§2 Action-Based Ethical Theories

Action-based theories are the most common frameworks used in public policy and legal systems. They ask the question: “What should I do?” These theories look at the act itself or the results it produces, rather than the character of the person performing it.

2.1 Consequentialism: The Results Matter

Consequentialism is the “accountant’s” approach to ethics. It argues that the moral rightness of an action is determined entirely by its consequences.

• Ethical Egoism: This is the view that you should always act in your own best long-term interest. A Reasonable Person distinguishes this from “selfishness”; an egoist might help others because building a strong community is good for them in the long run.

• Utilitarianism (Mill & Bentham): This is the most influential version of consequentialism. It follows the Greatest Happiness Principle: The right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness (pleasure/well-being) for the greatest number of people.

  • The Calculation: You must weigh the “utility” (benefit) against the “disutility” (harm). If a policy helps 1,000 people but slightly inconveniences 10, a Utilitarian would likely approve it.

2.2 Deontology: The Rules Matter

Deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning “duty.” This framework argues that results are unpredictable and therefore a poor basis for morality. Instead, we should follow Universal Moral Rules.

• Divine Command Theory: Right and wrong are determined solely by the word of God. If God commands it, it is a duty; if God forbids it, it is a sin.

• Kantian Ethics (Immanuel Kant): Kant believed morality is based on Reason, not religion or feelings. He proposed the Categorical Imperative:

  • The Universal Law Formula: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

  • Example: Should I lie to get out of trouble? Kant asks: “Would I want a world where everyone is required to lie?” If the answer is no (because communication would collapse), then lying is always wrong—no exceptions.

2.3 The Conflict: The Inquiring Murderer

To see the difference between these two, philosophers use the “Inquiring Murderer” thought experiment: A murderer knocks on your door and asks where your friend is (so they can kill them). Your friend is hiding in the closet.

1. The Utilitarian: Would say you should lie. The “consequence” of saving a life far outweighs the “disutility” of a small lie.

2. The Kantian: Would say you must tell the truth. You cannot control the consequences (perhaps the friend jumps out the window and you accidentally lead the killer to them), but you can control your duty to be an honest person.

§2 Summary Table: Consequences vs. Duties