Official Syllabus Focus
- Morality
- Cultural relativism
- Morality and religion
- Psychological/ethical egoism
- Virtue ethics—Aristotle
- Moral absolutism—Kant
- Utilitarianism—J.S. Mill
- Social contract—Hobbes, Rawls
Introduction and Scope
What this topic covers: Ethics studies how we should act, what makes conduct right or wrong, and what kind of life or society is good.
What this topic covers: Relativism asks whether moral truth depends on culture. Egoism centers self-interest. Aristotle focuses on virtue and flourishing. Kant emphasizes duty and universal moral principle. Mill evaluates actions/rules through welfare or utility. Social contract theory explains political/moral rules through agreement or fair terms of cooperation, though Hobbes and Rawls develop very different versions.
From moral language to normative theory
Ethics asks what we ought to do, what kind of person we ought to be and what makes an action or institution right or wrong. Descriptive morality reports what people believe; normative ethics asks what is justified. Cultural variation therefore does not by itself prove that no moral judgment can be better supported than another.
The relationship between morality and religion raises questions about whether moral obligations depend on divine command, can be known by reason, or are grounded in human flourishing or consequences. Different philosophical and theological traditions give different answers.
Egoism and virtue ethics
Psychological egoism is a descriptive claim that people are ultimately motivated by self-interest; ethical egoism is the normative claim that they ought to pursue their own interest. The first can be challenged with evidence about motivation; the second requires moral argument.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics focuses on character and human flourishing. Virtues are stable dispositions developed through practice and practical wisdom; moral excellence is not simply mechanically choosing a mathematical midpoint between extremes.
Kant and moral duty
Kant grounds morality in rational principles that agents can will as universal law and in respect for persons as ends in themselves. The categorical imperative is not merely “follow rules”; it is a test of the maxim underlying an action and of whether the action respects rational agency.
Critics question whether Kantian ethics can handle conflicts of duty or give enough weight to consequences and relationships. Defenders argue that its strength is the protection it gives to dignity and principled limits on using persons merely as means.
Mill and utilitarianism
J. S. Mill defends a consequentialist view in which actions are evaluated by their tendency to promote happiness and reduce suffering. He distinguishes higher and lower pleasures and connects utilitarian reasoning with liberty and human development.
Critics argue that maximizing aggregate welfare can threaten individual rights or be difficult to calculate. Utilitarians respond in different ways, including through rules and institutions that protect stable expectations and long-term welfare.
Hobbes and Rawls: two social-contract projects
Hobbes uses a hypothetical state of nature to explain why rational individuals would authorize a sovereign capable of securing peace. The problem is order under conditions of insecurity. Rawls uses a very different hypothetical device—the original position behind a veil of ignorance—to model fair choice of principles for the basic structure of a democratic society.
Rawls’s justice as fairness emphasizes equal basic liberties and permits social and economic inequalities only under principles that include fair equality of opportunity and benefit to the least advantaged. The two thinkers therefore use contract reasoning for different philosophical purposes.
Key Comparison
| Approach | Central question | Strength | Common criticism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virtue ethics | What kind of person should I become? | Character and practical wisdom | May give less precise action rules |
| Kantian ethics | Can the maxim be universal and respect persons? | Strong protection of dignity and principle | Can seem rigid in conflicts |
| Utilitarianism | Which option produces best consequences for welfare? | Sensitive to outcomes | May threaten rights or be hard to calculate |
| Social contract | What principles would rational/fair contractors accept? | Connects obligation to justification | Depends on design of hypothetical agreement |
Core Concepts Explained
- Begin every ethical theory with its criterion of rightness. Ask: what makes an action right, what kind of person should one become, or what principles should structure social cooperation?
- Cultural relativism questions universal moral standards by emphasizing cultural variation. Egoism gives self-interest a central role. Aristotle focuses on character, virtue, habituation and flourishing rather than isolated acts.
- Kantian ethics emphasizes duty and principles that can be universalized while respecting persons as ends. Utilitarianism evaluates actions or rules through consequences for overall welfare.
- Hobbes uses social contract to explain political order as an escape from insecurity; Rawls uses a fairness-based hypothetical choice situation to derive principles of justice. Their contract theories should not be merged.
- Use one common dilemma and show how each theory reasons differently. Comparison reveals the theory better than separate definitions.
| Common confusion to avoid: Do not reduce utilitarianism to “whatever makes most people happy” or Kant to “always follow rules.” Explain the principle and the reasoning behind it. |
|---|
Preparation and Answer Use
- Prepare theory → rule of right action → human nature → strength → criticism.
- Use one common moral dilemma to compare theories.
Key Takeaways
Key takeaway: Virtue ethics asks what kind of person to become.
Key takeaway: Kant emphasizes duty and universalizability.
Key takeaway: Utilitarianism focuses on consequences for welfare.
Key takeaway: Rawls uses a fairness-based contractual device rather than Hobbes’s security-centered contract.