Normative ethical theories

Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action’s outcome or result. Some consequentialist theories include:
Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most value for the greatest number of people (Maximizes value for all people).
Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self.
Situation Ethics, which holds that the correct action to take is the one which creates the most loving result, and that love should always be our goal.

Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one’s duties and other’s rights. Some deontological theories include:
Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity’s rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws.
The Contractarianism of John Rawls or Thomas Hobbes, which holds that the moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased.
Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke which holds that human beings have absolute, natural rights.

Virtue ethics, which was advocated by Aristotle, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the specific actions he or she performs. There has been a significant revival of virtue ethics in the past half-century, through the work of such philosophers as G. E. M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Rosalind Hursthouse.

Intrinsic Value vs. Instrumental Value
A thing is intrinsically good if it is good in itself; if it is good in virtue of its own nature; if it would remain good even if it failed to lead to anything else.
A thing is merely instrumentally good if it is good only for what it leads to; if it is good only “as a means”; if it would no longer be good if it failed to lead to anything else.
Likewise for intrinsic badness and instrumental badness.

The People Seeds - Abortion?
” … suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not–despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective.”

What the People Seeds may show is this: that if a woman has taken all reasonable precautions against getting pregnant, she is not responsible for the presence of any fetus that might result from intercourse. This is true, Thomson would say, even when the woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance that it will issue in pregnancy

The People Seeds may show this because, in the example, the homeowner is arguably not responsible for the presence of the people-seeds growing in her carpet. This is because she has taken all reasonable precautions against this happening.

To claim that abortion is wrong in cases of failed contraception, Thomson maintains, would commit you the claim that it is wrong for the homeowner to dispose of the people-seeds growing in her carpet.

The Killing-the-Innocent Principle
It is morally wrong to kill an innocent person unless it is done to save a life.

The Famous Violinist Argument against The Killing-the-Innocent Principle
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, ‘Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.’ Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. ‘Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.’ I imagine you would regard this as outrageous.”

1. If the Killing-the-Innocent Principle is true, then it is morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
2. It is not morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
3. Therefore, the Killing-the-Innocent Principle is not true.

If organ donation were expected to save more individuals than it would kill, hypothetically all individuals are assigned a number and drawn out of lottery when a donation is needed, and are expected to give up their lives to allow two or more people to live.
The argument for the survival lottery can be as follows:
1. Imagine that organ donation was perfect.
2. There is no difference between killing and letting die.
Given 1 and 2 we should adopt the Survival Lottery.

In the thought experiment, there are two shipwrecked sailors, A and B. They both see a plank that can only support one of them and both of them swim towards it. Sailor A gets to the plank first. Sailor B, who is going to drown, pushes A off and away from the plank and, thus, ultimately, causes A to drown. Sailor B gets on the plank and is later saved by a rescue team. The thought experiment poses the question of whether Sailor B can be tried for murder because if B had to kill A in order to live, then it would arguably be in self-defense.

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Is is morally permissible?

1. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

3. Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor, thus not physically pushing him, would you throw the switch?

4. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, across a road, and into a man’s yard. The owner, sleeping in his hammock, will be killed. Should you proceed?

Discussion: What will you do? - If you were the son, will you cut the rope? Why?

歡迎加入倫理與宗教科！