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.