Normative ethics

Working out which actions are right and why — not just describing how people behave.

Character (virtue), rules (deontology), results (teleology).

A right act is what a good person would do — it flows from good character.

A right act keeps a duty or rule, whatever the results.

A right act brings about the best outcome — the most good, the least harm.

Each family measures the SAME act by a different standard, so they can reach different verdicts.

Virtue: what person to be? Deontology: what am I required to do? Teleology: what should I aim at?

When they clash over the same act — then you must decide which measure wins.

Grow the right character, and the right actions follow — 'what should I BE?' before 'what should I DO?'.

Each virtue is the healthy middle between too little and too much — e.g. courage between cowardice and recklessness.

By practice — acting the right way repeatedly until it becomes second nature, like a skill.

The settled habits and traits that make you the kind of person you are.

Virtues only make sense inside a practice and a community with a shared story of the good life.

Warm human-heartedness, grown by practising your roles well — a non-Western character ethics.

The good life is shaped by cultivating calm, compassion and honesty and rooting out craving.

They show 'character first' ethics arose across very different traditions — not just one culture.

The view that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, as a matter of duty — regardless of results.

Judge the ACT, not the outcome: keep your duty even when the results would be better if you broke it.

Act only on a rule you could will everyone to follow — a command that holds whatever you happen to want.

If everyone lied when it helped, promises would mean nothing and collapse — so you can't will that rule for all.

Categorical holds whatever you want ('don't lie'); hypothetical only if you want something ('if you want trust, don't lie').

An act is right because God commands it, wrong because God forbids it — duty grounded in God, not reason.

Does God command things because they're good, or are they good because God commands them? Neither answer is comfortable.

Both are duty-based; Kant grounds duty in reason, divine command grounds it in God's will.

The right act is the one with the best results — the most good, the least harm.

The right act produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, counting everyone equally.

The greatest happiness for the greatest number — add up pleasure and pain, everyone counts equally.

Higher (thought, art, friendship) beat lower (food, comfort): 'better a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied'.

To answer the worry that pure pleasure-counting makes ethics just about simple thrills.

An early Chinese ethics judging acts by benefit to society — order, wealth, welfare of all, not individual pleasure.

Pure results-counting could justify sacrificing one innocent person to make many others happier.

They show results-based ethics arose independently in ancient China, centuries before Bentham.

Each captures something real (character, duty, results) but each has a blind spot — so the skill is weighing them.

Strength: realistic and human. Blind spot: vague when you're stuck — 'be good' doesn't say what to do.

Strength: protects the individual. Blind spot: can be rigid and cold — keep the rule even when it causes disaster.

Strength: takes outcomes seriously. Blind spot: can sacrifice one innocent person for the many.

One's moral duty, fixed by one's role and situation (Indian thought) — closest to deontology.

Good character to read the situation, duties to protect the vulnerable, an eye on outcomes — different parts of one ethical life.

Arguing the claim both ways with more than one theory and reaching a reasoned conclusion — not describing.

What makes an act right? → virtue (character) → duty (rules) → results (teleology) → weigh all three.