Ethical theories

Ethical theories

approaches that help decide what is right and wrong

Main ethical theories

consequentialism, deontology, environmental ethics

consequentialism

theories that base morality of an action on its consequences

focuses on outcome rather than process

the right end result justifies the actions

e.g. 2 choices: give someone a smile that makes them happy or make someone sad - consequentialists agree with the first one as the outcome is better

deontology

theories based on the idea that we have a moral duty to behave in a certain way, focusing on actions rather than consequences

the right end result is never justification for actions which are ‘wrong’

e.g. if a teacher says ‘always tell the truth’, deontologists say they will always tell the truth even if the consequence isn’t perfect (i.e. may hurt someone’s feelings)

another name for deontology

duty ethics

environmental ethics

concerns the relationship between humans, animals and other elements of the environment (e.g. trees, mountains, oceans).

Considers the question: do humans have a moral duty to protect the environment and animals?

focuses on what is good or bad for the environment, not just humans

e.g. you finish a juice box, the options are: put it in the bin/recycle or throw it on the floor. Environmental ethics says to do what protects the Earth (first option)

examples of consequentialism

respect for nature, utilitarianism, contractarianism

examples of deontology

animal rights, relational importance

examples of environmental ethics

sentience-centred, human-centred, environment-centred

respect for nature

focuses on importance of species or groups of animals rather than individuals

it is ethical to contribute to the success of a group of animals e.g. protect a species from extinction

unethical to genetically alter animals for their survival because of the need to respect the natural order

utilitarianism

considers sentience of the people and animals involved.

Ethically right decisions result in the most happiness for the most people

contractarianism

cost and benefit is the only thing that matters in the decision-making process

consequences of animals do not play a part when deciding as only humans make social contracts

animal rights

there are strict limits on what we should do to or with animals, no matter how beneficial the outcome may be to humans, because because they are just as important as humans

relational importance

we feel more strongly about animals we have a relationship with (e.g. with pets) 

not many people have a relationship with ‘vermin’ so do not mind if they are killed as pests

sentience-centred

deciding how to treat animals is based on how sentient they are

deciding this may be controversial as it considers whether animals can experience pleasure and pain or feel and think

another name for human-centred

anthropocentrism

human-centred

humans are the most important species and have no duty to care for other species or preserve nature

environment-centred

all living things are dependent on one another. Humans aren’t worth more than other species. 

Humans must respect all other elements of nature for life to thrive

animal welfare vs animal rights

welfare:

focused on well being of animals

attention to physical and mental health

humans are responsible for animals

cannot be abused or neglected, but can be used for food and research

rights:

animals should have the same rights as humans

not used for food clothing, research etc

should be free of human interference

e.g. polar bear in a zoo gives birth, dies so now cub is alone

welfare - care for the cub to survive

rights - do not interfere

virtue ethics

what would a good person do?

What does Barney Reed, an animal welfare scientist for the RSPCA say about making difficult decisions in ethical dilemmas?

“in order to make practical progress, we realise that our idealism may have to be tempered by pragmatic realism.”