phi202

Good vs bad
right vs wrong
virtue vs vice

We can consider different sort of ethical/moral theory that focus on different areas of these three

Teleological/consequentialist views:

Moral evaluation is to be understood most fundamentally in terms of good vs bad situations. (good vs bad) primary moral concept for teleological theories)

Rightness/wrongness of actions
virtuousness/viciousness of people this is to be defined in terms of the goodness and badness of situations.

The right thing to do is to perform the action that will lead to the greatest amount of good, out of the option you have.

The virtuous person is the one who tends to perform the right actions.


Deontological views:

They take right/wrong as the fundamental moral notion
They argue that an act is right/wrong is determined not by its consequences
but by whether it is performed in adherence to certain rules.

A virtuous person is one that tends to act rightly, just as in the teleological views, but right action is not defined in terms of consequences.

E.g: Kant

Virtue ethics theories:

They may agree that virtue is a matter of being disposed to perform right actions but disagree that rightness of actions is always determined by actions or rules.

This is not to say that every moral rule has exceptions, but that even all the correct moral rules (something you can learn beforehand) taken together won't always tell you what the right/virtuous action to perform would be, in a given situation.

Knowing the right thing to do is itself a skill or virtue, knownness 'practical wisdom' or 'prudence' <- traditional translation of Aristotle's term 'sophrysome'.

Natural Law Ethics

Aquinas etc. This approach includes elements of the others.

The fundamental concept is 'right reason'.

These four sorts of theory focus on what's called normative ethics. They provide general principles that they claim we should conform to in our behaviour. They tell us what to do, at a certain general level. But all these theories also have a metaethical aspect. They all agree on this aspect, theory all agree that there is a fact of the matter as to what we should do and equivalently that moral claims typically have a truth value. Each is either true or false.

Some theorists disagree with this meta-ethical view.

Prescriptivists, for example, leave a view according to which (P) is neither true nor false. Why? They say "X is wrong" is equivalent in meaning to "Hey, everyone, don't do X". Just as "Close the door!" is neither true nor false.

The debate between prescriptivists and our previous friends is not over what you should do, but over what the claim "you should do X" means.