Moral Good and Moral Value Determining moral "good" is a fundamental philosophical study. Only the lazy philosopher would revert to codes of ethics. Ethical standards come from somewhere, and generally those standards can be grouped into three main categories of analysis: consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue or character ethics. While these three modes of thinking about the moral good can sometimes interact with one another to create more complex moral analyses, moral values tend to fall within one of these main categories.

Consequentialism and utilitarianism are ways of thinking about moral value that focus primarily on the consequences of actions. The motivations for an action and the spirit in which an action are carried out are less important than the outcomes. Therefore, a boy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving brother would be doing "good," even though he committed a "bad" act. Utilitarian ethics suggest that there is no absolute moral "good," because "good" must be defined differently depending on the context and situational variables. The utilitarian outlook is common in secular societies, because secular societies prefer to use reason to guide moral decisions rather than rely on strict moral codes like the Ten Commandments. Caputo could be considered a utilitarian in that he denies the existence of any universal moral principles. The lack of absolute moral principles makes some people uncomfortable because ambiguity requires challenging moral inquiry and ongoing critical thinking about complex ethical choices. However, this may be the most realistic method of contemplating moral "good," given the tremendous complexity of each moral decision that is made. Few decisions are "black and white," and there will usually be extenuating circumstances.

In fact, there are even situations in which consequentialism and utilitarianism fail to provide an adequate moral framework. Deontological ethics, such as Kant's, are relevant in some situations. In "The Case for Animal Rights," Regan claims that it is absolutely wrong to cause harm to sentient beings, something that many people intuitively know and understand. Yet it is not just intuition that guides this kind of moral law; pain and suffering are in fact measurable outcomes of harm and cruelty. Deontological ethics are not consequentialist in nature, but when it comes to assessing the harm done to sentient beings, it is important to keep in mind that killing animals may be morally wrong even if the animal that is killed feeds a human being. Given that there are foods other than animals that can be eaten, killing animals for food is morally wrong because it represents the wanton use of violence purely for personal pleasure. While doing no harm could be considered an ethical absolute, the morality of killing becomes problematic when one considers the different value or worth of human versus animal life. A person living in the wilderness would not be able to survive without killing an animal, and nor would their children. In this situation it could be considered more morally wrong to die and to let one's child die, than it would be to kill an animal. Clearly, it is difficult to impose absolute morals on any situation.

However, too much emphasis on relativism leads to faulty moral reasoning. One example is female genital mutilation. Some cultures believe that this practice is sound, sane, and acceptable. A moral relativist would point out that the value of cultural integrity and tradition outweigh the value of human rights, liberty, and freedom from suffering. Yet the determination that human rights are less important than tradition is an arbitrary one. There is no reason to champion the benefits of a tradition, particularly when it is more obvious that female genital mutilation causes lifelong pain and suffering for the persons involved. Moreover, female genital mutilation represents a structural problem in the societies in which it is practiced and is only one of many instances in which the rights of half the population are trampled upon in order to preserve the senior status of the other half.

Not all behaviors that cause harm can be considered morally wrong, though. Temporary harm is often required to promote the common good or to cause a desirable outcome....

Occasionally, a person will make a personal sacrifice in order to promote the happiness of another person. Moral goodness can be assessed in terms of the ability to transcend the ego and its selfish wants. The origin of virtue ethics is embedded in the notion that all "goodness" flows from a heart that is open and focused on love and compassion for all beings. While nebulous in its definition, this approach does allow for a flexible interpretation of moral "good," liberated from the inflexible constraints of rigid moral law.
Finally, goodness has a strong relationship with free will. An act cannot truly be defined as a "good" one unless it stemmed from the use of free will. An idealist or one who believes in character ethics would note also that good deeds extend from having a good heart. "Loving is not measured by a rod or standard but represents the freedom ... of a self that moves freely from one situation to the next," (Caputo, n.d. p. 177). Without free will, a "good" action has no spirit behind it. The action was either coerced or simply done by rote, whereas a selfless act of kindness represents the highest ideal of morally "good" behavior.

Part Two: Informal Discussion

"Good" is usually defined in relative ways. For example, the Stoics equated "good" with "virtue," which fails to properly define good because the definition requires an elucidation of "virtue" too (Palmquist). The definition of "good" is also relative to the situation or context. To do "good" on a test or race is much easier to define than being morally "good," because there are clear rules and quantifications that determine the former but none for the latter. Many religious concepts of moral "good" attempt to provide absolutes, but with human behavior there are always going to be gray areas that prevent universal "good" from existing. For instance, lying is generally considered "bad," but parents might occasionally lie to a child rather than explain difficult questions. White lies that protect other people are an ethical gray area, showing that it is impossible to provide absolute definitions of "good" or "bad." It is preferable to focus on more general constructs and permit a more nuanced understanding of morality.

One way of conceiving of "good" is to focus on consequentialism: good actions are those that cause no harm. By this definition, the large majority of daily actions can be considered "good," in that they are ethically neutral. Alternatively, a "good" action could be one that is not just neutral but which actively produces some positive outcome in another human being or some other system. For example, eating a bowl of rice is a neutral activity. Giving a bowl of rice to a homeless stranger could be considered "good." If the individual gave up his or her own bowl of rice so that the homeless person would be able to eat a meal, that action would generally be deemed "very good" because it involved some sort of personal sacrifice. This version of defining good blends virtue ethics (character) with ethical consequentialism (basing the morality of the action on the outcome). However, it is not a universal standard by any means. If the person sacrificing the food were malnourished, but the homeless person receiving the food turned out to be a murderer, then the outcome would be "bad," but the selfless act of giving the bowl of rice would nevertheless still be considered a morally "good" one. In this sense, "good" is to be distinguished from "sensible," meaning "good" is more related to character and virtue than to consequences.

Part Three: Student Responses

Post One: Moral absolutism is generally problematic, as one group can too easily gain and maintain illegitimate political power simply by claiming access to an authoritative moral law. This is most commonly seen in religions, where morality is outlined in religious law and where that law becomes immutable and unquestionable due to the perception that it is somehow "divine," and "God-given." A human being therefore has no political power to alter a law that is no longer relevant or which may no longer seem just. The same can be said about reverting to "tradition" as a means of enforcing a moral law. Patriarchal social systems have long been justified on the grounds that they are "traditional," but something that is traditional is not necessarily good. Moral good requires critical thought and flexibility, allowing for changes in values and social norms.

Post Two: Some moral codes do seem to be innate. Some of our actions are intuitively wrong or right, something even little children understand. For example, a child will feel guilty if an act causes visible pain to another child or to a parent. Some children can seem cruel, but I believe they are usually testing their boundaries to see what he consequences of their behavior are. In rare cases, as with psychopaths, a person does not have an…