Posted by Andrew Crockett
Rotary’s Four-way Test -  Part 2

This week I continue the series on Rotary’s Four-way Test, the ethical principles that underpin it, and how practical it is as a decision-making tool.  

In Part 2 this week I summarise four mainstream ethical theories – consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and ethics of care. 

 

Four ethical theories

There are two broad approaches to the question of whether people should act ethically:

1.     The first is to focus on the consequences of not acting ethically.  For example, if people are known to lie, they will not be trusted and this will affect the willingness of others to associate with them socially or in business.  

2.     The second approach is based on the belief that we have a duty to act ethically.  So, for example, people should tell the truth because truthfulness is intrinsically right.

These approaches are most clearly seen in the two leading moral theories – consequentialism and Kantian ethics.

Two other mainstream moral theories – virtue ethics and the ethics of care - take a different approach to the question ‘How should I act?’ Virtue ethics emphasises the moral character of the person taking the action, and ethics of care emphasises the nurturing of human relationships.  

I’ll outline the four moral theories before beginning to look in Part 3 of this series at how the theories can help us apply the Four-way Test in ethically difficult situations.

 

Consequentialism

A consequentialist approach means ethical decisions are based on calculating ‘good’ in terms of consequences.  The best-known example of consequentialism is utilitarianism which has its origins in the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  

Utilitarianism holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest utility, that is, maximises benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, while minimising mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness.  The morally right course of action is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected.

Many of us use this type of reasoning in daily decision-making. If asked why we feel we have a moral duty to perform some action, we would often point to the good that will come from the action, or the harm it will prevent. Business analysts, legislators, and scientists weigh the potential benefits and harms of policies when deciding, for example, whether to invest resources in technology or new plant, whether to regulate certain activity or behaviour, or whether to approve a new drug.  Utilitarian theory plays an important role in daily decision-making because it requires us to consider the consequences of our actions, and in doing so look beyond self-interest and impartially consider the interests of everyone affected.

However, like all moral theories, utilitarianism has weaknesses.  Firstly, it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of benefits and harms. How, for example, do we assign values to life, freedom or art? Secondly, can we ever anticipate all the consequences of our actions?  

But perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is its failure to fully account for considerations of justice.   The focus on consequences or ends may overlook the ethical importance of the means by which those ends are achieved.  Furthermore, while justice is concerned with ensuring that each person receives their due, utilitarianism judges outcomes by totalling up utility levels, but is careless about how that utility is distributed.[1]  

If we want our ethical decisions to take full account of justice or fairness, then utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our actions. 

 

Kantian ethics

A different approach to the question ‘How should I act?’ was taken by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.  According to Kant, there are two unconditional requirements that we must satisfy whenever we decide to act.  He called these the ‘Categorical Imperative’.  

1.     Can I rationally will that everyone act in the same way as I propose to act?  If the answer is no, then I must not perform that act.  

2.     Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely use them for my own purposes?  Again, if the answer is no, then I must not perform that act.

The first question is similar to the Judeo-Christian ‘Golden Rule’ which requires us to ‘do to others as we would have them do to us’.

The second question involves respect for individual autonomy. Kant rejected the notion that the end justifies the means.  People must never be treated merely as a means to an end, but always as an end in themselves.

For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it a rule that everyone always lied to get what they wanted.  Of course, if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted.  You would thwart your own goal.  I would also be using the person I deceived as a means of achieving my own ends.

Kantian ethics has been influential in the debate about rights and justice because of the value it places on people as an end in themselves.  However, the absolute nature of Kantian principles is both a strength and a weakness.  Its weakness lies in its inflexibility when one is faced with conflicting principles.  An example is where you can only prevent the death of a person if you breach a duty of confidence owed to another person.

 

Virtue ethics[2]

Virtue ethics is arguably the oldest ethical theory in the world, with origins in Ancient Greece with the writings of Aristotle and others.  In contrast to Kantianism that emphasizes duties, or utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of actions, virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character of the actor.  It defines good actions as ones that display virtuous character, like courage, loyalty, or wisdom. Bad actions such as greed, cowardice, treachery and ignorance, display the opposite.

Aristotle explained that we acquire virtues and vices through repetition. If we routinely overindulge in eating, we develop the vice of gluttony. If we repeatedly go out of our way to help people in need, we develop the virtues of selflessness and charity.

Virtue ethics means treating our character as a lifelong project, one that has the capacity to change who we are. The American philosopher Will Durant summed up virtue ethics as: ‘We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit’. [3]

There are two ways we can use virtue ethics to resolve ethical dilemmas. 

1.     The first is called the ‘Golden Mean’. To work out the virtuous thing to do in a particular situation, decide what is intermediate or the mean between two extreme forms of behaviour, one of excess and the other of deficiency. The mean is the virtue, and the extremes are vices.  For example, imagine a friend is wearing an appalling outfit and asks you how they look. What are the extreme responses you could make? You could burst out laughing, or tell them they look wonderful.  These two extremes are vices – the first response is unkind, the second dishonest. The virtuous response is the mean between them, which might be to gently, but honestly, tell your friend you think they’d look nicer in another outfit.

2.     The second approach is to imagine what would we do if we were already a virtuous person. By imagining the kind of person we’d like to be, and how we would respond, we begin to close the gap between the person we want to be, and the person we are at the moment.  In this way, virtue ethics points to the importance of role models. If you want to learn ethical behaviour, observe an ethical person.

Like other moral theories, virtue ethics has weaknesses.  Some say it’s too vague in guiding actions: its principles aren’t specific enough to help us resolve difficult ethical issues. People also differ about what should be considered virtues and vices. Stoicism or sexual freedom can be a virtue to some, a vice to others.

Furthermore, our ability to cultivate the right virtues may be affected by factors beyond our control.  Differences in education, wealth, and family upbringing mean our capacity to act virtuously is a matter of chance, leaving little role for praise or blame.

 

Ethics of care

Ethics of care was developed by feminist thinkers in the second half of the 20th Century and is an offshoot of virtue ethics. It provides a feminist perspective on ethics and a critique of the male perspective that has dominated Western ethical tradition. 

Because utilitarianism and Kantian ethics each require the moral agent to be unemotional, moral decision-making is expected to be rational and logical, with a focus on universal, objective rules. In contrast, ethics of care defends some emotions, such as care or compassion, as moral. It challenges the idea that ethics should focus solely on utility or rights and duties, and argues that more feminine traits, such as caring and nurturing, should also be considered. 

Instead of asking the moral decision maker to be unbiased, the caring moral agent will consider that their duty may be greater to those they have particular bonds with, or those who are powerless or otherwise disadvantaged. It is concerned with responsiveness to others and ensuring the provision of care, prevention of harm, and maintenance of relationships.   

Ethics of care has been influential in areas such as education, counselling, nursing and medicine.

 

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/

[2] Source: https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-virtue-ethics/

[3] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers, Pocket Books, 1991, Ch. II, Part IV.