Moral Good and Moral Value: Three Ethical Frameworks

Introduction to Moral Frameworks

Determining moral "good" is a fundamental philosophical study. Only the lazy philosopher reverts to codes of ethics without examining their origins. Ethical standards come from somewhere, and those standards can generally be grouped into three main categories of analysis: consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue or character ethics. While these three modes of thinking about moral good can sometimes interact to create more complex moral analyses, moral values tend to fall within one of these main categories.

Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

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 it is 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, which prefer to use reason to guide moral decisions rather than rely on strict moral codes such as 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. Few decisions are truly "black and white," and there will usually be extenuating circumstances.

Deontological Ethics and Animal Rights

There are situations in which consequentialism and utilitarianism fail to provide an adequate moral framework. Deontological ethics, such as Kant's, are relevant in some of these 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 killed feeds a human being. Given that foods other than animals 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, nor would their children. In that 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.

Defining Good: An 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" as well (Palmquist). The definition of "good" is also relative to the situation or context. To do "good" on a test or in a race is much easier to define than being morally "good," because the former has clear rules and quantifiable measures while the latter does not. Many religious concepts of moral "good" attempt to provide absolutes, but with human behavior there will always be gray areas that prevent a universal "good" from existing.

For instance, lying is generally considered "bad," but parents might occasionally lie to a child rather than explain a difficult topic. White lies that protect other people occupy an ethical gray area, demonstrating 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 merely 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 could eat, that action would generally be deemed "very good" because it involved 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 it turned out to be a murderer, then the outcome would be "bad" — yet 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.