MGMT 2010 · HKUST BUSINESS SCHOOL
Three Ethical Theories
Comparative Revision Notes
Virtue Ethics vs. Deontology vs. Consequentialism · Compiled March 2026
Virtue Ethics Deontology Consequentialism
1 The Big Picture — One-Line Summary
VIRTUE ETHICS D E O N TO LO GY CONSEQUENTIALISM
"Be a good person "Follow the right "Produce the best
— ethics is about rules — ethics is outcomes — ethics
character and who about duties and is about what
you are." obligations." results from your
actions."
2 Core Concepts at a Glance
VIRTUE
FEATURE
ETHICS DEONTOLOGY CONSEQUENTIALISM
Key question Who should I What is my What produces the
be? duty? best results?
Focus Character & Rules & Outcomes &
disposition obligations consequences
Basis of right What a virtuous Conformity to Maximising
action person would do rational moral utility/welfare
law
Role of emotion Essential — Irrelevant to Irrelevant
virtue includes moral worth
feeling rightly
Flexibility High — context- Low — rules are High — case by
sensitive rigid case
Key thinker(s) Aristotle Immanuel Kant Bentham, J.S. Mill
Key concept(s) Eudaimonia, Categorical Utility, Hedonic
Golden Mean, Imperative, Duty Calculus
Phronesis (Pflicht)
3 Each Theory Explained for Comparison
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)
Morality is about developing excellent character traits (virtues) through
habituation
The goal is eudaimonia — human flourishing achieved by living virtuously
Virtues are the Golden Mean between excess and deficiency (e.g., courage
lies between cowardice and recklessness)
Phronesis (practical wisdom) is the master virtue — knowing what the right
thing to do is in each specific situation
You become virtuous by practising virtuous acts over time — character is
built through habit
Deontology (Kant)
Morality is about following universal moral rules derived from reason,
regardless of consequences
The Categorical Imperative is the supreme moral principle, with two key
formulations:
Universalisability: "Act only on maxims you could will to become a
universal law"
Humanity Formula: "Treat humanity never merely as a means, but always
as an end"
Duties are absolute — lying is wrong even if it would produce good
outcomes
Moral worth comes from acting from duty (Pflicht), not from inclination or
results
Consequentialism (Bentham & Mill)
Morality is determined entirely by outcomes — an action is right if it
produces the most good
Utilitarianism: Maximise happiness/utility for the greatest number
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus measures pleasure/pain by intensity, duration,
certainty, extent, etc.
Mill refined this: higher pleasures (intellectual) are superior in quality to
lower pleasures (bodily)
Act utilitarianism: judge each act individually | Rule utilitarianism: follow
rules that generally maximise utility
4 How Each Theory Handles a Classic Dilemma
SCENARIO
You discover a colleague is committing fraud. Reporting them will harm their
family but protect many shareholders. Do you report?
V IR T UE ET HI CS DE ONTOLOGY
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
A person of integrity You have a duty of
and courage reports honesty; concealing Weigh total harm vs.
wrongdoing. fraud treats total benefit.
Phronesis guides you shareholders merely Protecting many
on how to do it as means. Rules apply shareholders likely
compassionately. universally regardless outweighs harm to
of consequences. one family — net
Report — utility is positive.
courageous & Report — duty
honest demands it Report —
greatest utility
Key exam insight: All three theories can agree on the same action but give
completely different reasons. Be able to articulate why each theory reaches the
same conclusion via a different route.
5 Where the Theories Conflict
SCENARIO
You can save 5 lives by sacrificing 1 innocent person. Do you?
DE ONTOLOGY V IR T U E ET H IC S
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
Using a person merely A person of good
5 lives saved > 1 life as a means violates character would not
lost; net utility is the Categorical commit murder; it
positive. The outcome Imperative — violates integrity.
justifies the action. absolutely, with no Phronesis finds
exceptions. another way.
Possibly yes
No — never Likely no
permissible
Classic tension: Consequentialism can justify acts that deontology and virtue
ethics prohibit. This is where the "ends justify the means" debate is sharpest.
6 Strengths & Weaknesses
V I RT U E ET HIC S DE ON TOLOGY
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
Captures the Clear, universal
whole moral agent rules — no Intuitive and
— emotions, exceptions or practical — we
habits, motivation situational naturally think
ambiguity about
Context-sensitive;
consequences
accounts for moral Respects
development over individual rights Impartial —
time and inherent everyone's
human dignity happiness counts
Vague action
equally
guidance — "be Rigid — good
courageous" consequences are Can justify unjust
doesn't say irrelevant, even if acts (e.g., torture
exactly what to do severe harm one to save many)
results Measurement
Culturally relative
— virtues can Conflicts between problem — how do
differ across duties (e.g., you compare
societies and honesty vs. different types of
traditions kindness) with no suffering?
resolution
7 Application to Business Ethics
BUSINESS
VIRTUE ETHICS DEONTOLOGY
CONTEXT CONSEQUENTIALISM
Requires courage Duty to be honest; Report if net benefit to
Whistleblowing and integrity; cannot be stakeholders
phronesis guides complicit in outweighs harm to
the manner wrongdoing individual
CEO Pay Does excessive Are employees Is inequality justified if
pay reflect greed being treated as it maximises overall
— a vice? ends, not just firm performance?
means?
Layoffs Does a virtuous Duty to treat Justified if it saves the
leader show workers with company and protects
compassion and respect and more jobs long-term
fairness? dignity
A virtuous firm Firms have a duty Permissible only if
Environmental acts with not to harm benefits outweigh all
Harm temperance and others — environmental and
prudence regardless of social costs
profit
8 Key Theorists Summary
T HINKE R T HE ORY K E Y WOR K CORE ID E A
Aristotle Virtue Ethics Nicomachean Eudaimonia; Golden
Ethics Mean; Phronesis as
master virtue
Immanuel Deontology Groundwork for Categorical Imperative;
Kant the Metaphysics duty-based morality
of Morals from reason alone
Jeremy Consequentialism Introduction to Hedonic Calculus;
Bentham Principles of greatest happiness
Morals and principle
Legislation
John Consequentialism Utilitarianism; On Higher vs. lower
Stuart Liberty pleasures; quality
Mill matters, not just
quantity
9 The Limits to Duties Framework (Revisited)
Recall the Structure vs. Agency matrix from Lecture 1 — this applies specifically to
deontological thinking. You are only morally responsible if both conditions are met:
COND IT ION 1 — UNIVE RSAL IT Y COND IT ION 2 — AG E NCY
You believe in universality — that You have the power and agency to
natural law or Kantian duties apply to act — you are in a position where you
everyone equally, regardless of can actually make a difference or
context or culture. prevent the harm.
If either condition is missing → you are not fully responsible in that specific
context. This links deontology to real-world moral accountability in business.
10 Quick Revision Checklist
Can you state the core question of each theory in one sentence?
Can you name the key thinker and one key concept for each theory?
Can you apply all three theories to the same business scenario?
Can you identify a situation where the three theories agree on action but differ on
reasoning?
Can you identify a situation where the three theories disagree on what to do?
Can you list 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for each theory?
Can you explain Kant's Categorical Imperative in both formulations?
Can you explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
Can you explain eudaimonia, phronesis, and the Golden Mean?
Exam strategy: For any case-based question, structure your answer by
applying all three lenses — identify the action each theory recommends, the
reasoning behind it, and where they agree or diverge. Always note when
theories reach the same action via different justifications.
Three Ethical Theories
Comparative Revision Notes
Virtue Ethics vs. Deontology vs. Consequentialism · Compiled March 2026
Virtue Ethics Deontology Consequentialism
1 The Big Picture — One-Line Summary
VIRTUE ETHICS D E O N TO LO GY CONSEQUENTIALISM
"Be a good person "Follow the right "Produce the best
— ethics is about rules — ethics is outcomes — ethics
character and who about duties and is about what
you are." obligations." results from your
actions."
2 Core Concepts at a Glance
VIRTUE
FEATURE
ETHICS DEONTOLOGY CONSEQUENTIALISM
Key question Who should I What is my What produces the
be? duty? best results?
Focus Character & Rules & Outcomes &
disposition obligations consequences
Basis of right What a virtuous Conformity to Maximising
action person would do rational moral utility/welfare
law
Role of emotion Essential — Irrelevant to Irrelevant
virtue includes moral worth
feeling rightly
Flexibility High — context- Low — rules are High — case by
sensitive rigid case
Key thinker(s) Aristotle Immanuel Kant Bentham, J.S. Mill
Key concept(s) Eudaimonia, Categorical Utility, Hedonic
Golden Mean, Imperative, Duty Calculus
Phronesis (Pflicht)
3 Each Theory Explained for Comparison
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)
Morality is about developing excellent character traits (virtues) through
habituation
The goal is eudaimonia — human flourishing achieved by living virtuously
Virtues are the Golden Mean between excess and deficiency (e.g., courage
lies between cowardice and recklessness)
Phronesis (practical wisdom) is the master virtue — knowing what the right
thing to do is in each specific situation
You become virtuous by practising virtuous acts over time — character is
built through habit
Deontology (Kant)
Morality is about following universal moral rules derived from reason,
regardless of consequences
The Categorical Imperative is the supreme moral principle, with two key
formulations:
Universalisability: "Act only on maxims you could will to become a
universal law"
Humanity Formula: "Treat humanity never merely as a means, but always
as an end"
Duties are absolute — lying is wrong even if it would produce good
outcomes
Moral worth comes from acting from duty (Pflicht), not from inclination or
results
Consequentialism (Bentham & Mill)
Morality is determined entirely by outcomes — an action is right if it
produces the most good
Utilitarianism: Maximise happiness/utility for the greatest number
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus measures pleasure/pain by intensity, duration,
certainty, extent, etc.
Mill refined this: higher pleasures (intellectual) are superior in quality to
lower pleasures (bodily)
Act utilitarianism: judge each act individually | Rule utilitarianism: follow
rules that generally maximise utility
4 How Each Theory Handles a Classic Dilemma
SCENARIO
You discover a colleague is committing fraud. Reporting them will harm their
family but protect many shareholders. Do you report?
V IR T UE ET HI CS DE ONTOLOGY
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
A person of integrity You have a duty of
and courage reports honesty; concealing Weigh total harm vs.
wrongdoing. fraud treats total benefit.
Phronesis guides you shareholders merely Protecting many
on how to do it as means. Rules apply shareholders likely
compassionately. universally regardless outweighs harm to
of consequences. one family — net
Report — utility is positive.
courageous & Report — duty
honest demands it Report —
greatest utility
Key exam insight: All three theories can agree on the same action but give
completely different reasons. Be able to articulate why each theory reaches the
same conclusion via a different route.
5 Where the Theories Conflict
SCENARIO
You can save 5 lives by sacrificing 1 innocent person. Do you?
DE ONTOLOGY V IR T U E ET H IC S
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
Using a person merely A person of good
5 lives saved > 1 life as a means violates character would not
lost; net utility is the Categorical commit murder; it
positive. The outcome Imperative — violates integrity.
justifies the action. absolutely, with no Phronesis finds
exceptions. another way.
Possibly yes
No — never Likely no
permissible
Classic tension: Consequentialism can justify acts that deontology and virtue
ethics prohibit. This is where the "ends justify the means" debate is sharpest.
6 Strengths & Weaknesses
V I RT U E ET HIC S DE ON TOLOGY
CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
Captures the Clear, universal
whole moral agent rules — no Intuitive and
— emotions, exceptions or practical — we
habits, motivation situational naturally think
ambiguity about
Context-sensitive;
consequences
accounts for moral Respects
development over individual rights Impartial —
time and inherent everyone's
human dignity happiness counts
Vague action
equally
guidance — "be Rigid — good
courageous" consequences are Can justify unjust
doesn't say irrelevant, even if acts (e.g., torture
exactly what to do severe harm one to save many)
results Measurement
Culturally relative
— virtues can Conflicts between problem — how do
differ across duties (e.g., you compare
societies and honesty vs. different types of
traditions kindness) with no suffering?
resolution
7 Application to Business Ethics
BUSINESS
VIRTUE ETHICS DEONTOLOGY
CONTEXT CONSEQUENTIALISM
Requires courage Duty to be honest; Report if net benefit to
Whistleblowing and integrity; cannot be stakeholders
phronesis guides complicit in outweighs harm to
the manner wrongdoing individual
CEO Pay Does excessive Are employees Is inequality justified if
pay reflect greed being treated as it maximises overall
— a vice? ends, not just firm performance?
means?
Layoffs Does a virtuous Duty to treat Justified if it saves the
leader show workers with company and protects
compassion and respect and more jobs long-term
fairness? dignity
A virtuous firm Firms have a duty Permissible only if
Environmental acts with not to harm benefits outweigh all
Harm temperance and others — environmental and
prudence regardless of social costs
profit
8 Key Theorists Summary
T HINKE R T HE ORY K E Y WOR K CORE ID E A
Aristotle Virtue Ethics Nicomachean Eudaimonia; Golden
Ethics Mean; Phronesis as
master virtue
Immanuel Deontology Groundwork for Categorical Imperative;
Kant the Metaphysics duty-based morality
of Morals from reason alone
Jeremy Consequentialism Introduction to Hedonic Calculus;
Bentham Principles of greatest happiness
Morals and principle
Legislation
John Consequentialism Utilitarianism; On Higher vs. lower
Stuart Liberty pleasures; quality
Mill matters, not just
quantity
9 The Limits to Duties Framework (Revisited)
Recall the Structure vs. Agency matrix from Lecture 1 — this applies specifically to
deontological thinking. You are only morally responsible if both conditions are met:
COND IT ION 1 — UNIVE RSAL IT Y COND IT ION 2 — AG E NCY
You believe in universality — that You have the power and agency to
natural law or Kantian duties apply to act — you are in a position where you
everyone equally, regardless of can actually make a difference or
context or culture. prevent the harm.
If either condition is missing → you are not fully responsible in that specific
context. This links deontology to real-world moral accountability in business.
10 Quick Revision Checklist
Can you state the core question of each theory in one sentence?
Can you name the key thinker and one key concept for each theory?
Can you apply all three theories to the same business scenario?
Can you identify a situation where the three theories agree on action but differ on
reasoning?
Can you identify a situation where the three theories disagree on what to do?
Can you list 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for each theory?
Can you explain Kant's Categorical Imperative in both formulations?
Can you explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
Can you explain eudaimonia, phronesis, and the Golden Mean?
Exam strategy: For any case-based question, structure your answer by
applying all three lenses — identify the action each theory recommends, the
reasoning behind it, and where they agree or diverge. Always note when
theories reach the same action via different justifications.
