MORAL PHILOSOPHY ESSAY PLANS
ETHICAL THEORY CRITERIA: • An ethical theory should not provide unambiguous terms
• An ethical theory should allow flexibility, adaptability to situations that conflict the theory’s guidelines
• An ethical theory should never justify immoral actions
Section one Section two Section three
Definition Act Utilitarianism: Define Rule Utilitarianism: Another crucial issue which
consequentialist normative theory, consequentialist normative theory, utilitarianism faces is fairness and
quantitative, hedonistic. qualitative, hedonistic. individual rights. (inc. tyranny of
Bentham’s hedonistic calculus: Mill’s quantitative hedonism: majority)
seven factors or ‘values’ to consider Higher and lower pleasure, we Response: Preference utilitarianism
e.g. fecundity, intensity, propinquity. should seek to create higher Definition: what makes an action
Successful yes or no? Demonstrates pleasures. Improvement good is whether it maximises the
how moral significance can be found Mill’s proof that pleasure/happiness satisfaction of preferences of all
in mathematical value, making it a is the only good: what is visible is morally relevant beings. There are
more practical theory. seen, what is desired is desirable, degrees to this satisfaction.
Issue: Problem with calculus, happiness is desired… general Nozick’s experience machine:
immeasurable (no units to measure happiness is the greatest good. supports preference utilitarianism.
it) and commensurable (cannot be Issue: Rule worship/intentions and Issue: Impartiality, utilitarianism
measure by the same units) moral integrity – following rules may requires us to treat everyone’s
× Significance: Fails moral theory go against our moral intuitions and preferences equally, ignoring our
criteria – provide ambiguous terms rule worship may result in moral commitments to those dear
– unclear guidelines. permitting evil acts if they result in to us.
goodness. × Significance: justifies immoral
× Significance: justifies immoral actions, goes against our moral
actions on the basis of following intuition to fulfil the preferences of
rules, not meeting criteria. those dear to us.
Response: With refinement the Response: as a consequentialist Most crucial argument, it is too
hedonistic calculus can be applied theory the action holds moral idealistic to have a theory that
successfully and practically – e.g. worth, so intentions are not suggest we should abandon our
the NHS used versions of the significant when determining moral relationships with those dear to us.
hedonistic calculus to determine worth. For rule worship, Mill’s Could not operationalise this.
whether lockdowns would be the greatest rule was allowing people to
most effective solution to COVID. do what they want as long as it does Conclusion: Fails 2/3 criteria – it is
not cause harm – so it allows for somewhat flexible; all three forms
Effective response? Whilst it does flexibility when it comes to allow for the individual to act
show that the hedonistic calculus worshipping rules. according to what they deem as
could possibly work, the calculus pleasurable or preferable. But
would heavily have to be altered Effective response? No, rule ultimately leads to the justification
using different terms – to the point utilitarianism still goes against our of evil, lack of moral commitments
where it would no longer be what moral intuitions to do goodness and unambiguity.
Bentham preposed because we intend too good. Not all
rules benefit society.
× Still unsuccessful in providing clear
and unambiguous terms. X Ultimately fails criteria; it justifies
Utilitarianism so far is an evil through the argument that
unsuccessful moral theory. consequences are only significant.
, ETHICAL THEORY CRITERIA: • An ethical theory should not provide unambiguous terms
• An ethical theory should allow flexibility, adaptability to situations that conflict the theory’s guidelines
• An ethical theory should never justify immoral actions
Section one Section two
Introduction: Define deontology – ethical theory 5. Introduce issue of Kant ignores certain motives:
postulates that moral worth is determined through Reintroduce Axe murderer example, we are more
actions – the ‘good will’ (define) inclined to fulfil the imperfect duty of helping the friend
because we are motivated by love and loyalty.
1. Issue: Consequences have more moral worth than Significance? Fails second criteria, lack of flexibility –
actions. (Utilitarian perspective) Kant needs to consider our moral obligations to those
Significance? Shows that despite the goodness of an closest to us.
action if it results in evil how can the act be deemed as
good. – Problem: Justifies immorality 6. Response: Kant does not argue that we should
disregard our emotions/moral obligations however they
2. Response: Kant argues that no consequence is good should not be the determiners for our actions, that
or bad in isolation, good acts are not means to an end. would make us slaves to our desires (heteronomy vs
Results of actions may take years to be identified. autonomy). We should be motivated by goodness.
Good or bad response? Not a strong response because Good or bad response? Not a strong response too
seems counterintuitive to say if a good act leads to evil idealistic to try and isolate emotions from our actions,
then it does not matter. we are humans not robots.
× Fails one criteria – ineffective at eliminating the fact it × Significance – fails second criteria too inflexible.
justifies immorality.
3. First categorical imperative Introduce concepts of 7. Introduce concepts of hypothetical (if…then, can be
contradiction in conception (cannot be universalised) opted out of) and categorical imperatives (universal,
and contradiction in will (rational being cannot will) and obligation, can’t be opted out of). Second categorical
acting in accordance with duty and out of duty. imperative.
Potential improvement to theory because if people do Significance? Kant makes the distinction between things
good purely because it is good and this universalised we desire and things that are our moral duty.
then evil produced by moral agents should be Distinction helps separate our desires from what is
minimised good. Improvement from hedonism.
Issue: Clashing duties, Axe murderer example – duty to
be honest vs duty to help a friend in need. 8. Issue 1: Not all universalizable maxims are moral and
Significance? Fails first criteria, lacks clear guidelines. vice versa. Significance – unclear guidelines.
Response: First categorical imperative just tells us what
4. Response: Kant makes the distinction between not to do, not what to do.
imperfect duties (leads to contradiction in will) and Not a good response, guidelines even more unclear.
perfect duties (leads to contradiction in conception). [NOT ESSENTIAL]
Imperfect duties can be broken if they clash with
perfect duties. 9. Issue 2: Philipa Foot, most crucial argument, attack
Good or bad response? Not a strong response, what on categorical imperatives. CI do not exist, there is not
would one do in a situation where there are two intrinsic moral motivation to do what is good. She uses
clashing perfect duties. ammoralist (rational – follows maxim to not do good).
× Significance: unclear guidelines still remain. Significance – no clear guidelines, there is no necessary
moral judgement. Kant’s deontology is false.
Conclusion: Kant’s deontology fails every criteria for an ethical theory, fails to overcome most crucial argument from
Foot – there are no categorical imperatives so we do not have any moral obligations to do good. Therefore, the good
will cannot exist and deontology falls apart.
ETHICAL THEORY CRITERIA: • An ethical theory should not provide unambiguous terms
• An ethical theory should allow flexibility, adaptability to situations that conflict the theory’s guidelines
• An ethical theory should never justify immoral actions
Section one Section two Section three
Definition Act Utilitarianism: Define Rule Utilitarianism: Another crucial issue which
consequentialist normative theory, consequentialist normative theory, utilitarianism faces is fairness and
quantitative, hedonistic. qualitative, hedonistic. individual rights. (inc. tyranny of
Bentham’s hedonistic calculus: Mill’s quantitative hedonism: majority)
seven factors or ‘values’ to consider Higher and lower pleasure, we Response: Preference utilitarianism
e.g. fecundity, intensity, propinquity. should seek to create higher Definition: what makes an action
Successful yes or no? Demonstrates pleasures. Improvement good is whether it maximises the
how moral significance can be found Mill’s proof that pleasure/happiness satisfaction of preferences of all
in mathematical value, making it a is the only good: what is visible is morally relevant beings. There are
more practical theory. seen, what is desired is desirable, degrees to this satisfaction.
Issue: Problem with calculus, happiness is desired… general Nozick’s experience machine:
immeasurable (no units to measure happiness is the greatest good. supports preference utilitarianism.
it) and commensurable (cannot be Issue: Rule worship/intentions and Issue: Impartiality, utilitarianism
measure by the same units) moral integrity – following rules may requires us to treat everyone’s
× Significance: Fails moral theory go against our moral intuitions and preferences equally, ignoring our
criteria – provide ambiguous terms rule worship may result in moral commitments to those dear
– unclear guidelines. permitting evil acts if they result in to us.
goodness. × Significance: justifies immoral
× Significance: justifies immoral actions, goes against our moral
actions on the basis of following intuition to fulfil the preferences of
rules, not meeting criteria. those dear to us.
Response: With refinement the Response: as a consequentialist Most crucial argument, it is too
hedonistic calculus can be applied theory the action holds moral idealistic to have a theory that
successfully and practically – e.g. worth, so intentions are not suggest we should abandon our
the NHS used versions of the significant when determining moral relationships with those dear to us.
hedonistic calculus to determine worth. For rule worship, Mill’s Could not operationalise this.
whether lockdowns would be the greatest rule was allowing people to
most effective solution to COVID. do what they want as long as it does Conclusion: Fails 2/3 criteria – it is
not cause harm – so it allows for somewhat flexible; all three forms
Effective response? Whilst it does flexibility when it comes to allow for the individual to act
show that the hedonistic calculus worshipping rules. according to what they deem as
could possibly work, the calculus pleasurable or preferable. But
would heavily have to be altered Effective response? No, rule ultimately leads to the justification
using different terms – to the point utilitarianism still goes against our of evil, lack of moral commitments
where it would no longer be what moral intuitions to do goodness and unambiguity.
Bentham preposed because we intend too good. Not all
rules benefit society.
× Still unsuccessful in providing clear
and unambiguous terms. X Ultimately fails criteria; it justifies
Utilitarianism so far is an evil through the argument that
unsuccessful moral theory. consequences are only significant.
, ETHICAL THEORY CRITERIA: • An ethical theory should not provide unambiguous terms
• An ethical theory should allow flexibility, adaptability to situations that conflict the theory’s guidelines
• An ethical theory should never justify immoral actions
Section one Section two
Introduction: Define deontology – ethical theory 5. Introduce issue of Kant ignores certain motives:
postulates that moral worth is determined through Reintroduce Axe murderer example, we are more
actions – the ‘good will’ (define) inclined to fulfil the imperfect duty of helping the friend
because we are motivated by love and loyalty.
1. Issue: Consequences have more moral worth than Significance? Fails second criteria, lack of flexibility –
actions. (Utilitarian perspective) Kant needs to consider our moral obligations to those
Significance? Shows that despite the goodness of an closest to us.
action if it results in evil how can the act be deemed as
good. – Problem: Justifies immorality 6. Response: Kant does not argue that we should
disregard our emotions/moral obligations however they
2. Response: Kant argues that no consequence is good should not be the determiners for our actions, that
or bad in isolation, good acts are not means to an end. would make us slaves to our desires (heteronomy vs
Results of actions may take years to be identified. autonomy). We should be motivated by goodness.
Good or bad response? Not a strong response because Good or bad response? Not a strong response too
seems counterintuitive to say if a good act leads to evil idealistic to try and isolate emotions from our actions,
then it does not matter. we are humans not robots.
× Fails one criteria – ineffective at eliminating the fact it × Significance – fails second criteria too inflexible.
justifies immorality.
3. First categorical imperative Introduce concepts of 7. Introduce concepts of hypothetical (if…then, can be
contradiction in conception (cannot be universalised) opted out of) and categorical imperatives (universal,
and contradiction in will (rational being cannot will) and obligation, can’t be opted out of). Second categorical
acting in accordance with duty and out of duty. imperative.
Potential improvement to theory because if people do Significance? Kant makes the distinction between things
good purely because it is good and this universalised we desire and things that are our moral duty.
then evil produced by moral agents should be Distinction helps separate our desires from what is
minimised good. Improvement from hedonism.
Issue: Clashing duties, Axe murderer example – duty to
be honest vs duty to help a friend in need. 8. Issue 1: Not all universalizable maxims are moral and
Significance? Fails first criteria, lacks clear guidelines. vice versa. Significance – unclear guidelines.
Response: First categorical imperative just tells us what
4. Response: Kant makes the distinction between not to do, not what to do.
imperfect duties (leads to contradiction in will) and Not a good response, guidelines even more unclear.
perfect duties (leads to contradiction in conception). [NOT ESSENTIAL]
Imperfect duties can be broken if they clash with
perfect duties. 9. Issue 2: Philipa Foot, most crucial argument, attack
Good or bad response? Not a strong response, what on categorical imperatives. CI do not exist, there is not
would one do in a situation where there are two intrinsic moral motivation to do what is good. She uses
clashing perfect duties. ammoralist (rational – follows maxim to not do good).
× Significance: unclear guidelines still remain. Significance – no clear guidelines, there is no necessary
moral judgement. Kant’s deontology is false.
Conclusion: Kant’s deontology fails every criteria for an ethical theory, fails to overcome most crucial argument from
Foot – there are no categorical imperatives so we do not have any moral obligations to do good. Therefore, the good
will cannot exist and deontology falls apart.
