What makes an action right?
Three great traditions give three different answers: the results it brings, the rules it follows, or the kind of person it expresses.
- Reading time
- 5 min
- Difficulty
- Introductory
- Branch
- Ethics
- First posed
- Aristotle, c. 340 BCE; Immanuel Kant, 1785; Jeremy Bentham, 1789, and John Stuart Mill, 1861
The question
A friend asks whether you like the painting they spent months on. You find it ugly. Do you tell the truth or a kind lie? Most people have a quick answer. Fewer can say why their answer is right, and when they try, they tend to reach for one of three kinds of reason.
Some reasons look forward, at results: the lie will spare their feelings and harm no one. Some look at the act itself and the rules that govern it: lying is wrong, whatever the results, because it treats the other person as someone to be managed rather than reasoned with. And some look at character: what would an honest, kind, wise person do here, and what will this choice make of you?
These three kinds of reason correspond to the three great traditions of normative ethics: Consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. Each has been developed over centuries, and each captures something the others seem to miss.
“Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), trans. T. K. Abbott
Why it matters
These theories are not just academic. Public policy is often consequentialist: cost-benefit analysis weighs outcomes. Human rights are deontological: certain things may not be done to a person, whatever the benefits. Professional ethics and education are often framed in terms of virtues: integrity, courage, care.
Knowing the three also helps you notice which kind of reason you are reaching for in a hard decision, and what the other kinds would say back.
Key terms
- Normative ethicsThe branch of ethics that asks what we ought to do and what makes actions right or wrong, through theories such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics.
- ConsequentialismThe family of moral theories holding that whether an act is right depends only on its consequences. Utilitarianism is the best-known member.
- UtilitarianismThe moral theory that the right action is the one that produces the greatest total wellbeing, counting everyone's equally.
- DeontologyThe family of moral theories holding that some acts are required or forbidden in themselves, whatever their consequences, because of duties, rights or constraints.
- Categorical imperativeKant's supreme principle of morality, a command that binds everyone regardless of their desires. In one form: act only on a rule you could will to be a universal law. In another: treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means.
- Virtue ethicsThe approach to ethics, rooted in Aristotle, that focuses on character and asks what a good person would do, rather than on rules or consequences.
- EudaimoniaGreek for flourishing or living well. For Aristotle, the highest human good: an active life of reason and virtue over a complete lifetime.
The positions
Consequentialism
The right act is the one that produces the best outcomes. For utilitarians, that means the greatest overall happiness or wellbeing.
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.
Virtue ethics
Ethics is about character. The right act is what a virtuous person, honest, brave, just, wise, would characteristically do in the circumstances.
Arguments and objections
Consequentialism
- 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.
Deontology
- 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.
Virtue ethics
- 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.
Who argued what
- Consequentialism Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer, Henry Sidgwick
- Deontology Immanuel Kant, W. D. Ross, Christine Korsgaard, John Rawls
- Virtue ethics Aristotle, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse
Where you stand
Which kind of reason matters most to you?
In surveys
Choose one to see how people answer.
Variations
The murderer at the door
A murderer knocks and asks where your friend is hiding. A consequentialist lies without hesitation. Kant, in a 1797 essay, argued that lying is wrong even here. A virtue ethicist asks what a wise, honest and loyal person would do, and most answer that loyalty and justice outweigh truthfulness in this case. The example has been used for two centuries to test the theories.
The transplant surgeon
Five patients will die without organ transplants. A healthy visitor is a perfect match for all of them. Should the surgeon kill one to save five? Nearly everyone says no. Consequentialists must explain why, and their answers (about trust, rules and long-term effects) reveal how far the theory can stretch. See the trolley problem.
Go deeper
Is there a fourth option?
Other approaches include contractualism, which says right acts are those justifiable to everyone affected (T. M. Scanlon); the ethics of care, which centres relationships and responsiveness to particular others (Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings); and moral particularism, which denies that any general principles hold (Jonathan Dancy). Derek Parfit argued late in his life that the best versions of Kantian, contractualist and consequentialist ethics converge, as climbing the same mountain on different sides.
Schools of thought: Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Virtue ethics, Stoicism
Related ideas
Further reading and sources
- EncyclopediaStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism
- WikipediaNormative ethics
- WikipediaUtilitarianism
- WikipediaDeontology
- WikipediaVirtue ethics
- SurveyPhilPapers Survey, 2020 · question: Normative ethics; about 1,785 professional philosophers; accept or lean toward
- BookUtilitarianism, John Stuart Mill
- BookGroundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant
- BookNicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
- BookJustice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, Michael Sandel
Open questions
- If an act produces only good results, can it still be wrong?
- Can rules ever capture everything that matters in a real moral situation?
- Which of the three do you reach for first when you are under pressure?