Contents (Points of Discussion)

1. Introduction

 What is Ethics?

 Branches of Ethics

2. Major Ethical Theories

 Golden Mean Theory

 Right Based Ethical Theory

 Utilitarian Ethical Theory

 Virtue Ethical Theory

 Deontological Ethical Theory

3. Formulation of Ethical theories

1|Major Ethical Theories

Introduction

Before we get to the nature and scope of ethics in real world we should try and understand
what ethics is? Where did the word “ethics” come from? what are its branches?, what does it
deal with?

What is Ethics?

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending,

and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The field of ethics, along with
aesthetics, concern matters of value, and thus comprise the branch of philosophy called
axiology.

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and
evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry,
moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and
value theory.

The English word "ethics" is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthikós, meaning "relating
to one's character", which itself comes from the root word êthos meaning "character, moral
nature”. This was borrowed into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which
it was borrowed into English. The word ethics in English refers to several things. It can refer
to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason to answer
various kinds of ethical questions.

Ethical beliefs shape the way we live – what we do, what we make and the world we create
through our choices. Ethical questions explore what Aristotle called 'a life well-lived'.

Ethics isn't just an exercise for philosophers or intellectuals. It is at the core of everyday life.

The Major Branches of Ethics are:

1. Descriptive Ethics

2. Normative Ethics

3. Meta-Ethics

4. Applied Ethics

2|Major Ethical Theories

Critical Evaluation of Major Ethical Theories

GOLDEN MEAN THEORY

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist born in the city
of Stagira, Chalkidiki, in the north of Classical Greece. Along with Plato, Aristotle is
considered the "Father of Western Philosophy", which inherited almost its entire lexicon
from his teachings, including problems and methods of inquiry, so influencing almost all
forms of knowledge known to the West.

The Golden Mean ethical theory was given by Aristotle. According to this theory, the
solution to a problem is found by analysing the reason and the logic. A solution of a problem
is the “Mean value” which will be between the extremes of excess and deficiency.

The golden mean represents a balance between extreme values. For example, courage is the
middle between one extreme of deficiency (cowardness) and the other extreme of excess
(recklessness). A coward would be a warrior who flees from the battlefield and a reckless
warrior would charge at fifty enemy soldiers. This doesn't mean that the golden mean is the
exact arithmetical middle between extremes, but that the middle value depends on the
situation.

For example, the solution to the problem of environment pollution is neither by avoiding
industrialization and civilization, nor by neglecting the environment completely. The
solution lies between them. A mean solution is the best way to cope with such problems.

The Golden Mean virtue can be understood as the virtue of reaching a proper balance
between extremes in conduct, emotion, desire and attitude. This theory given by Aristotle
states that virtues are tendencies to find the golden mean between the extremes of too much
(excess) and too little (deficiency) with regard to particular aspects of our lives.

There are internal goods such as products, activities and experiences should never clash with
the external goods such as money, power, self-esteem and prestige. The standards of
excellence enable internal goods to be achieved. The external goods when are concerned,
though by individuals or by organizations, may threaten the internal goods.

3|Major Ethical Theories

Aristotle said, "It's easy to be angry, but to be angry at the right time, for the right reason, at
the right person and in the right intensity must truly be brilliant." Because it is difficult to
balance certain situations, constant moral improvement of the character is crucial for
recognizing it. But it doesn't imply that Aristotle upheld moral relativism because he listed
certain emotions and actions like hate, envy, jealousy, theft, murder as always wrong, but
these situations can’t be judged directly, as it all depends on the situation. The golden mean
applies only for moral behaviour, not immoral behaviour. In some ethical systems, murder
can be justified in certain situations, like self-defense.

The importance of the golden mean is that it is needed for the balance in life. Today's modern
man usually wants the extreme of excess, which can be seen in the form of uncontrollable
accumulation of wealth, food, alcohol, drugs, but he can descend into the extreme of
deficiency as well, like inadequate attention to education, healthy sport activities, intellectual
pursuits, etc. Since Aristotle was interested in the studying of nature, he, like any great
person, quickly realized the importance of balance in nature and the tremendous effect it has
on the environment and the life cycle. Since human beings also belongs to nature, which
gives them life, hence, it is important that we, human beings must also uphold the balance as
the nature does. The problem is that the vast majority of people are unwilling to admit that
they are not at the top of nature, just a part of it. The reason for this are the limits of human
perception, that's why people invent god. They explain away death, pain, suffering, thus
robbing their lives of its natural aspects, turning it into a bus station to heaven, where they
just keep waiting and waiting for a ride, while doing nothing.

The people in modern society need to overcome their pride and arrogance and look in nature
for guidance, because we all depend on it. Staring into the sky and imagining ourselves in
heaven will not give us anything; it is better instead to accept our role in the world and enjoy
the beauty of life, and death, which gives meaning to it. We don't need "new" and
"progressive" ways of life as it is only harming the human society in many ways (such as
pollution) when the ancient ways of life of the world's greatest thinkers are in front of us,
forgotten in the books in some library. The balance, the golden mean of which Aristotle
talked about must be recognized as beneficial and important, as it is in nature itself.

4|Major Ethical Theories

RIGHTS - BASED ETHICAL THEORY

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most
influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism".
Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Sir Francis
Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory.

The Rights based ethical theory was proposed by John Locke. According to this theory, the
solution to a problem is by realizing that every person has a right to live. Live and let live is
the philosophy behind this theory. The rights of a person towards life, health, liberty, etc. are
taken care of under this theory.

For example, any action in terms of Capital punishment, Jails, Income taxes and Medical
charges etc. come under this category.

The concept of rights based ethics is that there are some rights, both positive and negative,
that all humans have. These rights can be natural or conventional. That is, natural rights are
those that are moral while conventional are those created by humans and reflect society's
values and are essential to live in human society.

Examples are as follows:

 The right to live

 The right to liberty
 The right to pursue happiness
 The right to a jury trial
 The right to a lawyer
 The right to freely practice a religion of choice
 The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
 The right of individuals or organizations to express opinions or share information freely
in written medium
 The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
 The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested
 The right to call witnesses to speak on one's behalf if accused of a crime
 The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after being found guilty
of a crime

5|Major Ethical Theories

 The right to freely live and travel within the country
And many more.
Many Countries including India are founded upon a Rights Based Ethics System in which
citizens have certain rights. John Locke was one of the primary supporters of this type of
system as it takes the perspective of what the ideal world looks like and creates a rights
system based upon those ideas.

Some theorists, have defined the term "right" as a "justified claim that individuals and groups
can make upon other individuals or upon society; to have a right is to be in a position to
determine by one's choices, what others should do or need not do."

Rights can be legal in nature, or pertain to human rights or moral rights.

The opposite of rights based ethics are utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics are based on the
maximization of "good outcomes" and minimizations of "bad outcomes."

6|Major Ethical Theories

UTILITARIAN ETHICAL THEORY

John Stuart Mill, usually cited as J. S. Mill, was a British philosopher, political economist,
and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he
contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the
most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century", Mill's conception
of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social
control.

The Utilitarian ethics was proposed by John Stuart and Jeremy Bentham. According to
this theory, the happiness or pleasure of a greatest number of people in the society was given
importance inspite of the action is good or bad. According to this philosophy, an action is
morally right if its consequences are leading to happiness of people and wrong if it is leading
to unhappiness of people.

According to English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, an
action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of
happiness. The happiness stated is not just the happiness of the performer of action but also
the happiness of everyone who is affected by the action. I think such theory is in opposition
of egoism. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or
wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent, for, according to the utilitarian,
it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.

The best example for this theory is using unfair means to pass the exams. The consequence
of using unfair means will lead in passing the exam. Everyone who is affected by the action
are students. They are happy hence the action must be right. But actually its not.

Another example is stealing or robbing which may give intense happiness to the robbers but
the action is undoubtedly wrong.

Act Utilitarianism

The Act Utilitarianism focuses on each situation and the alternative actions possible in the
situation. Act Utilitarianism states that “A particular action is right if it is likely to produce
the higher level of good for the most people in a given situation, compared to alternative
choices that might be made.”

7|Major Ethical Theories

In accordance with this theory, the good done is only considered but not the way how it is
done. For example, looting the richer to feed the poor, can satisfy and make a group of poor
people, happy but looting is a wrong action. Hence act-utilitarianism sometimes seems to
justify the wrong-doing.

Rule Utilitarianism
The Rule Utilitarianism states that “Right actions are those required by rules that produce
the higher level of good for the most people.” We need some set of rules which will help us
to interact with each other. It was developed to sort out and clear the problems faced in Act
Utilitarianism.

Basic concepts

The utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the act, whether after the act has
been performed or during its performance. If the difference in the result of alternative acts is
not large, some utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue.
According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the
consequences are significance.
In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic
value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other
values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means
to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance
of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and
disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced
by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham
believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist could add the units of
pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the
future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an
action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is
nonetheless necessary for the utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the
values of the effects of alternative courses of action.

Methodologies

8|Major Ethical Theories

Normative system provides a standard by which an individual ought to act and by which the
existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and improved,
utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in which a descriptive theory can,
but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. Bentham believed that only in
terms of a utilitarian interpretation do words such as “ought,” “right,” and “wrong”
have meaning and that, whenever anyone attempts to combat the principle of utility, he does
so with reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill both believed that human
actions are motivated entirely by pleasure and pain, and Mill saw that motivation as a basis
for the argument that, “since happiness is the sole end of human action, the promotion of
happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct.”
One of the leading utilitarians of the late 19th century, the Cambridge philosopher Henry
Sidgwick, rejected such theories of motivation as well as Bentham’s theory of the meaning of
moral terms and supported utilitarianism by showing that it follows from systematic
reflection on the morality of “common sense.” Most of the requirements of commonsense
morality, he told, could be based upon utilitarian considerations. In addition, he reasoned that
utilitarianism could solve the difficulties and perplexities that arise from the vagueness and
inconsistencies of commonsense doctrines.
Most opponents of utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their moral
intuitions—that considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the breaking
of a promise. Much of the defence of utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering these
objections, either by showing that utilitarianism does not have the implications that its
opponents claim it has or by arguing against the opponents’ moral intuitions. Some
utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the utilitarian theory to account for the
objections.

Criticisms

The Utilitarianism Theory has faced many criticisms. One such criticism is that, although the
widespread practice of lying and stealing would have bad consequences, resulting in a loss of
believe and security, it may happen that an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or an
occasional theft from a rich person would have good consequence and thus be permissible or
even required by utilitarianism. But the utilitarian answers to such questions as that the
widespread practice of such acts would result in a loss of trustworthiness and security. But
actually it’s not always true. To cope with such objection of not permitting an occasional lie
or theft, some philosophers have defended themselves by giving a modification called “rule

9|Major Ethical Theories

utilitarianism”. ‘It permits a particular act on a particular occasion to be adjudged right or
wrong according to whether it is in accordance with or in violation of a useful rule, and a rule
is judged useful or not by the consequences of its general practice’. Mill has sometimes been
interpreted as a “rule” utilitarian, whereas Bentham was “act” utilitarian.
Another objection, often posed against the hedonistic value theory held by Bentham, holds
that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Some philosophers in the
utilitarian tradition have recognized certain wholly non-hedonistic values without losing their
utilitarian credentials. Thus, the English philosopher G.E. Moore, one of the founders of
contemporary analytic philosophy, regarded many kinds of consciousness (including
friendship, knowledge, and the experience of beauty) as intrinsically valuable independently
of pleasure, a position labelled “ideal” utilitarianism. Even in limiting the recognition of
intrinsic value and disvalue to happiness and unhappiness, some philosophers have argued
that those feelings cannot be further broken down into terms of pleasure and pain and thus
was able to defend the theory in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain.
It is important to note that even for the hedonistic utilitarians, pleasure and pain are not
thought of in purely sensual terms; pleasure and pain for them can be components of
experiences of all sorts. Their claim is that, if an experience is neither pleasurable nor painful,
then it is a matter of indifference and has no intrinsic value.
Another objection to utilitarianism is that the act that would only increase the happiness of
someone already happy is an act of utilitarian or not. Some modern utilitarians have modified
their theory to require this focus or even to limit moral obligation to the prevention or
elimination of suffering—a view labelled “negative” utilitarianism.

10 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
VIRTUE ETHICAL THEORY

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest
to understand and live a life of moral character.

The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his/her character rather than by an action that is
seen from his/her normal behaviour. Many factors like the person’s morals, reputation, and
motivation are taken into account when rating an unusual and irregular behaviour that is
considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by
a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person’s character and will
judge the friend accordingly. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good
standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be
able to judge his friend more leniently. Conversely, a person who has a reputation for
academic misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his/her
consistent past of unethical behaviour. The past experiences and behaviour of an individual
also matters in judging his/her character. One weakness of virtue ethical theory is that it does
not take into consideration a person’s change in moral character. For example, a scientist who
may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the
scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was
still committed. On the other hand, a researcher having a sudden change from moral to
immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence is collected
against him/her.

This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice.
By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honourable
and moral character. Aristotle said, “By honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the
right choice when faced with ethical challenges”.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, we can refer to the part of
the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians
would justify killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save many innocent
lives. Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s
wrong to kill. It’s against the rules of deontologists. But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the

11 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who
takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And, it
gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas.

12 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Kant thought
that it was possible to develop a consistent moral system by using reason.

If people were to think about this seriously and in a philosophically rigorous manner, Kant
taught, they would realise that there were some moral laws that all rational beings had to
obey simply because they were rational beings, and this would apply to any rational beings
in any universe that might ever exist:

Kant taught (rather optimistically) that every rational human being could work this out for
themselves and so did not need to depend on God or their community or anything else to
discover what was right and what was wrong. Nor did they need to look at the consequences
of an act, or who was doing the action.

Although he expressed himself in a philosophical and quite difficult way, Kant believed that
he was putting forward something that would help people deal with the moral dilemmas of
everyday life, and provide all of us with a useful guide to acting rightly.

Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness
or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the
consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor
(Virtue Ethics).

Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action
that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with
a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good. For example, if someone proposed to kill
everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in order to bring about a
world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this world without starvation was
a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about. A Consequentialist
would (or could) argue that the final state of affairs justified the drastic action. A Virtue
Ethicist would concern himself with neither, but would look at whether the perpetrator acted
in accordance with worthy virtues.

13 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Deontology may sometimes be consistent with Moral Absolutism (the belief that some
actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them), but not necessarily. For
instance, Immanuel Kant famously argued that it is always wrong to lie, even if a murderer is
asking for the location of a potential victim. But others, such as W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971),
hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right
thing to do (Moral Relativism).

It is sometimes described as "duty-based" or "obligation-based" ethics, because

Deontologists believe that ethical rules bind people to their duty. The term "deontology"
derives from the Greek "deon" meaning "obligation" or "duty", and "logos" meaning
"speaking" or "study", and was first used in this way in 1930, in the book "Five Types of
Ethical Theory" by C. D. Broad (1887 - 1971).

Modern deontological ethics was introduced by Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century,
with his theory of the Categorical Imperative.

Immanuel Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or
inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given
circumstance (e.g. if I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something). A categorical
imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in
all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself.

He argued that the "highest good" must be both intrinsically good (good "in itself"), and
good without qualification (when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically
worse). He concluded that there is only one thing that is truly good: a good will chosen out
of a feeling of moral duty. From this concept of duty, Kant derived what he called a
categorical imperative, a principle that is intrinsically valid (good in and of itself), and that
must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe moral laws.
He considered it an unconditional obligation, regardless of our will or desires, and regardless
of any consequences which might arise from the action. He also believed that if an action is
not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value and therefore meaningless.

14 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of
Morals" (1785), "Critique of Practical Reason" (1788) and "Metaphysics of Morals" (1797),
and he formulated it in three different ways :

Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law,
applicable to everyone in a similar situation.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself or other), as both the
means of an action, but also as an end.

Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a hypothetical
"kingdom of ends", and therefore only in such a way that would harmonize with such a
kingdom if those laws were binding on all others.

Criticisms of Deontology

Robert Nozick (1938 - 2002) famously points out what has become known as the Paradox of
Deontology, that Deontology forbids some acts that maximize welfare overall. The example
usually used is that of a trolley hurtling towards five innocent and immobile people at the
end of a track, where the only way to stop the trolley and save the five is to throw one
innocent bystander in front of the trolley. The Principle of Permissible Harm in Deontology
rules out deliberately throwing a person in front of the trolley, but the consequence of that is
that five innocent bystanders die (which also contravenes the Principle of Permissible
Harm).

Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham have criticized Deontology on the grounds that it is
essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the objective and unchanging
principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really just a
matter of subjective opinion.

John Stuart Mill, another 19th Century Utilitarian, who is discussed before, argued that
deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and
duties conflict, so that Deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance. Mill also criticized
Kant's claims for his Categorical Imperative, arguing that it is really just another way of
saying that the ends justify the means, which is essentially a consequentialist argument.

15 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Some critics have attempted to show that constraints (e.g. the requirement not to murder, for
example) are invariably immoral, but then to show that options (e.g. the right not to give
money to charity) without constraints are also immoral.

Other Types of Deontology

Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is
right if God has decreed that it is right, and that an act is obligatory if and only if (and
because) it is commanded by God. Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands, and
the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty,
not because of any good consequences arising from that action. Therefore, if God commands
people not to work on the Sabbath, for example, then people act rightly if they do not work
on the Sabbath (but solely because God has commanded it). If they do not work on the
Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though
the actual physical action performed is the same.

William of Ockham, René Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all accepted versions
of this moral theory. William of Ockham went so far as to argue that if God had commanded
murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory, and indeed that God could
change the moral order at any time on a whim.

However, Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma asks: "Is an action morally good because God
commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?" It has also been argued
that it implies that morality is arbitrary and based merely upon God's whim. It is also
possible to question whether the revealed scriptures really state the will of God.

Natural Rights Theory: the theory which holds that humans have absolute natural rights (in
the sense of universal rights that are inherent in the nature of ethics, and not contingent on
human actions or beliefs). The theory, espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke among
others, originates with the concept of natural justice or natural right of Socrates, Plato and

16 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Aristotle. The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is
usually attributed to the Stoics. After the incorporation of the pagan concept of natural law
into Christianity by St. Thomas Aquinas, it was Hugo Grotius (1583 - 1645), with his
philosophy of international law, who finally freed it from dependence on theology, and
allowed its development into what we now refer to as human rights.

Contractarian Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism) claims that moral norms
derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. It holds that
moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased, and that moral rules
themselves are a sort of a contract, and therefore only people who understand and agree to
the terms of the contract are bound by it. The theory stems initially from political
Contractarianism and the principle of social contract developed by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, which essentially holds that people give up some rights
to a government and/or other authority in order to receive, or jointly preserve, social order.

Contractualism is a variation on Contractarianism, although based more on the Kantian ideas

that ethics is an essentially interpersonal matter, and that right and wrong are a matter of
whether we can justify the action to other people.

Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D.

Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken
into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon:

Duty of beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character,
etc.).

Duty of non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people).

Duty of justice (to ensure people get what they deserve).

Duty of self-improvement (to improve ourselves).

Duty of reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them).

17 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Duty of gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us).

Duty of promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the
implicit promise to tell the truth).

In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision
must be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast
rules and no fixed order of significance.

18 | M a j o r Ethical Theories
Formulation of Ethical Theories
After having gone through the various ethical theories, one can understand that these ethical
theories have to be formulated considering the following points −

 The concepts of the theory formulated must be coherent.

 The tenets of the theory should never contradict the other.

 The theory should never be defended upon false information.

 The theory should guide in specific situations comprehending all aspects possible.

 The theory should be compatible with individual’s moral convictions in any situation.

19 | M a j o r Ethical Theories