Ethics

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Ethics asks a question that most people have felt but few can fully answer: how should one live? That question sits at the center of moral philosophy, a discipline that the Ancient Greek word ēthikós gave us, a word that entered English through Latin as ethica and arrived in the language during the 15th century. From ancient Egypt's concept of Maat to Aristotle's golden mean, from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative to the trolley problem devised by Philippa Foot, thinkers across thousands of years have tried to answer it. What makes an action right or wrong? Are moral facts as real as physical ones, or are they human inventions? And can a person ever truly know what the right thing to do actually is? Those are the questions this documentary will follow, branch by branch, through one of philosophy's oldest and most contested fields.

• 2. Three Roads to Right Action

  ›

  Consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are the three most influential schools of normative ethics, and each begins from a different starting point. Consequentialism, also called teleological ethics, says that morality depends on consequences. Its core intuition is that the future should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome, which means that an act is right if it brings about the best future among all available alternatives. Classical utilitarianism, the most well-known form, was 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 consequences, weighing the intensity and duration of pleasure. Mill pushed back against critics who saw this as a license for indulgence by distinguishing higher pleasures, like the intellectual satisfaction of reading a book, from lower ones, like sensory enjoyment of food and drink.

  Deontology takes a fundamentally different position. Moral philosopher David Ross argued that it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the most prominent deontologist, said that morality is not about reaching desired outcomes but about following universal principles he called categorical imperatives. These have their source in the structure of practical reason and apply to all rational agents. One formulation says that a person should only follow maxims they would want universalized as a law for everyone. Another says to treat people always as ends in themselves, never merely as means. What mattered to Kant was having a good will, one that respects the moral law regardless of the consequences.

  Virtue ethics, the oldest of the three traditions, traces back to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who held that each virtue is a golden mean between two vices. Courage, for instance, lies between cowardice and recklessness. Stoicism, which emerged around 300 BCE, taught that through virtue alone people can achieve happiness as a peaceful state of mind free from emotional disturbances. In the latter half of the 20th century, virtue ethics experienced a resurgence thanks to philosophers including Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Martha Nussbaum.

• 3. Consequentialism's Inner Disputes

  ›

  Mohism in ancient Chinese philosophy is one of the earliest forms of consequentialism, arising in the 5th century BCE and arguing that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people. Yet consequentialism as an explicitly named theory came much later. The term itself was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe in the 20th century, when a more formal analysis of the view appeared.

  Within consequentialism, a series of sharp internal disagreements have developed. Act consequentialism holds a direct relationship between an act and its consequences: whatever produces the best outcome is right. Rule consequentialism, by contrast, says that an act is right if it follows a set of rules determined by asking what rules would lead to the best outcomes when everyone in a community follows them. By that logic, a person should tell the truth even in specific cases where lying would lead to better immediate consequences, because telling the truth is among the best community-wide rules.

  Another divide concerns actual versus expected consequences. The traditional view holds that only actual consequences matter, which means that well-intentioned acts that inadvertently lead to negative outcomes are morally wrong. The expected-consequences view responds that people must rely on limited knowledge when deciding what to do, so an action that had the highest expected value deserves positive moral assessment even if things go wrong in ways that could not be anticipated.

  Maximizing consequentialism adds a further demand: only the best possible act is morally permitted, making all others wrong. A person with a good salary who could give 70 percent of their income to charity would be acting wrongly by giving only 65 percent, by this logic. Satisficing consequentialism softens this by requiring only that an act be good enough rather than the absolute best alternative, making room for the idea that it is possible to do more than morality strictly requires.

• 4. Beyond the Big Three

  ›

  Divine command theory, contractualism, and discourse ethics each offer alternatives to the dominant frameworks. Divine command theory says that God is the source of morality and that moral laws are divine commands. Christian and Jewish divine command theorists may point to the Ten Commandments as the expression of God's will, while Muslim theorists may reserve that role for the teachings of the Quran.

  Contractualists reject the reference to God entirely and argue that morality is based on a social contract between humans. To determine which duties people have, contractualists often rely on a thought experiment: what would rational people under ideal circumstances agree on? Famous social contract theorists include Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Rawls.

  Discourse ethics also focuses on social agreement but grounds it in communicative rationality rather than a contract. It aims to arrive at moral norms for pluralistic modern societies by holding that a universal moral norm is valid if all rational discourse participants do or would approve of it. This requires what proponents call an ideal speech situation, in which participants are free to voice different opinions without coercion but must justify them using rational argumentation.

  Ethical egoism presents yet another view, arguing that an action is morally right if the person acts for their own benefit. It differs from psychological egoism, which merely describes that people follow self-interest without claiming they should. Religious traditions bring their own normative frameworks: Christian ethics teaches selfless love through the Great Commandment to love one's neighbor; the Five Pillars of Islam constitute a basic ethical framework focused on faith, prayer, charity, fasting during Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca; and Jainism holds non-violence as its principal virtue.

• 5. What Metaethics Asks

  ›

  Metaethics operates at a higher level of abstraction than normative ethics. Rather than asking which actions are right, it asks what it means for an action to be right in the first place, and whether moral judgments can be true or false at all. An influential early contribution came from G. E. Moore (1873-1958), who argued that moral values are essentially different from other properties found in the natural world.

  The major ontological divide in metaethics runs between moral realists, moral relativists, and moral nihilists. Moral realists accept that there are objective moral facts, mind-independent features of reality. This implies that if two people disagree on a moral evaluation, at least one of them is wrong, in the same way that one of two people disagreeing about whether an object is rectangular must be wrong. Moral relativists reject this, arguing that moral principles are human inventions and that a statement like "Slavery is wrong" may be true in one culture and false in another. Moral nihilists go further, denying the existence of both objective and subjective moral facts and holding that the basic assumptions underlying moral claims are misguided.

  On the semantic side, cognitivism holds that moral statements like "Abortion is morally wrong" have a truth value: they are either true or false. Non-cognitivism disagrees, arguing that moral statements lack a truth value altogether. Emotivism, a non-cognitivist view, says that when someone states "Murder is wrong" they are expressing a negative emotional attitude toward murder, not stating a fact. Prescriptivism understands the same statement as a command: "Do not commit murder." R. M. Hare (1919-2002) developed prescriptivism in the 20th century. J. L. Mackie (1917-1981) took a different position by combining cognitivism with nihilism in error theory, claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts to make them true.

• 6. Thought Experiments and Moral Knowledge

  ›

  Philippa Foot's trolley problem presents a person who can flip a switch to redirect a trolley from one track to another, sacrificing one life to save five. That scenario, one of the most discussed thought experiments in ethics, explores how the difference between doing and allowing harm affects moral obligations. A second thought experiment, proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson, examines abortion by imagining a person connected without consent to an ill violinist who will die if the connection is severed within nine months. These invented scenarios are tools that ethics uses to test competing theories against people's intuitions.

  The epistemological question behind these experiments is whether moral knowledge is possible at all. Foundationalists say that some moral beliefs are basic and require no further justification. Ethical intuitionism, one such view, holds that humans have a special cognitive faculty through which they can know right from wrong, and that general moral truths like "Lying is wrong" are self-evident. A different foundationalist position says that when people encounter a concrete moral situation, they can perceive directly whether right or wrong conduct was involved.

  Cohrentists disagree, arguing that no single moral belief is basic. Beliefs form a complex network and can only amount to knowledge when they cohere with the rest of the network. Moral skeptics reject the possibility of moral knowledge entirely, a position that critics often counter by arguing it leads to immoral behavior.

  On the psychological side, motivational internalists hold that every moral judgment motivates action. Socrates defended a strong form of this view, holding that a person can only perform an evil deed if they are unaware that it is evil. Motivational externalists accept that people can judge an act to be morally required without feeling any reason to engage in it, meaning that moral judgments do not always translate into motivational force.

• 7. Applied Ethics in Practice

  ›

  Applied ethics, also called practical ethics, moves from abstract principles into real-life situations. One of its central challenges is bridging the gap between universal ethical theories and specific cases. Knowing Kantian ethics or utilitarianism in depth may still leave a practitioner uncertain about how to analyze the moral implications of a procedure like abortion, because it is not always clear how the Kantian requirement to respect personhood applies to a fetus, or what the long-term utilitarian consequences are.

  Bioethics covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological disciplines. Medical ethics, its oldest branch, has roots in the Hippocratic Oath, one of the earliest texts to establish ethical guidelines for practitioners, including a prohibition against harming the patient. Today medical ethics addresses end-of-life questions such as whether a person has the right to end their life in cases of terminal illness and whether doctors may help them do so, as well as questions about informed consent, organ transplantation, and access to healthcare.

  Animal ethics examines how humans should treat non-human animals, often arguing that factory farming, using animals as food, and conducting research experiments on animals raise serious moral questions about animal rights, including the right to life and the right to be free from unnecessary suffering. Environmental ethics addresses global warming, climate justice, and duties toward future generations, and often advocates sustainable practices directed at protecting ecosystems and biodiversity.

  Business ethics examines corporate social responsibility, the role of honesty and fairness in business, and the moral implications of bribery and conflicts of interest. Professional ethics extends this into specific fields: a cornerstone of engineering ethics is to protect public safety, health, and well-being, while journalism ethics emphasizes accuracy, truthfulness, and proper attribution. The ethics of technology, a growing subfield, covers risks from new technologies, responsible use, and questions about human enhancement through means like performance-enhancing drugs and genetic modification.

• 8. A History Across Civilizations

  ›

  Ancient Egypt used the concept of Maat as an ethical principle to guide behavior and maintain order by emphasizing truth, balance, and harmony. In ancient India starting in the 2nd millennium BCE, the Vedas and later Upanishads discussed duty and the consequences of actions, establishing the foundational texts of Hindu philosophy. Buddhist ethics emerged between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE in ancient India, advocating compassion, non-violence, and the pursuit of enlightenment. Ancient China in the 6th century BCE saw Confucianism and Daoism emerge together: Confucianism focused on moral conduct and self-cultivation through virtues, while Daoism taught that human behavior should harmonize with the natural order.

  In ancient Greece, Socrates (c. 469-399 BCE) emphasized critical inquiry into virtue, justice, courage, and wisdom. Plato (c. 428-347 BCE) connected leading a good life to the harmony of the soul's different parts. Starting in the 4th century BCE, Epicureanism recommended a simple lifestyle without indulgence in sensory pleasures, while Stoicism advocated living in tune with reason and virtue.

  The medieval period brought religious thought to the center. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 CE) developed natural law ethics by arguing that ethical behavior consists in following the laws and order of nature, which he believed were created by God. Philosophers like Al-Farabi (c. 878-950 CE) and Avicenna (980-1037 CE) in the Islamic world synthesized ancient Greek philosophy with the ethical teachings of Islam. In medieval India, Adi Shankara (c. 700-750 CE) and Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE) saw the practice of spirituality to attain liberation as the highest goal.

  The modern period shifted toward a secular approach. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) concluded that self-interest, without a social contract, would lead to a war of every man against every man. David Hume (1711-1776) argued that only moral sentiments like empathy can motivate ethical actions, while reason merely anticipates consequences. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) criticized Kant's categorical imperative as an empty formalism without the content provided by social institutions. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) formulated criticisms of both Christian and Kantian morality. In the 20th century, Derek Parfit (1942-2017) made an influential argument for moral realism, contending that morality concerns objective features of reality that give people reasons to act in one way or another, a position that Bernard Williams (1929-2003) contested by arguing that reasons are internal mental states that may or may not reflect external reality.