(1) This theory states that actions are right because God commands them and actions are wrong when God forbids them. 

-This theory is a very absolutist one. Once, several years ago, a woman drowned her children because she had a vision that God spoke to her and told her that the only way to save them from Satan was to drown them in her pool.

(2) Objection to Divine Command Theory is the Euthypro Problem: This questions, essentially, does God command things because they are right?

(3) Critically discuss: I believe that DCT is debunked by the Euthypro Problem. This insinuates two things (or it can be interpreted in two ways)

-1. If God commands things that are "right" that must mean there is some other source of righteousness 

-2. If God commands things that are always right, he could command certain things on certain days. It seems arbitrary. For instance, he could say that buring kittens was okay on Monday but not okay on Tuesday.

(1) This moral theory says that we should live in accordance to natural law. This is a normative, not descriptive law. 

(2) Objection: What is "natural"?

(3) It is difficult to determine what "natural" is/ what the purposes of nature are. For example, it can easily be debated:

-Many people object to homosexuality but gays pronounce that their feelings towards someone of the same gender are "natural."

-People object to genetically modified foods but scientists say that their intelligence and ability to produce them us "natural."

-People object to life-extension but others believe that humans have a "natual" drive to live as long as possible. 

-Essentially, some people state that whatever happens IS nature.

(1) This theory is modeled on the ideas and thoughts of Thomas Hobbes. It states that individuals should be bound by a hypothetical "social contract" in order to live in the best conditions. Without it, we would be in a state of nature, where life is "nasty, brutish, and short." In this state, there is a war against all and people are individualistic and live in lawless abandon. In a civil society, where everyone respects the law, everyone benefits from it. You do not have to worry about getting your food stolen because everyone abides by laws against stealing. Essentially, you can live peacefully and avoid the state of nature. An act is right if it is allowed by the laws that let us live together, and it is wrong if it is not. Grounds our acceptance of morality in appeal to self-interest. This type of moral theory requires a strong soverign and punishment for wrongdoings.  

(2) Objection: Social contract theory is not grounded in self-interest? One must ask themselves: is it really in our best interest to follow the law? This brings about a free-rider problem.

(3) If people can break the rules without getting caught, there is no incentive to follow the rules at all. For example, if I can steal food without paying for it, what incentive for me to not steal the food?

(1) This concept was formed from the ideas of John Stuart Mills and Jeremy Bentham. It is a form of consequentialism, which means that the right action in a certain situation is always the one that has the best consequences (all other actions are wrong). This theory requires a theory of value, or the ability to determine what is right/ wrong or good/bad.

Utilitarianism adopts hedonism, which means that the only thing that is intrinsically good is pleasure, and the only thing that is intrinsically bad is pain. Everything else is merely instrumental; it is good/bad so long as it produces good/bad. The principle used in utilitarianism is the Greatest Happiness Principle or Principle of Utility. This principle states: act in such a manner that always produces the greatest utility. Pleasure is essentially measured in utils. In order to calculate the greatest amount of pleasure, we use hedonic calculus where one must take every single person in the world into account. Each individual has the same worth. Every action that produces pleasure is assigned a positive, every action that produces pain a negative. After adjusting each action for intensity, duration, fruitfulness, and likelihood, we can calculate the total number of utils. Whatever produces the most utils is the action that is correct. 

Mills states that intellectual pursuits are qualitatively better. Bottoms up approach- begins with happiness before imposing social ideas on people.

(2) This theory states that pleasure is the most important thing in the world. It completely rejects humans' needs for good relationships, responsibility, and integrity (many other goals in life). 

(3) For example, a father with several young children was a utilitarian theorist. He found out that he could donate his kidney.... Completely disregards the need for responsbility for his family. 

(1) Grounded in the ideas of Immanuel Kant, this is a competing theory with Utilitarianism. Kantianin Ethnics is an example of deontology. This type of ehtics states that the morality of actions lies in motives, NOT in consequences.  Kant was extremely fixated with good will: the morally praiseworthy motive. The morally praiseworthy motive is the motive of duty- doing something because it is the right thing to do. Doing something out of desire is not morally praiseworthy. 

Duty consists of categorical imperatives- you ought to respect other peoples' lives no matter what you want (not hypothetical imperatives- if you want to live long, you ought to stop smoking), which has two main tenets: 

-Act only by which maxim, a principle underlying an action, could become a universal law. 

-Alwas treaty humanity never simply as a means but always also as an end.

Another version of deontolgy is David Ross's seven prima facie duties. (Beneficance, nonmaelfience, gratitude, fidelity, reparation, self-improvement, justice). These duties may sometimes conflict but we weigh them against each other to find out which one is most pressing. Rely on intuition to do so. 

(2) Objection: It is too absolute

(3) Critically discuss: Kantian ethics is far too absolute. Ex: man appears at door with axe and asks for your roommate.

(1) Natural rights are rights we believe to be self-evident. Natural rights ethics is often supplementary to other moral theories. Comes from the ideas of John Locke, who believes that we are created in God's image and that our natural rights stem from God. Other people (Immanuel Kant) believe that natural rights stem from our rational nature. According to this theory, we, as individuals, are entitled specifically to two types of rights: liberty rights (the rights to pursue our own legitamite interests so long as they do not conflict with others) and welfare rights (the rights to health care, polic protection, school, education- goods that help us pursue our legitamite interests). 

(2) Rights are claimed to be self-evident.

(3) Critically discuss: How do we know which rights are self-evident and which rights are just "good to have"? It is easy to say that healthcare is a right, but not everyone believes this to be true.  

(1) This theory believes that the heart of morality is not in what we do, but in who we are. Having virtues is an indication of good character, having vices is an indication of bad character. This idea was grounded in the ideas of Artistotle. Aristotle believed that every living being had a purpose in life. For instance, the function of a tree is to grow tall. The function of a human is to exercise good reason. Reasoning well means being virtuous. Artistotle stressed habituation- the practice of something over and over. Exercising good reason on a daily basis would eventually lead to endaimonia (flourishing), or posessing virtues in all areas. To be virtuous, he stressed the doctorine of the mean or finding the mean between excess and deficiency. For example: 

-Gluttony, temperance, pickiness

-Foolhardy, courageous, cowardice 

(2) Objection: It is difficult to use the doctorine of the mean 

(3) Critically discuss: What is the "mean"? Sometimes some situations require acting in excess or deficiency. Acting foolhardy as a facade, for instance.