Ethics - Moral Psychology and Right and Wrong

Three Ways of Thinking About Ethics

"Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit." — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." — Jeremy Bentham

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." — Immanuel Kant

Aristotle’s way of thinking about ethics

"Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit." — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

What do you think this means?

How do we become good people? Aristotle argues that morality is about becoming a good person rather than simply following rules. We develop virtues such as courage, honesty, generosity and fairness through practice and habit. A virtuous person learns to choose the appropriate response in each situation by developing good character over time. For Aristotle, morality is about living a flourishing life by becoming the sort of person who naturally acts well.

Jeremy Bentham’s way of thinking about ethics

"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." — Jeremy Bentham

What do you think Bentham means by this?

Bentham argues that actions should be judged by their consequences. The morally right action is the one that creates the greatest overall happiness and reduces suffering for the greatest number of people. This means that difficult decisions sometimes require weighing one person's interests against many others.

Immanuel Kant’s way of thinking about ethics

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." — Immanuel Kant

What do you think Kant means?

Kant argues that morality is based upon universal moral duties rather than consequences. Some actions are simply right or wrong regardless of what happens afterwards. Before acting we should ask: "Would it be acceptable if  everyone acted this way?" People should never be treated merely as a means to achieve another goal.

Divine command theory

Holds that what is morally right or wrong is determined by God's will. For example, in Christianity, the Ten Commandments provide a set of rules for living a moral life, while in Buddhism, the Noble Eightfold Path outlines the principles for leading a virtuous existence. However, others argue that morality can exist independently of religion, asserting that ethical principles are derived from human reason, empathy, and social needs, rather than divine decree – this is called secular morality.

Secular morality

Suggests that morality can exist independently of religion, asserting that ethical principles are derived from human reason, empathy, and social needs, rather than divine decree.

The Ten Commandments, central to Christianity and Judaism, are

·       You shall have no other gods before me.

·       You shall not make idols.

·       You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

·       Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

·       Honor your father and mother.

·       You shall not murder.

·       You shall not commit adultery.

·       You shall not steal.

·       You shall not give false testimony.

·       You shall not covet.

The Noble Eightfold Path, a key element of Buddhist practice, includes:

·       Right View: Understanding the nature of reality and the path of transformation.

·       Right Intention: Commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement.

·       Right Speech: Speaking truthfully and kindly.

·       Right Action: Behaving morally and avoiding harm.

·       Right Livelihood: Earning a living in a righteous way.

·       Right Effort: Cultivating good qualities and overcoming negative tendencies.

·       Right Mindfulness: Maintaining awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

Right Concentration: Developing mental focus and meditative practices.

Merits of the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path

Both the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path offer clear, structured moral guidelines that can help adherents lead ethical lives. The Ten Commandments emphasize social order and duties to both God and others, with a focus on obedience and worship, while the Noble Eightfold Path promotes individual transformation through mindfulness, wisdom, and compassion. One strength of these frameworks is their clarity and authority for religious followers, providing a foundation for moral behaviour.

Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path

However, these religious rules also have limitations. The Ten Commandments are largely deontological, with an emphasis on rule-following, but they don’t always account for moral nuances or individual circumstances. The Noble Eightfold Path, while more flexible, is focused on personal spiritual development and may seem less prescriptive for social and legal issues. In terms of similarities, both guide individuals toward ethical conduct and reducing harm, but they differ in their focus—commandments on divine law versus a path of self-cultivation in Buddhism.

Comparing the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path to Secular Moral Beliefs

Both religious moral systems and secular ethical theories aim to guide individuals toward ethical behaviour, but they differ in their foundations.

Religious systems:

-Source of Morality: based on divine commands or spiritual teachings (e.g. Ten Commandments).

-Purpose: Often linked to spiritual development, obedience to God, or preparation for the afterlife.

-Method: Rule-following or personal spiritual transformation, depending on the tradition

-Accountability is often to God or religious communities.

Religious systems:

-Source of Morality: Based on human reason, empathy, and social contracts (e.g. Kantian ethics, utilitarianism).

-Purpose: Focused on promoting human flourishing, fairness, or reducing suffering in the here and now.

-Method: Rational analysis of actions and consequences, or adherence to universal principles grounded in reason.

-Accountability is to society, others, and oneself through reasoned reflection and social norms.

Despite these differences, both systems typically agree on many basic moral prescriptions, such as discouraging theft, murder, and dishonesty, and encouraging kindness, compassion, and fairness.

The Problem of Interpretation of Divine Commands and Contradictions

One major challenge for religious ethics is the problem of interpretation. Religious texts are often written in ancient languages and cultural contexts, making their application to modern ethical dilemmas difficult. Different sects or religious traditions may interpret the same teachings in contradictory ways. For example, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" raises debates about war, self-defense, and capital punishment. Even within a single religious framework, there may be tensions between different moral principles—such as the Buddhist commitment to both truthfulness and compassion, which can sometimes conflict. This creates a philosophical problem: if divine commands are not always clear or consistent, how should individuals and societies decide how to act?

An example of a potential contradiction within the Noble Eightfold Path can be found in the tension between Right Speech and Right Intention.

·       Right Speech encourages Buddhists to avoid lying and harmful speech, promoting truthfulness and kindness.

Right Intention emphasizes ethical commitment and self-improvement, particularly the intention to act compassionately and avoid causing harm.

Arbitration Between Different Interpretations of God’s Will and Different Gods

Another issue arises when different religious traditions or sects claim different understandings of God's will, or when multiple gods are followed in various belief systems. For example, within Christianity alone, there are numerous denominations with differing views on moral issues such as divorce, social justice, and salvation. Moreover, how do we resolve conflicts between moral directives from different religions—like those between Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism—each with its own perspective on ethics? This raises the question of how one can arbitrate between competing claims of divine authority. Philosophers may be called on to evaluate how society handles the coexistence of diverse religious beliefs and whether there is a universal moral standard that transcends these differences.

Conflicts Within Innate or Socially Agreed Upon Moral Principles

Many contemporary moral debates, such as those surrounding gay marriage, abortion, and contraception, highlight conflicts between religious teachings and what individuals may consider innate moral principles based on equality, autonomy, and human rights. For example, many religious doctrines oppose gay marriage or abortion, citing divine laws, while secular ethical frameworks may emphasize personal freedom and the right to choose. These conflicts reveal a tension between following religious prescriptions and adhering to values like respect for individual choice. Students should consider whether moral principles such as fairness and compassion should override religious doctrines, or whether divine commands hold ultimate moral authority in these cases.

Virtue Theory and Aristotle

Virtue ethics is a moral theory primarily associated with Aristotle, which emphasizes the development of a virtuous character as the key to living a moral life. Unlike other ethical theories that focus on specific actions or their consequences, virtue ethics centers on the traits and qualities that make a person morally good. According to Aristotle, virtues are positive character traits that lie between extremes of deficiency and excess, such as courage, which is the mean between cowardice and recklessness. Virtue ethics posits that living a virtuous life leads to eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is the ultimate goal of human life. This approach highlights the importance of habituation—repeated practice of virtuous actions—to develop and maintain these traits. Thus, virtue ethics is concerned not just with what actions are right or wrong, but with the kind of person one should become to lead a fulfilling and morally sound life.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a foundational text in virtue ethics. Aristotle's ethical theory emphasizes moral character and the importance of virtue as the path to a flourishing life.

Eudaimonia

Often translated as "flourishing" or "well-being," eudaimonia is the ultimate goal of human life according to Aristotle. It is achieved by living virtuously and fulfilling one's potential.

The Virtues According to Aristotle

Aristotle identified several key virtues that he believed are essential for achieving eudaimonia. These virtues include:

·       Courage – The ability to face fear and adversity with bravery.

·       Temperance – The practice of moderation and self-control over one’s desires.

·       Justice – Treating others fairly and giving each person their due.

·       Wisdom – The ability to make sound decisions based on knowledge and experience.

·       Generosity – The willingness to give and share with others.

·       Magnanimity – The greatness of spirit that involves high-mindedness and nobility.

·       Friendliness – The ability to interact with others in a pleasant and respectful manner.

·       Truthfulness – The virtue of being honest and truthful in one’s words and actions.

·       Pride – The proper self-respect and recognition of one’s worth.

Virtue (Arete)

A virtue is a character trait that represents a balance between deficiencies and excesses. For instance, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness. Virtues are desirable traits that help individuals achieve a good and meaningful life.

Moral Virtues vs. Intellectual Virtues

Moral virtues (like courage and generosity) are about character and emotion, while intellectual virtues (like wisdom and understanding) relate to reasoning and intellect.

Habituation:

Aristotle argues that virtues are developed through habituation—the repeated practice of virtuous actions. By performing virtuous acts regularly, individuals develop a virtuous character.

Virtuous Character

A stable and reliable disposition to act in accordance with virtue. This character is shaped by habitual practice and moral education.

Moral Education:

The role of upbringing, community, and culture in shaping one's moral character. Aristotle emphasises that moral education helps individuals develop virtues from a young age.

Innate Moral Sense (Moral Properties)

Some argue that humans possess an innate sense of right and wrong—often described as a natural moral compass. According to this view, moral properties like fairness, kindness, and justice are not mere social constructs or personal preferences, but objective features of reality that humans can directly perceive.

One of the strongest advocates of this position was Immanuel Kant, who believed that moral principles are grounded in reason but accessible through an internal sense of duty, which he called the moral law within. Kant held that all rational beings have an innate capacity to recognize moral duties, such as treating others with respect and fairness. He famously wrote, “Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” For Kant, this moral law reflects an inborn moral awareness, independent of external influence.

Thomas Aquinas similarly argued that humans have a natural inclination to the good. According to his natural law theory, humans pursue universal goods such as life, health, and knowledge because they are objectively valuable. This inclination arises from our capacity to use reason to perceive an inherent moral order in the universe.

In more recent times, W.D. Ross, through his theory of moral intuitionism, suggested that humans have an intuitive sense of moral duties. According to Ross, people can directly perceive self-evident moral truths, such as the duty to keep promises or refrain from harm, without engaging in complex moral reasoning.

A common thread in these views is that moral properties are perceived naturally, similar to sensations like pain or pleasure. Just as the body reacts to pain by avoiding it, the mind reacts to moral wrongness—such as witnessing cruelty—by feeling compelled to intervene or disapprove.

These philosophers therefore argue that moral action is not solely the result of social conditioning or personal interest, but is guided by an inherent moral awareness that directs human behavior toward goodness and away from harm.

Desires and Inclinations

Another major view in moral philosophy is that people are primarily motivated by their desires and inclinations, rather than by any innate sense of right and wrong. According to this perspective, humans act morally not because they perceive objective moral truths, but because they are driven by subjective desires—the things they want or wish to avoid. This idea is central to David Hume’s moral psychology, where he famously asserted that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." For Hume, emotions and desires are the true drivers of human action, while reason simply helps achieve those desires.

In this view, when someone helps another person, it is not necessarily because they recognize a moral duty, but because they desire to help, whether out of empathy, compassion, or a wish to avoid guilt. Hume argued that moral judgments are expressions of feelings, not reflections of universal moral laws. For example, a person may act fairly because their desire for fairness aligns with their emotions, not because fairness is objectively real.

Jean-Paul Sartre, a leading existentialist philosopher, also emphasized the role of choice and desire in moral action. According to Sartre, there is no inherent moral compass; instead, individuals are "condemned to be free" and must create their own values through choices. These desires are shaped by upbringing, culture, and personal experiences. A person might act justly because they have learned to value justice, or help others because they have experienced kindness themselves. For Sartre, moral action results from existential freedom, where individuals define their moral paths through their desires.

This view is echoed in psychological theories, such as Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which suggests that human actions are motivated by progressing desires—from basic survival to self-actualization. In this framework, moral behavior—like helping others—may arise from the desire to feel connected, respected, or fulfilled.

Friedrich Nietzsche also argued that moral actions are often driven by the will to power—the desire for individuals to assert themselves and realize their potential. Nietzsche believed traditional moral systems suppress individual desires, while the Übermensch (Overman) creates personal values based on their unique aspirations, not on societal conventions.

In this tradition, moral actions are closely tied to personal desires and emotional inclinations, shaped by upbringing, culture, and experience. For example, a person may act kindly because it brings satisfaction, or avoid harm because they wish to escape guilt or shame. Whether altruistic or self-serving, these desires are seen as the true motivators of moral behavior, rather than any innate or universal moral sense.

Rational Processes

Some philosophers, particularly in the rationalist tradition, argue that moral behavior is guided by reason, not merely by feelings or desires. This view holds that moral action arises from reasoned deliberation about right and wrong. Plato, for example, emphasized that the rational part of the soul must govern desires and emotions. In his dialogues, Socrates teaches that through philosophical reasoning, individuals can come to understand the Forms, especially the Form of the Good, which enables moral action. In this framework, immorality is a product of ignorance, not malice or desire.

Aristotle also believed that rational thought is essential for moral behavior but focused on practical reasoning (phronesis). In his virtue ethics, Aristotle argued that moral action involves deliberating about the mean between excess and deficiency—such as courage being the balance between cowardice and recklessness. Virtuous behavior is learned through experience, but guided by rational reflection. For Aristotle, virtue is about finding balance, achieved through thoughtful reasoning, not external motivation.

In modern philosophy, John Stuart Mill highlighted the role of rational calculation in utilitarianism. Mill argued that morality should be based on the consequences of actions, with the aim of promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Moral reasoning, in this view, is like a cost-benefit analysis, where individuals weigh the impacts of their actions to maximize well-being.

Similarly, John Rawls stressed the role of reason in determining principles of justice. His concept of the veil of ignorance asks individuals to imagine they do not know their social position. From this perspective, people would use rational reflection to select fair and equal principles, ensuring that no one is disadvantaged.

In all of these theories, deliberation and reasoning are central to moral action. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Mill, and Rawls argue that through careful thought, individuals can determine what is right, weigh consequences, and make decisions aligned with ethical reasoning. This approach treats morality as the outcome of logical reflection, not emotional impulse or inherited values.

David Hume and The Influence of Passion

David Hume’s stance on moral psychology, particularly in A Treatise of Human Nature, highlights the central role of desire in motivating human action. In Book II, Hume famously argues that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." He asserts that reason alone is incapable of motivating individuals to act. Instead, it is desire, or what he calls "the passions," that drives action. Reason, in Hume's view, serves only to inform or guide us by presenting facts or helping us understand cause and effect, but it does not compel us to act. For instance, you can reason that a particular course of action will lead to a specific outcome, but without a desire to pursue that outcome, reason alone cannot move you to act.

Hume contrasts desire with reason by emphasizing that reason is purely instrumental. It helps us achieve our goals by identifying effective means, but the goals themselves come from our desires. This explains why individuals might act in some situations but not in others: the underlying desire must be present for action to occur. If someone lacks the desire to help another person, even if they logically know how to do so, they won’t be motivated to act. As he discusses in A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume argues that moral decisions stem from feelings, emotions, or sentiments, rather than rational calculation.

Ultimately, Hume’s view challenges the idea that moral behavior is purely a matter of reason. He insists that reason plays a secondary role, serving only to assist the passions in achieving their ends. Moral judgments and actions, he argues, are fundamentally rooted in our emotional responses and cannot be reduced to rational thought alone. In this way, Hume suggests that reason without desire is powerless to motivate action, making it the "slave of the passions."

Immanuel Kant and The Role of Principle

Immanuel Kant's position in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals contrasts with David Hume by emphasizing reason as the primary basis for moral motivation and action. While Kant acknowledges that emotions and inclinations can provide the passion that drives us toward action, he insists that reason must dominate. For Kant, moral action stems from adherence to duty, determined by rational principles rather than personal desires. The "good will" acts in accordance with moral law, not because of any emotional inclinations or desired outcomes, but out of respect for the law itself. Thus, moral action is grounded in doing what is right for its own sake, regardless of feelings or consequences.

Kant introduces the concept of maxims, or personal principles, which guide actions. A moral maxim must be chosen according to the categorical imperative, which requires that one acts only in ways that could be universally willed. This contrasts with Hume’s emphasis on desire, as Kant argues that moral motivation comes from reason's capacity to act according to universally applicable principles. Emotions may fuel the commitment to carry out these actions, but for Kant, reason is what provides the moral justification. Only when actions are governed by reason and universal laws can they be considered truly moral.

In Kant’s framework, decisions based on principle, rather than fluctuating desires, are what give actions moral worth. While emotions may give rise to the energy needed to act, reason must guide that energy toward moral duty. This contrasts with Hume’s view, where emotions and desires dominate moral decisions. For Kant, reason must rule over inclinations, ensuring that we act out of duty rather than emotional impulses, as only rational action according to duty possesses true moral worth.

Psychological Egoism: Self-Interest as Motivation

Psychological egoism is the theory that all human actions are motivated by self-interest, even when they appear to be other-regarding. According to this view, when we help others, we are ultimately fulfilling some underlying self-interested desire, such as avoiding guilt, gaining social approval, or feeling good about ourselves. Advocates of psychological egoism argue that even acts of charity or kindness are driven by subconscious desires aimed at personal satisfaction or benefit. While it may seem that individuals are acting altruistically, this theory holds that they are always pursuing their own well-being, whether consciously or subconsciously.

An extension of this theory is psychological hedonism, which suggests that individuals are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. According to this view, all actions, even those that seem selfless, are guided by the pleasure-pain principle. When people engage in acts of kindness or sacrifice, psychological hedonism argues that they are doing so because it brings them some form of pleasure (such as emotional satisfaction) or helps them avoid discomfort (such as guilt or social disapproval). In this framework, pleasure and pain are seen as the ultimate motivators of all human behaviour.

Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham on Psychological Egoism

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, presents a view closely aligned with psychological egoism. Hobbes argues that humans are fundamentally self-interested creatures driven by a desire for self-preservation and the avoidance of harm. In the state of nature, Hobbes suggests that individuals are motivated by a fear of violent death, and their actions are aimed at securing peace and safety for themselves. Even cooperation or acts of kindness, according to Hobbes, are strategic moves to ensure personal survival or benefit. He famously asserts that life in the state of nature would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" if not for the self-interest that drives individuals to seek peace through a social contract.

Jeremy Bentham extends psychological egoism into his theory of utilitarianism, particularly in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham argues that human beings are motivated by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. He formalizes this into his "hedonic calculus," where the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by how much pleasure or pain it produces. While Bentham believes that individuals act out of self-interest, he also contends that society can structure its laws and institutions in ways that align individual self-interest with the collective good. Thus, Bentham sees no inherent conflict between self-interest and morality, as long as actions contribute to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Psychological Altruism: Genuine Other-Regarding Actions

Psychological altruism is the counter-theory to psychological egoism, arguing that some human actions are genuinely motivated by concern for others, rather than self-interest. Unlike psychological egoism, which claims all actions are driven by personal gain, psychological altruism holds that individuals can be motivated by a desire to help others, even at a cost to themselves. In this view, certain actions are performed purely out of empathy, compassion, or a sense of duty to others, without any hidden self-interested motivations. For instance, people may help a stranger or sacrifice personal resources for a friend with no expectation of personal benefit, driven by an other-regarding desire to improve the well-being of others.

Evolutionary biology has been instrumental in exploring the roots of altruism, particularly through studies on parental care and kin selection. According to evolutionary theory, acts of altruism, such as a parent caring for their child, can be explained as behavior that promotes the survival of one’s genes. Parental care, for example, is a clear demonstration of altruistic behavior where parents sacrifice time, energy, and resources to ensure the well-being of their offspring. While evolutionary biologists may argue that such behavior is ultimately tied to the survival of one's genes, psychological altruism views it as proof that humans are capable of acting with concern for others, especially when those others are vulnerable or in need. This perspective suggests that while not all actions are altruistic, there are genuine cases of selfless behavior motivated purely by concern for the welfare of others.

Concept of Internalism

Concept of Internalism

Internalism in moral psychology posits that there is a necessary and intrinsic connection between moral judgments and motivation to act. According to this view, holding a moral judgment inherently involves being motivated to act upon it. Internalists argue that moral judgments are not purely cognitive or theoretical; they are intimately linked to our motivational states. For instance, if someone judges that an action is morally right, internalism asserts that this judgment must be accompanied by some level of motivation or impulse to carry out the action. This perspective emphasizes that moral judgments are not isolated from our psychological drives but are integral to how we are moved to act.

Strong and Weak Forms of Internalism

Internalism is often divided into two forms: strong and weak. Strong internalism holds that moral judgments always produce a powerful and overwhelming impulse to act. According to this view, if an individual judges that an action is morally required, this judgment will generate a strong, immediate urge to perform the action. Bernard Williams supports this form of internalism by arguing that moral judgments are deeply motivational, meaning that a genuine moral belief will naturally lead to a compelling drive to act in accordance with that belief. This strong form of internalism suggests that there is a direct and forceful connection between moral judgment and action.

In contrast, weak internalism acknowledges that while moral judgments generally include an intrinsic motivational component, this motivation can be affected by conflicting desires or situational factors. Joel Feinberg examines this notion, highlighting that while a moral judgment may generate a motivation to act, this motivation can be undermined or overridden by other competing desires. For instance, someone might believe that they should assist a friend in need but ultimately fail to do so because the desire to avoid inconvenience or personal cost is stronger. Feinberg’s perspective on internalism suggests that moral judgments alone are not always sufficient to ensure action, as conflicting desires can compromise or diminish the motivational force of a moral belief.

Implications for Moral Psychology

The internalist view provides valuable insights into the relationship between moral judgments and motivation. It suggests that moral judgments are not merely abstract or theoretical but are connected to our emotional and motivational states. The distinction between strong and weak internalism helps explain why individuals may sometimes fail to act in accordance with their moral judgments. By understanding internalism, we can better appreciate the complexities of moral motivation and the challenges individuals face in aligning their moral beliefs with their actions. This perspective underscores the importance of examining both the intrinsic motivation associated with moral judgments and the potential impact of conflicting desires on moral behavior.

Concept of Externalism

Externalism in moral psychology offers a contrasting view to internalism by suggesting that moral judgments and motivations are not necessarily intrinsically linked. According to externalism, moral judgments may not always directly lead to moral actions. Instead, the connection between judgment and action can be contingent upon external factors or contexts. Externalists argue that while moral judgments are important, they do not automatically result in corresponding actions without considering external influences or conditions. This perspective emphasizes that the reliability of moral outcomes often depends on factors beyond the individual's internal motivational states.

Reliability of Moral Outcomes

Externalism posits that the reliability of moral outcomes is influenced by external factors rather than purely internal motivations. For instance, moral actions may be more reliably achieved when there are external incentives, social pressures, or institutional structures that support and reinforce moral behavior. This view suggests that external factors can play a crucial role in ensuring that moral judgments translate into consistent actions. Unlike internalism, which emphasizes the intrinsic motivational link, externalism highlights how external conditions can make moral behavior more predictable and dependable.

Implications for Moral Pyschology

Externalism provides a useful perspective on the interplay between moral judgments and actions. It suggests that while moral judgments are significant, their impact on behavior is often shaped by external circumstances. Understanding externalism helps us appreciate the role of social, cultural, and situational factors in influencing moral behavior. By focusing on how external conditions affect the reliability of moral outcomes, externalism offers valuable insights into why individuals may act differently in varying contexts, even when holding similar moral judgments.

Moral Weakness

In moral psychology, akrasia refers to a state of acting against one's better judgment temporarily. This concept is often translated as “moral incontinence”, "moral weakness" or "lack of self-control." Aristotle discusses akrasia in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book VII), where he explains it as the condition in which someone fails to act according to their rational understanding of what is best, instead being swayed by their emotions or desires.

Akrasia requires three qualities:

1.     You have a moral conviction

2.     You are overwhelmed by an urge or an impulse and neglect reason

3.     You feel remorse for this lapse.

Orexis

A term used to denote the various forms of desire or appetite that influence human behavior and can be the cause of akrasia. It encompasses our basic drives and appetites that can sometimes override rational decision-making.  There are three types of orexis:

There are three types of orexis:

Boulesis – wishing or willing, often considered to be rational desire

Thumos – passions like love, anger or pity

Epithumia – appetites like hunger, thirst or sex*al desire

Thumos and epithuma are forms of orexis which are unintentional and often beyond conscious control and thus can lead to akrasia.  This state of moral weakness illustrates the struggle between rational deliberation and impulsive desires.

Socrates’ Challenge to Akrasia

Socrates, particularly through the writings of Plato, challenges the notion of akrasia by arguing that it is impossible to act against one's true knowledge. In Protagoras, Socrates contends that if a person truly knows what is best, they will always act according to that knowledge. Socrates argues that what appears as akrasia is actually a failure of knowledge or understanding. According to Socrates, if someone acts contrary to their better judgment, it is because they do not fully comprehend the moral truth, rather than a genuine conflict between reason and desire. Thus, Socrates' challenge highlights a philosophical debate on whether moral weakness is a real phenomenon or a result of incomplete understanding.

Deontological ethics

An ethical framework that emphasizes the importance of moral duties and rules in determining the morality of an action. Unlike consequentialist theories like utilitarianism, which judge actions based on their outcomes, deontological theories maintain that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.

Key characteristics of deontological theories include:

·       Duty-Based Morality: Actions are morally required or forbidden based on rules or principles rather than their results.

·       Intrinsic Value: Some actions or moral laws hold value in themselves, independent of any consequences they produce.

·       Moral Absolutes: Deontologists often assert that there are universal moral principles that apply to all rational beings.

Duty-Based Morality

Actions are morally required or forbidden based on rules or principles rather than their results.

Intrinsic Value

Some actions or moral laws hold value in themselves, independent of any consequences they produce.

Moral Absolutes

Deontologists often assert that there are universal moral principles that apply to all rational beings.

Kant’s Deontology

Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, is one of the most influential figures in deontological ethics. His moral philosophy centres around the concept of duty and the intrinsic worth of moral actions.

Key Ideas:

·       Intrinsic Good: Kant argues that the only thing that is intrinsically good without qualification is a good will. This means that an action is morally good if it is done out of duty, guided by reason, rather than from inclination or desire. The moral worth of an action lies in the intention behind it, not the outcome.

·       Moral Law: According to Kant, moral law is universal and binding for all rational beings. It arises from human reason and is accessible through rational thought.

Kant's deontological theory connects with moral psychology by emphasizing the role of reason and rationality in moral decision-making. Kant posits that moral actions are those that can be universally willed, requiring individuals to act according to principles that could be applied consistently by all rational beings. This idea reflects the notion that moral judgments stem from rational processes rather than emotional or consequential considerations.

Kant on Intrinsic Good

Kant argues that the only thing that is intrinsically good without qualification is a good will. This means that an action is morally good if it is done out of duty, guided by reason, rather than from inclination or desire. The moral worth of an action lies in the intention behind it, not the outcome.

Kant on Moral Law

According to Kant, moral law is universal and binding for all rational beings. It arises from human reason and is accessible through rational thought.

Categorical Imperative

Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative as the central principle of his moral philosophy. The Categorical Imperative provides a way to evaluate moral actions and consists of several formulations.

The three key rules of the Categorical Imperative are:

1) The Universal Law Formula

2) The Humanity Formula

3) The King of Ends Formula

The Universal Law Formula

Kant said: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” 

This means you should only act in ways that you would want everyone else to act as well. Before you take an action, you should consider whether the principle behind your action could be applied universally. If everyone acted this way, would it lead to a contradiction or undesirable consequences? If not, then it can be considered morally acceptable. Imagine a student who is tempted to cheat on a test. If they consider this action and ask themselves, "What if everyone cheated on tests?" they might realise that if everyone did so, the value of the test would be undermined, and learning would be impossible. Therefore, they should refrain from cheating, as the principle of cheating cannot be universalised without contradiction.

The Humanity Formula

Kant said: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”

This means you should always treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to achieve your goal.  This rule emphasizes the intrinsic worth of every individual. It requires that we respect others' dignity and autonomy, ensuring that we do not use people solely to achieve our own objectives. Consider a manager who is under pressure to meet a deadline and asks an employee to work overtime without compensation. By treating the employee merely as a means to complete a project, the manager disrespects the employee’s rights and well-being. Instead, the manager should value the employee’s time and negotiate a fair agreement that respects their contribution.

The King of Ends Formula

Kant said: “Act only so that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.”

This means you should act in ways that you would want your actions to set rules for everyone in a community of rational beings. This formula encourages individuals to think about their actions within the context of a community where everyone is respected as a rational being. It suggests that our actions should be consistent with a society where everyone’s rights and goals are acknowledged.  Imagine that a community leader decides to enforce a curfew for minors to promote safety. However, they ensure that the law is fair and applies to everyone equally, considering the needs and perspectives of both the youth and the community. By creating laws that respect the autonomy and rights of all individuals, the leader embodies the idea of acting as if they are establishing universal laws that everyone could accept.

Problems and Criticisms of Kant’s Deontology

Despite its influence, Kant's deontological theory has faced several criticisms, including: 

·       Rigidity: Critics argue that Kant's strict adherence to duty can lead to morally questionable outcomes. For instance, telling a lie might be considered wrong even if it could save a life.

·       Conflicts of Duty: Kant's framework does not easily resolve conflicts between competing duties. For example, if one has a duty to tell the truth but also a duty to protect someone from harm, it is unclear how to prioritise these obligations.

·       Overemphasis on Rationality: Some argue that Kant's focus on reason overlooks the importance of emotions and relationships in moral decision-making, which can lead to morally relevant considerations being ignored.

W.D. Ross’s critique to Kant's deontology, proposing his own ethical theory

W.D. Ross's Response: Theory of the Right and the Good

W.D. Ross, a 20th-century philosopher, critiqued Kant's deontology by proposing his own ethical theory, which acknowledges the complexities of moral life. Ross introduces the concepts of prima facie duties and the distinction between the right and the good.

 

·       Prima Facie Duties: Ross argues that we have several moral duties that are binding unless they conflict with a stronger duty. This allows for flexibility in moral decision-making.

·       The Right and the Good: According to Ross, the good is the ultimate aim of moral actions, while the right is determined by fulfilling duties. In situations where duties conflict, the morally right action is the one that produces the most overall good, while still adhering to one's prima facie duties.

·       Absolute Duties: Unlike Kant’s absolute duties, which are unyielding and must always be followed, Ross's approach allows for a more nuanced view where prima facie duties may take precedence depending on the context. However, Ross still acknowledges that certain fundamental duties, like keeping promises or not causing harm, can be seen as essential and should be prioritized when possible.

Key points of Immanuel Kant’s ‘Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals’

Kant explores the idea of a single, fundamental moral principle: the categorical imperative, which states, "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This means that when we make decisions, we should ask ourselves if the principle (or maxim) behind our action could be applied universally—if it could serve as a rule for everyone to follow without contradiction. The goal is to ensure that our actions are morally consistent and not based on selfish desires or outcomes.

·       Categorical Imperative: The central moral principle that requires people to act according to maxims that could be willed as universal laws. This is a strict duty that applies to everyone, regardless of personal desires or consequences.

·       Universal Law of Nature: Kant emphasizes that moral principles should be so consistent that they could function as universal laws of nature. If everyone acted according to a certain maxim and it led to contradictions or undesirable outcomes, then that action is not morally permissible.

·       Duties to Oneself and Others: Kant divides duties into perfect and imperfect duties, as well as duties to oneself and others. Perfect duties are those that must always be followed (e.g., not lying), while imperfect duties allow for flexibility but still require consistent moral effort (e.g., helping others when possible).

 

In the extract below he outlines four examples of applying the categorical imperative:

1.     Suicide from Despair: A man considers ending his life to escape suffering. According to the categorical imperative, this would contradict the natural purpose of self-love, which is to preserve life. Therefore, suicide cannot be justified as a universal law.

2.     Lying to Borrow Money: A person considers lying to get a loan they cannot repay. If everyone did this, promises would become meaningless, and borrowing would be impossible. Thus, lying to borrow money cannot be willed as a universal law.

3.     Neglecting Talents: A person avoids developing their talents in favor of pleasure. While society could function this way, it contradicts the rational will to use and improve one's capacities. Therefore, neglecting one's talents cannot be a universal law.

4.     Refusing to Help Others: A wealthy person refuses to help those in need. Though society could survive like this, it would contradict the rational will to seek help when needed. Hence, refusing to help others cannot be a universal law.

Classical utilitarianism

Classical utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that primarily focuses on maximizing happiness and minimising suffering for the greatest number of people. Developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries, this approach to morality posits that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its outcomes. Bentham famously introduced the principle of utility, which suggests that actions should be evaluated based on their ability to produce pleasure or happiness and to reduce pain. He proposed a "hedonic calculus" to quantify happiness and pain, allowing individuals to make decisions based on which actions would yield the highest net happiness.

Maximum Happiness and Minimum Suffering

Utilitarianism asserts that moral actions should aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This perspective implies that when faced with a moral dilemma, individuals should consider the consequences of their actions and how they affect the overall well-being of society. For instance, if a policy decision would lead to increased welfare for the majority but result in minor hardships for a few, a utilitarian would likely support the decision, as it promotes the overall happiness of the population. However, this focus on collective well-being can lead to criticism, particularly when individual rights are overlooked in pursuit of the majority's happiness.

Consequence vs Intent

Utilitarianism emphasizes that the morality of an action is judged by its consequences rather than the intentions behind it. This consequentialist approach suggests that even if an action is taken with good intentions, it can still be deemed immoral if it results in negative outcomes. For example, if a person donates money to a charity with the intention of helping others, but the charity mismanages funds and causes harm instead, a utilitarian would argue that the action was ultimately wrong due to its harmful consequences. This perspective raises important questions about accountability and moral responsibility, as it challenges individuals to focus more on the effects of their actions rather than their motivations.

Impartial and Egalitarian Principles

Classical utilitarianism is founded on the principles of impartiality and egalitarianism, which play a crucial role in determining the moral worth of actions. Impartiality means that every individual's happiness and suffering is considered equally significant, regardless of personal relationships or societal status. This principle challenges individuals to look beyond their own interests and those of their immediate circle when evaluating the consequences of their actions. Essentially, utilitarianism calls for a fair assessment of how an action affects everyone involved, promoting the idea that all individuals have an equal claim to happiness and well-being.

Egalitarianism complements this impartiality by emphasizing that no person's happiness is more valuable than another's. Utilitarian thinkers advocate for decisions that aim to maximize overall happiness without favoring one group over another. For example, when formulating public policies, a utilitarian approach would seek to enhance the welfare of the entire community rather than prioritize specific demographics. This focus on equal consideration of interests can foster social cohesion and fairness, but it may also lead to moral dilemmas, particularly when the happiness of the majority conflicts with the rights of a minority. Understanding these principles helps illuminate the strengths and challenges of utilitarian ethics in addressing complex moral issues.

Jeremy Bentham and Hedonic Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was an English philosopher and social reformer best known for founding the theory of utilitarianism, particularly hedonic utilitarianism, which emphasizes the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. Bentham’s approach to ethics revolves around the idea that the moral value of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically the amount of happiness or unhappiness it produces. He introduced the principle of utility, which states that actions should be judged based on their utility in promoting happiness for the greatest number of people.

Why Bentham’s Utilitarianism Appeals

Hedonic utilitarianism appeals to many because of its straightforwardness and practicality. It offers a clear metric for evaluating actions—namely, their effects on happiness. This approach resonates with human intuition; people naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. Bentham’s utilitarian framework supports democratic ideals by promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number, making it attractive in a societal context where collective well-being is valued. Its appeal also lies in its flexibility, allowing for varied applications across different ethical dilemmas and policy decisions. The simplicity of measuring happiness and suffering can lead to more democratic and equitable societal decisions.

Problems with Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Despite its appeal, hedonic utilitarianism faces significant criticisms. One major issue is the distinction between immediate and long-term pleasures. Actions that generate short-term happiness might lead to long-term suffering, complicating the moral evaluation of those actions. For example, indulgence in harmful substances may provide immediate pleasure but result in greater suffering later.

Additionally, Bentham proposed the "felicific calculus" as a way to calculate the net pleasure generated by an action. However, this method is criticized for its complexity and impracticality in real-life situations. Bentham famously illustrated his ideas in a poem that lists various factors to consider when evaluating pleasure, including intensity, duration, certainty, and propinquity. The challenge of accurately quantifying happiness and pain can make the application of utilitarianism problematic.

Another critical aspect of Bentham’s hedonic utilitarianism is the idea that the happiness of all entities is of equal worth. This egalitarian principle is echoed by contemporary philosopher Peter Singer, who argues against speciesism—the idea that humans are superior to other species. Singer advocates for the equal consideration of interests, suggesting that the suffering of animals should be weighed alongside human suffering in moral considerations. This principle challenges traditional views that prioritize human happiness, prompting discussions on ethical treatment and rights for non-human entities. By applying Bentham’s idea of equal worth to all sentient beings, utilitarianism expands its moral scope, addressing issues like animal rights and environmental ethics.

John Stuart Mill and Hedonistic Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a British philosopher and political economist who significantly advanced utilitarian  thought, which was originally developed by Jeremy Bentham. Mill's hedonistic utilitarianism builds on the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall happiness or pleasure. However, Mill introduces a qualitative distinction between types of pleasures, asserting that not all pleasures are equal and that some are inherently more valuable than others.

Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures

Mill famously distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures. Lower pleasures are those that satisfy basic human instincts, such as physical sensations and desires (e.g., eating, drinking). In contrast, higher pleasures are associated with intellectual and moral faculties, such as creativity, reasoning, and empathy. Mill argues that higher pleasures are more valuable and contribute more significantly to human flourishing than lower pleasures. He famously states that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" (Mill, 1863).

Mill’s distinction between Sensual and Intellectual Pleasures

In his distinction between sensual and intellectual pleasures, Mill emphasizes that while sensual pleasures can be enjoyable, they lack the depth and lasting satisfaction of intellectual pursuits. Mill believes that intellectual pleasures lead to more profound happiness, as they engage the mind and spirit, offering a greater sense of fulfillment and purpose. This perspective encourages individuals to seek out experiences that develop their intellectual capacities, thereby enhancing their overall quality of life.

Mill on the Problem of Equality

Mill's utilitarianism also grapples with the problem of equality. While he champions the principle of maximizing happiness for the greatest number, he acknowledges that different individuals may experience pleasure and pain differently. This raises questions about whose happiness counts in moral considerations and how to fairly distribute happiness across society. Mill's emphasis on higher pleasures suggests that the happiness of more educated or socially conscious individuals may be weighted more heavily than that of others, which can lead to ethical dilemmas regarding fairness and equality.

The Fallacy of Equivocation and the Naturalistic Fallacy

Mill addresses two significant philosophical issues in his work: the fallacy of equivocation and the naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when terms are used ambiguously, leading to confusion in moral arguments. Mill warns against conflating different types of pleasures or happiness, as this can mislead ethical reasoning. The naturalistic fallacy refers to the error of deriving moral conclusions from purely natural facts, such as equating what is natural with what is morally right. Mill argues that just because certain pleasures exist does not mean they are justifiable or desirable from an ethical standpoint. He insists that ethical considerations must transcend mere observations of human behaviour.