What makes an action right?

The big idea: Someone gives their whole savings to a stranger. Was that a good thing to do?

Before you answer, notice you have to decide what makes an act good in the first place — the results it brought, the rule it kept, or the kind of person it shows. That single question sits under every ethical argument you'll ever have.

This part of philosophy is normative ethics. It doesn't report how people behave — it asks how we should, and gives reasons.

Hold onto this: Keep two questions apart. What should I do? (the answer to a particular case) versus what makes anything right? (the standard the answer relies on). Normative ethics is really about the second.

Faced with 'what makes an act right?', philosophers point at three different things.

The three families usually agree — the interesting part is when they pull apart.

When the three collide: You can save five strangers only by breaking a solemn promise to one friend. Results say save the five — more people helped. Rules say keep your promise — you gave your word. Character asks what a wise, kind person would actually do here. Same situation, three honest answers — and you can't have all three.

Go further — higher-level insight: Notice each family answers a slightly different question. Virtue asks 'what kind of person should I be?', deontology asks 'what am I required to do?', and teleology asks 'what should I aim at?'. Spotting that they're not even asking the same thing is a sharp, top-band observation.

Checkpoint — the three families: In one line: character, rules, results. The rest of the topic takes each one in turn, argues it, then weighs all three. Hold this map.