Historically, consequentialists and deontologists captivated debates in normative ethics. These debates concerned either the consequences of the agent's actions or their obligations. However, there has been a resurgence of virtue ethicists in recent years, which, as discussed earlier, signaled a renewed interest in the agent's motives and character disposition.
To illustrate these perspectives, suppose Agent A is a pharmacist who spent his weekend drinking. Unfortunately, he came into work that Monday and accidentally switched the medication for two patients. These patients needed the same dose of medicine for the same problem, so he did not cause them enduring health problems. He gave one patient the name-brand medicine and the other the generic variant. However, Agent A's actions were wrong. Deontologists, virtue ethicists, and consequentialists approach this example differently.
Deontological Ethics
Deontologists maintain that the agent's conduct is immoral if it violates the agent's duties. For instance, a deontologist might say that an agent acts immorally by going to the movies instead of visiting his aunt in hospice. He might be failing some particular promise he gave a different family member or failing to live up to some other implicit duty toward his family. Fundamentally, deontological ethics departs from the idea that the action's consequences determine its moral context.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) maintained that an act is immoral if it fails the categorical imperative, which takes two formulations. First, one must act so that their conduct can become a universal law. Second, one must treat all members of humanity as an end in and of themselves, not as mere means. Kant distinguishes conduct that uses an agent as mere means from conduct that an agent might practice to reach a particular goal (he calls this a hypothetical imperative). In other words, a Kantian would not say that a customer acts immorally by ordering soup and salad at a restaurant. Even though the customer would have the chef prepare food for them, they would still be fairly compensated for their services. In other words, the customer and the chef work toward different goals.
Turning to the previous section's example, deontologists would agree that Agent A has acted immorally. First, a Kantian might distinguish Agent A's obligations from a hypothetical imperative on the grounds that Agent A lacked a particular goal. A Kantian would notice Agent A violates both forms of his categorical imperative; if all pharmacists came to work suffering the effects of overindulgent weekends and confusing prescriptions, there would be no pharmacists. In a different approach, a Kantian might notice that Agent A treated his clients as mere means. He uses them to collect his paycheck but is indifferent to their health. However, Kantian ethics still raises questions about the proper role of interpersonal relationships in our moral lives. It also attracts criticism that it is too rigorous, particularly concerning lying.
Virtue Ethics
Historically, most ethical debates involved consequentialists and deontologists. Both accounts leave space for virtues such as honesty and compassion, but only virtue ethicists treat these dispositions as fundamental features of moral rightness. While contemporary accounts of virtue ethics draw inspiration from Plato (c. 427–347 BCE) and David Hume (1711–1776), and this view can be traced this back to Aristotle (384–322 BCE).
For contemporary Aristotelians, such as Rosalind Hursthouse, an agent may act morally if they act like a virtuous person would in similar circumstances. These agents recognize that a virtuous person has cultivated a disposition to act for the appropriate reasons and attitudes toward something that makes life better for them as human beings. This requires that they practice the ability to reason about how to act if they want to live virtuously. Plausibly, they also foster a sense of personal responsibility, which allows them to develop these character traits. To act like a virtuous person would, in that situation or under similar circumstances, requires identifying what is required for their life to flourish (a life where they can exercise their ability to reason) and then cultivating the habits that would allow them to lead that life.
When confronted with a hardship, a virtuous agent reflects on what it is to live and act virtuously. Then, drawing on these deliberations, they strive toward a life where they are free to act for their reasons—rather than their basic desires and impulses. For instance, a young person who saves money for college expenses rather than purchasing a new video game acts virtuously. There's nothing wrong with buying a new video game, but the young person realizes that their college expenses are pressing—they cannot continue their education if they do not pay for school. Additionally, the young person may realize—following their deliberation—that they can purchase the video game after paying off their college expenses. By practicing this deliberation, the young person frees themself from their desires and strives toward a life where they might cultivate their practical reasoning.
What does the virtue ethicist have to say about the careless pharmacist? Agent A made at least two mistakes. First, he went to work despite still suffering from his overindulgent weekend. Second, Agent A accidentally gave his patients the wrong medication. Agent A failed to ask how a virtuous person would have acted in both cases. A virtuous person would have explained to their supervisor that they could not work or would have used one of their personal days. A virtuous person would have attempted to remedy the situation if they had known they had made a mistake, but here, Agent A did not realize he had made a mistake. However, after working that day, a virtuous person would have reflected on their actions, realized their mistake, and followed up with their clients. Agent A did not, suggesting he failed to act virtuously. The virtue ethicist, then, offers a nuanced explanation of this case.
However, virtue ethics comes in many types, and challenges accompany each. For instance, the virtue ethicist tries to step away from the language of moral rightness and wrongness. However, it's unclear if all moral wrongdoing be described as a deficiency in virtue.
Consequentialist Ethics
Consequentialists maintain that the morality of an action depends entirely on the consequences that the action creates. For instance, a consequentialist might argue that people have a moral obligation to improve living standards in impoverished communities when it is only a small cost to themselves because the consequences—improving the living conditions of those less fortunate—are desirable. Consequentialists come in a wide variety.
Classical utilitarians, such as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), assumed that a morally good action is whatever maximizes happiness or minimizes unhappiness. Moreover, they assume that everyone has equal moral worth and that they must act in such a way as to promote expected happiness for the greatest number of people. For instance, the classical utilitarian might say people should spend their days working at soup kitchens because that would bring happiness to folks in impoverished communities even if this action does not generate the same happiness, for that person, as something else, such as watching a soccer match, going on a date, or exploring a new city.
How would the classical utilitarian respond to the original pharmacy example? They might have trouble; ultimately, Agent A did not harm either patient, and, for simplicity's sake, he did not create additional risk either. The only problem might be that the patient who received the generic medication might have been paying more than they should have. Agent A only decided to come to work under the weather, but he should have been more careful. This motivates the discussion of another type of utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarians suggest that the morally correct act must coincide with a set of rules that, when followed, maximize utility. For instance, the rule utilitarian might support laws requiring that everyone follows road regulations because, if not, they would fail to maximize utility. They would be creating accidents, leading to harm. Moreover, the state would find it more challenging to determine when someone was driving recklessly. In the pharmacist example, the rule utilitarian might say Agent A failed to adhere to best medical practices. He should have obeyed rules about only working when he could safely deliver medicine. Even though Agent A did not harm anyone, he failed to maximize the directions for best medical practice.
However, utilitarianism has come under fire in recent years. Primarily, critics wonder whether consequentialism is too demanding; everyone should donate as much as possible if that maximizes net happiness around the globe. Other concerns say that it undermines people's intimate relationships and ignores the agent's reasons for acting.
