Ethical Theories Classification

Classification of Ethical Theories

• Instructor frames four primary ethical approaches discussed by Michael Sandel
  • Teleological (consequentialist)
  • Deontological (duty-based)
  • Hybrid / Distributive (Rawlsian social justice)
  • Virtue ethics (Aristotelian)
• Purpose of classification: decide whether morality should be judged by ends (results) or means (intentions), or some combination

Teleological / Consequentialist Ethics

• Core question: “How much good is produced in the end?”
• Assessment criteria
  • Amount of good achieved (utility)
  • Fairness and justice of the outcome
• Key implication
  • Morally permissible to use questionable means if final outcome maximises overall good
• Representative theory & thinker
  • Utilitarianism — John Stuart Mill
  • Also referenced in Michael Sandel’s lecture series
• Practical slogan: “Greatest good for the greatest number.”
• Intention vs outcome
  • Intentions largely irrelevant; consequences carry moral weight
  • Example (implied): Even with selfish motives, an act that benefits many is still ethical by pure utilitarian standards

Deontological / Duty-Based Ethics

• Focus: behaviours, intentions, universal principles
• Central idea: Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of consequences
• Keywords: duty, rights, intentions
• Philosophical anchors
  • Immanuel Kant — categorical imperative / universalism
  • Aristotle — early influence via virtue obligations
• Reputation-lens connection (referenced ethical-lens exercise): behaving virtuously upholds one’s moral standing
• Practical outcome: An action done with right intention is moral even if the result is poor

Hybrid Approach — Rawlsian Distributive (Social) Justice

• Combines concern for outcomes with duty to level the playing field
• Moral mandate: Society owes special consideration to the less capable or disadvantaged
• Uses fairness principles (e.g., “veil of ignorance”) to allocate benefits and burdens
• Bridges teleological concern for welfare with deontological commitment to rights

Virtue Ethics (Aristotle’s Unique Category)

• Sometimes grouped inside deontology yet treated as its own strand here
• Emphasis: cultivation of character and habitual virtue rather than isolated acts
• Moral evaluation: “What kind of person will I become?” rather than “What did I just do?”
• Sits alongside the other three but maintains independent focus on personal excellence

Comparative Highlights

• Teleological vs Deontological
  • Consequences paramount vs Intentions paramount
  • “Bad means, good end” acceptable vs “Good means, even if bad end” acceptable
• Rawlsian hybrid tries to secure good ends and fair procedures
• Virtue ethics centres morality in personal character rather than act or outcome

Connections to Course & Prior Lectures

• Builds directly on Michael Sandel’s exploration of Mill (utilitarianism)
• Ethical-lens exercise previously introduced reputation considerations aligning with virtue ethics
• Sets groundwork for upcoming deep-dives into each of the four frames

Practical, Ethical & Philosophical Implications

• Policy decisions often hinge on whether leaders favour consequence metrics (utility) or duty-based constraints (rights)
• Rawls’ framework influences modern debates on social programs, affirmative action, and healthcare
• Virtue perspective shapes leadership development and corporate culture focusing on integrity, courage, and temperance

Key Takeaways

• Students must master four frames: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Distributive/Social Justice, Virtue Ethics
• Always ask two diagnostic questions:
  1. “What happened?” (Outcome quality)
  2. “Why did it happen the way it did?” (Intentional quality)
• Distinguishing between these inquiries clarifies which ethical theory is being applied