Mar 31, 2025

Right and Wrong

Primer on Normative ethical theory

Imagine there's someone knocking at your door in the middle of the night. You go up to the door, and lo and behold! It's Norman The Kid-killer!

He says, "My good sir, being in receipt of your humble kindness, I, Norman, with utmost gratitude, would like to ask you the whereabouts of your children, so that I may slit their throats while they dream of the fairyland. Many thanks!"

What do you do? Do you tell them the truth? Or do you lie?

Unless you're some insane and terrible person or Immanuel Kant, of course you'd lie. But how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

What is right and what is wrong? #

Whenever I discuss this topic with my friends, we mostly reach to a conclusion that morality is subjective. But is it really?

Normative ethical theory (a branch of ethics) investigates the question "How should one act in a moral sense?". People adhere to different ethical models and each of those have different criterion to justify the morality of an action.

Let's see what these different models have in stock for us.

Deontology #

Also known as "following rules is cool".

Deontological theory uses the "action" for classifying if something is moral or not. If the action obeys certain "pre-set" moral principles (e.g. "Thou shall not kill"), then it is "moral", otherwise, not so much.

Let us go back to Norman the Kid-killer.

Say, you adhere to the moral principle that "lying is bad". Then, from a deontological point-of-view, lying is "immoral".

And thus, you'll tell the killer the location of your kids and they'll will die. But at least, you followed the rules! This is exactly what Kant would've done, that stone cold bastard of a philosopher.

Pros #

• It is extremely reliable since you already know what to do.
• You can avoid discretion and do the said thing.

Cons #

• It is really inflexible and very rigid.
• Doesn't "care" about the actual intentions of the person doing the action (as long as it obeys the rules).
• May get your kids killed.

Moral Absolutism is the most extreme form of Deontological theory where you have a sort of dogmatist view. A moral absolulist would rather prefer millions dying out of agony than lying.

Consequentialism #

Also known as "I am right because nothing bad happened"

Consequentialism puts weight on the "consequence" rather than the actions for classifying something as moral or not. So, as long as the outcome is okay, you're good to go!

Going back to Norman the Kid-killer scenario.

You don't really want your kids to get killed (consequence). So, if you lie, then from a consequentialist point-of-view, lying is "moral".

So you'll lie about their location (tell him that they're at your in-laws or something) and live happily ever after!

Pros #

• It is very flexible.
• Cares about the "intentions" of the action.

Cons #

• It is really vague because it is hard to really know the consequences and whether they'll work out just fine, to be able to decide what to do.

Utilitarianism is a form of Consequentialism, which seeks to maximise on the utility of any action.

Which one to pick? #

Neither, or maybe, both. Because every situation calls for a different approach of making decisions. In reality, Deontology vs Consequentialism is a spectrum, and we belong somewhere in the middle of it.

But perhaps, it might be better to look at another ethical model: Virtue Ethics.

Virtue Ethics #

Instead of focusing on rules (Deontology) or outcomes (Consequentialism), morality in virtue ethics is evaluated by character and values of the individual.

It emphasises virtues like honesty, courage, bravery, and so on.

In the same Norman the Kid-killer scenario, if you are aligned to such a model, you might end up engaging in a fist vs. knife fight so that you can disarm him, pin him down on your doorway, call the police and save the day.

Why? Because you're brave, just and courageous. You'll do what aligns with your identity, not because of rules or any outcomes.

Stoicism is a very popular form of Virtue Ethics, and I think it is pretty sustainable.

Conclusion #

One more example.

Imagine someone insults you in public.

• Deontologist: "I won’t insult them back because following rules against rudeness is my duty."
• Consequentialist: "If I ignore them, the situation won’t escalate, and that’s the best outcome."
• Virtue Ethicist (Stoic example): "A wise and just person wouldn’t let insults disturb their peace. I’ll remain calm because that aligns with my character."

Conclusion of Conclusion #

I'd say: Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't break the greater harmony. "What is 'greater harmony'", you say? Well, figure it out yourself.