Oxford University Press is a departmentof the University of Oxford. Itfurthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
For titles covered by Section 112 of the USHigher Education Opportunity Act, please visitwww oup com/us/he for the latestinformation aboutpricing and alternate formats
Allrights reserved. No partof this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, withoutthe prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sentto the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, atthe address above
You mustnotcirculate this work in any other form and you mustimpose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Timmons, Mark, 1951- editor
Title:Disputed moralissues :a reader /[edited by] Mark Timmons, University of Arizona
Description:Fifth Edition. | New York City :Oxford University Press, 2019.
Identifiers:LCCN 2019012000 | ISBN 9780190930523 | ebook ISBN 9780190930547
Classification:LCC BJ1012 .D57 2019 | DDC 170—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019012000
Printing number:9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by LSC Communications, Inc United States of America
CONTENTS
Quick Guide to Moral Theories inside frontand back covers Preface
User’s Guide
A MORAL THEORY PRIMER
What IsaMoral Theory?
Eight Essential Moral Theories
Consequentialism
NaturalLaw Theory
Kantian MoralTheory
Rights-Based MoralTheory
Ethics of Prima Facie Duty
SocialContractTheory Virtue Ethics Care Ethics
CopingwithManyMoral Theories
MORAL THEORY SELECTIONS
MARK TIMMONS/ Why I Am Not a Moral Relativist (and Neither Are You)
J S MILL/ Utilitarianism
ST THOMASAQUINAS/ Treatise on Law
IMMANUELKANT/ The Moral Law
JOHN LOCKE/ Natural Rights
W. D. ROSS/ What Makes Right Actions Right?
JOHN RAWLS/ A Theory of Justice
ARISTOTLE/ Virtue and Character
STEPHANIECOLLINS/ Care Ethics: The Four Key Claims
AdditionalResources
SEX
IMMANUELKANT/ Of Duties to the Body in Regard to the Sexual Impulse
LINA PAPADAKI / Sexual Objectification
JOHN CORVINO / What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?
JOAN MCGREGOR / What Is the Harm of Rape?
ROBIN WEST/ The Harms of Consensual Sex
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
FREEDOMOF SPEECH
J. S. MILL/ On Liberty
LOUISERICHARDSON-SELF/ Woman-Hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate Speech
ANDREWALTMAN / Speech Codes and Expressive Harm
GREG LUKIANOFFAND JONATHAN HAIDT/ The Coddling of the American Mind
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
DRUGSAND ADDICTION
MICHAELHUEMER / America’s Unjust Drug War
PETER DEMARNEFFE/ Decriminalize, Don’t Legalize
DANIELSHAPIRO / Addiction and Drug Policy
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
SEXISMAND RACISM
ANNEE. CUDD AND LESLIEE. JONES/ Sexism
J. L. A. GARCIA / The Heart of Racism
TOMMIESHELBY / Is Racism in the “Heart”?
ELIZABETH ANDERSON / The Future of Racial Integration
DANIELKELLY AND ERICA ROEDDER / Racial Cognition and the Ethics of Implicit Bias
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
THE ETHICSOF IMMIGRATION
STEPHEN MACEDO / The Moral Dilemma of U S Immigration Policy: Open Borders versus Social Justice?
JOSEPH H CARENS/ Migration and Morality: A Liberal Egalitarian Perspective
CHRISTOPHER HEATH WELLMAN / Immigration and Freedom of Association
SARAH FINE/ Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
EUTHANASIAAND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE
JAMESRACHELS/ Active and Passive Euthanasia
PHILIPPA FOOT/ Killing and Letting Die
DANIELCALLAHAN / A Case Against Euthanasia
MICHAELB GILL/ A Moral Defense of Oregon’s Physician-Assisted Suicide Law
DAVID VELLEMAN / Against the Right to Die
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
ABORTION
PATRICK LEEAND ROBERTP GEORGE/ The Wrong of Abortion
ROSALIND HURSTHOUSE/ Virtue Theory and Abortion
DON MARQUIS/ Why Abortion Is Immoral
JUDITH JARVISTHOMSON / A Defense of Abortion
MARGARETOLIVIA LITTLE/ The Moral Complexities of Abortion
Cases for Analysis
10. 11. 12. 13.
AdditionalResources
CLONINGAND GENETIC ENHANCEMENT
LEON R KASS/ Preventing Brave New World
GREGORY E. PENCE/ Will Cloning Harm People?
MICHAELJ. SANDEL/ The Case Against Perfection
FRANCESM. KAMM/ Is There a Problem with Enhancement?
PETER SINGER / Parental Choice and Human Improvement
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
THE DEATH PENALTY
STEPHEN NATHANSON / An Eye for an Eye?
ERNESTVAN DEN HAAG / A Defense of the Death Penalty
JEFFREY H REIMAN / Civilization, Safety, and Deterrence
THADDEUSMETZ/ African Values and Capital Punishment
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
WAR, TERRORISM, and Torture
THOMASNAGEL/ War and Massacre
MICHAELWALZER / Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses
ANDREWVALLS/ Can Terrorism Be Justified?
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ/ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?
MARCIA BARON / The Ticking Bomb Hypothetical
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
ECONOMIC JUSTICE
GARRETTHARDIN / Lifeboat Ethics
PETER SINGER / The Life You Can Save
JOHN ARTHUR / World Hunger and Moral Obligation
THOMASPOGGE/ World Poverty and Human Rights
ELIZABETH ASHFORD / Severe Poverty as an Unjust Emergency
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
14.
THE ETHICAL TREATMENTOF ANIMALS
PETER SINGER / All Animals Are Equal
CARLCOHEN / Do Animals Have Rights?
PETER CARRUTHERS/ Against the Moral Standing of Animals
ALASTAIR NORCROSS/ Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
15.
THE ENVIRONMENT, CONSUMPTION,AND CLIMATE CHANGE
WILLIAMF BAXTER / People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution
ALDO LEOPOLD / The Land Ethic
THOMASE. HILLJR. / Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving the Natural Environment
STEPHEN M. GARDINER / A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, and the Problem of Moral Corruption
WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG / It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations
MARION HOURDEQUIN / Climate, Collective Action, and Individual Ethical Obligations
Cases for Analysis
AdditionalResources
Appendix
Glossary
PREFACE
The guiding aim of this anthology is to connect various disputed moral issues with moral theory in order to help students better understand the nature of these disputes.The issues featuredinthis bookinclude questions about the morality of various forms of sexual behavior; freedom of speech and censorship; drugs and addiction; sexism and racism; immigration; euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; the ethical treatment of animals; abortion; cloning and genetic enhancement; the death penalty; war, terrorism, and torture; economic justice; and ethical questions that relatetoconsumption,climatechange,andtheenvironment ingeneral.
The connection between moral disputes over such issues and moral theory is that opposing moral viewpoints on some topics are very often grounded in one or another moral theory. Thus, to understand an author’s arguments for her or his favored position, one must be able to recognize the author’s deepest moral assumptions, which are reflected in the moral theoryfrom whichthe author proceeds inreasoningabout particular moral issues.
Ineditingthisanthology,I haveattemptedtohelpreadersconnect moral issueswiththeoryinthefollowingways:
A moral theory primer.One waytoconnect issues andtheoryis tohave students read compact summaries of the various moral theories summaries that convey just enough detail about a moral theory to aid understanding without overwhelming the reader. This is what I have
tried to do in the first chapter, “A Moral Theory Primer,” in which I first explain what a moral theory is all about—its main concepts and guiding aims—and then proceed to present eight types of moral theory that are essential for understanding moral disputes over the sorts of issues featured in this book. In the brief introduction and “User’s Guide” immediately following this preface, I explain how one might integratethemoral theoryprimer intoamoral problemscourse.
Addressing moral relativism. For this edition I have included an essay of my own that critically discusses moral relativism. In teaching ethics courses at a college or university level, I often encounter students who express skepticism about the philosophical study of disputed moral issues becausetheythinkit’s “all relativetoone’s culture”or “howone feels.” My hope is that this relatively short discussion of moral relativism, which leads off chapter 2, will convince students that the sort of “anything goes” moral relativism is just false (or at least highly dubious).
Chapter introductions. In addition to the primer, I have also written introductions to each chapter that go over certain conceptual, historical, and theoretical issues that students must have in beginning their study of moral issues. These introductions include remarks about how the moral theories presented in the primer relate to the arguments of theauthorswhosewritingsarefeaturedinthechapter.
Selection summaries. Again, in order to aid one’s understanding of the articles, each selection is preceded by a short summary of the article.
Immediately after the summary I have, where relevant, included a cue to readers that indicates the relevant part of the moral theory primer that will aidinunderstandingthearticleinquestion.
Reading and discussion questions. Following each selection, I have included a set of reading and discussion questions. The reading questions are meant to prompt students’ understanding of each selection’s content, whereas the discussion questions are meant to help
stimulate critical thought about the issues and arguments in the selections.
Each chapter includes case studies, mostly based on actual events. These are meant to stimulate further discussion of the moral issues featuredinthechapter.
Quick guide to moral theories. I have also included a “Quick Guide to Moral Theories,” which lists the various principles featured in each of the eight theories featured in the primer. This is for readers who need a brief reminder of the key elements of one or more of the featured moral theories.
In addition, this anthology includes the following features that many will finduseful:
Glossary. For ease of reference, I have included a glossary of important terms that are defined in the moral theory primer and in the chapter introductions. Each term in the glossary appears in boldface type when it is first introduced in the text. The glossary entry for each term specifies the chapter and section in which the term is first introduced.
Additional resources. Finally, at the end of each chapter, I have included a short list of resources, broken down into Web resources, authoredbooksandarticles,andeditedcollections.Theseresourcesare recommendedtothosewhowishtoexploreatopicinmoredetail.
As mentioned earlier, the following “User’s Guide” makes a few suggestionsabout integratingthestudyof moral theoryandmoral issues.
New to the Fifth Edition
Here is a summary of the changes I’ve made in this edition—seventeen new essays in all that reflect suggestions I received for improving on the fourthedition.
Each chapter now features two case studies, taken from recent events inthenews,together withquestionsthat prompt readerstoconsider the cases in light of the chapter’s readings. These cases were researched and prepared by Robert Wallace. (Robert also updated the online material for thisedition.)
I’veaddedanessayof myowntothesecondchapter,“WhyI Am Not a Moral Relativist (and Neither Are You).” The title speaks for itself and I hope it adequately addresses the perceived need to have something that explains what moral relativism is, what it isn’t, and why I suspect most all studentsdonot accept moral relativism.
Also new to chapter 2, “Moral Theory Selections,” is an essay by Stephanie Collins that explains the keyideas featuredincare ethics.To go along with Collins’s essay, I’ve added a section on care ethics to chapter 1,“Moral TheoryPrimer.”
I’ve almost completely redone the chapter on sex (formerly “Sexual Morality”). The new sections include an excerpt from Kant’s Lectures on Ethics in which he defends a conservative sexual ethic. This is followed by Lina Papadaki’s “Sexual Objectification.” Her essay employs the Kantian idea that it is wrong to treat others merely as means to one’s own ends in developing a conception of sexual objectification. Joan McGregor’s article “What Is the Harm of Rape?” alsoappeals toKantianideas inaddressingthe questionher title raises. Finally, I’ve included Robin West’s well-known article on the harms of consensual sex.
I’ve replaced the chapter “Pornography, Hate Speech, and Censorship” with a chapter just on free speech. Here again, all of the selections except the one by Andrew Altman are new to this edition. The chapter begins with a selection from J. S. Mill’s On Liberty in which he defends freedom of speech and expression. Also new are articles by Louise Richardson-Self, “Woman Hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate Speech,” and “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg
Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. This latter essay is critical of the socalledfreezonemovement onsomecollegeanduniversitycampuses.
The chapter on drugs and addiction now includes “America’s Unjust DrugWar”byMichael Huemer.
In the chapter “Sexism and Racism” (formerly “Sexism, Racism, and Reparations”), I’ve now included Elizabeth Anderson’s “The Future of Racial Integration” and an article by Daniel Kelly and Erica Roedder, “Racial CognitionandtheEthicsof Implicit Bias.”
The chapter on abortion now includes Margaret Olivia Little’s “The Moral Complexities of Abortion,” which discusses the unique relationshipbetweenapregnant womanandthefetus.
New to the chapter on the death penalty is Thaddeus Metz’s “African Values and Capital Punishment” in which he addresses the morality of the death penalty by appealing to a distinctive conception of dignity groundedinaconceptionof community.
The chapter “War, Terrorism, and Torture” now includes the classic by ThomasNagel,“War andMassacre.”
Thomas Pogge’s “Poverty and World Hunger” is included in chapter 13,“EconomicJustice.”
Finally, Marion Hourdequin’s “Climate, Collective Action, and Individual Moral Obligation” responds to the selection by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong in the chapter on the environment, consumption, andclimatechange.
Finally, this fifth edition features an updated Instructor’s Manual and TestbankonCDanda companionwebsite for bothstudents andinstructors that I describeinmoredetail inthe“User’sGuide”followingthispreface.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Robert Miller, my editor at Oxford University Press, for encouraging me to do a new edition of this anthology, and to associate editor AlyssaPalazzofor her expert adviceonthisedition.
Dedication
Finally, I wish to dedicate this fifth edition of Disputed Moral Issues to Betsy Timmons for her generous research assistance in helping to update many of the chapter introductions and for her cheerful encouragement duringmyworkonthisedition.
MarkTimmons Tucson,AZ
USER’SGUIDE
In what follows, I suggest how instructors might approach teaching a course that is primarily focused on particular moral disputes but also integrates moral theory into the teaching of those disputes. Following this discussion is a description of the various resources for both students and instructorsthat comewiththisbook.
As mentioned in the preface, a central aim of this anthology is to connect a range of contemporary disputed moral issues to moral theory. Much of the philosophical literature on the morality of abortion, homosexuality, hate speech, cloning, and the death penalty approaches these and other issues from the perspective of some moral theory. As I will explain more fully in the next chapter, a moral theory purports to answer general moral questions about the nature of the right and the good. So one way in which philosophers tackle disputed moral issues is by appealing to a moral theory—appealing, that is, to a general conception of theright andthegoodinexaminingsomeparticular moral issue.
But this presents a challenge for students who are trying to understand and think about the moral controversies featured in this book and presents an associated challenge for instructors. Because of the important role that moral theory plays in the writings of both professional philosophers and nonphilosophers who write about contemporary moral issues, a full understandingof most of the readings inthis bookrequires that one have a basic grasp of the various moral theories to which authors appeal in their writings. Some authors take the time to briefly explain whatever moral
theory they are using in approaching some moral issue, but manydo not theyassume a basic acquaintance withmoral theory.Andthis means that a student not previously acquainted with moral theory is often at a disadvantage in trying to understand the position and arguments of an author. The associated challenge for an instructor is to teach just enough moral theory to aid students’ understanding in a course devoted primarily todisputedmoral issues.
In this anthology, I try to address this challenge in a number of related ways. First, I have written an introductory overview of moral theory, “A Moral Theory Primer,” in which I first explain what a moral theory is all about and then present the basic elements of eight types of moral theory that are featured throughout the readings in this book. These theories includethefollowing:
Consequentialism (includingutilitarianism)
Natural law theory (includingthedoctrineof doubleeffect)
Kantian moral theory (including Kant’s Humanity and Universal Law formulations of the categorical imperative—Kant’s fundamental moral principle)
Rights-based moral theory (including an explanation of “rightsfocused” approaches to moral problems that are very common but importantlydistinct from agenuinelyrights-based theory)
Ethics of prima facie duty (including W. D. Ross’s classic version and themorerecent versiondefendedbyRobert Audi)
Social contract theory (featuring John Rawls’s influential contract theoryof justice)
Virtue ethics (including an explanation of the concepts of virtue and vice)
Care ethics (associatedwithfeminist approachestoethics)
Themoral theoryprimer,then,ismeant toget readersuptobasicspeedon eight essential moral theories, with an eye on their application to disputed
moral issues.
Manyusersof thebookreport tomethat manyof their studentscomein to an ethics course thinking that moral relativism is true. I find that students who think they are moral relativists really aren’t. So, now included in the second chapter “Moral Theory Selections” is an essay I wrote for this volume. It explains what moral relativism is, reasons to reject it, and why it is common to mistakenly suppose that this moral theoryis(or must be) true.
The moral theory primer can be read straight through. But let me make a suggestion about how it might be used in a course devoted mainly to contemporary moral problems a suggestion that incorporates additional ways in which I have tried to address the previously mentioned challenge. (What I am about to say reflects my own approach to teaching a contemporarymoral problemscourse.)
The basic idea is to incorporate select readings from the moral theory primer as one proceeds to work through the readings in the chapters that follow. The motto here is: Teach moral theory as needed in working through the readings. I have written the primer so that the segments on each of the eight types of moral theory are largely self-standing; they can be consulted as needed in learning about and teaching moral issues. I find that teaching moral theory as needed helps students to better digest and understandthesomewhat abstract natureof amoral theorybyimmediately relating it to some concrete moral issue. And, of course, their coming to understandmoral theoryhelpsthem morefullyunderstandthereadings.
Let me further suggest a way of implementing the teaching of theory on anas-neededapproach.
Getting started. Read the introduction and section 1 of the moral theory primer in which I provide a brief overview of what a moral theory is all about. That will be enough to get readers started. Some instructors may wish to begin with the self-standing “Why I Am Not a Moral Relativist (and Neither Are You).” Otherwise, it can be worked
into a course whenever it becomes appropriate to address questions about moral relativism.
Moving ahead to the moral issues. Then I recommend proceeding to one of the chapters on a disputed moral issue—they can be taught in anyorder.
Chapter introductions. Read the chapter introduction on the selected topic; it will explain basic concepts relevant to the topic. Each of these chapters ends with a subsection titled “Theory Meets Practice,” in which I briefly relate the moral theories that are used in that chapter’s readingstothetopicof thechapter.
Cues for the integrated use of the moral theory primer.Thenproceedto work through the readings in the selected chapter. Each reading begins with a brief summary of the article and, in those cases in which an author isappealingto,or relyingon,somemoral theory,thesummaries arefollowedbyarecommendedreading, which cues readers to go back (if needed) to the relevant sections of the moral theory primer where the theory in question is presented. This is how I incorporate the teachingof variousmoral theoriesintothecourseasneeded.
Let me add that not every reading appeals to one or another moral theory. Some articles are mainly concerned with conveying an understanding of some disputed concept like “sexism” or “racism.”
And in a few other cases, the readings do not clearly proceed from some moral theory. So, not every article summary includes a recommendation to consult the moral theory primer. But most of the reading selections do connect directly with one or more of the moral theoriesexplainedintheprimer.
Quick reference guide to moral theories. In order to make it easy to reviewthefundamental principlesof eachof thetheories,I haveplaced a “Quick Guide to Moral Theories” at the front of the book. Once one has read the relevant sections of the moral theory primer, this guide maybeconsultedtorefreshone’smemoryof thebasics.
Again, the preceding steps reflect how I like to proceed. Users are invited tofindwaysthat best fit their ownstyleof teaching.
Resources for Students and Instructors
The fifth edition is supported by robust companion websites for both studentsandinstructors.
Instructor Resources:
Samplesyllabi
LecturenotesinPowerPoint format
Chapter goalsandsummaries
A Testbank that includes essay, multiple-choice, true/false, and fill-inthe-blankquestions
Learning Management System (LMS) cartridges are available in formats compatible with any LMS in use at your college or university and include the Instructor’s Manual and Computerized Testbank and student resourcesfrom thecompanionwebsite
Student Resources:
Self-quizzes, which include multiple-choice, true/false, and fill-in-theblankquestions
Helpful Weblinks
Suggestedreadingsandmedia(articles,films,etc.)
For more information, please visit OUP’s Ancillary Resource Center: https://oup-arc.com/.
DISPUTED MORAL ISSUES
1AMoralTheoryPrimer
On November 1, 2014, twenty-nine-year old Brittany Maynard committed suicide by ingesting a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician. In January of that year, she was diagnosed with stage 4 brain cancer, and in April she was told she had six months to live. Because California, her state of residence, did not at that time permit physician-assisted suicide, she moved to Oregon where “aid-in-dying” laws permit physicians to assist patients in committing suicide. According to one source, “Maynard captivated online audiences and reignited the right-to-die debate after she announced in a viral video that she would take her own life rather than die a painful death her brain tumor was predicted to soon cause.”1 According to Oregon state law, Maynard and her physician did nothing illegal. However a moral question remains: did Maynard do anything morally wrongintakingher ownlife?
Disputes over moral issues are a fact of our social lives. Most of us are familiar with such disputes—for example, over the death penalty, the ethical treatment of animals, human cloning, or abortion. The same sort of moral question raised about the actions of Maynard can be raised about these and other moral issues. Thinking critically about such moral issues iswherephilosophybecomesespeciallyimportant.
A philosophical approach to moral issues seeks answers to questions about issues of moral concern. Given the contested nature of such practices as cloning and abortion, one needs to be able to defend one’s positionwith reasons.If we examine howphilosophers goabout providing reasons for the moral positions they take on certain issues, we find that
they often appeal to a moral theory. For example, in arguing for a particular position on the topic of euthanasia, philosophers often make their case by applying a moral theory to the practice of euthanasia. Applyingmoral theorytopractical issues is onewayinwhichreasoningin ethicsproceeds,andisthemethodfeaturedinthisbook.
But what is a moral theory? What are its guiding aims? What moral theories are there? Howis a moral theoryusedinreasoningabout disputed moral issues?Thesearethemainquestionsof concerninthismoral theory primer.
1.
WHATISAMORALTHEORY?
According to philosopher John Rawls, “The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good.… The structure of an ethical theory is, then, largely determined by how it defines and connects these two basic notions.”2
In explaining what a moral theory is, then, we begin by clarifying these twomainconcepts.
The Main Concepts: The Right and the Good
In ethics, the terms “right” and “wrong” are used primarily to evaluate the morality of actions. In this chapter, we are mainly concerned with moral theories that address the nature of right and wrong action (or right action, for short). Here, talk of right action in contrast to wrong action involves using the term “right” to refer to actions that aren’t wrong. Used in this sense, to describe an action as “right” is to say that it is “all right” (not wrong) to perform. This leaves open the question of whether the act, in additiontobeingall right,is anactionthat we morally ought toperform that is, an obligation or duty. But we sometimes find “right” being used narrowly to refer to actions that are “the” morally right action for one to perform. When so used, it refers to actions that are morally required or
obligatory (one’s obligation or duty). Actions that are all right to perform (right in the sense of merely being not wrong) and that are also not one’s moral obligation to perform—actions that are all right to perform and all right not to perform—are morally optional. So, we have three basic categories of moral evaluation into which an action may fall: an action may be morally obligatory (one’s obligation or duty); morally optional; or morallywrong(Figure1.1).
Again, in ethics, the terms “good” and “bad” are used primarily in assessing the value of persons (their character) as well as experiences, things, and states of affairs. Philosophers distinguish between a thing havingintrinsicvalue (that is,beingintrinsicallygoodor bad) anda thing having extrinsic value (that is, being extrinsically good or bad). Something has intrinsic value when its value depends on features that are inherent to it, whereas something is extrinsically good when its goodness is a matter of howit is related to something else that is intrinsically good. For instance, some philosophers maintain that happiness is intrinsically good—its goodness depends on the inherent nature of happiness—and that things like money and power, while not intrinsically good, are nevertheless extrinsically good because they can be used to bring about or contribute to happiness. Philosophical accounts of value are concerned with the nature of intrinsic value. And here we can recognize three basic valuecategories: the intrinsically good, the intrinsically bad (also referred toas the intrinsically evil),andthe intrinsically value-neutral—that is, the
FIGURE 1-1 Basic Categories of RightConduct
category of all those things that are neither intrinsically good nor bad (thoughtheymayhaveextrinsicvalue).3
A moral theory, then, is a theory about the nature of the right and the good and about the proper method for making correct or justified moral decisions. Accordingly, here are some of the main questions that a moral theoryattemptstoanswer:
1.What makes an action right or wrong—what best explains why right actsareright andwrongactsarewrong?
2.What makes something good or bad—what best explains why intrinsically good things are intrinsically good (or best explains why intrinsicallybadthingsareintrinsicallybad)?
3.What isthe proper method for reasoningour waytocorrect or justified moral conclusions about the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness and badness of persons, and other items of moral evaluation?
In order to understand more fully what a moral theory is and how it attempts to answer these questions, let us relate what has just been said to thetwomainaimsof moral theory.
Two Main Aims of a MoralTheory
Corresponding to the first two questions about the nature of the right and thegoodiswhat wemaycall thetheoretical aim of amoral theory:
The theoretical aim of a moral theory is to discover those underlying features of actions, persons, and other items of moral evaluation that make them right or wrong,goodor bad,andthus explain why suchitems have the moral properties they have. Features of this sort serve as moral criteria of theright andthegood.
Our third main question about proper methodology in ethics is the basis for thepractical aim of amoral theory:
The practical aim of a moral theory is to offer practical guidance for howwe might arrive at correct or justified moral verdicts about matters of moral concern—verdictswhichwecanthenusetohelpguidechoice.
Given these aims, we can evaluate a moral theory by seeing how well it satisfies them. (We will return to the issue of evaluating moral theories in section 3.) We can gain a clearer understanding of these aims by consideringtherolethat principlestypicallyplayinmoral theories.
The Role of MoralPrinciples
In attempting to satisfy the theoretical and the practical aims of moral theory, philosophers typically propose moral principles—general moral statements that specify conditions under which an action is right (or wrong) and something is intrinsically good (or bad). Principles that state conditions for an action’s being right (or wrong) are principles of right conduct, and those that specify conditions under which something has intrinsic value are principles of value. Here is an example of a principle of right conduct (where “right” is being used in its broad sense to mean “not wrong”):
An action is right if and only if (and because) it would, if performed, likely bring about at least as much overall happiness aswouldanyavailablealternativeaction.4
This principle, understood as a moral criterion of right action, purports to reveal the underlying nature of right action—what makes a right action right. According to P, facts about how much overall happiness an action would bring about were it to be performed are what determine whether it is morally right. Although P addresses the rightness of actions, it has implications for wrongness as well. From P, together with the claim that if an action is not morally right (in the broad sense of the term) then it is morallywrong,wemayinfer thefollowing:
P* An action is wrong if and only if (and because) it would, if performed, likely not bring about at least as much overall happinessaswouldsomeavailablealternativeaction.
Since, as we have just seen, principles about moral wrongness can be derivedfrom principles of rightness,I shall,inexplainingamoral theory’s account of right and wrong, simply formulate a theory’s principles (there maybemorethanone) for right action.
In addition to serving as moral criteria, principles like P are typically intended to provide some practical guidance for coming to correct or justified moral verdicts about particular issues, thus addressing the practical aim of moral theory. The idea is that if P is a correct moral principle, then we should be able to use it to guide our moral deliberations in coming to correct conclusions about the rightness of actions, thus serving as a basis for moral decision making. In reasoning our way to moral conclusions about what todo,Phas us focus onthe consequences of actions and instructs us to consider in particular how much overall happinessactionswouldlikelybringabout.
To sum up, a moral theory can be understood as setting forth moral principles of right conduct and value that are supposed to explain what makes an action or other object of evaluation right or wrong, good or bad (thus satisfying the theoretical aim), as well as principles that can be used to guide moral thought in arriving at correct or justified decisions about what todo(thussatisfyingthepractical aim).
The Structure of a MoralTheory
What Rawls calls the “structure” of a moral theory is a matter of how a theory connects the right to the good. As we shall see, some theories take the concept of the good to be more basic than the concept of the right and thus define the rightness of actions in terms of considerations of intrinsic goodness. These value-based moral theories include versions of consequentialism, natural law theory, and virtue ethics. However, some
moral theories do not define rightness in terms of goodness. These are duty-based moral theories—theories that take the concept of duty to be basic and so define the rightness of actions independently of considerations of goodness. These theories are often called “deontological” moral theories (from deon, the Greek term for duty). The moral theory of Immanuel Kant and theories inspired by Kant (Kantian moral theories) are arguably deontological.5 In addition, the ethics of prima facie duty contains deontological elements, as we shall see later in section2.
Brief Summary
Let usbrieflysum upafewbasicelementsof moral theory:
Main concepts of moral theory. The two main concepts featured in moral theory are the concepts of the right (and wrong) and the good (andbad).
Two aims of moral theory. Amoral theory can be understood as having two central aims: the theoretical, and the practical. The theoretical aim is to explain the underlying nature of the right and the good— specifying those features of actions or other items of evaluation that make an action right or wrong, good or bad. We call such features “moral criteria.” The practical aim is to offer practical guidance for how we might arrive at correct or justified moral verdicts about mattersof moral concern.
The role of moral principles. A moral theory is typically composed of moral principles (sometimes a single, fundamental principle) that serve as criteria of the right and the good (thus satisfying the theoretical aim) and are also intended to be useful in guiding moral thinking toward correct or justified conclusions about some moral issue(whichsatisfiesthepractical aim).
The structure of a moral theory. Considerations of structure concern how a moral theory connects the concepts of the right and the good.
