Readings
Notes
Cases
Synopsis
Today we completed our discussion of moral normative theory by considering three major moral normative theories: Utilitarian Ethical Theory, which is really a cluster of consequentialist theories differing in assumptions about utility; Kantian Ethical Theory, which is our sole example of a deontological ethical theory; and Social Contract Theory, which is our principal example of contractarian ethical theory.
To be sure, the application of Utilitarian Ethical Theory, Kantian Ethical Theory, and Social Contract Theory to particular cases varies remarkably in strategy and, sometimes, outcome. It is important in this regard to emphasize that what a theory of morality says about morality shapes how we apply the theory, but it is never the case that a theory should be thought of as, say, a mechanism or black-box that churns out answers to moral problems by turning a crank.
Rather, moral normative theories provide analytical frameworks for circumscribing the morally relevant features of particular cases. That is, they give us a scheme to help us think about and better understand the moral dimensions of a troubling case. They sometimes differ in what they say, but they also sometimes agree. The problem is what to do when there is a clear difference between these theories. For then we seem to be forced to make a choice between them, yet it is unclear which theory will ultimately prove itself true. Indeed, it can be argued that at the root of any moral dilemma lies a conflict between two or more moral normative theories.
Yet is also worth pointing out, as we did in class today, that there are also large areas of agreement between Utilitarian Ethical Theory, Social Contract Theory, and Kantian Ethical Theory. In particular, we considered principles which underwrite the very possibility of our reasoning about ethics: the Principle of Sufficient Moral Reason and the Principle of Moral Analogy. We starred the Principle of Moral Analogy as particularly important--so important, in fact, that our entire discussion next time will revolve around it's ingenious application to the abortion debate.
There are also, however, substantive moral principles. That is, some moral principles which seem equally justifiable on Utilitarian Ethical Theory, Kantian Ethical Theory, and Social Contract Theory grounds. Today we closed by discussing the Principles of Nonmaleficence, Beneficence, Autonomy and its four exceptions (Harm, Weak Paternalism, Strong Paternalism, and Welfare), and Justice and four ways of interpreting it (Equality, Need, Contribution, or Effort).
It bears emphasis that the aforementioned are, as I mentioned, substantive moral principles. That is, they give us a way of codifying and interpreting the common ground between UET, KET, and SCT. It is important, however, to appreciate that in the end we cannot do away with moral normative theory. At the very least we have to be able to justify these substantive principles, which will in part determine how they are to be interpreted and applied.