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