Seven Views of Ethics (Dr. Feddes)

PDF Article

Seven Views of Ethics

Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with morality, values, and principles that guide human behavior. Over the centuries, various ethical theories have been developed by philosophers to explain what makes actions right or wrong and what constitutes a good life. The most influential ethical theories in philosophy include:

1. Consequentialism: morality based on results
2. Deontology: morality based on duty
3. Virtue ethics: morality based on character
4. Natural law: morality based on human nature
5. Divine command: morality based on God’s will
6. Social contract: morality based on agreement
7. Relativism: morality based on cultural or personal views

This article provides a brief summary of each view, along with some perceived strengths and criticisms of each view that philosophers have highlighted.

1. Consequentialism: Morality Based on Results

Consequentialist ethics is a moral framework that evaluates the rightness or wrongness of actions based solely on their outcomes. In other words, an action is morally good if it leads to desirable consequences and morally bad if it results in undesirable consequences. This approach contrasts with deontological ethics, which focuses on adherence to moral duties or rules, and virtue ethics, which emphasizes character and moral virtues.

Core Principles of Consequentialism

At its heart, consequentialism is driven by the idea that the ultimate criterion for moral evaluation is the result of an action. This framework can take different forms, depending on what is considered the most valuable outcome. The two most prominent versions are utilitarianism and ethical egoism.

1. Utilitarianism – Perhaps the most well-known form of consequentialism, utilitarianism, is associated with thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It holds that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being. The best moral choice is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. Bentham formulated the "principle of utility," which measures an action’s moral worth by its ability to produce pleasure or prevent pain. Mill refined this by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to mere physical gratification.
2. Ethical Egoism – This variant of consequentialism asserts that the morally right action is the one that maximizes good consequences for the individual making the decision. Unlike utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, ethical egoism prioritizes self-interest. Thinkers like Ayn Rand have defended this approach, arguing that self-interest, when properly understood, leads to positive social outcomes. Pursuing what’s best for you is determines what is moral, but it turns out that everyone pursuing what’s best for themselves also happens to be good for society.

Perceived Strengths of Consequentialism

• Flexibility – Unlike rigid deontological rules, consequentialism allows for moral flexibility. If breaking a promise leads to a significantly better outcome, then the action can be justified.
• Outcome-Oriented – Many people naturally evaluate actions based on their consequences. This makes consequentialism practical in real-world decision-making, especially in fields like business, medicine, and law.
• Impartiality – In utilitarian forms of consequentialism, every individual’s well-being is considered equally. This prevents favoritism and promotes fairness in moral reasoning.

Criticisms of Consequentialism

• Difficulty in Predicting Consequences – One of the biggest challenges is that we often cannot accurately predict the long-term consequences of our actions. What seems beneficial in the short term may lead to harmful effects later.
• Demandingness – Utilitarianism, in particular, can be overly demanding, requiring individuals to always act in ways that maximize happiness. This might mean sacrificing personal interests for the greater good, which many find unrealistic.
• Justice and Rights Concerns – Consequentialism can justify morally troubling actions if they produce good outcomes. For instance, if punishing an innocent person would prevent widespread social unrest, a strict consequentialist might endorse it, even though this violates principles of justice and individual rights.

 

2. Deontology: Morality Based on Duty

Deontological ethics is a moral theory that evaluates the rightness or wrongness of actions based on adherence to moral principles, duties, or rules rather than their consequences. Unlike consequentialist theories, which judge morality by outcomes, deontology asserts that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the results they produce.

Core Principles of Deontology

At its heart, deontological ethics is guided by the belief that moral obligations are absolute and must be followed, regardless of circumstances. Several key principles define this framework:

1. Duty and Moral Law – Deontology is often called “duty-based” ethics because it emphasizes moral obligations. An action is right if it fulfills a duty, even if it leads to negative consequences. For example, telling the truth is considered a moral duty, even if it causes discomfort or harm.
2. Universal Moral Principles – Deontologists believe that morality is not subjective or situational but based on universal principles that apply to all rational beings. These principles do not change based on personal preferences, cultural differences, or expected outcomes.
3. Intrinsic Rightness – In deontological ethics, certain actions are inherently right or wrong. This contrasts with consequentialist approaches, which define morality based on the good or bad effects of an action. For example, lying is considered wrong in deontology, not because it might lead to harm, but because honesty is a moral obligation.

Kantian Deontology and the Categorical Imperative

The most influential form of deontological ethics comes from Immanuel Kant, who developed the categorical imperative as a method for determining moral duties. Kant argued that morality is rooted in rationality and that ethical principles must be logically consistent and applicable to all. The categorical imperative has several key formulations:

1. The Universalizability Principle – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Something is moral for you to do only if you would want everyone else to do the same. This means that one should only act in ways that could be applied universally without contradiction. If everyone lied, trust would collapse, making lying self-defeating and therefore immoral.
2. The Humanity Principle – “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, never merely as a means.” Do only what helps humans; never do what uses them for some other goal. This principle emphasizes respect for human dignity, forbidding actions that use people as tools to achieve a goal, such as manipulation or exploitation.

Perceived Strengths of Deontological Ethics

• Moral Clarity – Deontology provides clear and objective moral rules, making it easier to determine right from wrong.
• Respect for Human Rights – Because it emphasizes universal principles, deontology strongly supports justice, equality, and respect for individual rights.
• Consistency and Integrity – By adhering to moral duties, individuals act with integrity, avoiding ethical compromises for the sake of convenience.

Criticisms of Deontology

• Rigidity – The strict nature of deontological rules can lead to moral dilemmas. For example, if lying is always wrong, should one tell the truth even if it endangers someone’s life?
• Ignoring Consequences – Critics argue that morality should consider the real-world effects of actions. A purely rule-based approach may sometimes lead to harmful or impractical outcomes.
• Conflicting Duties – Deontology does not always provide clear solutions when moral duties clash, such as when honesty conflicts with the duty to protect others.

3. Virtue Ethics: Morality Based on Character

Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of good character traits rather than strict rules or consequences. Unlike deontological ethics, which focuses on duty and obligation, and consequentialism, which evaluates actions based on outcomes, virtue ethics centers on the moral character of individuals and the virtues they cultivate over time. This approach is most closely associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Core Principles of Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is guided by the belief that morality is not just about following rules or maximizing happiness but about becoming a good person through the development of virtues. The key principles include:

1. Moral Character Over Actions – In virtue ethics, morality is not determined by isolated actions but by the kind of person one strives to be. A virtuous person naturally makes good decisions because of their character.
2. The Role of Virtues – Virtues are stable character traits that guide moral behavior. Examples include courage, honesty, temperance, and wisdom. These traits are not innate but developed through practice, habit, and moral education.
3. The Doctrine of the Mean (middle way) – Aristotle proposed that virtues exist as a balance between extremes. For instance, courage is a virtue that lies between the vices of cowardice (too little fear) and recklessness (too much risk-taking). Virtue requires moderation rather than deficiency or excess.
4. Eudaimonia (Flourishing) – The ultimate goal of virtue ethics is eudaimonia, a Greek term often translated as "flourishing" or "living well." Virtue ethics argues that a good life is not just about pleasure or duty but about cultivating a character that leads to personal fulfillment, happiness, and the well-being of society.

Perceived Strengths of Virtue Ethics

• Holistic Approach – It emphasizes long-term character development rather than judging morality based on single actions. This allows for personal growth and moral improvement.
• Moral Flexibility – Unlike rigid rule-based ethics, virtue ethics adapts to context and circumstances, making it more practical in complex moral dilemmas.
• Encourages Moral Excellence – Instead of just avoiding wrongdoing, virtue ethics encourages individuals to strive toward moral greatness and self-improvement.
• Aligns with Human Nature – Because it focuses on habits, relationships, and community, virtue ethics aligns well with the way people naturally develop moral character through experience, reflection, and social interaction.

Criticisms of Virtue Ethics

• Lack of Clear Guidance – Unlike deontological ethics or consequentialism, virtue ethics does not provide explicit rules for moral decision-making. It can be unclear how to act in specific situations.
• Cultural Differences – The definition of virtues can vary across cultures. What one society sees as virtuous, another may not, leading to subjectivity in moral standards.
• Moral Conflict – When virtues seem to contradict each other (e.g., honesty vs. kindness), virtue ethics does not always offer a clear way to prioritize virtues.

4. Natural Law: Morality Based on Human Nature

Natural law ethics is a moral theory that asserts that moral principles are grounded in human nature and can be discovered through reason. This framework holds that there are objective moral truths inherent in the world, which guide human beings toward what is good and right. Natural law ethics is most closely associated with Thomas Aquinas, who developed it as a synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology. However, its roots can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman thought, particularly in the works of Aristotle and Cicero.

Core Principles of Natural Law Ethics

1. Moral Order in Nature – Natural law ethics holds that morality is built into the fabric of reality. The world is not morally neutral; rather, it has an inherent moral structure that human beings can discern.
2. Reason as the Guide to Morality – Humans, as rational beings, have the ability to discover moral truths by reflecting on human nature and purpose. Unlike ethical theories that rely on divine revelation or cultural norms, natural law argues that moral principles are accessible to all people through reason.
3. The Principle of Synderesis – Aquinas taught that all humans have an innate inclination to do good and avoid evil. This is known as synderesis, the natural human ability to recognize basic moral truths.
4. The Primary Precepts – According to natural law, humans are naturally inclined toward certain basic goods. Aquinas identified these as:

• Preservation of life – It is natural and moral to protect and sustain human life.
• Reproduction – The continuation of human life through procreation is a fundamental good.
• Education of offspring – Raising and educating children is a natural moral responsibility.
• Living in society – Humans are social beings and naturally seek community and justice.
• Worship of God – Recognizing a higher power is seen as a natural inclination of human beings.

Perceived Strengths of Natural Law Ethics

• Objective Moral Standards – It provides a universal moral framework that applies to all people, regardless of culture or religion.
• Rational and Accessible – Since it is based on reason, natural law ethics does not depend solely on divine revelation but can be understood by all rational beings.
• Promotes Human Flourishing – By aligning morality with human nature, natural law aims to enhance human well-being and social harmony.

Criticisms of Natural Law Ethics

• Is-Ought Problem – Critics, like David Hume, argue that just because something is "natural" does not mean it is morally right. For example, human aggression may be natural, but that does not justify violence.
• Cultural and Scientific Challenges – Some claim that natural law assumptions about human nature are too rigid and fail to account for cultural differences or new scientific understandings of human behavior.
• Religious Assumptions – While natural law ethics claims to be based on reason, its close connection to theism, particularly in Aquinas' formulation, makes some question whether it is truly independent of religious belief.

 

5. Divine Command: Morality Based on God's Will

Divine command ethics is a moral theory that asserts that moral rightness and wrongness are determined by God's commands. According to this view, actions are morally good if they align with God's will and morally wrong if they go against it. This approach is deeply rooted in theistic traditions, particularly in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, where moral laws are often seen as divinely revealed.

Core Principles of Divine Command Ethics

1. Morality is Based on God’s Will – Unlike ethical systems that rely on reason, human nature, or social contracts, divine command theory holds that moral principles originate from God. Right and wrong are not subjective human opinions but objective truths established by God's authority.
2. Moral Obligations are Commands – Moral duties are not abstract principles; they are directives from God. If God commands honesty, then honesty is morally required. If God forbids theft, then stealing is intrinsically wrong.
3. Moral Knowledge Comes from Revelation – Divine command ethics often relies on sacred texts, religious traditions, and divine revelation as sources of moral knowledge. For example, in Christianity, the Ten Commandments provide a clear set of divine moral laws.
4. God’s Nature and Moral Perfection – Many defenders of divine command theory argue that God does not arbitrarily make moral rules but that His commands reflect His perfectly good nature. Since God is perfectly just, loving, and wise, His moral commands lead to human flourishing and righteousness.

Perceived Strengths of Divine Command Ethics

• Objective Moral Standards – It provides an absolute foundation for morality, avoiding the relativism and subjectivity of human-devised ethical systems.
• Authority and Accountability – Since morality is grounded in God's will, people have a strong motivation to obey moral laws, knowing they are ultimately accountable to God.
• Moral Clarity – Divine command ethics offers clear moral guidelines, especially when religious texts provide direct commands. This can simplify moral decision-making.

Criticisms of Divine Command Ethics

• The Euthyphro Dilemma – This famous philosophical problem, presented by Plato, asks:
1. Is something good because God commands it? (If so, morality seems arbitrary, as God could command anything, even things we consider evil.)
2. Or does God command it because it is good? (If so, morality seems independent of God, making divine command unnecessary.)
• Interpretation Issues – Religious texts and traditions often differ on moral commands, leading to disagreements within and between religious communities.
• Moral Autonomy – Some argue that divine command ethics undermines human moral reasoning, suggesting that people should follow commands blindly rather than develop their own ethical understanding.

6. Social Contract: Morality Based on Agreement

Social contract ethics is a moral and political theory that argues that morality and societal rules are based on an implicit agreement among individuals to create a just and orderly society. Instead of deriving morality from divine command, natural law, or inherent virtues, social contract theory explains ethics as the result of mutual cooperation and consent. This approach is most closely associated with philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who each developed different versions of the theory.

Core Principles of Social Contract Ethics

1. The State of Nature – Social contract theorists imagine a pre-societal condition known as the state of nature, where there is no government, no laws, and no common authority. They use this thought experiment to explore what life would be like without social structures.

• Hobbes' View – Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as a brutal, lawless condition where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He argued that to escape this chaos, people must enter into a social contract, surrendering some freedoms in exchange for security under a sovereign authority.
• Locke's View – John Locke had a more optimistic view, arguing that in the state of nature, people have natural rights (life, liberty, and property) but agree to form governments to protect these rights.
• Rousseau's View – Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that people are naturally good but are corrupted by society. His version of the social contract emphasized collective freedom and direct democracy.

2. Mutual Agreement – The core idea of social contract ethics is that moral and legal rules arise from an agreement between individuals. People recognize that living in an organized society benefits everyone, so they voluntarily give up some freedoms in exchange for stability, protection, and cooperation.

3. Legitimacy of Authority – Governments and laws gain their legitimacy not from divine right or force, but from the consent of the governed. If a government fails to uphold justice, individuals have the right to dissolve or reform the social contract.

4. Justice and Fairness – Social contract theorists, especially later thinkers like John Rawls, emphasized that a fair society should be based on principles that rational individuals would agree to under fair conditions. Rawls introduced the "veil of ignorance" as a method for determining just laws: individuals should imagine choosing rules for society without knowing their own social status, ensuring fairness and impartiality.

Perceived strengths of Social Contract Ethics

• Foundation for Democracy – Social contract theory has played a major role in shaping modern democratic governments, emphasizing that rulers derive power from the consent of the governed.
• Focus on Justice and Rights – By emphasizing mutual agreement and fairness, social contract ethics supports the protection of individual rights and social justice.
• Practical and Rational – The theory is grounded in real-world considerations of how people interact and form societies, making it relevant to law, politics, and ethics.

Criticisms of Social Contract Ethics

• Historical Inaccuracy – Critics argue that the state of nature is a purely theoretical construct that does not reflect how societies actually developed.
• Exclusionary Nature – Traditional social contracts often excluded marginalized groups (e.g., women, enslaved people, and the poor), raising questions about whose consent matters in forming a just society.
• Obligation to Unchosen Rules – Some question whether people today truly consent to social contracts, since they are born into societies with pre-existing laws they did not personally agree to.

7. Relativism: Morality Based on Cultural and Personal Perspectives

Moral relativism is an ethical theory that holds that morality is not absolute but is relative to cultural, social, or personal perspectives. Unlike moral objectivism, which asserts that moral truths exist independently of human beliefs, moral relativism argues that what is considered morally right or wrong varies based on factors such as culture, history, or individual preference. This approach challenges the idea of universal moral laws and emphasizes the diversity of moral perspectives across societies.

Core Principles of Moral Relativism

1. No Universal Moral Truths – Moral relativists reject the idea that there are objective moral standards that apply to all people, at all times, and in all places. Instead, morality is shaped by cultural norms, historical context, and personal beliefs.
2. Cultural and Social Influence – Ethical beliefs are largely determined by cultural and societal influences. What is seen as morally acceptable in one culture may be condemned in another. For example, attitudes toward issues like marriage, gender roles, and punishment for crimes differ widely across cultures.
3. Moral Pluralism – Moral relativism acknowledges that different societies and individuals can hold conflicting moral beliefs, and both can be valid within their own contexts. This principle fosters tolerance and understanding of diverse moral viewpoints.
4. Subjectivity in Ethics – Some forms of moral relativism emphasize personal morality, arguing that each individual determines what is right or wrong based on personal beliefs and experiences. This is known as individual moral relativism or ethical subjectivism.

Types of Moral Relativism

There are two primary forms of moral relativism:

1. Cultural Relativism – This view holds that morality is defined by cultural norms. What is considered right or wrong depends on the traditions, values, and beliefs of a given society. Anthropologists and sociologists often use cultural relativism to understand moral differences without imposing external judgments.
2. Individual Moral Relativism (Subjectivism) – This position argues that morality is determined by each person’s beliefs and preferences. In this view, no one can say that another person’s moral views are objectively wrong, as morality is entirely personal.

Perceived Strengths of Moral Relativism

• Cultural Sensitivity – It promotes tolerance and respect for diverse moral traditions and prevents the imposition of one culture’s values on another.
• Flexibility – Unlike rigid moral systems, moral relativism adapts to social and historical change, allowing ethics to evolve over time.
• Avoids Moral Dogmatism – It prevents the belief that one set of moral rules is superior to all others, encouraging open-minded discussions about ethics.

Criticisms of Moral Relativism

• Moral Inconsistency – If all moral views are equally valid, then even clearly harmful practices (e.g., slavery, genocide) could be justified under cultural relativism.
• Lack of Moral Progress – If morality is entirely relative, then moral progress (e.g., ending segregation, expanding human rights) becomes difficult to define, since no moral standard is better than another.
• Subjectivity Leads to Chaos – If morality is purely individual, it becomes difficult to resolve ethical disputes, as no one has a stronger moral claim than another.

Conclusion: Christian Perspective on the Seven Views

These seven views developed by philosophers continue to influence the academic study of ethics, the way ordinary people think of morality, and the guiding principles for law, medicine, business, and other areas of life. Each view is more complex than the short, simple summaries presented here. In addition, these views are not always totally separate from each other. People and institutions often combine elements of more than one view in their moral framework.  

From a Christian perspective, some of these views are better than others, but none measures up fully to the morality revealed in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. At the same time, each view has true insights that belong in Christian ethics.

1. Consequentialism is wrong to suppose that morality is determined only by results and that any mere human can foresee all the results of a particular action. Even so, Christian morality should consider whether an action is helpful or harmful to others and to oneself. God can foresee and direct all results, so living by God’s Word and Spirit is the best way to produce the best consequences in the long run.

2. Deontology overemphasizes duty and is overconfident in the ability of human reason to discern what our duties are. Still, Christian morality upholds a healthy sense of duty in which some actions are objectively right and others are objectively wrong. God has imprinted some sense of his will on every human conscience, so that many cultures agree on major moral duties even without knowing Jesus and the Bible. In addition, the categorical imperative of doing only what you would want everyone to do echoes Jesus’ golden rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you.

3. Virtue ethics may be too self-centered in pursuing moral excellence for the sake of being the best person one can be. Reaching one’s fullest potential is not the highest goal of Christian morality; rather, glorifying God and edifying others come first. At the same time, virtue and character development are of great importance for Christian morality. We are not merely to obey orders and do good things; we are to grow into the character of Christ, bearing the fruit of the Spirit who lives within believers. To be a Christian is to be a new person in Christ with a new character. God cares not only about what we do but who we are.

4. Natural law depends too much on human reason to figure out what is essential to human nature and the nature of the world around us. Even so, Christians know that God designed humanity and structured his creation. Therefore, genuine morality recognizes that right and wrong are deeply embedded in the nature of things and contribute to order, not chaos. God’s Word and Spirit show the way to live in tune with the true nature of things as designed by the Creator of all things.

5. Divine command ethics can focus too much on do’s and don’ts, but it is certainly right that God’s commands must be obeyed. God’s will is not just a general notion but is revealed in specific commands of Scripture. These commands are not arbitrary (“It’s good just because God says so) or based on a higher standard than God himself (“God commands it because it’s good"). Instead, God’s commands flow from his own character. In giving commands, God is revealing something of himself and imparting to us something of himself. The commands are not a way to earn eternal life, but they do show God’s character, his expectations, and a roadmap for walking by the Spirit once we have been saved by God’s grace in Christ.

6. Social contract thinking is certainly mistaken when it reduces morality to mere agreement of people within a society on what to regard as right and wrong. But Christian morality must value mutual persuasion as better than coercion. Free consent is better than forced submission. God himself gives rights to each individual person and expects authorities to honor and protect those rights. To this extent, social contract insights can enhance Christian ethics.

7. Moral relativism is the worst view of ethics from a Christian perspective. It is the ethic of unbelief and moral chaos. Nevertheless, Christians can learn from a key emphasis in moral relativism: moral convictions are often shaped by culture and by personal wishes. All too often, Christians and churches have taught some things as divine commands when the Bible did not teach them at all. We must be vigilant against making something a universal moral requirement when in fact it is only a practice we grew up with in our culture or congregation, or something we ourselves happen to personally prefer.

In short, each philosophical view of ethics has shortcomings from a Christian perspective, but each view also provides insights that support and enhance Christian morality.

This article was produced by David Feddes, guiding and editing artificial intelligence. The conclusion is entirely written by David Feddes.