Field Guide to the Ethical ISMs - Ethics Terms and Terminology

ETHICS TERMS AND TERMINOLOGY

A Brief Glossary and Guide to the Ethical "ISMs"

Absolutism – As a political theory, absolutism is typically a synonym for despotism. As an ethical theory, it can be contrasted with relativism. An absolutist would assert that there is one correct approach to the moral life, across persons and cultures. (The term is rarely used other than pejoratively, either in political theory or ethical theory.) Absolute ethical dictates might be attributed by adherents to the (unequivocally revealed) will of God, the dictates of Nature (to the extent that's not redundant), or apprehension through human reason.

Absolute rights – As the adjective would imply, these are rights that cannot be over-ridden, and are thus "unconditional," regardless of competing moral claims or social conditions. It is not clear that such rights exist. Consider the right to life (and the duty to avoid killing). Common moral judgements about the justifiability of killing in self-defense, capital punishment, and killing in war condition the application of the right to life (and the duty to avoid killing) in almost all societies.

Act deontology – Theory that deontological (i.e., non-consequentialist) principles are -- or should be -- applied by individuals to each unique circumstance. Situations are seen as too idiosyncratic, in general, to be subsumable under general rules. Contrast with rule deontology.

Act utilitarianism – Theory that the principle of utility is -- or ought to be -- applied to particular acts in particular circumstances. An act utilitarian justifies actions simply by direct appeal to the principle of utility. Contrast with rule utilitarianism.

Altruism – Regard for others. As a theory of action, this can be descriptive (i.e., that people do, at least sometimes, appear to act in other than self-regarding ways). Or it can be a normative position about how people ought to behave (viz., at least sometimes, people should act in non-self-regarding ways). Contrast with egoism.

Applied ethics – Use of ethical principles to describe or evaluate conduct in particular areas of society (e.g., biomedical ethics, business ethics, public policy ethics). In approach, applied ethics can be descriptive (how professions or sectors do conduct themselves) or normative (what one thinks are desirable behaviors for persons in particular professions or sectors).

Autonomy – The principle of respect for persons, and of individual self-determination consistent with that principle. As most commonly defined, autonomy points in the direction of personal liberty of action in accordance with a plan chosen only by oneself. In Kant's formulation, which reconciles with some difficulty with our usual individualistic views, autonomy is fully realized only when one governs oneself in accordance with universally valid moral principles.

Beneficence – Moral principle that one should help others further their important and legitimate interests, either as those persons understand them (respecting autonomy) or as we conceive them (paternalism). Under this principle, failure to increase the good of others when one is knowingly in a position to do so is morally wrong. Nonetheless, the principle is usually understood restrictively: in most theories, one is obligated to act to benefit others when one can do so with minimal risk, inconvenience or expense. (Formally, the principle or duty of beneficence corresponds to the virtue or human characteristic of benevolence; in common parlance, these terms are often used interchangeably.) See also nonmaleficence.

Categorical imperatives – Rules of conduct that stem from the Kantian principle that is a cousin of the Golden Rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law." (Your parents probably had a related formulation with which to critique your behavior: "What if everyone acted that way?") Kant’s candidates for categorical imperatives include "Help others in distress," "Do not commit suicide," and "Do not make false promises." Kant is not a consequentialist: Something is "not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end," but because of the principles that ground the act. Nonetheless, the "universalizability" maxim by which categorical imperatives are constructed is compatible with some justifications for rule utilitarianism.

Character ethics – Generally, a normative stance that gives priority to cultivation of character traits such as benevolence, honesty, compassion, faithfulness and courage. Character ethics takes the stance that specification of obligatory actions (i.e., what one should or should not do) is less important than the cultivation of these character traits. Also called virtue ethics.

Civil disobedience – Refusal to abide by some subset of the rules of the existing political-social order, because of a felt obligation to a different, higher standard. See e.g., natural law.

Confidentiality – The principle that one should keep one's promises about information (re)disclosure. A subset of duties of fidelity.

Consequentialist theories – Generally, a normative approach to morality that views what should be done as determined by consequences. The most common ethical/philosophical expressions are utilitarianism in its various flavors (viz., act and rule utilitarianism). More rarely, consequentialist theories can be merely descriptive in character -- that is a view of how moraliity is derived, desirability issues aside. Also labeled teleological theories. Compare with deontological (non-consequentialist) theories.

Deontological (non-consequentialist) theories – Generally, a normative stance that views what should be done as determined by fundamental principles that do not derive solely or even primarily from consequences. An act or rule is right insofar as it satisfies the demands of some over-riding (non-consequentialist) principle of moral duty. Deontologists sometimes stress that the value of actions lies more in motives than in consequences. Religious revelation ("divine command") is the historically common foundation for deontological moral principles: things are right or wrong if, and only if, commanded or forbidden by God. Natural law or human reason may also be cited as sources. For example, John Rawls’ Theory of Justice articulates a deontological approach based on appeal to a social contract, reached by rational participants under conditions of absolute fairness and equality. Some philosophers (and many sociobiologists) take the position that deontological principles are simply those that have "tested out" as having good consequences over a long period, and are accordingly sanctioned by custom, religious practice, etc.

Descriptive ethics – Factual description and explanation of moral behavior and beliefs (typically by anthropologists, sociologists, and historians); concerned with what is done. In general, this view approaches ethical standards as historical products sanctioned by custom. Compare with normative ethics.

Duty – Action, or an act, that is due by moral or legal obligation. Rights, grounded in core ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence/nonmaleficence and justice, create duties -- either of non-interference (for negative rights) or for provision of social goods (positive rights). Duty need not be grounded only in the strong language of rights. Day-to-day social interactions also give rise to notions of duty: promises create duties of fidelity, gifts create duties of gratitude, and so forth. Many moral philosophers have argued that participation in a political-social system creates a duty to abide by its laws and standards (but see civil disobedience).

Egalitarian theories – Theories of ethics which stress equal access to important social goods, based on giving primacy to principles of social justice. Contrast with libertarian theories.

Egoism – Stance that all human choices do (or should) involve self-promotion as their sole objective. Psychological egoism is the descriptive version, contending that people usually do what is in their self-interest. A strong version of the theory would contend that we psychologically cannot ever act voluntarily against what we believe to be our own best interest. Any apparently altruistic act stems from a belief that the conduct promotes the individual’s long-run self-interest. (Individuals may have inadequate or inaccurate information, and so may make mistakes.) This is essentially the behavioral theory that underlies market economics -- although even hard-core free marketeers would allow for a "taste" for altruism. Ethical egoism goes beyond a theory of motivation to a normative position that people ought to desire their own well-being (and, in a strong theory, only their own well-being), as an end in itself. Sociobiological theories of what might be called "genetic egoism" are compatible with altruism that promotes group survival (that is, survival of group genetic material in subsequent generations).

Equality – Some of the most difficult questions of ethics arise over how to specify and prioritize among the relevant characteristics by which people are to be considered equal or unequal. Since every individual is an amalgam of many "characteristics," even inter-personal decisions about equality and inequality require setting priorities about which is/are to be considered most important. (The problem is all the greater when attempting to compare groups, for obvious reasons.) Will it be need, effort, ability or some other variable that sets the terms of the distribution? The answer will often depend on the context of the question. See also justice.

Existentialism – Stance that choices and commitments must ultimately be made by each individual alone, and that the individual must thereafter accept responsibility for the choice, abandoning any hope for some higher level of justification (such as God). Most famously presented in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre: "Man makes himself. He isn’t ready-made from the start. In choosing his ethics, he makes himself, and the force of circumstances is such that he cannot abstain from choosing" (from Essays on Existentialism).

Facts and values – Bifurcation of the world into statements about what is (facts) and what ought to be (values). The division is by no means universally accepted; and those that accept the division are not necessarily in close agreement on the dividing line. One of the central controversies of moral philosophy is whether value judgements (including moral judgements) can ultimately be proved, verified or justified in terms of facts or rational reasoning. Many important ethical schools of thought split over the details of this issue, as in the positions of descriptivism, intuitionism, naturalism, noncognitivism, and prescriptivism (descriptions of which are beyond the scope of this glossary).

Fairness – See justice.

Feminist theories – Ethics from a feminist perspective places emphasis on "care," and so is sometimes are referred to as "care ethics." It sees itself as a challenge to the dominant (and male-biased) deontological and consequentialist approaches. (But see also character ethics as another form of challenge.) Feminist ethical theories emphasize the importance of relationships in morality (rather than the paradigm of isolated individuals seen in some ethical traditions), and give greater weight to emotions (in contrast to the emphasis on rationalism of some traditional approaches).

Fidelity – The principle that one should keep one's promises.

Freedom – See liberty.

Human reason – For some schools of ethics, human rationality provides the ultimate (and only) grounding of ethical principles; for others, it is the last thing on which one should place reliance.

Justice – Commonly described as fairness, but more closely aligned to the concept of "desert" (pronounced like, but not to be confused with, "dessert" of the ice-cream et al variety): One has acted justly toward a person when one gives that person what is due or owed, and therefor what is deserved. Common to all definitions of justice is the minimal principle that relevantly similar cases (persons) be treated alike. Unfortunately, the definition of "relevantly similar" is not always self-evident. Some of the most intractable questions about justice arise over how to specify and prioritize among the relevant characteristics by which people are to be considered equal or unequal. (Consider affirmative action.) Moreover, the principle of "treat equals equally" leaves unanswered the question of appropriate differences in treatment, when relevant dissimilarities are found to exist. The term "distributive justice" refers, more restrictively, to the distribution of social benefits and burdens; "retributive justice" applies to issues of correction and punishment; "procedural justice" refers to social processes (most familiarly, in the judicial system). Egalitarian theories of justice stress equal access to primary social goods; libertarian theories of justice give primacy to social and economic freedom; Marxist theories emphasize need ("to each according to his needs; from each according to his abilities"); utilitarian theories are focused on criteria to maximize well-being; and so on.

Libertarian theories – Ethical approach stressing social and economic liberty, grounded on the primacy of the principle of autonomy.

Liberty – Freedom of human action, grounded in the principle of autonomy, consistent with the nature and dignity of human beings. It is generally accepted that some liberties may be judiciously traded off for state protection via the law. As with the specification of justice, reasonable persons may differ markedly on the details of such liberty trade-offs, as may particular societies. Philosophers who have taken a darker view of human beings (e.g., Thos. Hobbes), or who place a higher value on community (e.g., J. J. Rousseau) are inclined to opt for more circumscription of liberty than those who see liberty as pre-eminently important and humans as fundamentally rational, good-natured sorts. (John Locke and our own Founding Fathers are examples of the latter view). See also liberty-limiting principles, social contract.

Liberty-limiting principles – Principles advanced to justify the limitation of individual human liberties. The major division is between principles relating to others (nos. 1,3,4,5 below), versus those relating to the individual whose liberty is circumscribed (no. 2,5). In various ethical theories, a person’s liberty is justifiably circumscribed under: (1) the harm principle - to prevent harm to others; (2) paternalism - to prevent harm to self; (3) the offense principle - to prevent offense to others; (4) social justice - to promote equality or other social goals; and (5) legal moralism - to prevent immoral acts (which acts can be viewed as harming either the individual, society or both).

Metaethics – Analysis of central ethical terms, such as "right," "obligation," "good," "virtue," "responsibility," etc., and of the structure of logic of moral reasoning, moral justifications and inferences. Can be descriptive or normative in its approach.

Monastic theories – In this context, refers not to monks but to ethical theories that envision one supreme, over-riding moral principle. Compare with pluralism.

Morality (ethics) – The science of human duty; the rules of human conduct. The function of morality is "to combat the deleterious consequences of human sympathies" (Beauchamp). Its aim is "to contribute to betterment -- or at least non-deterioration -- of the human predicament" (Warnock). "Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good" (Moore). Moral/ethical principles have the following characteristics, in most but not all formulations: They are (1) supremely authoritative or over-riding as a guide to action; (2) prescriptive, not merely descriptive; and (3) universalizable, to relevantly similar situations. (But see also relativism, as regards the last of these.)

Natural law – Standards binding on all persons, and taking precedence over particular standards created by human convention. Natural law can be based on a concept of the natural order (e.g., in Greek philosophy) or as derivative of divine reason (e.g., in Christian philosophy). From a natural law stance, conventional (human societies’) laws should ideally reflect natural law dictates; when they conflict, natural law trumps conventional law. (Conventional authorities, such as the police and courts, may nonetheless enforce the conventional law whether it is congruent with natural law or not. This leads to the issues of civil disobedience and political obligation.

Natural rights – Natural rights can be viewed as particular expression of natural law. Natural rights are those due equally to all individuals, and so possessed by persons whether or not the rights have been recognized by their particular political-social system. For Locke, life, liberty and property were the top three categories; our Declaration of Independence famously lists life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights can also be viewed as a list of natural rights (speech, conscience, association, due process, etc.), given form in the language of our constitution.

Naturalism – Theory that value judgements can be justified through marshalling factual evidence. In this view, values are a type of fact; they refer to natural properties ("a natural thing"). Naturalists do not necessarily hold that a value exists independently in nature, or apart from what humans value; but, given particular bio-socio-cultural facts, they believe the content of values can be "tied down." A naturalist Darwin might contend that "right" means "conforming to the course of human evolution" (as would a sociobiologist like E. O. Wilson); a naturalist Mill or Bentham, from the utilitarian camp, might understand evil as "causing displeasure or pain." Critics of naturalism say you can never get from an "is" (fact) to an "ought" (value), without introducing another "ought." For example, they’d say that labeling "conforming to the course of human evolution" as right is a value judgement; likewise labeling displeasure or pain as a bad thing is a value judgement, even if that seems axiomatic. See naturalistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy – The alleged confusion (muddling) of facts and values attributed to proponents of naturalism by its opponents. Anti-naturalists view facts and values as fundamentally different.

Nonmaleficence – Moral principle that one should refrain from harming others ("first, do no harm"). Compare with beneficence.

Normative ethics – The philosophical attempt to formulate and defend basic moral principles and virtues governing the "moral life"; concerned with what ought to be done. In general, this approach aims at some core of universalizable right and wrong (which may be narrow or all-encompassing, depending on the formulation). Contrast with descriptive ethics.

Obligations – See duty.

Obligatory acts – See duty. Contrast with supererogatory acts.

Original position – Hypothetical pre-social position (see esp., John Rawls' Theory of Justice) of persons who are creating a social contract. See also veil of ignorance.

Paternalism – Stance that a person’s liberty is justifiably restricted to prevent self-harm, or to promote that person’s own well-being. Paternalism is an inherently liberty-limiting principle. It is grounded in a theory of impairment, viz., that an individual lacks sufficient facts or mental capacity to make a sound choice. It is sometimes defended by a theory of future consent: viz., that the person whose liberty is circumscribed will (or, at least in principle, could) eventually agree that the restriction was desirable, given better facts or improved cognitive capacity in future.

Pluralism – Position that there is no single ethical theory or single method for resolving all disagreements, since moral principles can collide and reasonable persons can disagree about how to resolve the collision (e.g., differences about the value of liberty vs equality). Pluralistic theories are contrasted with monastic theories (that envision one supreme moral principle). The pluralist position is that in a heterogeneous culture there may be many sources of moral value and consequently a multitude of moral points of view on many issues (consider abortion). This applies all the more strongly across cultures, which may have much different "weightings" of principles, or indeed different principles entirely. See also relativism.

Political obligation – What is owed, in the form of obedience, to the laws and norms of the existing political-social order. See civil disobedience and natural law.

Relativism – Position that moral beliefs and principles are relative to individual cultures or, in the extreme, individual persons. Rightness and wrongness thus vary from place to place (even person to person); there are thus no (or at least few) absolute or universal moral standards that could apply to all at all times. Consequently, concepts of rightness and wrongness are meaningless apart from the specific contexts in which they arise. See also pluralism.

Rights – That which is due to individuals, based on core ethical principles. Rights create parallel duties on the part of others, or on society as a whole. So-called negative rights are rights of non-interference (e.g., with one’s speech, conscience, associations), typically grounded in the principle of autonomy. Positive rights, by contrast, are rights of "recipience" (e.g., to education, health care), typically grounded in the principle of justice.

Rule deontology – Theory that non-consequentialist principles must be applied in the form of rules, and that such rules determine whether particular acts are right or wrong. Contrast with act deontology. See also act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism – Theory that the principle of utility is (or ought to be) the source of rules of conduct, and that such rules determine whether particular acts are right or wrong. Rules justified by their general utilitarian consequences may nonetheless require actions that do not maximize utility in particular circumstances. The justification is that, despite such cases, overall utility is maximized by a rule-following system, compared to the alternative of having individuals decide on conduct in particular circumstances. Human beings have a notoriously difficult time being impartial about utility (or anything else) in matters involving their self-interest. Rules have the virtue of imposing a degree of "objectivity" by virtue of their inflexibility. Consistency requires that rules be applied in the same way to relevantly similar circumstances. Unfortunately, what is relevantly similar is not always clear. Contrast with act utilitarianism. See also act deontology, rule deontology.

Self-determination – See autonomy.

Social contract – A thought experiment to evaluate social and political rules. In a hypothetical pre-social state, one picks the rules that will structure the political-social order to come. In Thos. Hobbes’ famous rendering, the pre-social state is one of anarchy (humans are violent animals, and life is "nasty, brutish and short"); this justifies an authoritarian state. In John Locke’s kinder, gentler version, we are rational and essentially non-violent creatures, which justifies only a much more liberty-friendly political arrangement. In John Rawls’ influential Theory of Justice, moral principles are derived from such an approach: they are the principles to which free and rational persons would agree, from an initial state (original position) emphasizing equality. In an original position of equality, we are inclined to make up rules that are fair to all, because we do not know what particular social circumstances will be our lot. See also veil of ignorance.

Supererogatory acts – Acts over and above the call of duty, undertaken because of one’s personal ideals. Contrasted with morally obligatory acts (required by moral duty).

Teleological theories – See consequentialist theories.

Universal law – In Kant’s version of deontological ethics, one "ought never to act except in such a way that [one] can also will that [the] maxim should become a universal law." That is, one should act in a way such that one would wish to see the rule or principle underlying a moral choice applied to all relevantly similar circumstances. See deontological theories and rule utilitarianism.

Universalizability – Criterion that moral judgements, principles and ideals should apply in a similar way to all persons in relevantly similar circumstances.

Utility – Happiness, pleasure, good consequences. In J. S. Mill’s formulation, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Utilitarianism – A conception of the moral life in terms of means-to-ends reasoning. An act or rule is right insofar as it produces or leads to the maximization of good consequences (utility). See act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Veil of ignorance – A hypothetical mental state, in John Rawl’s version of social contract theory, in which we are ignorant (at least momentarily) of our particular characteristics: sex, race, IQ, family background, etc. Valid principles of justice are those to which we would agree if we could freely and impartially consider the social situation, from an original position of such ignorance.

Veracity – The principle that one should tell the truth ("honesty is the best policy").

Vices – Negative ethical/character traits. Contrast with virtues.

Virtue ethics – See character ethics.

Virtues – Positive ethical/character traits, such as benevolence, confidential-ness, fairness, faithfulness, gratefulness, non-deceptiveness (truthfulness), nonmalevolence. Virtues correspond to principles or duties: beneficence, confidentiality, justice, fidelity, gratitude, non-deception (veracity), nonmaleficence, etc.

-----------------

For more extensive discussion of ethical terminology, see, among others: Tom L. Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics (1982: McGraw-Hill); William K. Frankena, Ethics (1973: Prentice Hall); Peter Singer, A Companion to Ethics (1993: Blackwell).

-----------------

This guide may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes with proper attribution of the source.

Last modified: 24-Apr-2006 [RC]