1. How Actions Can Be Morally Evaluated l Teleological Ethics: morality is the means to achieve what is identified as good or valuable l Deontological Ethics: the good or valuable is doing our duty (the morally right, obligatory) Divine Command $ Natural Law $ Kant $ Buddhism Motive/Intention (Character) ACT Consequences Teleological Ethics Deontological Ethics

2. Divine Command Theory The good is whatever God commands (as identified in the Scriptures) because it is God’s command Objections: l What God wills can be arbitrary l Scriptures conflict and need interpretation l The theory does not appeal to non-believers & lacks rational persuasiveness (circular)

3. Natural Law Theory l Natural Law: we should follow reason and our God-instilled inclinations (Stoics, Aquinas) l Objections: inclinations sometimes conflict l Reply: principle of double effect: our intention should always be to do the good Counter-replies: $ natural is not always good $ people differ on what is natural $ even double effects are intended Epictetus Thomas Aquinas

4. Kant’s Ethics (Formalism) l The essential feature of morality is obligation; you are obligated only if everyone else is too; the form of moral obligation is its universality l Moral obligation does not vary from person to person. It is not a hypothetical imperative (if you want Y, you ought to do X); rather, the imperative is categorical (you must do X) l Your intention must be to do your duty, to act for the sake of doing your duty

5. Kant: Objections to Consequentialism, Divine Command & Natural Law Theories l If we are naturally oriented to seek happiness, we are not free and thus cannot be morally obligated to seek happiness: ought implies can l Because opinions differ about what happiness is, we could never agree on moral principles l Consequences are often out of our control, so we cannot be held responsible for our actions l We can hold ourselves responsible only if the moral law is self-imposed (“autonomous”)

6. Kant: The Categorical Imperative l Always act only on maxims (rules) that you could will everyone universally to adopt l Two tests for universalizability: l Consistency: a maxim must be universalizable without contradiction l Acceptability: a universalized maxim must be acceptable Objection: moral rules often conflict

7. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (continued) l Because human beings can act rationally, they can act for the sake of doing their duty; that is, they can act on the basis of a “good will” l Rational beings are capable of self-obligating behavior; we should therefore treat others as ends-in-themselves, freely consenting agents Objection: humans are not simply rational