Three Methods of Ethics: a debate

by Marcia W. Baron, Philip Pettit, Michael A. Slote

During the past decade ethical theory has been in a lively state of development, and three basic approaches to ethics - Kantian ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics - have assumed positions of particular prominence. Written in the form of a debate, this volume presents a clear survey and assessment of the main arguments both for and against each of these three central approaches. In doing so, it represents the first volume to bring these forms of ethical theory into a critical relationship, presenting current philosophical debate in terms clear enough for undergraduates.

The book provides an ideal basis for course use in ethics and moral philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

291 pages, Paperback

First published December 15, 1997

Reviews

[Joel Carini · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good introduction to normative ethics for me. I found Baron's contribution the most compelling for some reason. Maybe I'm a Kantian. The book format was pretty good, contributions from each author, and then responses from each author to the other two. Unfortunately, this left a number of the authors' criticisms of other views unanswered, though I suppose that's inevitable.

I think Pettit hits the nail on the head when he says that virtue ethics simply asks different questions than Consequentialism (and Kantianism) rather than being fully opposed. However, virtue ethics, it seemed to me as I read, purports to be an answer to the same questions. While it may refocus us from the "right" to the "good," as a contemporary ethical theory virtue ethics states that the question of the right should be answered with respect to an ideally virtuous individual. The right is what the ideally virtuous individual would do. Unfortunately, this is circular. Virtues are the strengths of character that enable one to do the right in difficult circumstances. But the question of what is right cannot be answered by appeal to virtue, for virtue is strength or goodness of character that enables one to do what is right. And what is right?

I listened to a lecture by Pettit that helped me appreciate the appeal of consequentialism a bit more. In that lecture, consequentialism was presented as an alternative to moral absolutism, the position that, for example, lying is always wrong, even if the Nazis are asking for the Jews, and that killing an innocent is always wrong, even if doing so will somehow save the lives of many others. I have always been of the opinion that desperate times will call for desperate measures, and that the actions taken in those situations will not be immoral by necessity.

However, I am at least unsatisfied with utilitarianism. On the one hand, it seems true. I can't imagine that doing the right thing won't bring about the greatest aggregate good. But this simply doesn't seem to be the best way to determine what the right thing is. Utilitarianism is notoriously subject to the criticism of being "over-demanding." What each of us ethically must do is give what we have sacrificially to the poor in order to do the most good in the world. I find that conclusion suspect, mostly because it seems to focus entirely on material well-being. I would warrant a guess that devoting one's resources towards efforts closer to home, and with which one has personal connections, might actually create more aggregate good. This is because one has more capacity to do good to those with whom one is in close relationship. But my conclusion is not, then, that utilitarianism is wrong, but that it requires impossible calculations. Calculating aggregate good may be one way to determine the right, but it is about as effective as calculating a product of two numbers by arranging and combining particles of sand representing units.

This leaves me with Kantianism. Kantianism is rightly focused on "the right." But it grounds this concern in one for "the good" or for value, specifically in the value of human beings, free subjects. I think is the correct grounding for ethics; ethical questions arise as free human subjects interact with each other in a world of objects. I can't quite defend each version of the categorical imperative, nor prove that they are all convertible with each other. But the general form of Kantianism seems to me correct. My one worry is that Kantianism may ground moral obligations to much in the actual decisions of free beings, making it a form of contract theory. I am too much of a moral realist and objectivist to think that a moral obligation must be consented to or recognized in order for it to be binding on an individual.

More of an interaction than a review, I hope what I've written helps someone. It has at least helped me.

[Kramer Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very nice review and debate between three proponents of competing ethical theories. Each provided an interesting and compelling perspective on moral questions, and each supplied many fertile ideas in support of their position. I especially found Pettit's arguments interesting - and compelling - and I expect to draw upon them in further work. All authors were quite clear with their writing, and argued honestly in the face of contending arguments. Overall, a very useful and illuminating comparison of three popular ethical theories.