2 T h i f Ethi

STEPHEN L DARWALL

Ethi i t i l diidd i t t t tthi d ti thi ith th l t t b i diidd f t h it ti th d " l i d t h i " th ith h i h d i thi l Thi l t t tb ill t h i it t lti t ti th lik t h t f lid t t h t i h t h i d i d i d d t l d l th lid to cases When it comes to normative ethics theories are often formulated and evaluated by reflecting on the ethically relevant features of cases Thus some phil h i t i tht i t th l l l f diti ti bt killi d ltti di ( ll t bt i il d ltti th h ) b flti ifi lik J d i t h T h ' f "tll b l " i hih di h bt ltti hi t i kill ti b f l dditi it t t k h it ld kill ll b (Th 1976) I t h i k i b t thi it to be relevant that by diverting the train the driver would be killing people or causing their deaths himself whereas if he let the train continue undiverted he would only be allowing deaths to occur By seeing this in a specific case it is d it dititi f lt h t i l l Ath t f " t i l thi" id th iti bt i ildi i difft i it t t h t th l f i t t til ti f ht t d F t l ht t t k i t ht hld d ( hld h d ) bt h t t thik fl b t ' h t b t hi h i d thi t f ti ti A d th th thil ti tht t i i l t i l ith even if they have practical implications: do all living species have intrinsic worth? Is aesthetic appreciation a more valuable form of human experience than the relief of a scratched itch? And so on

C
A btt t th fidi f fjd b t iht b th i "

Ethi
b h t thi" J t bf th th i " ildi l " ill 17

STEPHEN L DARWALL

ratio

morality

obligations

make

THEORIES OF ETHICS

td ttitd ht t h A l i l tt h thi b true only if something has other properties: the reasons for valuing it And such reasons cannot simply consist in the property that it is good since that is itself the property of there being such reasons Unlike say the property of yellowness which iht t t h t thi ll b i t l f it thil ti i b thi t lti b fth ti t h t thi d If I jd ti i t b lbl I t t h i k it h t tht k t d ft tht th d f it l O if I t h i k t h t ti ti i ll i d I t t h i k th ti h t i t i f th ti d th itti tht k it ll b l i t f t tht th d f it bli toriness And these thoughts commit me to the existence of background normative theories I am committed to thinking there are truths that relate an experience's having certain properties to its value such that any experience that had exactly th ( d th thill l t ) ti ld b lbl l th thi bi l O i i l l I ittd t thiki th it lid l i i l tht lt t i ' h i ti f t t it b i ll i d I thi b d th th i t i t i f ti thil t h i i avoidable if we are to think about ethical issues with any care Any udgment we make about an individual case will be no better than the background theories we commit ourselves to in making it Moreover there are special considerations tht it t ti t h i f dititil b t t h th d t k ti f l iht d Thi i b I t d bifl b th t f thi ll lit i dld l if th t t Wht i i ht i t l hld tbl f di ht t bl l h d t P t i f tbilit i thi t diti df t l i A ith j d ' l l fidi t h f l fl t tilt i ciples (or theories) that are capable both of justifying our judgments and of being publicly addressed to and accepted by other members of the moral community Someone we hold accountable for wrongdoing we think should be capable n f ti j d t f bi b h t t t h t it i bl j d t t h d Thi i difft f th thil t h f l f l didi f d hld h it t b l th th th Didi f di d ' t t t t t d i t th d t h l d hi tbl d b th i iti libtliiti l t th i t h h t tht didi i i ate only if its object should be able to accept it and see things the same way To the contrary disdain may only increase if its object can't "get i t " If however we judge someone to be incapable of assessing his own conduct morally this can l d t thik t h t h i t ft b j t f l lti i h i i b l f t i it tll tbl l it It i t h f bl t t b d f bi bl t f l t bli tifiti f j d t f l iht d tht i iil t i d ' l l fidi N t i l th i i thi t d l f bli l di

19

STEPHEN L DARWALL

Mtthi
i i t t i thi h t ill b ith th j ti thil t h i t t l i tili d t l d it th Bf d i i these however we need first to introduce briefly the other main area of ethical theory: metaethics Unlike normative theories which concern themselves with substantive normative questions such as "What is valuable?" and "What is mor ll b l i t ? " t t h i l t h i d ith b t t hil hil i tht d l i th W d i t i i h f d i f f t kid () ti i th h i l h fl i th i d t t f thil j d t (b) l t d i i th h i l h f id i ht tl tt thil j d t h t it i t h l d thil i () t h i l i i th ibilit d t f thil t t h d (d) epistemological questions concerning the possibility and nature of ethical know ledge and how we can justify our ethical views Why however should we care about metaethics? Some people think that case thi b d i d til f tthi Th t tht l i thil ltitl ll normative th b t h l d t h t thi i til i d d t f tthi I t h i k thi i i itk d t h t th h ti ti d bt t t h i l d ti t h h t i ditti bth f h th t t t i t h i l thik (lik A i t t l Kt) dd ll fh d d hld di t l dbt Consider for example issues that arise in environmental ethics concerning the moral claims that other living species make on us How much should we weigh harm to other species either to individuals or to the species themselves in our l d l i b t i ? It i i i b l t t h i k fll b t h ti itht i t t h i l i O th t fh T b bl t b h d thi t h d lf B t h t i it f thi t b d b d for b i ? O i b t th d fh bi ' d it i th tifti f di ( l t t i l th d i h ld h if f l l informed or would if fully informed have for herself as she actually is) (Railton 1986) This view is sometimes put forward not just as a normative claim but as a metaethical position concerning what personal welfare or benefit is But such a tthi f lf l t th ibilit t h t i lki di b bfitd h d R h l thi ill b d b d for bi l it t b d b d to it ( it i h t t h h d i ) I bli thi t t h i l th t b th itk lt f li f t h h t t h t t k it f td tht ' di ht h i ti f h i t i l O tht th t f lf bfit h h i i l d tt f th ti of an agent deliberating about what to do but is one we require rather when we care for some being or thing for its sake (ourselves included) we can appreciate why h dbfit t t i t d t bi ith d i ( D l l 1997 2002) T h f b f th i j t i t di f their O

20

THEORIES OF ETHICS

sake that they do well or flourish We can sensibly regard a species as capable of being benefited or harmed therefore if we can care for them for their sake But again what sort of claim does harm make when we understand it n this way? Do we have a moral obligation not to harm members of any species? Or is the fact that an action would harm another person relevant to its being wrong in a way that harm to other species is not? Here again we cannot answer this question without taking a stand on meta-ethical issues concerning what morality and moral obligation are if only implicitly If we understand moral questions broadly enough then it may seem that harm is harm and is no less morally relevant whether the being harmed is a person or a snail darter If however we think of morality as a system of reciprocity or mutual accountability where norms of right and wrong mediate a moral community of free and equal moral persons then harm to other persons will seem to have an intrinsic moral relevance that harm to other species does not For then what is morally wrong will be what one can be held accountable by others for doing in accordance with norms that must in some sense be acceptable to all from a perspective of equality So viewed harm to persons is not simply harm to members of a certain species but harm to a member of the moral community to whom norms of right and wrong must be justifiable This is only one example of how questions of meta-ethics are implicitly involved in issues of normative ethical theory and therefore in case ethics Ultimately we have no alternative but to pursue philosophical ethics, that is to attempt to work out a comprehensive outlook that integrates normative ethics and meta-ethics (Darwall 1998)

Contractarianism/Contractualism
We can turn now to a review of different normative theories and begin with one that can be grounded in the meta-ethical theory of morality as reciprocity or mutual accountability just mentioned This is the idea that whether an action is right or wrong depends on whether it accords with or violates principles that would be the object of an agreement contract or choice made under certain conditions by members of the moral community The general idea can be developed in a variety of ways depending on how the choice or agreement the parties who make it and the conditions under which it is made are characterized One broad distinction is between contractarianism, under which the choice of moral principles is self-interested and contractualism, which grounds it in a moral ideal of reciprocity reasonableness or fairness It may seem strange to think that moral principles can in any respect be agreed upon or chosen How can a moral proposition be made true by any choice or agreement? Only rarely however do contractarians or contractualists claim hat right and wrong are determined by actual choices or agreements (Harman 1975) More frequently what they hold is that moral principles are those that would be rationally or reasonably chosen or agreed to under certain (frequently counterfactual) conditions

21

STEPHEN L. DARWALL

C t t i i Contractarianism was initially formulated by Thomas Hobbes (see Hobbes 1994) Hobbes begins by considering the situation of an agent deliberating independently f th f th ti f hi di i t t E h h thik ht h d i d ii hi t k it B t ht lt if ll f t t h ti d i d i t t ? Althh h ' di tll lt i hi i t t bi b t td i th d t f th it d ' t f l l tht ' i hi ti i t t th th ' i th i ti principle other than selfinterest will actually result in everyone's (or even any one's) interests or desires being best promoted In situations where this is not the case where the collective pursuit of selfinterest leads to an outcome that is worse f h h ht i k llti ti bl Thi i i l l t t d b th t h t i l k th P i ' Di l i hih t idiidl jild ii f bb Th d i t i t tt tll h tht h l k h id t i t ith hi hi t f bb bt il it h fb k i d t i ii each a sentence of one year He offers each a deal: if one confesses and his partner doesn't the confessor will go free and the partner will get twenty years If both confess both get five years S tht h l b t di th l t ti Th t t f th itti th i fll If A f bt B d t th A t hi fit kd t d B hi f t h k d ( t ) A d i if B f bt A d t f t h k d f A fitkd f B If b t h f bth t thi t h i d k d t A d if b t h d ' t f bth t thi d k d Wht h l d h d? R fit f A' ti B ill t i d d t l f A d ith f t It t h f tht A h l d f i whatever B does A will do better if he confesses If B confesses then A will get his third as opposed to his fourthbest outcome by confessing And if B doesn't confess then A will get his first as opposed to his secondbest outcome by confessing So A hld f A ill d b t t b f i ht Bd B t B' i t t i i tl l t A' f A t f l ll t B S if A ld d b t t f th ld B It b idt h thi i lld llti ti bl A' d B' ti l t h h liklit t hi th b t t f h h tk idiidll tk t t h ild t tht i f h If b t h i d ht would be best for him given the actions of the other both will confess But that yields each one's thirdranked outcome whereas they could have both achieved their secondranked outcomes by not confessing Although the ailhouse context k thi d t t f i i t l l th ti t t f A d B If A d B ld t t thi t l d t th ld b t h t f d d ith t h i d k d t th th th t h i d k d t tht i d d t l ti t h i i t t ill hi P l t h th f th it f t h i i d d t i t t d fll l l th llti flli f hih t '

22

THEORIES OF ETHICS

i t t b t t th ld h b d b i thi it ests independently. Obviously cooperation is required for many many things that are valuable in life perhaps especially in complex modern societies n which we cannot assume that genuinely common interests shaped by common cultural or lii tditi ill t t h ll f i i f t i t t i Morality b t h h t f ill b d d i f f ti Pi il f l iht d ld th b ht l ifi i t ii d ft i th b d t ibl f f ti l ti i l i t j t thi tht it litil it b t ll t t h t (Atll Hbb' i tht ation among large groups was impossible without political authority since other wise uncertainty of others' participation would undermine the assurance necessary for it to make sense for one to do one's part) A d i t t t i i th hth ti i iht i d t i d b l f ti f th b d t t tht i bt ll h l t Tk f l th l t h t it i tt t th id f th i d l th ifi i l d i tt t( l it i t b l l a d/ th ti f if t di t b l l (3) Arguably there exist some a and p such that it would promote everyone's interests more for everyone to follow the resulting rule than it would for everyone to pursue their own interests independently If that is so then for starters contrac t i i ill h l d t h t it ld b t t fll thi l T fit i t i t t i i hld tht h t it i i h t t d d d ht l it ld b i ' i t t f t t d b idd b i thi d l i b t i d l ti H ht f i different ibl l f i kid f i t t i h th t tht ' i t t ld b t d btt b ' flli tht l th th ld b if t t t d t t thi i t t i d d t l ? H is where the idea of an agreement or contract enters the contractarian picture Taking as a benchmark the "no agreement" point in which all regard themselves as bound by nothing but their own interests and values contractarians treat the ti f hih i i l tll ll b d b th lti t t i l b i i bl f thi b h k i hih ll h t i t t i i t tll d t i i l t h b idi th " t" it bt h diffi i t t i tl hih i i l tll d (Gthi 1986) H f b l th ltt i i l t t th titi t ill d d h h th t t l if th i difft agreement Consider for example what principle of mutual aid would be agreed to If those with fewer resources and greater vulnerabilities have more to lose from the lack of agreement than those with greater resources and fewer vulnerabilities then t i l b i i l d t l i i l f t l id th ld lt if l b l th ith l Thi th i t t i i ' b i f k f i li T k t l bliti i ifi th b l i t i f ih d ti i d i lbl i h t thik b t ht t i i l f dli ith th i ld lt f titi f

23

STEPHEN L DARWALL

th " t" it i hih h t t t t t d it it ests and values In acting on the principles that would be agreed however the parties are not simply promoting their interests; they are cooperating Cooperation promotes everyone's advantage but as in the Prisoner's Dilemma it does so by ii idiidl t f ti thi i t t E h ld f h i h i h th if b i t b th bt h t i d t d it t i d b i i l f ti tht ld t i l l t Contractualism Contractualism has a similar structure It too understands principles of right con duct as the object of a rational agreement But whereas contractarianism takes l i i l t lt f t i l b i i t t l i th t i i l db lidl f l t tht ld b i i t t ith b i i f d t l t f iti F t t l i ' it f i th bl ith t t i i i t h t it t tht i d i i d l h i fft l l i t th th ld h f th d l f ti O t h i th l tht lt b b gaining from that position will have no moral force But why assume that people have such a moral claim? From a moral point of view this seems entirely arbitrary unless some background theory of natural rights is assumed And contractarianism 't j t i f that ti i it l f ld h l d t d d it Thi bl f th d i t i if id h idiidl iht tf l f i t t d til i t t t i l i If h t i t f h i d d t i t t th f itti i h i h th tblihd l f ti h ill t h i k it rational to bargain to an agreement with others to be bound by certain rules But how can this give her a reason actually to follow the rules? The reasons of nterest she has for agreeing to follow the rules can't give her a reason actually to follow th i th hl it df t i f l f ti i t h t th constrain h it f h i t t F h t b bl t th l i h t l d t l f ti It b tht it i i h i t t t b h d t t t i l f ti bt hil thi ld i h t want t t th l l for these reasons. h l d ' t accept th The animating idea of contractualism is implicit in Kant's "kingdom of ends" formulation of his Categorical Imperative Kant maintains that anyone subject to the moral law must be able to be regarded also as "making the law" (Kant 1998) O l th th l l b t h h t f l f it f f l t bjt l t l th l i l t t h l Thi i i f R ' id f l i t i t litil it iti i hih 1987) h "hil iti ith ll thl b l h i l f " (R A d i t R thi i l ibl if l ht h ll th " l ill" th ill f h as f d l b Siill K t i f

24

THEORIES OF ETHICS

ll " d " b h l t h h ld " l i l t " it as f and equal member of the "kingdom of ends" Here we have the central difference with contractarianism Moral principles of right are not rules that individuals would prescribe and attempt to gain acceptance for from their different individual perspec ti b i i t f l f i t t Th th l idiidl ld ib ( d t) f ti f d l th Bt h i f i l l i thi ti t b d t d ? K t i hit i tht i " t t i i f t i l bi d bjti l " l if " b t t f th l diff bt rational beings and also from all the content of their private ends" (Kant 1998) This suggests the contemporary contractualist John Rawls's idea that principles of justice are those it would be rational to choose in an "original position" behind a " i l fi " di f t tht i d i i d t d i f f t thi i t i ( R l 1971 1 3 6 4 2 ) I til th h i ti i t f thi i d i i d l biliti t l t d i i iti and t h i i t t idiidl l R l t h t th ti h i t t i t l h i d i thi i t t ( h t th turn out to be) and therefore that they value the "primary goods" that are neces sary for these: freedom opportunities wealth and the "social bases" of selfrespect Rawls's idea then is that justice is determined by whichever principles the parties ld h f b h i d th il f i t h t i as f d l th R l d t h t thi h i i l f i t t d ithi th t i t l d b th il b t thi d t d l i t l f i t t i T thi th ti titd tb lf i t t bt b f i l th i d i i d l Si th il f i d i th f i f t i tht ld l t th til i i l t any til ' i t t th i f t i l diff bt i th parties to be selfinterested and assuming them to be trustees for another individual The original position is in effect the perspective of a that is an arbitrary free and equal individual R l t h t th t i l hi i th i i l iti ld b t fj t i kd i d f iit fit tht i th it f i i l ti b i iil d litil iht d f d d d th "diff i i l " hih fi lit f tit d tht ii i d h lth d i t i b t d b th b i i t i t t i f it tht k t th t t d t f th h l t d t d I fft this says that inequalities are justifiable only to the extent that they work as a social resource (for example by providing incentives) from which everyone benefits n cluding the least advantaged If we take seriously the possibility that we could be dh f titi bbiliti f di i til iti th t i l thi ld b t t t i t th t ibiliti b h i th t i i l ildi th diff i i l R l t th id f d th fjti "jti f i " h l l d it M tl h h t d t h t it i t b d t d litil th th l l th (Rl 1993) I hi li k

25

STEPHEN L DARWALL

h h t d t h t it i h t l b i d l th "iht as fairness" (Rawls 1971: 111) To do this we would have to ask: what principles of individual conduct (or of the conduct of groups nation states and so on) would it be rational to choose to govern everyone's conduct (as well as moral criticism and ti f tbilit i it) f th i i l iti Thi ld th i f k ithi hih t id hih i i l ht t l t if iht h d d i i A d t t l i t h b t i t d b thiki b t h t it t k li l Wh li thi i thi h t t t t i th b d h d equal It is as if she says "This is a reasonable claim for you to grant to me as you can see were you to put yourself in my shoes and consider that it would be reason able for you to make it of m e " Such a claim implicitly invokes the idea of principles f d t tht i l l ii l t t l t t bl j t I d l i h t t l i t h T M S l it h b i h t b bl t j t i f t h i d t t h th b i i l t h t th ld t bl j t i f th l h thi i ( S l 1998 1 4 7 2 5 7 ) P i i l f l iht d th b thought of as norms that structure a mutually accountable community of equals To apply this criterion we must make judgments about what is reasonable How can we make these? There seems no alternative to putting ourselves into others' h d i hth ld d ti li bjti i t d i i l ld bl k if i t h i i t t i Thi i l j d t It i t i l th diti tht ld k th li bjti W iht thik ld b t t h t it ld b bl T k th iit j d t it t t t t t t i t th th' ti i t i l l t hth ld d th li bjti bl t k t th i l l ii l Suppose for example we are trying to determine what principles should govern reduction in nations' use of fossil fuels to combat global warming Contractualism will hold that developed and developing countries alike should govern their conduct b i i l tht f th ld bl j t If d t d d i ft j t d b d l i ti f i t it i th t d h t h thi ld b bl b j t i t k i thi h Ad i f t d d tht iht tll b j t d b d l d ti

Consequentialism
t t lit t til E if th th b d Wh k t b bd j d t h i l 26 Wh i i ll d t tili jd f i t i ithi ti f i i t bt l b i ith it h l d t b prior t lit l iht d thi ld till b d d th i d ffi db t l i th l t ki l lti if f lit N i t h th i th t h k d ti l d t t l i b i f

THEORIES OF ETHICS

h i l d h t i Rth di t h t it is a bad thing that the suffering happened that such suffering is a bad state of affairs a bad thing to happen The idea is not just that suffering is bad for the sufferer but that it is a bad thing to occur period As these values and disvalues are independent f lit th l l d non-moral C t i l i t lt h i t t ith non-moral value theory: ti th f hih t t f th ld (thi tht h ) h i t i i l hih h d i l d t fh th l ith ith dil ki ith dil ti Wht k th l l i i t h t th t lti f l h t bt f outcomes or states ways the world might be Of course such states might nclude agency and character But even here the evaluation of the state (as something that happens) can be distinguished from the evaluation of the act or character trait that i t i t t f t h t t t Th iht i t t l t h i k it ld h b d if Hitl h d b i t d tht tht ld h b d thi t h h d b f th li it ld h d if h iti ld h h b ll A ill tilit iht d tht h killi ld b b t th i t i t h t th would be no incoherence in holding it to be wrong and at the same time thinking that the state of the world of Hitler's being assassinated would on balance have been a good thing to have occurred C t i l i t lt h i ll t h t th l iht d f t d t i d b th l d f relevant consequences Th h t kid fi hih tilit t h i diid Fit d t b i l th di b bi b d difft t h i f l l A t i l i t ith h d i t l th di t hih l i th l i t i i d ill di f l ith h hld tht i i h h i t i l l t l t b d thi in themselves Second consequentialist theories can also disagree by holding hat consequences of different sorts are relevant to determining moral right and wrong Act-consequentialism holds that whether a given act is right depends on the value of th f that act d ith th l f th f th t th t ld d i th i t A d i t ruleconsequentialism th th h d th i h t f t d d th t f th t b t f th il t f l ii fbiddi itti th t d ith th f ti th ibl l f tht kid f If ti l ii t f tht kid ld have the best consequences then the act is morally required And consequentialism can take other forms too All forms of consequentialism however understand moral evaluation to be an t f instrumental extrinsic l t th t f d t l l l All b d t h i f th i t i i l l f t d ll th l tt f t d h t b d t i i hih t il l tit f h t th b t i t t f ti th t lbl tt F t t i l i ll i h t t i th t' b t ilbl i t t f d i l l Ad l t i l i d th i h t f t

27

STEPHEN L DARWALL

b th dit f ill libl l tht i thi tiiti i il practices of moral reasoning and criticism the best instruments of that kind for producing nonmoral value In principle virtually any theory of outcome value can be harnessed to a conse tilit l th Hitill h tili h b d d tf t l b h i l h h h t h h t tht lbl t t h i l th li f i bi W iht ll benefit consequentialism th i tht lbl tt ll th d lf f bi th d tht l t t ltitl b b d thi It i ibl t b l i h tht thi b f t h bi b affecting something other than the quality of its experience or conscious mental states For example perfectionists sometimes assert that a being's approximating an ideal for its kind is intrinsically beneficial to it This is what leads to the conclusion fAittl' f " f t i " t tht h d flihi it i llt dititil h t i i t ( A i t t l 1998) B dl h b f t tilit h t d d t hld tht l b f t d h d til b ht itil til fft thi t l li tht i t f tili h l d ith hedonistic desire-based f The most popular form historically has been utilitarianism which is distinguished by three features First utilitarians are benefit consequentialists who because they hold either hedonistic or desirebased conceptions of benefit maintain either hedon iti d i b d tili S d tiliti h l d t h t th l l f t i d t i d b i th b f t d t t ll f f t d ti A d thid tiliti bli t h t th l iht f ti th

I
II

f h t

tit

d d

ht

ld

th

tt

l d t i d b h Th l i l hedonistic t i l i t i f lti i Bth f l hld tht h i i i d tt d tht l b b f t d l b th i t i i liti f thi i i that is by the degree of pleasure that they experience compared to their pain or suffering (Bentham 1970) A different kind of utilitarianism based as much per haps on a freestanding value of autonomy as on a conception of happiness holds tht idiidl' lf i d t i d b hi di d f Si l h f f thi th th th i t i i liti f thi i tt thi desire-satisfaction f f tilitii h th difft i l i t i f h d i t i F l iht t l di th i l f ti ild Adi tifti f f tilitii ld i h thi f t i f f i th if i it d tib tion to the quality of any being's experience (say because the individual in question did not know anything about the area's survival) Although consequentialists have usually been utilitarians or benefit consequen tilit f t th i thi i th l i f tili tht t i t it t th i P h i l h h f t l d tht h thi k ld d t d i fidhi l b t d titi d th l t l ti it d ti h i t i i l tht t b d d t th b f t th bi t h ( th t i t ) lif Aft ll f d t tifti t h l t i l th appreciation f th l th l t

28

THEORIES OF ETHICS

STEPHEN L DARWALL

Th id t h t th l bliti tht t l t i i thi hallmark of moral theories According to deontologists agency and action are not simply instruments for producing valuable states Rather actions are based on reasons and principles and some important moral principles crucially i l th t' lti t i ( th b i ) i th t h f f t It i l t h h t t b ki f t f ti f l t h t it ill i l (tht i )h i th b t i f i d b k i i dili fd d S tilit t h i l t h h t ll ith th t f l R l t i l i ill if d l if it d the greatest overall value (assessed agentneutrally) for there to exist social prac tices of moral criticism and psychological patterns of moral reasoning that are themselves guided by agentrelative rules according to which it is a wrongmaking ft f ti t h t it i l ' (th t') h i th b t i f i d d M it i i d l d t i l i t t h t thi i C t i l i t ll t h t th t ffti t d th t t ll l i W t b idd b t t i l i i thi d l i b t i d l itii th lt ld b h f many different reasons Shared rules are necessary to coordinate complex cooper ation establish reliable expectations diminish selfserving rationalizing and special pleading when the longrun effects of particular actions are unclear and so on In th d h l t i l i t ill t h t th f d t l f ti h t l t i l d i i l i t h t thi i i t tll fl i ti tt h l i t t l

Dtl
Deontological theories depart from consequentialism on this fundamental point They hold that what is morally right and wrong is not determined at any level of l i b ht ld t th b t t tt d t t l l Th b k t i l f th ibilit f l lti f tt tht bth t t l d ll l t D t l di ith t t i l i i hldi tht d i d bd t i t th l thi t h t t d t k t iht D t l l di ith l t i l i i hldi t h t th h thi i t tht b l i i it t b itlf d th b t t D t l i t hld that at least some fundamental moral principles or ideas are agentrelative "all the way d o w n " Contractualism is one example of a deontological theory since it holds that moral i i l d d i th f d t l t l t i id f lii ith th t f t l t A thi h t i l i i i Th i t t i i hl fll D t l d tili dfi th tll l i d h t i f ti t h i f l iht d G l l t t l i d t t i i d t l i l t h i f l i d i thi h Vit t h i i d

30

THEORIES OF ETHICS

b S d d t moral t h i t ll b t l t i cases as replacements when put forward as part of a critique of morality (see "Virtue Theory" below) Some are deontological theories And some are consequen tialist in at least some important respects Thus Francis Hutcheson (see below) d d it th di t hih i l b l th h i h t it d d f ttilitii th d t h t thi th t ith th d l i b t i i i l d i thi h i h t i t Bt d t l i l t h i d i i l ft d f d d ditl itht t t t i t d th i th id t h t i h l d t b h b i Hitill th i fd t l h b l l d intuitionist i f intuitionism. What characterizes intuitionism in general is the view that there is an irreducible plurality of different right or wrongmaking features whose moral relevance cannot be derived from some more fundamental principle or reasoning but can only be fid b l flti " i t i t i " Thi iht b d ditl h f l it bi flti t h t th f t t h t ti ld t t b t l b k i t t i t it ll O it i thiki b t l i ifi f i t h flt th " t l l b l " it i d t tht i h d allowing it to happen are morally different Another example defended by some deontologists is the "doctrine of double effect" according to which there is a moral difference between causing harm or evil i t d d idfft f i t d d ti li di t d i th h il d i t l ith d t d Th l t h h it i t i b l thi h i t iili di d i ti f l h b b i ilit t t ll b f lti it ld t b t t t kill th b f iili ditl if d i ld d th lbl d f it i i i O i f thi i h i h thi i i l h l d i t t l i th controversial issue of abortion Since abortion aims directly at the death of the fetus it is sometimes argued that it is morally worse than another action would be which caused the fetus's death only as an unintended sideeffect While it might be permis ibl t f dil d tht i t t ' lif t th i k f killi th f t it i d tht b t i ft t th ' lif i ll th l b it i i i i b l t t i l killi D t l i l ititiit h d f d d id it fi d d t i i l d t i f iht ki ft f d t I dditi t the doctrine of double effect and the distinction between "doing and allowing" there have been claimed to be: duties of beneficence or mutual aid duties of non maleficence ("do no harm" along with the idea that these are weightier other thi bi l th dti fb f i ) dti f titd f b l h dti f titti f di j i d dti f fidlit l t i t i d t t dti f l l t i h i (ildi th f f i d t hild fil b d tk ll) f i l dti dti i t d t ( h t l d ) dti f i i t d fi l fth dti fj t i d t i t th i l (t th t t t h t th h

31

STEPHEN L DARWALL

tb i l d d l d ) dti t l d i th Of it itionists do not agree about every doctrine or principle not even about all we have mentioned But they are none the less agreed that some such list of independent principles or doctrines is correct and that the principles on the list cannot be derived f f d t l i i l th h t t l i tili Bth i t i t i i t d t t l i t d t l i t h l d t h t th i h t i R l ' h " i t th d" ( R l 1971 3 0 3 ) Th b l i tht t t t t di th i h t f t t l t l i b d t fil i th ti f h t it i i h t t d i tht f t f l ithi the world defined by a complex set of relations to others who make widely varying claims on us owing to these different relations What states of affairs would be good to exist considered as from some agentneutral observer's standpoint may f there h l b th idti tht l t t ht l t h l d d Bt dti d d l ithi th t t b iht t l t ifll th i d lti t d i d tht ti bi t t d i t th t d tit t t t t th h i t i f th ith h i t t d Many of these relations were listed in passing above but we should have them before us more explicitly We cannot begin to exhaust them but it will be helpful to give some idea of their range (1) Dti f bf d lf Lik tilit d t l i t bli tht h ti f f t th d f th (th t l t d h th b i h h lf d) l h l t ht hld d ll B t th l i i t j t t h t th lbl d i l b l t t t It l tt ht t d t lti h t th f f t d ti ( d ht l ti ti bi t h ) H i th i ( ij d t the other) other things being equal than forbearing to benefit It is not ust the causing of a disvaluable state; it is doing harm to some being Doing harm is worse also than failing to prevent it And directly intending harm is worse than causing it i t d d idfft (2) Dti f il Vi i l lti f tki i i t il bliti fb f i Th t h bliti t t th lf f thi hild tht h t th th d t i fb f h t th i l Ad i i l l f t t d th lti f ilid h d t t h d h ibl f t h i tients' or students' medical or educational welfare (3) Duties of honesty and fidelity Obligations not to lie or intentionally mislead to keep promises not to violate contracts and more generally not to encourage tti i t d t t t ll fit d th l t f k i fith d t ilti t t V i l l t i h i lik th f f i d l d b l d d thi bi ll (4) Dti dii f t' d t i t ' hiti f dt Wh d ij th i d t i t th t k l d flt d ff titti ( t f l t ) Wh th bfit i dti f titd t d th

32

THEORIES OF ETHICS

{patient-benevolence) A ' t d t ll f it sponse especially from those who have special responsibilities to respond appropri ately to merit and desert such as judges of various kinds (patient desert) (5) Duties of reciprocity and fair play There is a duty to do one's part in mutually d t ti ill h l t i l t ti bfit C t t i / t t l i t thi d t f d t l F titi i t it i i l i d d t l i t t dt th fth dti fjti d i f litil (6) Further duties of justice V i lti f l f tht f l itihi H h dti t t j t litil d tht tblih d t t b i iht d hi distributive justice Where actual political relations are lacking as in the nter national context justice may require that we do our part to help establish ustice more widely through more extensive political forms i dti d d l lti I (7) Duties to other species H dditi t d t i fb f d lfi i i l bli ti t b f ti i i t hit fi t t i ith th E if th i l t b fll t i ti h i d t i t th i t th i hih h i l d th i lives and ourselves in theirs Pets are an obvious example but no less significant may be cases where species are themselves shaped and cultivated for human pur poses in ways that give them special needs and vulnerabilities Thi l i t i i hdl h t i It h l d b b i t thi it h t h t th d i i f i t l ill i i t b l i l t j t i l i i l iht ki idti bt l bi ti f i i l idti Si ititiiti d t l j t th id tht hi i i l id f i it i t f h i h th i i l idti iht b i t t d iitid h d i t i t i i t bli t h t th b i f l flti i t d thinking about concrete cases? W D Ross distinguished between the claim that a given duty or right or wrong making consideration holds prima facie that is other things being equal and he iti tht i t l i t thi th i l dt ll thi i d d h t it sans phrase (R 1963) (Si " i f i " t thi i t l i l h i l h d ikl t th t "pro tanto" [" f it "] Th t l id i t h t iht ki idti i tht k t iht other things being equal h tht t h t th l ll l t ft th th ti would be right or wrong all things considered or "sans phrase") It was claims of the former sort that Ross held to be selfevident to intuition To render a moral judgment in any actual case however it is necessary to reflect on all of the morally l t f t d h th i t t T tk fili kid f h id t d thi f ltil d i t l t fid lf l d i iti t i th id i t h t hih h h di H bth i d d ti t h iht b t i ihti d id It ld b t t d l i f i it b t th lf f th i ti ii i t i d l bliti t

33

STEPHEN L DARWALL

t th i i B t thi i t th l i hih l considerations can interact Sometimes one consideration can wholly defeat an other When for example a benefit one is in a position to provide is tainted by injustice this may cancel the positive reason to provide the benefit and not ust t i h it Ultitl i t i t i i t it th i i l btitt t fll idi thil i ll f t h i lit A l i " f t i " it i riht ki f t i f i dti i i t t t f th Bt h b th i t t i tht i t i t i i t bli df l f l t i d b t t th t t grips with these complex interactions in a way that leads to a reflective sense of what moral verdict they will ultimately support

Vit

Th

C t t r i i / t t l i tili dd t l ll l t h i M i thi i d i t l d ith til questions we have been considering these theories as accounts of morally right conduct An approach called virtue ethics frequently associated with Aristotle is orthogonal to these theories in both respects First virtue is concerned primarily ith h t th th d t ith h h l d be th th ht h l d d Ad d it thi i f t l d d t l th bt t f th thill d t fh lif t h t it i ti d ttil i l t d h l t f lit d it dititi f Th ti f lit t f i l d fill thritti l b h i h ll l t t r i l l obligated i far from the only form that ethical reflection can take (Anscombe 1958; Maclntyre 1981; Williams 1985; Slote 1992) The modern idea of morality derives from a distinctive historical tradition the JudeoChristianIslamic idea of divinely ordained l t h i h it i l S h i l h h d t h t thi ti f lit i i l dfti i ri d tht thil flti ld fitbl tk th f S l h h d thi th l k d t A r i t t l ' Nicomachean Ethics f ii thil ti F A i t t l th f d t l ti i t f Mill H b b K t " W h t i th f d t l i i l f l riht d t dh iht thi b d f d d h i l h i l l ? " A r i t t l k th " W h t i th l f human life?" "What kind of life is best for human beings?" Aristotle's is a distinctive kind (a paradigm perhaps) of non-moral virtue ethics "nonmoral" again because although Aristotle's translators frequently use "moral i t " t i l t h t h i tlki b t ll f h t tht d ith h i Aittl d t l t th it t ti f l l d h i h ll tbl l Vit f Aittl di iti t h ht i fi bl (kalori) f it k dt id h t i b Th ti ti i ht N i t h lld " k d i " ideal ith t t hih b btt t l tht 34

THEORIES OF ETHICS

li ith ilt F A i t t l th ti thil ti h esteem pride and disdain or contempt not guilt respect selfrespect and moral indignation Virtues are excellences {arete) traits that is that make something an excellent i t f it k i d It i it i kif f l t h t it h h d t h t it t ll I l k hih t i t ll ( l l t ki) i lti t thi' f t i (ergon) h t i t i tiit A A i t t l bli t h t th h t i t i tiit d i t i t i fh bi i ti ( i ) tht dititil h f f hi (f ti l d i t h l bl fi (kl)) h ld t h t th it tit f character that is settled dispositions to choose certain actions and avoid others as intrinsically noble or base We might put his point by saying that human excel lences are states of character concerned with choices that are themselves guided by idl fh ll I l l it thi i h ( l ) h idl A l t h h it b tid i Aittl' t t l l i l f t i i t i f h t di t h i h th i thi tht h bi i h t l f to b it d t b b d A l it thi b put forward simply as a normative view about which traits in human beings are worthy of esteem (or disdain) Analogously a moral virtue ethics is a theory of what is worthy of distinctively moral esteem that is traits that are worthy of esteem in a moral agent E l f h i b f d i Libi d th i h t t h t Sttih h i l h F i Hth Th H t h d t h t th b i l h i t f b l th d i t b f i t th d k th h M l t h hld i t iril f t bt f ti tit f h t l th d i t d d t f h bi d th t i t bi Th i i h i h th f it thi iht b ti of case or practical ethics First nonmoral virtue ethics reminds us that questions of right and wrong are far from the only or perhaps even the most important ethical questions we can ask in specific cases Thus it might be that failing to provide i i f i t l id t li ld h d ffri l t h h t i l ll th l ift i f l d lftifti O if th i t i t thi t h t b d jtl t t d l t t i till ift i i t t t i t d t d th i t l l t i t tht t dd ith l i i fll tifi h if S d ti f th i t i i d d t h ht action it is appropriate to take in specific cases In considering what to do it may be helpful to ask what a virtuous person or someone with a specific virtue (say generos ity) would do in that case This may simply be a useful heuristic but it may also flt th A i t t l i i t h t th i ff l t i thil iht t tht b d d ll lid b h l k th id " " f th i t A L i A t i td t h "If h t k 'll k " id b t j Thid i t thiit tf d ti f it t i l id t it ( ll i h t ) ti bt t f ht k ti

35

STEPHEN L DARWALL

it ll i h t Th it b hld tht ti i th iht or appropriate thing to do in some case or circumstance just in case it is what the virtuous person would (characteristically) do in that circumstance (Hursthouse 1999) Such a view might depart from the letter of Aristotle's position since he idtifd it ttld d i i t i t h ifi ti f thi k ( b l ) Thi ld t k hih t i t it d d hih ti bl t i N t h l i it ld h l d t h t t th it f ti i ibl t h h th id d t f it h i ld i it l t Aittl' i f d t l iit W h t i t it thi i th id t h t id t sial questions of case ethics can be gained only by looking to the virtues or the virtuous person as a model Writers on case ethics therefore look to virtue ethics less frequently than they do t th thil t h i ill h th d ith i f l iht d If j d t f l bliti iliitl diti hldi th tbl f li it ill b bl t d d tht tifi ti f th j d t b f l t d i t t h t th b j t t th d t i i i l t It i thi d d tht h l d t th k i d f normative moral theories that have been advanced by contractarian/contractual ists consequentialists and deontologists In each case the goal has been to articu late actionguiding principles of right conduct that can be grasped and applied itht il it th th th j d t f ll t t l t

Rf A b G E M (1958) M d l h i l h Philosophy 33 1 1 9 Aristotle (1998) Nicomachean Ethics trans W D Ross New York: Oxford University Press Bth J (1970) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation d J H B dH L A H t L d Athl Dancy Jonathan (1993) Moral Reasons Oxford: Blackwell Social Philosophy and Policy 14 D l l Sth (1997) S l f i t t d lf Cbid U i i t P 15878 Al i Ell F P l ( d ) Self-interest C b i d CO W t i P (1998) Philosophical Ethics B l d (2002) Welfare and Rational Care Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press G t h i D i d (1986) Morals by Agreement O f d C l d P H Gilbrt (1975) M l ltii d f d d The Philosophical Review 84 3 2 2 I d i l i E S T Hktt H b b Th (1994) Leviathan d E M C l Hursthouse Rosalind (1999) On Virtue Ethics Oxford: Oxford University Press K t I l (1998) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals d d t M G N Y k Cbrid U i i t P McDowell John (1979) Virtue and reason The Monist 62: 3 3 1 5 0 IN U i i t fNt D M l t A l d i (1981) After Virtue N t D BbbMrill Mill J h S t t (1957) Utilitarianism d Ok P i t I d i l i The Philosophical Review 95 163207 Rilt P t (1986) M l li Rawls John (1971) A Theory of Justice Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University

36

THEORIES OF ETHICS

(1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press Ross W D (1963) The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press Rousseau Jean-Jacques (1987) The Social Contract. In The Basic Political Writings, trans Donald A Cress Indianapolis IN: Hackett Scanlon T M (1998) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Slote Michael (1992) From Morality to Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press Thomson Judith (1976) Killing letting die and the trolley problem The Monist, 59: 204-17 Williams Bernard (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press

Further reading
Darwall Stephen (ed) (forthcoming) Contractarianism/Contractualism. Oxford: Blackwell (forthcoming) Deontology. Oxford: Blackwell (ed) (forthcoming) Virtue (Ethics). Oxford: Blackwell

37