Comparing the three major normative theories: consequences, duties and character

What this dot point is asking

This dot point sits in the ethics strand of the TASC Philosophy course. You are asked to explain each theory accurately, apply it to cases, and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses against the others.

Consequentialism and utilitarianism

Consequentialism holds that an action is right if it produces the best overall outcome. The most influential version is utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham proposed the principle of utility: maximise pleasure and minimise pain, counting everyone equally. John Stuart Mill refined this by distinguishing higher pleasures of the intellect from lower bodily pleasures, arguing that it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool. The theory is impartial, practical and grounds morality in something people clearly care about, namely wellbeing.

Objections to consequentialism

Critics argue that maximising good outcomes can demand or permit injustice. If framing an innocent person would prevent a riot and save lives, a simple utilitarian calculation might endorse it, which clashes with our sense of individual rights. The theory can also be too demanding, requiring us to give until we reach the point of marginal sacrifice, as Peter Singer argues regarding global poverty. Finally, predicting all consequences is difficult, and the theory seems to ignore the moral importance of how outcomes come about.

Kantian deontology

Immanuel Kant locates morality not in outcomes but in duty and rational principle. He argues that the only thing good without qualification is a good will, acting from duty rather than inclination. His test is the categorical imperative, in one formulation: act only on a maxim you could will to become a universal law. Lying fails this test because a world where everyone lied would destroy the trust that makes lying possible. A second formulation, the formula of humanity, says we must treat people always as ends in themselves and never merely as means, which directly protects individuals against being sacrificed for the greater good.

Objections to deontology

Kant's absolutism causes trouble. If lying is always wrong, you must tell the truth even to a murderer asking where your friend is hiding, a case Kant himself notoriously bit the bullet on. Critics also note that duties can conflict, and the theory gives limited guidance on how to resolve clashes. The emphasis on reason over feeling can seem cold, downplaying the role of compassion in moral life.

Aristotelian virtue ethics

Aristotle approaches ethics through character rather than rules. The goal of life is eudaimonia, usually translated as flourishing or living well. We achieve it by cultivating virtues, stable traits like courage, honesty and generosity, each understood as a mean between extremes, so courage lies between cowardice and recklessness. Virtues are acquired through habit and guided by practical wisdom, the ability to judge what a situation calls for. The right action is what a virtuous person would characteristically do.

Evaluating the theories

A strong answer resists declaring one theory simply correct. Each captures a genuine moral insight: consequences matter, persons have rights, and character shapes conduct. Many philosophers, such as W. D. Ross, propose pluralist views with several prima facie duties, while others argue the theories often converge on the same verdicts and differ mainly in their reasons. For the exam, compare how each handles the same case and identify the cost of adopting each view.