Location of Moral

The thematic classification focuses on the content of the theories—what they say about moral value and what moral
advice they give. Along those lines, we can classify theories according to
• where they locate moral value—in character, actions and intentions, or results
• whether they describe the value of actions and persons as intrinsic or extrinsic
In general, there are three thematic categories of moral theories:
• virtue-based theories [character; both intrinsic and extrinsic]
• deontological theories (or simply, deontology) [actions and intentions; intrinsic]
• consequentialist theories (or simply, consequentialism) [results; extrinsic]
The structural classification focuses on the logical structure of the theories themselves. Does the theory give one basic
principle by which all moral actions can be judged, or does it begin with multiple principles, all of equal importance? Or,
does it not begin with principles of action, but with other concepts instead? In general, theories can be classified as
• deductivist theories (or simply, deductivism; begin from a single principle of action)
• non-deductivist theories (do not begin from a single principle of action)
o principles-based theories (or simply, principlism, begin from multiple principles of action)
o other non-deductivist theories (do not give principles for action)
The historical classification shows the relationships among the theories based on their development in Western history.
This historical approach is useful because we can see how the theories arose as responses to one another. In general,
theories either grow out of one another by developing the ideas in previous theories, or they try to correct what they
perceive as defects in older theories and thus represent departures from or even rebellions against those theories. In this
way, theories can be classified as
• ancient (400 B.C. – 400 A.D)1
• medieval (400 – 1500)
• modern (1500 – 1900)
• contemporary (1900 – present)
In the first part of this handout, we briefly discuss the thematic and structural classifications and then, with these concepts
in mind, trace the history of ethics in the West to see how the theories have developed in Western thought.
1 All dates are approximate and indicate when the theory originated. Note that technically the “modern era” in philosophy ends at
1900. (We no longer live in the modern world, but in the contemporary, or perhaps “post-modern” world.) Classifying Normative Theories 3
Thematic Classification
It is probably most useful to classify normative theories according to where they locate moral value and what kind of
value they assign to actions and persons. First, it is helpful to notice that in general, actions are our window into ethics.
Even in theories that focus on character and lack principles of action, it is still by observing people’s actions that we begin
to form some notion of their character.
In general, three features must be present for an action to occur at all, and when we make moral judgments as ordinary
people, we tend to pay attention to three features:
• the agent who takes the action and who has a particular character
• the objective facts of action itself and the intention behind it
• the results of the action
Whenever an action exists, all of these features—character, action and intention, and results—are present and are possible
locations for moral value. Normally, we take all three features into account when we make moral judgments. We consider
the person taking the action—what character traits do they have? Is this sort of action usual for them, or is it out of
character? We consider the action itself and the agent’s intentions in taking it—is there something fundamentally right or
wrong about the action? Does it violate any basic principles of morality, regardless of its results? What did the agent
intend when he took the action? Finally, we consider the results of the action—did the action help or harm anyone? Was it
a source of suffering or benefit?
Regular people take all of those considerations into account in varying degrees. But normative theories have a tendency to
focus on one feature and locate moral value there, sometimes to the total exclusion of the other two features. The reason
that normative ethicists do this is because they are trying to give as simple, logical, and elegant account of moral value as
they can. Taking multiple features into account tends to lead to contradictions and confusion, so they generally focus on
just one feature.
Moreover, theories differ in how they construe the value of persons and actions. Here we must distinguish between two
types of value—intrinsic and extrinsic. Are persons and actions valuable in and of themselves (intrinsic value), or are they
valuable for the results that they produce (extrinsic value)? Are persons and actions morally good or bad in their own right
(intrinsic value), or are they only good or bad, right or wrong, as instruments for generating results (extrinsic value)?
Normative theories also disagree about this issue.
We can also note that theories can be more situational or more absolutist. Situational theories will generally evaluate
actions separately and may conclude that the same action is right in one situation but wrong in another. More absolutist
theories evaluate types of actions based on universal criteria and may conclude that an action is always right or always
wrong, regardless of the situation. In general, theories are not completely situational or absolutist—it is more a question of
which direction they tend toward.
In general, a thematic classification of normative theories looks like this:
Type of Normative
Theory
Location of Moral
Value
Value of Persons and
Action