system allocation of health care is the operation of free-market.
Libertarian therefore treats autonomy both the health care professionals and the patient as a central
notion of health care and allocating resources health care professionals are obliged to provide care only
that health care in keeping their own prior undertakings or present choices. thus, they may legitimately
decide for themselves what distribution standards to apply to their own practice.

COMMUNITARIAN

Justice is what is due to individuals or groups depend on the community-derived standards

- Alasdair Macintyre

Justice as Pluralistic – Justice derives from as many as different conceptions of the good as there are
diverse moral and cultural communities

Community as the core of a value system then prioritizing an individual as Libertarian Proposed
Communitarian believe that human life will go better if collective and public values guide people’s
lives

TRIAGE - ALLOCATION OF SCARCE and RESOURCES

Macroallocation

Decisions determine the funds to be expended and the goods to be made available
Deals with how much of the society’s resources will be used for various needs, including health-related
expenditures.

Microallocation

Decisions determines who will receive the particular scarce resources.

JUSTICE (input)
[Link]: ETHICS - BSA 2-B-1 ([Link])
 JUSTICE
John Rawls’s principle of justice is directed closer to reformulating conceptions of justice which can
be primarily based totally upon ideas which can be arbitrary from an ethical point of view. Moreover, Rawls
is in opposition to all claims of Utilitarianism. He sees it as unfavorable to the wellness of the people
withinside the society. This is because, for Rawls, Utilitarianism does now no longer remember the
character as inviolable. It virtually sees the character as sheer mechanism for the proliferation of welfare-
software and, hence, as expendables for the maximization of software or happiness of the majority. Thus,
Rawls rejects any ethical claims that invoke the concept of software or the happiness of the majority. Indeed,
for Rawls, people do own inviolable rights and dignity that can not be overridden through the society’s
venture of the best life.

In his components of his principle of justice, Rawls gives 3 essential presuppositions. First, he starts
off evolved his principle with a thought of a democratic society, one this is characterized via way of means
of freedom and equality. This is coupled together along with his emphasis on different rational people whose
rationality permits them to agree upon ideas of distribution customary via way of means of all. Second, he
adheres to the concept of the need of a agreement principle to be able to legitimize any nation movement
withinside the procedure of distribution. Third and last, Rawls provides ideas of justice that function the
underlying motive for any simply society. According to Rawls, those ideas must be observed in any respect
charges via way of means of rational people. It is likewise vital to be aware that for Rawls, the ideas if justice
are meant to insure that the people rights and liberties are blanketed and that all of them is given same
possibility to realize their perceived dreams no matter their socio-political and financial status. And
ultimately, those ideas are designed to assure that the terrible are given veto or strength over inequality.

Etymologically, justice comes from the Latin word ‘jus’ to mean ‘right’. The etymological meaning
of the word ‘justice’ that connotes ‘right’ is somewhat a bit different from the word ‘justice’. What then is
justice? The terms fairness, desert (what is deserved) and entitlement are used by various philosophers in
an attempt to explicate justice. This account interprets justice as fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment
in the light of what due or owe to others.
The writer of the Hippocratic Oath insists that it is a part of the doctor’s duty to keep his patients
free from injustice they can do themselves, Justice is generally thought to be giving others their due. This
idea may be taken into different senses, most narrowly as fulfilling responsibilities prior to any undertakings,
more widely, as being fair perhaps to others, quite generally, as acting uprightly in any way of actions
bearing on others, biblically, the scripture would say that justice may mean goodness and holiness in
general. However, most philosophers use the term justice in a more specific sense that was referred to as
‘rightness in people’s interactions and interrelations’. Thus, it is rightfully correct to say that sometimes the
word ‘justice’ overlap with the word ‘right’.

Formal Principle of Justice

Formally speaking, as Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics would say that justice refers to ‘equals must
be treated equally’ and ‘unequals must be treated unequally’. This is the formal principle of justice, it is
‘formal’ because it identifies no particular respects in which equals ought to be treated equally and thus
provide no criteria for determining whether two or more individuals are in fact equal (Beauchamp and
Childress, 2001).

Material Principle of Justice

Principles that specify the relevant characteristics for equal treatment are called ‘material’ because
they identify the substantive properties for distribution. Philosophers like Engelhadrt, Keusch, Wildes and
others have suggested the following material principles of justice:
1. To each person an equal share. [example: all members of the society are given equal services
such as the free immunization to all children below seven years old]
2. To each person according to need. [example: when there is a shortage of ex. Hepatitis B vaccine,
it is provided only to the high risks groups. Likewise, only health care workers assigned in the high
 risks areas are provided with free health check-ups, medication, including treatments and
vaccinations to protect them]
3. To each person according to contribution. [example: only people who are members of the
Philippine Health can avail of its medical services and privileged]
4. To each person according to free-market exchanges. [example: the service is provided only to
those who can afford it such as cosmetic surgery]
5. To each person according to merit. [example: this principle involves that implementation of set
of rules/criteria that must be met before a privileged can be granted. Example: Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes service of proving free health care assistance only to those who meets the required
criteria and that is having no financial capacity to provide it for themselves and to their family]
6. To each person according to effort. [example: this refers to the patient’s efforts to comply or not
to comply with the medical advice. A diabetic client has the choice to comply or not to comply with
his medication and diet regimen]

Types of justice
1. Distributive justice. It refers to fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution or responsibilities or
share or rights and roles, resources and privileges
2. Criminal justice. Refers to the infliction of punishment or penalty proportionate to the crime
committed. In other words, no exemption in the merited penalty.
3. Rectificatory justice. Refers to just compensation for transactional problems such as breaches of
contract and practice based on civil law. Rectify the person who did not observe hi/her word of
honor.

The discussion of justice will only be limited to distributive justice for it’s too complex to handle it here.
Theories of distributive justice have been developed to specify and unite one’s diverse principles, rules and
judgment. Theory attempts to connect the characteristics of persons with morally justifiable distribution of
benefits and burdens. Nonetheless, systematic theories of justice have been proposed to determine how
social burdens, including health care goods and services should be distributed or redistributed. Some
influential theories that go with the discussion of justice are the following:

The Paradigm Approach to Justice

Utilitarian: Justice as whatever brings about the greatest good of the greatest number (John Stuart Mill)

For a utilitarian, justice is not an independent moral principle. Rather it is a principle dependent on,
governed by, that sole principle of morality, the principle of utility. It names the most paramount and stringent
form of obligation created by the principle of utility. Utilitarian therefore work out all the predictable benefits
and all the predictable losses of some proposed change or state of affairs, calculate the net sum (or utility)
of the proposed changes and choose that state of affairs which will bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number, which will in turn maximize utility. Justice in this instance then is the distributed result of
that calculation. Thus, any form of state of affairs is considered just if it represents the greatest good for the
greatest number and unjust to the extent that it does not affect that result.
As it is applied in health care, utilitarian used two principal criteria for working out one’s utility:
quality of life measures and social contribution measures. It is a fact that some utilitarian may have various
emphases yet they tend to favor the following principles in medicine: a) prevention is to be preferred to cure
and cheaper (less expensive) therapies are to be preferred to a more expensive ones, b) expensive or
scarce therapies are only available to the young and those who likely to lead long productive lives, c)
preference should be given to those likely to receive the greatest benefit in terms of improved length and
quality of life and to those likely to make the greatest future social contribution, d) short-term services are
to be preferred to long-term care and institutional care is eliminated as much as possible and e) healthcare
for the terminally ill, dying, elderly, chronically sick or incapacitated, severely handicapped and permanently
unconscious is to be given the lowest priority (Anthony Fisher).

Egalitarian: Justice as the equal distribution of good and services (John Rawls).
 Egalitarian argued that justice means is essentially considered what is due is what is fair, equal, or
perhaps fairness. John Rawls principle of justice is derived from what people would choose if they were
forced to be impartial, if they had to choose principles on which to base a social structure that will satisfy
them whenever they turn out to be located in it. John Rawls continue to say that each person will choose
two principles that will lead towards the exercise of fairness, namely, a) each person should have the most
extensive system of basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all and b) social and economic
inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and are
open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Simply to say, justice for Rawls therefore consists
in fair equality of opportunity.
John Rawls himself never applied justice to the distribution of health care. However, most readers
(Daniels, Norman) of John Rawls believed that his theory inspired approaches to health care distribution
by insisting that each person irrespective of social condition such as poor and the wealthy should be
provided with equal fair opportunity to health.
Distribution Rawls believed must be on the basis of need which is understood as what is necessary
for equality of opportunity. For example, better services, such as luxury hospital rooms and expensive but
optional dental work, should be available for purchase at personal expense by those who are able and wish
to do so. On the other hand, everyone’s basic need of health service should be met at an adequate level.
By this, it ensures decent minimum of health care and equal opportunity.
Libertarian: Justice as the lack of restraints on individual liberty (Robert Nozick).
Contemporary libertarian like Robert Nozick believed that it is not the role of the state to impose
any pattern of distribution of benefits and burdens on its members since that will violate the rights of
individuals. Nozick believed that individual have rights, such as right to liberty, life, property and others,
which those individual are entitled to enjoy and to exercise so long as it does not interfere into the rights of
others. Nozick therefore believed that the affair of the state is to protect citizens against any unjust
interference such as, theft, fraud, violence and others and it is not the business of the state to distribute
benefits and burdens such as health care since that will turn violate the rights of individuals.
So, as the libertarian suggests, the only just system of allocation of health care is the operation of
the free-market. It is up to people individually to choose what health care or service, and from whom, for
which they wish to spend their own resources. It is up to the health professional as well to decide how,
when, for whom, with whom and for how much they wish to work. Libertarian therefore treats autonomy,
both the health care professional and the patient as a central notion of health care and allocating resources.
Individual then must be encouraged to take responsibility for their own health (Ronald Dworkin, 1981).

Applying Nozick’s libertarianism to health care, health care professionals are obliged to provide
care only that health care in keeping with their own prior undertakings or present choices. Thus, they may
legitimately decide for themselves what distribution standards to apply to their own practices. Furthermore,
libertarian, supports generally a health care system, the state or any instituted state that does not coerce
in taking one’s own personal property rights, physician have liberty, nurses too, and society is not morally
obligated to provide health care if it is done through coercion.

Communitarian: Justice is what is due to individuals or groups depend on the community-derived

standards (Alasdair MacIntyre).
Communitarian regards justice as pluralistic (Beauchamp and Childress, 2001). That means it
derives justice from as many as different conceptions of the good as there are diverse moral and cultural
communities. Communitarian then placed the community as the core of a value system than prioritizing an
individual as libertarian proposed. The value of any public goods are rooted from a communal practices.
Communitarian believed that human life will go better if collective and public values guide people’s lives.
They have a commitment to facilitate and practice designed to help members of the community develop
their common and henceforth personal lives (Honderich, 1995).
Modern communitarian writers disagree on the application of these theories to health care access.
Some proposes a federation of interlinking community health programs that are democratically
administered by the citizen-members. In this approach to communitarian, each individual program would
determined which benefits to provide, which care is most important, whether expensive service will be
included or excluded (Beauchamp and Childress, 2001).

The following table shows a summary of the different approaches to justice:

Approaches to Proponent Principle Description of Justice
justice
utilitarianism Mill Justice as whatever Equality of all persons and
brings about the greatest impartiality between persons
good of the greatest
number
Egalitarian John Rawls Justice as the equal Emphasized on what is owe
distribution of (at least (as a matter of fairness) by
some) goods or services the rest of us to the poorest
and most vulnerable
members of the community
Libertarian Robert Nozick Justice as the lack of Recognizes the centrality of
restraints on individual individual’s autonomy
liberty
Communitarian Alasdair Justice is what is due to Consist in favoring and
MacIntyre individuals or groups fostering the common good of
depend on the one’s communities. It
community-derived emphasizes on solidarity with
standards every human being/person

Justice underlies the nurse commitment to provide services with respect for human dignity and
render nursing care to the best of their ability to every patient regardless of religion, sex, race, economic
status and beliefs.

Allocation of Scarce and Resource (Triage)

The basic ethical question to allocation of scarce and resources is not whether there is a need to
rationing or prioritization but how it should do so, given the case that it is inevitable. Unless there is a
systematic ethical examination and criticism of health care distribution, there are likely to be inconsistencies,
abuses in the way the goods of the state is allocated.
The first issue on allocation of scarce resources is on the ‘macro’ level is: how much should be
spent on healthcare? The second would be on meso-allocation which is: how many healthcare resources
should go to what kind of services? And finally, on the microallocation: who should get what share of the
healthcare resources?
The problem of health care distribution does not only arise when being addressed directly. Time
and again it rears its head when treating other bioethical questions such as the appropriate treatment of
newborns, the infertile, the chronically sick and the terminally ill and the permanently unconscious.
To allocate is to distribute by allotment as Beauchamp and Childress would argued. And such
distribution does not presuppose either a person or a system that rations/prioritize resources. A criterion of
one’s ability to pay in a competitive-market for instance is a form of an example of allocation.
‘Macroallocation’ decisions determine the funds to be expended and the goods to be made
available, as well as the method of distribution. This emphasize that a macroallocation deals with how much
of the society’s resources will be used for various needs, including health-related expenditures. A certain
state therefore decides how much of the national budget goes to the health care program and what
proportion of available health goes to which program.
On the other hand, ‘Microallocation’ decisions determine who will receive the particular scarce
resources. This distinction that were mentioned are useful, but the line between them are not clear and
oftentimes interact.
One’s own moral intuition often drives each one into two conflicting directions: either to allocate
more to treatment or to allocate more to prevention and education. Now, determining who among the given
options will receive priority varies due to different philosophies one is adhering. So, the only recourse
perhaps is to give what is due to ones own.