Ethics I: Consequentialism, Deontology & Virtue Ethics
Core Philosophical Problems
Course 3 · Chapter 5 · Ethics I: Consequentialism, Deontology & Virtue Ethics
Three Ways to Ask "What Should I Do?"
An action is right if it produces the best overall outcome. What matters is the result, not the type of act or the actor's own character.
Some actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of outcome — duty and rule, not consequence, is what makes an act permissible.
The central question isn't "what should I do?" but "what would a genuinely virtuous person do?" — character comes first, action follows from it.
Consequentialism: Beyond Bentham and Mill
Course 2, Chapter 6 already covered utilitarianism's own founding form in depth — Bentham's greatest happiness principle and Mill's higher/lower pleasures. Both are real examples of act utilitarianism: judging each individual action by whether it produces the best outcome in that specific case.
Rule utilitarianism takes a genuinely different approach: rather than evaluating each act on its own, it asks which general rule would produce the best consequences if everyone followed it, then judges an individual action by whether it conforms to that rule — even in a specific case where breaking the rule might, in isolation, produce a slightly better local outcome. The real motivating worry: if everyone constantly recalculated whether breaking a rule would help in their own particular situation, the resulting unpredictability and erosion of trust would make things worse overall, even though each individual exception looked locally justified.
Deontology: Beyond Kant
Course 2, Chapter 4 covered Kant's categorical imperative in depth — a single, universal, exceptionless rule from which every duty is meant to follow. W.D. Ross's real 1930 book The Right and the Good offers a genuinely different, more flexible deontological picture: rather than one master rule, Ross proposes seven real prima facie duties — obligations that hold "at first appearance" unless outweighed by a competing duty in a specific situation.
Fidelity (keeping promises), reparation (making amends for wrongs), gratitude (repaying those who helped you), justice (distributing benefits fairly), beneficence (promoting others' good), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and self-improvement. None is absolute on its own — when two genuinely conflict, judgment, not a fixed formula, decides which one actually wins in that particular case.
Virtue Ethics: Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean
Course 1, Chapter 4 introduced Aristotle's virtue ethics broadly. His real, specific mechanism for identifying a virtue is the doctrine of the mean: a virtue of character sits at a genuine middle point between two opposing vices — one of excess, one of deficiency.
| Deficiency | Virtue (the mean) | Excess |
|---|---|---|
| Cowardice | Courage | Rashness |
| Insensibility | Temperance | Self-indulgence |
| Stinginess | Liberality | Prodigality |
Aristotle applied this framework to eleven real moral virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics. The mean isn't a fixed mathematical midpoint — it's the appropriate response for the actual situation, judged through phronesis (practical wisdom), the same faculty Course 1's own Chapter 4 already identified as central to Aristotle's ethics.
A friend asks whether you like their new haircut, which you privately think looks bad. A consequentialist weighs the likely outcomes of honesty versus a kind lie — which produces more overall wellbeing? A deontologist asks whether lying itself is permissible as a rule, regardless of outcome — Kant's own real answer, notoriously, was no, not even here. A virtue ethicist asks what a person with genuine honesty and genuine kindness would actually say — likely neither a flat lie nor a blunt insult, but something true, kind, and tactfully phrased. The three frameworks can converge on the same answer, or diverge sharply, depending on the case.
Questions to Sit With
Rule utilitarianism sometimes requires following a rule even when breaking it would produce a better outcome in one specific case. Does that make it a genuine improvement on act utilitarianism, or does it just import deontology's own rigidity through the back door?
Ross offers no fixed formula for which prima facie duty wins when two genuinely conflict — it comes down to judgment. Is that a real strength (flexibility) or a real weakness (no reliable method) of his theory?
In the haircut example, which framework's answer feels closest to what you'd actually do? Does your answer stay consistent if you imagine a higher-stakes version of the same dilemma?
Quick Reference — Chapter 5
- Consequentialism — right action produces the best outcome; act utilitarianism (Course 2) vs. rule utilitarianism (judging rules, not individual acts, by their consequences)
- Deontology — Kant's categorical imperative (Course 2) vs. Ross's real 1930 prima facie duties (seven non-absolute obligations, weighed by judgment)
- Virtue ethics — Aristotle's doctrine of the mean: virtue as the midpoint between a vice of excess and a vice of deficiency
- The three frameworks can converge or genuinely diverge on the same real-world case