Ethical Frameworks

Kate Lohnes klohnes@[Link]

243 - Spring 2025

1 Metaethics
Metaethics is the study of the nature of ethics. It is concerned with questions like, “is
morality objective or a matter of opinion?”. One way metaethics is useful is that it helps us
characterize ethical frameworks. Ethical frameworks are theories about what makes some-
thing right or wrong.

We can characterize ethical frameworks on the basis of two distinctions: (i) objective vs
subjective, and (ii) universal vs relative.

Objective: Some sentence “x” is true if and only if the world is such that
x.
ex: “Kate has two cats” is objectively true because, in the world, Kate has
two cats.

Subjective: Some sentence “x” is true if and only if some subject S be-
lieves “x”.
ex: “Kate’s two cats are cute” is subjectively true because some subject
(me!) believes it is true.

The objective-subjective distinction is a distinction which asks: what makes something true?
If it is the world that makes it true, that truth is objective. If it is someone’s belief that
makes it true, that truth is subjective.

We will also utilize the universal-relative distinction:

Universal: Applies to everyone, all the time, exactly the same way, re-
gardless of context.
ex: Mathematics

1
 Relative: Applies differently to different people depending on context.
ex: Language rules, social rules

These distinctions are a nice way to see the main differences between the ethical frameworks
we’re considering. we can visualize them in the form of a punnett square:

Objective Subjective

Universal Deontology Divine Command Theory

Utilitarianism
Cultual Relativism
Relative Virtue Ethics

This punnett square might not make a lot of sense yet, as we haven’t covered the ethical
frameworks it features. But we can play around with the punnett square without using
ethical frameworks, filling it in with different truths:

2
 Objective Subjective

2+2=4 The US dollar bill

Universal
is
worth $1

It is impolite to Coffee ice cream

Relative
slurp is
your soup the best ice cream

Try to fill in the punnett square with more examples!

2 Ethical Frameworks
We will look at four ethical frameworks in this course, but the list we will cover is far from
exhaustive.

To help characterize each view, we can utilize the following schema:

Ethical Framework Schema: An action x is morally right if and only if

[φ].

Each of our ethical frameworks fill in something different for [φ].

Before we look at how each ethical framework fills in the schema, what do you think is the
most plausible way to fill in [φ]?

3
3 Objective Ethical Frameworks
We will look at three objective ethical frameworks: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue
ethics.

3.1 Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: An action x is morally right if and only if x maximizes

happiness and minimizes pain.

Utilitarianism captures a lot of our judgements about morality: namely, the simple judge-
ment that happiness is good and pain is bad. Crucially, utilitarianism is what we call agent-
neutral:

Agent-neutral: No one person’s happiness matters more than anyone

else’s.

What this means is that we cannot prioritize our happiness / the happiness of our loved
ones over anyone else’s. This is meant to promote fairness—everyone’s happiness matters
the same, because every life is equally valuable.

What are some upsides to utilitarianism? What does it seem to get right?

Though utilitarianism has its upsides, there are some problems with it. Consider the follow-
ing iteration of the trolley problem:

Mom Trolley Problem: A trolley is speeding down a track. If it contin-

ues on the path it is on, it will hit and kill 5 convicted serial killers (suppose
for the sake of argument they are done killing, but have killed in the past).
You are in the unfortunate position of being next to a lever which will switch
the trolley’s path. If you pull the lever, the trolley will hit and kill your
mother rather than the 5 serial killers. What do you do?

Since utilitarianism is agent-neutral, we’re forced to pull the lever in this case. Your mother’s
happiness (or yours) doesn’t matter any more than the happiness of the 5 serial killers. But
this conflicts with many of our gut instincts about this case. We tend to think we have
special obligations to the people we love, but if we’re agent-neutral, this cannot be so.

There are also concerns about utilitarianism being in conflict with judgements about justice.
This is brought out by the following thought experiment:

4
 Judge: Imagine you are the judge of a small town. The town has 100
citizens. One night, someone from outside the town wanders in and kills
one of the town’s citizens before promptly escaping. You know, for a fact,
that the murderer is not a member of the town, but none of the town’s
citizens believe you. They are all convinced one of their neighbors is the
murderer. The stress and fear results in a mass riot– the town’s remaining
99 citizens are violently protesting your lack of action. You know that, if
you convict an innocent person of this murder, the riots will stop. You also
know that, if you do not convict an innocent person of this murder, 20 of
the town’s citizens will die in the riots and countless others will be injured.
What should you do?

Utilitarianism says you ought to convict the innocent person– but perhaps this conflicts with
our judgements about justice.

There is another version of Utilitarianism which tries to get out of this called Rule-Utilitarianism.
We will not discuss this in the class, but if you’re interested I encourage you to come chat
with me about it!

3.2 Deontology (Kantian Ethics)

Deontology: An action x is morally right if and only if x is in accordance

with the moral laws.

How do we know if an action is in accordance with the moral laws? There are two tests we
can use: the Principle of Universalizability, and the Principle of Humanity. We’ll go through
both of them in detail.

Principle of Universalizability: “Act only according to those maxims

which you can at the same time will to be universal law.” [Kant, Ground-
work on the Metaphysics of Morals]

Maxim: A general principle with no specific context.

Kant is a bit...verbose. But what he’s trying to get at here is actually very intuitive:

Principle of Universalizability [intuitively]: What if everyone did the

thing you’re about to do?

5
Kant wants to provide an ethical framework that doesn’t allow us to make exceptions for
ourselves.

Here’s how this works:

1. Develop a maxim regarding your proposed action. [Make sure there is no context
included in the maxim!]

2. Imagine a world in which everyone follows this maxim all the time.

3. Is this imagined world a good one?

4. If yes—the action is permissible.

5. If no—the action is impermissible.

For example, suppose I want to lie to my friend about an upcoming surprise party we’re
throwing for her. Here’s how I’d go through these steps:

1. Maxim: It is permissible to lie. [notice, there is no context– this is necessary for

maxims!]

2. What would it look like if everyone lied all the time?

3. That is not a good world.

4. So, it is not permissible for me to lie to my friend.

The Principle of Humanity is a bit easier to conceptualize than the Principle of Universaliz-
ability. Essentially, it captures the idea behind the golden rule– treat others how you would
like to be treated.

Principle of Humanity: “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, but always at the same time as an end.” [Kant, Groundwork on
the Metaphysics of Morals]

“Mere means”: To use someone as a tool without recognizing they have

their own goals.

“End”: Recognizing that yourself and others, as rational beings, have goals
and desires, and that we ought to respect those goals and desires.

6
Consider the following two cases:

Coffee Shop 1: Alice heads over to Michelangelo’s before class. She’s in a

rush. After she orders her coffee, she snaps at the barista for taking too long.

Coffee Shop 2: Alice heads over to Michelangelo’s before class. She’s in a

rush, but she takes a moment to recognize that the barista is a full person
in her own right. She waits patiently and thanks the barista for her time
once she receives her coffee.

In Coffee Shop 1, Alice is treating the barista as a mere means to her end of getting her
coffee. So, according to Kant, she’s acting impermissibly. In Coffee Shop 2, however, Alice
treats the barista as an end in herself, recognizing she is a rational agent who deserves re-
spect and kindness. In Coffee Shop 2, Alice is acting permissibly.

Notice, importantly, that in Coffee Shop 2 Alice is still using the barista as a means to an
end. That is, she still uses the barista to get her coffee (her “end” in this context). But she’s
not using the barista as a mere means. For Kant, it is okay to use other people as a means
to an end, so long as you also recognize them as an end in themselves.

An interesting note: Kant thinks these two principles are equivalent to eachother– so the
Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity will always get you the same
answer regarding the permissibility of an action.

Kantian ethics has a lot of upsides. It captures our gut instinct that we ought not make
exceptions for ourselves when engaging in moral reasoning. But, there are also some down-
sides. Consider the following case:

Serial Killer Breakfast: Jack and Jill are having breakfast together at
Jack’s house. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door. Jack goes to answer
it. To his surprise, he finds a man with a large axe in his hands. This
mysterious man says, “Is Jill here? I’m looking for her so I can kill her.”
Should Jack tell the truth?

According to Deontology, Jack has to tell the truth. Why? Well, the appropriate maxim in
this case is “It is permissible to lie”. But if everyone lied all the time, that wouldn’t be a
good world. So Jack isn’t allowed to follow that maxim. He must tell the truth, even if the
consequences are that Jill gets murdered.

7
3.3 Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics: An action x is morally right if and only if a virtuous person

would do x.

Virtue Ethics was developed by Aristotle. The basic idea is that a virtuous person acts in
such a way that strikes a perfect balance between the vices of deficiency and excess. For
example, consider the virtue of courage– the corresponding vice of deficiency is cowardice,
and the corresponding vice of excess is rashness.

Notice that how one strikes this “golden mean” will heavily depend on context. Consider
the following two cases to illustrate:

Stuck Cat 1: Kate is 5’2”. She is on a walk one day and notices a cat
stuck in a tree. The cat is up 6’ off the ground. Kate wants to save the cat,
and so attempts to do so—but because of her height, she falls and gets hurt.

Stuck Cat 2: Spencer is 6’2”. He is on a walk one day and notices a cat
stuck in a tree. The cat is up 6’ off the ground. Spencer wants to save the
cat, and, because of his height, is able to do so without any trouble.

Kate is acting impermissibly, while Spencer is acting permissibly. Why? Well, because the
golden mean differs between them by virtue of their being different heights. Since they have
different capabilities, morality requires different things of them according to virtue ethics.

You might wonder: How do we figure out what the virtues are? Aristotle thought one way
to do so was to think of someone you admire for being virtuous, and emulate them.

Virtue ethics has its upsides. Because it is context-sensitive, it allows for more wiggle-room
than Deontology, for example. But there are, unsurprisingly, some issues. Firstly, you might
worry that virtue ethics is circular—that is, it defines being good in terms of...well, being good:

Virtue Ethics Circularity: to be a good person is to do what a good

person would do.

If this is what virtue ethics is saying, it isn’t very useful. I know that being good requires
acting like a good person, but I want to know what makes a person good in the first place!

8
4 Subjective Ethical Frameworks
We are only going to consider one subjective ethical framework in this class: cultural rel-
ativism. There are numerous other subjective ethical frameworks out there, but this one
tends to be the one people gravitate towards.

4.1 Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism: An action x is morally right if and only if some

culture C believes x is right.

All that cultural relativism requires for the rightness of x is that that some culture thinks x
is morally right. Consider the following two cases:

Genocide 1: Some culture A unanimously agrees that genocide of group

G is permissible. So, they engage in committing genocide against G.

Genocide 2: Some culture B disagrees with culture A regarding genocide.

They do not think it is permissible to commit genocide ever, so it is not
permissible to commit genocide against group G.

According to Cultural Relativism, both cultures are equally right. The implication? Neither
culture has any grounds to criticize the other.

Now, this example shows why cultural relativism is implausible. But there are reasons people
tend to be attracted to it. Namely, people tend to like cultural relativism because it seems
to promote tolerance—no one culture is morally superior to another. Tolerance is clearly a
good thing, so this seems to imply cultural relativism is getting something right.

There are very few things I will actively try to convince you of in this class. But I will try
to convince you of the following: cultural relativism is not the only way to promote toler-
ance. Even more-so, cultural relativism actually promotes intolerance. The reason for this
is sometimes called the ‘Paradox of Tolerance’:

Paradox of Tolerance: If you are tolerant of intolerance, eventually in-

tolerance will be dominant—undermining your commitment to tolerance.

Recall Genocide 1 and Genocide 2. If B, motivated by cultural tolerance, does not criticize
A—then A can continue committing genocide. This results in intolerance being dominant.

9
References
[1] Dubbink, Wim & Deijl, Willem van der (eds.) (2023). Business Ethics: A Philosophical
Introduction. Springer Nature Switzerland.

[2] Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. New York: Oxford
University Press. Edited by Thomas E. Hill & Arnulf Zweig.

[3] Aristotle, (1893). The Nichomachean Ethics. Edited by J.E.C. WELLDON. Philosophical
Review 2:637.

10