Editing Ethics (section)

== Normative ethics ==
{{main|Normative ethics}}
Normative ethics is the philosophical study of ethical conduct and investigates the fundamental principles of [[morality]]. It aims to discover and justify general answers to questions like "How should one live?" and "How should people act?", usually in the form of universal or domain-independent principles that determine whether an act is right or wrong.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics}} | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Gustafson|2020|pp=[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_1222-1 1–2]}} | {{harvnb|Thomas|2022}} }}</ref> For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme [[suffering]] to the [[innocent]], which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.<ref>{{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=1–3}}</ref> Many theories of normative ethics also aim to guide behavior by helping people make moral [[Decision-making|decisions]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Barsh|Lisewski|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tSzdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA29 29]}} | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=18–19}} }}</ref>

Theories in normative ethics state how people should act or what kind of behavior is correct. They do not aim to describe how people normally act, what moral beliefs ordinary people have, how these beliefs change over time, or what [[ethical code]]s are upheld in certain social groups. These topics belong to [[descriptive ethics]] and are studied in fields like [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], and [[history]] rather than normative ethics.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sims|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=J6csDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6 6]}} | {{harvnb|Barsh|Lisewski|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tSzdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA29 29]}} | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=7–10}} | {{harvnb|Sulmasy|Sugarman|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QPvoTjDn0B4C&pg=PA11 11]}} | {{harvnb|Pera|Tonder|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=S11Eg3KjcOAC&pg=PA7 7]}} }}</ref>

Some systems of normative ethics arrive at a single principle covering all possible cases. Others encompass a small set of basic rules that address all or at least the most important moral considerations.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|p=2}} | {{harvnb|Gustafsson|Pietarinen|2016|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=UDUPDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 125–126]}} }}</ref> One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to [[ethical dilemma]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=2–3}}</ref>

Distinct theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality. The three most influential schools of thought are [[consequentialism]], [[deontology]], and [[virtue ethics]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Thomas|2022}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics}} | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|pp=2, 11}} }}</ref> These schools are usually presented as exclusive alternatives, but depending on how they are defined, they can overlap and do not necessarily exclude one another.<ref>{{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}}</ref> In some cases, they differ in which acts they see as right or wrong. In other cases, they recommend the same course of action but provide different [[Justification (epistemology)|justifications]] for why it is right.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Kagan|1998|p=11}} }}</ref>

=== Consequentialism ===
{{main|Consequentialism}}

Consequentialism, also called teleological ethics,<ref>{{harvnb|Bunnin|Yu|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=M7ZFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA134 134]}}</ref>{{efn|According to some theorists, ''teleological ethics'' is a wider term than ''consequentialism'' because it also covers certain forms of virtue ethics.<ref>{{harvnb|McNaughton|Rawling|1998|loc=§ 1. Act-consequentialism}}</ref>}} says that morality depends on consequences. According to the most common view, an act is right if it brings the best future. This means that there is no alternative course of action that has better consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2023|loc=§ 1. Utilitarianism}} }}</ref> A key aspect of consequentialist theories is that they provide a characterization of what is good and then define what is right in terms of what is good.<ref name="Crisp 2005 200–201">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Murthy|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 74]}} }}</ref> For example, classical [[utilitarianism]] says that pleasure is good and that the action leading to the most overall pleasure is right.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism}}</ref> Consequentialism has been discussed indirectly since the formulation of classical utilitarianism in the late 18th century. A more explicit analysis of this view happened in the 20th century, when the term was coined by [[G. E. M. Anscombe]].<ref>{{harvnb|Carlson|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VHIlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1]}}</ref>

Consequentialists usually understand the consequences of an action in a very wide sense that includes the totality of its effects. This is based on the idea that actions make a difference in the world by bringing about a [[Causality|causal]] chain of events that would not have existed otherwise.<ref>{{harvnb|Dorsey|2020|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=d0D8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 97–98]}}</ref> A core intuition behind consequentialism is that the future should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>

The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an act has [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic value]] or disvalue, it is not included as a factor. Some consequentialists see this as a flaw, saying that all value-relevant factors need to be considered. They try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of the consequences. A related approach is to characterize consequentialism not in terms of consequences but in terms of outcome, with the outcome being defined as the act together with its consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Zimmerman|2015|p=17}} }}</ref>

Most forms of consequentialism are agent-neutral. This means that the value of consequences is assessed from a neutral perspective, that is, acts should have consequences that are good in general and not just good for the agent. It is controversial whether agent-relative moral theories, like [[ethical egoism]], should be considered as types of consequentialism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Edmundson|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QYh_vN7CqMEC&pg=PA158 158]}} | {{harvnb|Brink|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=U0D8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA382 382]}} }}</ref>

==== Types ====
There are many different types of consequentialism. They differ based on what type of entity they evaluate, what consequences they take into consideration, and how they determine the value of consequences.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}}</ref> Most theories assess the moral value of acts. However, consequentialism can also be used to evaluate [[motivation|motives]], [[character trait]]s, rules, and [[policies]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref>

Many types assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote happiness or suffering. But there are also alternative evaluative principles, such as [[desire]] satisfaction, [[autonomy]], [[freedom]], [[knowledge]], [[friendship]], [[beauty]], and self-perfection.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 3. What Is Good? Hedonistic Vs. Pluralistic Consequentialisms}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref> Some forms of consequentialism hold that there is only a [[Axiology#Monism and pluralism|single source of value]].<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism">{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}}</ref> The most prominent among them is classical [[utilitarianism]], which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the [[pleasure]] and [[suffering]] they cause.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref> An alternative approach says that there are many different sources of value, which all contribute to one overall value.<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism"/> Before the 20th century, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good. In the 20th century, alternative views were developed that additionally consider the distribution of value. One of them states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Cummiskey|1996|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYPmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA157 157–158]}} }}</ref>

There are disagreements about which consequences should be assessed. An important distinction is between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism. According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral value. This means that there is a direct relation between the consequences of an act and its moral value. Rule consequentialism, by contrast, holds that an act is right if it follows a certain set of rules. Rule consequentialism determines the best rules by considering their outcomes at a community level. People should follow the rules that lead to the best consequences when everyone in the community follows them. This implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect. For example, if telling the truth is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should tell the truth even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=§ 1f. Rule Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref>

Another disagreement is between actual and expected consequentialism. According to the traditional view, only the actual consequences of an act affect its moral value. One difficulty of this view is that many consequences cannot be known in advance. This means that in some cases, even well-planned and intentioned acts are morally wrong if they inadvertently lead to negative outcomes. An alternative perspective states that what matters are not the actual consequences but the expected consequences. This view takes into account that when deciding what to do, people have to rely on their limited knowledge of the total consequences of their actions. According to this view, a course of action has positive moral value despite leading to an overall negative outcome if it had the highest [[expected value]], for example, because the negative outcome could not be anticipated or was unlikely.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism, § 4. Which Consequences? Actual Vs. Expected Consequentialisms}} }}</ref>

A further difference is between [[Maximization (psychology)|maximizing]] and [[satisficing]] consequentialism. According to maximizing consequentialism, only the best possible act is morally permitted. This means that acts with positive consequences are wrong if there are alternatives with even better consequences. One criticism of maximizing consequentialism is that it demands too much by requiring that people do significantly more than they are socially expected to. For example, if the best action for someone with a good salary would be to donate 70% of their income to charity, it would be morally wrong for them to only donate 65%. Satisficing consequentialism, by contrast, only requires that an act is "good enough" even if it is not the best possible alternative. According to this view, it is possible to do more than one is morally required to do.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=938–939}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Singer|2016|pp=47–48}} | {{harvnb|Byron|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bRFFsQE2BrQC&pg=PA9 9]}} }}</ref>{{efn|This state is known as [[supererogation]].<ref>{{harvnb|Heyd|2019|loc=Lead section}}</ref>}}

[[Mohism]] in ancient [[Chinese philosophy]] is one of the earliest forms of consequentialism. It arose in the 5th century BCE and argued that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Littlejohn|loc=§ 1c. Mozi (c. 470-391 B.C.E.) and Mohism}} | {{harvnb|Zhang|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=2ka8EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96 96]}} }}</ref>

==== Utilitarianism ====
{{main|Utilitarianism}}
The most well-known form of consequentialism is utilitarianism. In its classical form, it is an act consequentialism that sees [[happiness]] as the only source of intrinsic value. This means that an act is morally right if it produces "the greatest good for the greatest number" by increasing happiness and reducing suffering. Utilitarians do not deny that other things also have value, like health, friendship, and knowledge. However, they deny that these things have intrinsic value. Instead, they say that they have extrinsic value because they affect happiness and suffering. In this regard, they are desirable as a means but, unlike happiness, not as an end.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=936, 938}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism}} }}</ref> The view that pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value is called ethical or [[evaluative hedonism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|2019|loc=Lead section, § 2. Ethical Hedonism}}</ref>

{{multiple image
|total_width=400px
|perrow=2/1
|image1=Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill_detail.jpg
|alt1=Painting of Jeremy Bentham
|image2=John_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company,_c1870.jpg
|alt2=Photo of John Stuart Mill
|footer=[[Jeremy Bentham]] and [[John Stuart Mill]] are the founding fathers of classical utilitarianism.<ref>{{harvnb|Suikkanen|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=343mDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24 24]}}</ref>
}}

Classical utilitarianism was initially formulated by [[Jeremy Bentham]] at the end of the 18th century and further developed by [[John Stuart Mill]]. Bentham introduced the [[hedonic calculus]] to assess the value of consequences. Two key aspects of the hedonic calculus are the intensity and the duration of pleasure. According to this view, a pleasurable experience has a high value if it has a high intensity and lasts for a long time. A common criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that its focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory gratification. Mill responded to this criticism by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. He stated that higher pleasures, like the intellectual satisfaction of reading a book, are more valuable than lower pleasures, like the sensory enjoyment of food and drink, even if their intensity and duration are the same.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=936, 938}} | {{harvnb|Mendus|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wYWGIpa7Qr4C&pg=PA141 141]}} | {{harvnb|Kivy|2011|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-c7ThZc5Rv0C&pg=PA238 238]}} }}</ref> Since its original formulation, many variations of utilitarianism have developed, including the difference between [[Act utilitarianism|act]] and [[rule utilitarianism]] and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|p=938}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=z3zBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA281 281]}} | {{harvnb|Satyanarayana|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=gjiBTNR1g0kC&pg=PT76 76]}} }}</ref>

=== Deontology ===
{{main|Deontology}}
Deontology assesses the moral rightness of actions based on a set of [[Norm (philosophy)|norms]] or principles. These norms describe the requirements that all actions need to follow.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} }}</ref> They may include principles like telling the truth, keeping [[promise]]s, and not intentionally harming others.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Simpson|loc=§ 6c. Deontological Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties}} | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} }}</ref> Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the validity of general moral principles does not directly depend on their consequences. They state that these principles should be followed in every case since they express how actions are inherently right or wrong. According to moral philosopher [[W. D. Ross|David Ross]], it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Simpson|loc=§ 6c. Deontological Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties}} }}</ref> Deontologists are interested in which actions are right and often allow that there is a gap between what is right and what is good.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism, § 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Murthy|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 74]}} }}</ref> Many focus on prohibitions and describe which acts are forbidden under any circumstances.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} }}</ref>

==== Agent-centered and patient-centered ====
Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the [[moral agency|person who acts]] and the [[Duty|duties]] they have. Agent-centered theories often focus on the motives and intentions behind people's actions, highlighting the importance of acting for the right reasons. They tend to be agent-relative, meaning that the reasons for which people should act depend on personal circumstances. For example, a parent has a special obligation to their child, while a stranger does not have this kind of obligation toward a child they do not know. Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affected by actions and the rights they have. An example is the requirement to treat other people as ends and not merely as a means to an end.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Hale|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=CQNLDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA216 216]}} | {{harvnb|Kumm|Walen|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DXs9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 81]}} }}</ref> This requirement can be used to argue, for example, that it is wrong to kill a person against their will even if this act would save the lives of several others. Patient-centered deontological theories are usually agent-neutral, meaning that they apply equally to everyone in a situation, regardless of their specific role or position.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}}</ref>

==== Kantianism ====
{{main|Kantian ethics}}
[[File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Oil painting of Immanuel Kant|[[Immanuel Kant]] formulated a deontological system based on universal laws that apply to all [[Rationality|rational]] creatures.]]

[[Immanuel Kant]] (1724–1804) is one of the most well-known deontologists.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.4 Deontological Theories and Kant}}</ref> He states that reaching outcomes that people desire, such as being happy, is not the main purpose of moral actions. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their desires. He uses the term ''[[categorical imperative]]'' for these principles, saying that they have their source in the structure of [[practical reason]] and are true for all [[Rationality|rational]] agents. According to Kant, to act morally is to act in agreement with reason as expressed by these principles<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|O'Neill|loc=§ 1. Kant's Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} | {{harvnb|Nadkarni|2011|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=aoM8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT20 20]}} }}</ref> while violating them is both immoral and irrational.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=Lead section}}</ref>

Kant provided several formulations of the categorical imperative. One formulation says that a person should only follow [[Maxim (philosophy)|maxims]]{{efn|A maxim is a rule that people can adopt to guide their action, like "If you want to make big money, you should go into sales" or "Thou shalt not commit murder".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kerstein|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Bqemab0aXx8C&pg=PA128 128]}} | {{harvnb|Cardwell|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=iEbKBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 85]}} }}</ref>}} that can be [[Universalizability|universalized]]. This means that the person would want everyone to follow the same maxim as a universal law applicable to everyone. Another formulation states that one should treat other people always as ends in themselves and never as mere means to an end. This formulation focuses on respecting and valuing other people for their own sake rather than using them in the pursuit of personal goals.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|O'Neill|loc=§ 1. Kant's Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} }}</ref>

In either case, Kant says that what matters is to have a good will. A person has a good will if they respect the moral law and form their intentions and motives in agreement with it. Kant states that actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} | {{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=§ 2. Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty, § 3. Duty and Respect for Moral Law}} }}</ref>

==== Others ====
{{main|Divine command theory|Contractualism|Discourse ethics}}
Divine command theory says that God is the source of morality. It states that moral laws are divine commands and that to act morally is to obey and follow [[God's will]]. While all divine command theorists agree that morality depends on God, there are disagreements about the precise content of the divine commands, and theorists belonging to different religions tend to propose different moral laws.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Austin|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Murphy|2019|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> For example, Christian and Jewish divine command theorists may argue that the [[Ten Commandments]] express God's will<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Miller|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=87hQ2AjcttEC&pg=PA13 13]}} | {{harvnb|Flynn|2012|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqdAIC&pg=PA167 167]}} }}</ref> while Muslims may reserve this role for the teachings of the [[Quran]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Flynn|2012|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqdAIC&pg=PA167 167]}} | {{harvnb|Myers|Noebel|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=hzeACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA241 241]}} }}</ref> 

Contractualists reject the reference to God as the source of morality and argue instead that morality is based on an explicit or implicit [[social contract]] between humans. They state that actual or hypothetical [[consent]] to this contract is the source of moral norms and duties. To determine which duties people have, contractualists often rely on a [[thought experiment]] about what rational people under ideal circumstances would agree on. For example, if they would agree that people should not lie then there is a moral obligation to refrain from lying. Because it relies on consent, contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of deontology.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.3 Contractualist Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Sullivan|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=1vkgWX7GRr0C&pg=PA118 118]}} | {{harvnb|Ashford|Mulgan|2018|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>{{efn|Some ethicists state that contractualism is not a normative ethical theory but a metaethical theory because of its emphasis on how moral norms are justified.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.3 Contractualist Deontological Theories}}</ref>}} Famous social contract theorists include [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[John Locke]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], and [[John Rawls]].<ref>{{harvnb|Friend|loc=Lead section}}</ref>

[[File:JuergenHabermas.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of Jürgen Habermas|According to [[discourse ethics]], as formulated by [[Jürgen Habermas]], moral norms are justified by [[Communicative rationality|rational discourse]] within society. ]]

Discourse ethics also focuses on social agreement on moral norms but says that this agreement is based on [[communicative rationality]]. It aims to arrive at moral norms for pluralistic modern societies that encompass a diversity of viewpoints. A universal moral norm is seen as valid if all rational discourse participants do or would approve. This way, morality is not imposed by a single moral authority but arises from the moral discourse within society. This discourse should aim to establish an [[ideal speech situation]] to ensure fairness and inclusivity. In particular, this means that discourse participants are [[Freedom of speech|free to voice]] their different opinions without coercion but are at the same time required to justify them using rational argumentation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Chakraborti|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 39]}} | {{harvnb|Metselaar|Widdershoven|2016|pp=[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_145 895–896]}} | {{harvnb|Finlayson|Rees|2023|loc=§ 3.3 The Principles of Discourse Ethics and Their Justification}} }}</ref>

=== Virtue ethics ===
{{main|Virtue ethics}}
The main concern of virtue ethics is how [[virtue]]s are expressed in actions. As such, it is neither directly interested in the consequences of actions nor in universal moral duties.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005a|pp=947–948}} | {{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> Virtues are positive character traits like [[honesty]], [[courage]], [[kindness]], and [[compassion]]. They are usually understood as [[disposition]]s to feel, decide, and act in a certain manner by being wholeheartedly committed to this manner. Virtues contrast with [[vice]]s, which are their harmful counterparts.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=Lead section, § 1.1 Virtue}} | {{harvnb|Slote|2005a|pp=947–948}} }}</ref>

Virtue theorists usually say that the mere possession of virtues by itself is not sufficient. Instead, people should manifest virtues in their actions. An important factor is the practical wisdom, also called ''[[phronesis]]'', of knowing when, how, and which virtue to express. For example, a lack of practical wisdom may lead courageous people to perform morally wrong actions by taking unnecessary risks that should better be avoided.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=§ 1.2 Practical Wisdom}} | {{harvnb|Caro|Marraffa|Vaccarezza|2021|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QL4sEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT31 31–33]}} }}</ref>

Different types of virtue ethics differ on how they understand virtues and their role in practical life. [[Eudaimonia|Eudaimonism]] is the original form of virtue theory developed in Ancient Greek philosophy and draws a close relation between virtuous behavior and happiness. It states that people flourish by living a virtuous life. Eudaimonist theories often hold that virtues are positive potentials residing in human nature and that actualizing these potentials results in leading a good and happy life.<ref name="Hursthouse 2023 loc=§ 2. Forms of Virtue Ethics">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=§ 2. Forms of Virtue Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Athanassoulis|loc=§ 3. Virtue Ethical Theories}} }}</ref> Agent-based theories, by contrast, see happiness only as a side effect and focus instead on the admirable traits and motivational characteristics expressed while acting. This is often combined with the idea that one can learn from [[role model|exceptional individuals]] what those characteristics are.<ref name="Hursthouse 2023 loc=§ 2. Forms of Virtue Ethics"/> Feminist [[ethics of care]] are another form of virtue ethics. They emphasize the importance of [[interpersonal relationship]]s and say that benevolence by caring for the [[well-being]] of others is one of the key virtues.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Athanassoulis|loc=§ 3c. The Ethics of Care}} | {{harvnb|Sander-Staudt|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>

Influential schools of virtue ethics in ancient philosophy were [[Aristotelianism]] and [[Stoicism]]. According to [[Aristotle]] (384–322 BCE), each virtue{{efn|The ancient Greeks used the word {{lang|grc|arête}}, which has the meaning of both 'virtue' and 'excellence'.<ref>{{harvnb|Hursthouse|Pettigrove|2023|loc=§ 1. Preliminaries}}</ref>}} is a [[Golden mean (philosophy)|golden mean]] between two types of vices: excess and deficiency. For example, courage is a virtue that lies between the deficient state of [[cowardice]] and the excessive state of [[Recklessness (psychology)|recklessness]]. Aristotle held that virtuous action leads to happiness and makes people flourish in life.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Skirbekk|Gilje|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_I00e3SQAwMC&pg=PA81 81]}} | {{harvnb|Kraut|2022|loc=Lead section, § 5. The Doctrine of the Mean}} }}</ref> Stoicism emerged about 300 BCE<ref>{{harvnb|Hill|Blazejak|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=UQE5EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4 4]}}</ref> and taught that, through virtue alone, people can achieve happiness characterized by a [[Apatheia|peaceful state of mind]] free from emotional disturbances. The Stoics advocated rationality and self-mastery to achieve this state.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Stephens|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Campbell|1985|pp=327–328}} }}</ref> In the 20th century, virtue ethics experienced a resurgence thanks to philosophers such as [[Elizabeth Anscombe]], [[Philippa Foot]], [[Alasdair MacIntyre]], and [[Martha Nussbaum]].<ref>{{harvnb|Hursthouse|1999|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=EbHmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3]}}</ref>

=== Other traditions ===
There are many other schools of normative ethics in addition to the three main traditions. [[Pragmatist ethics]] focuses on the role of practice and holds that one of the key tasks of ethics is to solve practical problems in concrete situations. It has certain similarities to utilitarianism and its focus on consequences but concentrates more on how morality is embedded in and relative to social and cultural contexts. Pragmatists tend to give more importance to [[habit]]s than to conscious deliberation and understand morality as a habit that should be shaped in the right way.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Peterson|2020|pp=[https://academic.oup.com/book/40526/chapter-abstract/347844589?redirectedFrom=fulltext 65–66]}} | {{harvnb|Legg|Hookway|2021|loc=§ 6.2 Ethics}} | {{harvnb|LaFollette|2007|loc=§ The Primacy of Habits, § Morality Is a Habit}} }}</ref>

[[Postmodernism|Postmodern]] ethics agrees with pragmatist ethics about the [[cultural relativity]] of morality. It rejects the idea that there are objective moral principles that apply universally to all cultures and traditions. It asserts that there is no one coherent ethical code since morality itself is irrational and humans are morally ambivalent beings.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bauman|1993|pp=8–13}} | {{harvnb|Kendall|2017|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VyRIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA195 195–196]}} }}</ref> Postmodern ethics instead focuses on how moral demands arise in specific situations as one encounters other people.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Connor|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dfpJqgYC7x8C&pg=PA15 15]}} | {{harvnb|Eaglestone|2004|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dfpJqgYC7x8C&pg=PA182 182, 186–187]}} }}</ref>

[[File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|alt=Photo of Buddha statue|The practices of [[Karuṇā|compassion]] and [[Mettā|loving-kindness]] are key elements of [[Buddhist ethics]].]]

Ethical egoism is the view that people should act in their [[self-interest]] or that an action is morally right if the person acts for their own benefit. It differs from [[psychological egoism]], which states that people actually follow their self-interest without claiming that they should do so. Ethical egoists may act in agreement with commonly accepted moral expectations and benefit other people, for example, by keeping promises, helping friends, and cooperating with others. However, they do so only as a means to promote their self-interest. Ethical egoism is often criticized as an immoral and [[contradictory]] position.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Shaver|2023|loc=Lead section, § 2. Ethical Egoism}} | {{harvnb|McEwan|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=7ebzqK53ay8C&pg=PA87 87]}} | {{harvnb|Fernando|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_32bJs_nfNIC&pg=SA2-PA6 2.6]}} }}</ref>

Normative ethics has a central place [[Ethics in religion|in most religions]]. Key aspects of [[Jewish ethics]] are to follow the [[613 commandments|613 commandments of God]] according to the ''[[Mitzvah]]'' duty found in the [[Torah]] and to [[Tikkun Olam|take responsibility for societal welfare]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bollag|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=zMs-_Giyk6QC&pg=PA15 15–16]}} | {{harvnb|Blidstein|1995|pp=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23260803 5–6]}} }}</ref> [[Christian ethics]] puts less emphasis on following precise laws and teaches instead the practice of [[agape|selfless love]], such as the [[Great Commandment]] to "Love your neighbor as yourself".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Beach|1988|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OUtss9YhnvEC&pg=PA36 36]}} | {{harvnb|Porter|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KF6MauIHGKgC&pg=PA73 73]}} }}</ref> The [[Five Pillars of Islam]] constitute a basic framework of Muslim ethics and focus on the practice of [[Shahada|faith]], [[Salat|prayer]], [[Zakat|charity]], [[Sawm|fasting during Ramadan]], and [[Hajj|pilgrimage to Mecca]].<ref>{{harvnb|Verhoeven|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=RYpTAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 27]}}</ref>

Buddhists emphasize the importance of [[Karuṇā|compassion]] and [[Mettā|loving-kindness]] towards all sentient entities.<ref>{{harvnb|Chowdhury|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qy2bDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA494 494]}}</ref> A similar outlook is found in [[Jainism]], which has [[Ahimsa|non-violence]] as its principal virtue.<ref>{{harvnb|Beaman|Strumos|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=0OV5EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 76]}}</ref> [[Dharma|Duty]] is a central aspect of [[Hindu ethics]] and is about fulfilling social obligations, which may vary depending on [[Caste system in India|a person's social class]] and [[Āśrama (stage)|stage of life]].<ref>{{harvnb|Chakraborti|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122 122]}}</ref> [[Confucianism]] places great emphasis on harmony in society and sees [[Ren (philosophy)|benevolence]] as a key virtue.<ref>{{harvnb|Wu|Wokutch|2008|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=5m9yq0Eu-vsC&pg=PT474 404]}}</ref> [[Taoism]] extends the importance of living in harmony to the whole world and teaches that people should practice [[Wu wei|effortless action]] by following [[Tao|the natural flow of the universe]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ames|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KfeOAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1685 1681]}} | {{harvnb|Brannigan|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=axvPxswqNLQC&pg=PA145 145]}} }}</ref> Indigenous belief systems, like [[Native American philosophy]] and the African [[Ubuntu philosophy]], often emphasize the interconnectedness of all living beings and the environment while stressing the importance of living in harmony with nature.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ntuli|2002|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=h9HDYNhYqfAC&pg=PA58 58–60]}} | {{harvnb|Sinclair|2022|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=yhwrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96 96–97]}} }}</ref>