Ethics & Religious Studies: Study Notes
Module 1: Normative Ethics - Chapter: Theory of Conduct
Hey everyone! 👋
Ever been in a tricky situation and wondered, "What's the right thing to do here?" This chapter is all about exploring how we answer that question. We're going to look at two major ways of thinking about right and wrong. One focuses on the results of our actions, and the other focuses on the actions themselves.
Don't worry if this sounds complicated! We'll break it down with simple examples and easy-to-remember tips. By the end, you'll have a much clearer idea of how people make ethical decisions. Let's get started!
Part 1: Thinking About the Results (Consequentialism)
This is the first way of deciding what's right. The main idea is simple: to know if an action is right or wrong, you look at its consequences (the results).
The Main Idea: The Priority of the Good over the Right
This sounds a bit philosophical, but it's a straightforward idea. It means that what is "good" (the best outcome or result) is more important than what is "right" (the action itself).
• If an action leads to good consequences, it's the right thing to do.
• If an action leads to bad consequences, it's the wrong thing to do.
Analogy: Think about baking a cake. The main goal is to get a **good** result (a delicious cake). The **right** steps are whatever actions lead to that delicious cake. If leaving it in the oven for an extra minute makes it better (a good consequence), then that was the right thing to do!
Zooming In: Utilitarianism
The most famous type of consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism. Its core principle is often summarised as:
"The greatest good for the greatest number."
This means the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest happiness and benefit for the largest number of people involved. You try to maximise the overall good in the world.
Example: Imagine you have a pizza that can be cut into 8 slices. One friend is starving and could eat all 8 slices. But you also have seven other friends who are a bit hungry. A utilitarian would argue that it's better to give one slice to each of the eight friends, creating a small amount of happiness for eight people, rather than a large amount of happiness for just one person. This creates more total "good".
Did you know?
The idea of Utilitarianism was developed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham even had his body preserved after his death and it's still on display at University College London – he called it an "auto-icon"!
The Two Flavours of Utilitarianism
This is a super important distinction to remember for your exams! Utilitarianism isn't just one single idea; it comes in two main forms.
1. Act-Utilitarianism (The Case-by-Case Approach)
Act-Utilitarianism looks at every single action individually. Before you do something, you ask yourself: "In this specific situation, right now, what action will create the greatest good for the greatest number?"
• Focus: The consequences of an individual act.
• Process: You calculate the potential good/bad outcomes for each specific choice you could make, every single time.
Example: Your friend got a terrible haircut and asks you if you like it. An act-utilitarian might think: "If I tell the truth, my friend will feel sad (bad consequence). If I tell a small lie and say it looks fine, they will feel happy (good consequence). In this single case, lying creates more happiness." So, they might decide to lie.
2. Rule-Utilitarianism (The Big Picture Approach)
Rule-Utilitarianism thinks more about general rules. It asks: "What kind of general rules, if everyone followed them all the time, would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number?"
• Focus: The consequences of following a general rule.
• Process: You follow the rules that, in the long run, produce the most good for society.
Example: Let's go back to the haircut. A rule-utilitarian might think: "What is the best general rule for society? 'Always tell the truth' or 'Lie whenever it makes someone feel better'?" They might conclude that a society built on the rule of honesty and trust generally leads to more happiness and less pain in the long run. Therefore, they would follow the rule "don't lie" and tell their friend the truth (perhaps gently!).
Quick Review: Act vs. Rule
This can be tricky, so here's a simple breakdown:
• Act-Utilitarianism: Asks "What will happen if I do this?"
• Rule-Utilitarianism: Asks "What would happen if everyone did this?"
Key Takeaway for Consequentialism
For consequentialists, and especially utilitarians, no action is always right or always wrong. It all depends on the outcome. The morality of an action is judged by the goodness or badness of its consequences.
Part 2: Following the Rules (Deontology)
Now let's switch gears to a completely different way of thinking. Deontology argues that the consequences don't matter (or at least, they aren't the most important thing). Instead, some actions are just right or wrong in themselves, because of their very nature.
The Main Idea: The Priority of the Right over the Good
This is the direct opposite of the first idea we learned. It means that doing the "right" thing (following your duties and moral rules) is more important than trying to achieve a "good" outcome.
• Certain actions are right or wrong based on a set of rules or duties.
• You should do your duty, regardless of the consequences.
Analogy: Think of a recipe for a medicine. The **right** steps must be followed exactly as written. It doesn't matter if you *think* adding a different ingredient might lead to a **good** result (a better-tasting medicine). You have a duty to follow the recipe because the rules themselves are what matter.
Zooming In: Kantian Ethics
The most famous deontological theory comes from a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. For Kant, morality is all about duty.
He argued that we should only act in ways that we would be happy for everyone else in the world to act. If you wouldn't want it to be a universal law, then you shouldn't do it!
• Key Idea: Morality is about having a good will and doing your duty for its own sake, not for any potential reward or outcome.
Example: Imagine you find a wallet on the street full of money. A Kantian would say you have a **duty** to return it. You don't return it because you hope for a reward (good consequence) or because you're afraid of getting caught (bad consequence). You return it simply because it is the right thing to do. The act of returning it is right in itself. Lying or stealing is always wrong, no matter the situation.
When Duties Collide!
A big challenge for deontology is that sometimes our duties can conflict with each other. The syllabus calls this the possible incompatibility of duties.
Scenario: Your best friend is in trouble for cheating on an exam. The teacher asks you if you knew about it. You have two conflicting duties:
• Duty of Loyalty: You feel a duty to be loyal to your friend and protect them.
• Duty of Fairness/Honesty: You feel a duty to be honest to the teacher and support the fairness of the school rules.
What do you do? A deontological approach doesn't give an easy answer here, because both duties seem valid. This shows a potential weakness in a system based purely on rules.
Common Mistake to Avoid!
Don't say that deontologists *never* think about consequences. Of course, they understand that actions have results. The key difference is that they believe the consequences are not what *makes* an action morally right or wrong. The rightness comes from the action itself.
Key Takeaway for Deontology
For deontologists like Kant, morality is a matter of absolute rules and duties. Actions are judged based on their nature, not their results. If something is wrong, it's wrong, period.
Consequentialism vs. Deontology: A Quick Cheat Sheet
Let's put it all together. This is a great summary to help you remember the key differences!
Focus: What makes an action right?
• Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): The outcome. A good result makes the action right.
• Deontology (Kantianism): The action itself. The action is right if it follows a moral duty or rule.
Main Question:
• Consequentialism: "Which action will produce the best results?"
• Deontology: "What is my duty? What rule should I follow?"
Are there absolute rules?
• Consequentialism: No. An action like lying could be right in some situations.
• Deontology: Yes. An action like lying is always wrong, regardless of the situation.
Main Challenge:
• Consequentialism: It's hard to predict all the consequences of an action.
• Deontology: Moral duties can sometimes conflict with each other.