Debate: Consequences, duty or virtue?

Consequentialism

The right act is the one that produces the best outcomes. For utilitarians, that means the greatest overall happiness or wellbeing.

Best argument

It takes seriously what seems to matter most: whether people's lives go better or worse. It treats everyone's interests equally, with no special favour for the rich, the powerful or the near. Jeremy Bentham put it as a principle of 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', and John Stuart Mill refined it, distinguishing higher pleasures of the mind from lower ones. Many of its conclusions, such as concern for animals and distant strangers, once seemed radical and now seem obviously right.

Strongest objection

It seems to permit terrible acts when the numbers work out: framing an innocent person to stop a riot, or harvesting one patient's organs to save five. It also seems too demanding, requiring you to give away nearly everything while others suffer, and it ignores the moral significance of promises, rights and personal relationships.

The reply

Rule consequentialists answer that we should follow the rules whose general acceptance produces the best outcomes, and such rules would forbid framing and organ harvesting. Others bite the bullet and argue that our intuitions in such cases are unreliable.

Defended by

Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer, Henry Sidgwick

Deontology

Some acts are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of outcome. We have duties and others have rights that limit what we may do, even for good ends.

Best argument

Immanuel Kant argued that morality must be grounded in reason, not in contingent desires. His categorical imperative says to act only on principles you could will to be universal laws, and to treat humanity, in yourself and others, never merely as a means but always as an end. This explains why you may not kill one to save five: it uses a person as a tool. Deontology captures the deep conviction that persons have a dignity that cannot be traded.

Strongest objection

Rules seem to give terrible results when followed rigidly. Kant notoriously held that you may not lie even to a murderer asking where your friend is hiding. And when duties conflict, the theory gives little guidance about which wins.

The reply

Modern deontologists usually allow that some duties can be outweighed in catastrophic cases, and distinguish between doing harm and allowing it. Kant scholars also argue that his principles are more flexible than his worst examples suggest.

Defended by

Immanuel Kant, W. D. Ross, Christine Korsgaard, John Rawls

Virtue ethics

Ethics is about character. The right act is what a virtuous person, honest, brave, just, wise, would characteristically do in the circumstances.

Best argument

Aristotle asked not 'what should I do?' but 'how should I live?' The answer is a life of flourishing, achieved by developing virtues, stable dispositions to feel and act well, through practice. This captures moral life better than rule-following or calculation: real moral situations are too varied for any formula, and require practical wisdom to see what matters.

Strongest objection

It seems to give little concrete guidance. 'Do what a virtuous person would do' is unhelpful if you are not one and are trying to work out what they would do. And virtues may conflict, as honesty and kindness do in the painting case.

The reply

Virtue ethicists answer that the virtues do give guidance, through rules like 'do not lie' and 'help those in need', and that the lack of a mechanical decision procedure is a feature of ethics itself, not a flaw in the theory.

Defended by

Aristotle, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse

Where you stand

Which kind of reason matters most to you?

Choose one to see how people answer.

For the full background, variations and open questions, read the entry: What makes an action right?.