Moral Frameworks

Prepared by: Malik Fawad

Utilitarianism Vs Cost Benefit Analysis

 Utilitarianism is view that we ought always to produce the most good for
the most people, giving equal consideration to everyone affected. Utility
is sometimes referred to good consequences, & other times it is used to
refer to balance of good over bad consequences.
 The issue in this is that what good to be maximized, and should we
consider the good effects of individual actions or of general rules
(policies, law etc).
 Let us consider difference b/w utilitarianism & Cost Benefit Analysis.
Generally in CBA goods & bad are measured in $’s. it weighs total good
against total bad to determine the affect of it. It sounds like utilitarianism
but often its not.
 What we should see here is that whose good & bad are considered &
promoted and that how they have been measured.
 Typical contrast found b/w both is that utilitarianism costs & benefits of
everyone affected by policies or projects.
Types of Utilitarianism

 Act Utilitarianism: focuses on each situation & alternative action

possible in situation. A particular action is right if it is likely to produce
most good for most people.
 For some certain situations you might have developed standard actions
that produces most good & that may be act up on , but sometimes
situations may differ & adopting some other actions may produce the
most goods for the most affected people. In such case general
developed rules should be broken.
 Rule Utilitarianism: An alternative version which says we should take
rules, rather then isolated actions. Justified rules are morally
authoritative, rather then loose guidelines.
 According to this view right actions are those required by rules that
produce most good for the most people. As rules confine you to
developed standards, whereas in generally developed actions or
choosing from available actions may not be justifiable morally and in
law.
 New Approach

 We may develop a third term that we may consider all the

available actions in context of defined rules, thus the action
justifying rules and is producing the most good amongst the
justified actions can be adopted.
Rights Ethics & Duty Ethics

 Rights ethics regards human rights as fundamental. Both

theories are considered different but their similarities are
considered more differences.
 Both theories emphasize respect for individuals’ dignity & worth
in contrast with utilitarians’ emphasis on the general good.
 Rights basically provides the basis for duties. Ensuring rights of
one become duty of other.
Two Versions of Rights Ethics

 Liberty Rights: are rights to exercise one’s

liberty, & they place duties on other people
not to interferes with one’s freedom.
 Welfare Rights: are rights to benefits needed
for a decent human life, when one cannot
earn those benefits community may provide
him with it.
Duty Ethics
 Duty ethics says that right actions are those required by duties to
respect the liberty or autonomy of individuals.
 Some common duties are:
 Don’t cause pain

 Don’t kill

 Don’t disable

 Don’t deprive of freedom

 Don’t deprive of pleasure

 Don’t deceive

 Keep your promise

 Don’t cheat

 Obey the law

 Do your duty (referring to work, family & other responsibilities)

Prima Facie Duties

 Kant thought that everyday principles of duty such, such as “do not lie”
& “keep your promises” are absolute in sense of never having justifiable
exceptions. He gave three ideas:
 Universality- moral rules apply to all rational agents
 Categorical imperatives- moral rules command what is right because it is
right
 Absolutism- moral rules have no exceptions.
 Almost all theorists reject absolutism as situations exist where there are
exceptions.
 To emphasize that some duties may have justified exceptions David
Ross introduced Prima Facie Duties. In technical sense Prima Facie
simply means “might have justified exceptions”.
 this may be considered in case of conflicting duties where you may
have to go for most justified one.