Comparing Normative Ethical Theories | AQA A-Level Philosophy
For Specification 7172
AQA A-Level Philosophy | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 75 minutes
This Comparing Normative Ethical Theories A-Level Philosophy revision page brings together the three approaches required by AQA: utilitarianism, Kantian deontological ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics. You will compare what each theory understands by good and right action, and how each treats consequences, motives, duties, character and reasons. You will also compare their major objections and possible responses. This consolidates the whole normative ethics unit before applying the theories to the specified issues of stealing, simulated killing, eating animals and telling lies.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Compare utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics.
Compare their accounts of good, bad, right and wrong.
Compare the importance they give to actions, motives, consequences and character.
Evaluate the major objections specified by AQA for each theory.
Explain how variations within a theory can answer particular objections.
Construct reasoned comparative arguments about the strengths and difficulties of the three approaches.
Revision Notes 📚
The three normative ethical theories
A normative ethical theory attempts to explain what makes actions morally right or wrong and what makes something morally good or bad.
AQA requires three approaches:
Utilitarianism
Kantian deontological ethics
Aristotelian virtue ethics
They differ most clearly in what they place at the centre of morality.
Theory | Central focus |
Utilitarianism | Maximising utility |
Kantian ethics | Duty, rational moral requirements and moral motivation |
Aristotelian virtue ethics | Virtue, practical wisdom and human flourishing |
These differences were first introduced in Good, Bad, Right and Wrong.
The basic structure of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory.
An action is morally right if it can reasonably be expected or predicted to maximise utility.
Different utilitarians understand utility differently.
It may mean:
pleasure and absence of pain, as in hedonistic utilitarianism
preference fulfilment or desire satisfaction, as in preference utilitarianism
The central structure remains:
possible action → predicted consequences → utility → maximisation → right action
Consequences are therefore fundamental to determining moral rightness.
The basic structure of Kantian ethics
Kantian ethics is deontological.
It gives central importance to:
rationally determined duty
the good will
acting out of duty
categorical moral requirements
universalisation
respecting rational agents as ends
Kant therefore does not determine moral rightness by asking which action produces the most utility.
Instead, moral action must conform to rational moral duties.
Motive is also important to moral worth, particularly the distinction between acting merely in accordance with duty and acting out of duty.
The basic structure of Aristotelian virtue ethics
Aristotle focuses on:
eudaimonia, or human flourishing
the human function of reasoning or acting for reasons
virtues as positive character dispositions
habituation
appropriate feelings
practical wisdom
The basic structure is:
human flourishing → human function → virtue → practical wisdom → virtuous action
Aristotle therefore approaches ethics through the qualities and reasoning of a good person rather than primarily through a calculation or universal moral rule.
Good, Bad, Right and Wrong
Utilitarianism
For utilitarianism, moral rightness is connected with utility.
A morally right action is one which maximises utility.
A morally wrong action fails to maximise utility.
What counts as the relevant good depends upon the form of utilitarianism.
For example:
Bentham identifies utility with pleasure and absence of pain
Mill also gives a hedonistic account while distinguishing higher and lower pleasures
preference utilitarianism identifies utility with preference fulfilment
The theory therefore evaluates actions principally through their consequences.
Kantian ethics
For Kant, the good will is central.
A person displays a good will by making decisions for moral reasons, acting out of duty.
Moral duties are categorical rather than dependent upon particular desires.
An action must conform to duties established through the categorical imperative.
Kant's theory therefore distinguishes between:
doing the right kind of action
and
performing that action from the morally appropriate motive
This is developed in Kant, the Good Will and Duty.
Aristotelian virtue ethics
For Aristotle, the ultimate human good is eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is:
flourishing
living and doing well
the final end
Virtues are positive character traits required for humans to perform their function well.
A fully virtuous action also involves:
the appropriate action
the appropriate reasons
practical wisdom
virtuous character
So Aristotle's approach connects morality with what it means to live well as a human being.
A first comparison
Question | Utilitarianism | Kantian ethics | Aristotelian virtue ethics |
What is central? | Utility | Duty and rational morality | Virtue and flourishing |
What determines right action? | Maximising utility | Conformity to rationally determined duty | Virtuous action guided by practical wisdom |
Are consequences fundamental? | Yes | No | No |
Are motives important? | Not fundamental to rightness | Central to moral worth | Important as part of virtuous action and reasons |
Is character fundamental? | No | No | Yes |
Is morality rule-based? | Can involve act or rule utilitarianism | Strongly duty-based | Not fully codifiable or rule-based |
What is the ultimate good? | Whatever counts as utility | Good will has distinctive moral value | Eudaimonia |
Comparing consequences
Utilitarianism
Consequences have the most important role in utilitarianism.
To decide between actions, the utilitarian considers their predicted effects and asks:
Which option will maximise utility?
This gives utilitarianism an obvious way of taking the welfare or preferences of everyone affected into account.
However, it also creates many of the theory's major difficulties.
Kantian ethics
Kant does not make consequences the basis of moral rightness or moral worth.
The agent's:
duty
maxim
rational moral reasoning
motivation
are instead central.
This avoids making morality depend entirely upon events outside the agent's control.
However, it generates the objection that consequences may determine or contribute to moral value.
If following a duty creates a foreseeably disastrous result, a critic may argue that those consequences cannot simply be treated as morally secondary.
This is explored in Problems for Kantian Ethics.
Aristotle
Aristotle's theory is also not consequentialist.
A virtuous person acts:
from virtuous character
for appropriate reasons
through practical wisdom
The theory therefore does not determine right action simply by adding up consequences.
However, practical wisdom requires understanding the particular circumstances of action.
This makes Aristotelian reasoning context-sensitive without turning it into a utilitarian calculation.
Comparing motives and intentions
Utilitarianism and motive
Utilitarianism determines moral rightness through utility.
This means an agent could perform the utility-maximising action for a selfish or unattractive motive and the action could still be right in utilitarian terms.
This generates the AQA-specified objection that utilitarianism can ignore:
the individual's intentions
their moral integrity
The problem is developed in Problems for Utilitarianism, Calculation, Partiality and Integrity.
Kant and motive
Motive is much more important for Kant.
A person may perform an action that conforms to duty while being motivated by:
self-interest
fear
expected reward
Such an action differs from acting out of duty.
Kant therefore captures something utilitarianism may overlook:
why the person acted
However, Kant faces the opposite criticism.
If duty receives distinctive moral value, does the theory undervalue motives such as:
love
friendship
kindness?
Aristotle and motive
Aristotle also cares about the reasons for action.
A person is not fully virtuous merely because they accidentally perform the same act that a virtuous person would perform.
Practical wisdom requires the agent to:
have a morally good end
understand the particular situation
reason appropriately
choose for appropriate reasons
Aristotle therefore integrates motivation with character and practical reasoning.
Comparing character
Utilitarianism
Character is not the fundamental criterion of moral rightness.
A person's action is judged according to its relationship to utility.
This does not mean a utilitarian cannot value good character.
Good character could have excellent consequences.
But its value would ultimately be connected with utility rather than character being morally fundamental in itself.
Kant
Kant's theory gives importance to the good will, but this is not the same as Aristotle's account of virtue as developed character.
Kant focuses upon whether the agent chooses from rationally recognised duty.
Aristotle instead develops a broader account involving:
dispositions
habituation
emotions
practical judgement
Aristotle
Character is central.
Virtues and vices are stable dispositions to:
act
feel
in particular ways over time.
This allows Aristotle to ask not only:
"What should I do?"
but also:
"What kind of person should I become?"
This is developed in Virtues, Vices and the Doctrine of the Mean.
Comparing moral reasoning
Utilitarian reasoning
The utilitarian asks:
Which available option maximises utility?
This involves:
predicting consequences
identifying the relevant form of utility
comparing outcomes
Kantian reasoning
The Kantian asks whether the proposed maxim satisfies rational moral requirements.
The first formulation asks whether it can be universalised without:
contradiction in conception
contradiction in will
The second formulation asks whether people are treated:
never solely as means, but always as ends
Aristotelian reasoning
Aristotle's practically wise agent considers:
the morally good end
the particular circumstances
how that end can appropriately be achieved
Practical wisdom requires:
general knowledge of the good
particular knowledge
good reasoning
willpower
The three theories therefore provide very different models of moral reasoning.
Rules versus judgement
Another major difference concerns how precisely morality can be formulated.
Kant
Kant provides the clearest rule-based structure.
Moral requirements are duties derived through the categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism also gives a general principle:
maximise utility
Act utilitarianism applies this directly to particular acts.
Rule utilitarianism instead evaluates rules according to their expected utility.
Aristotle
Aristotle does not reduce ethics to a complete system of rules.
Moral judgement is context-dependent and requires practical wisdom.
This flexibility may be useful in complex situations, but it generates the objection that virtue ethics may fail to provide sufficiently clear guidance.
Comparing Major Objections
Problems for utilitarianism
AQA specifies several major problems.
Is pleasure the only good?
This applies particularly to hedonistic utilitarianism.
Nozick's experience machine challenges the claim that pleasurable experience is all that is valuable.
A preference utilitarian can respond by rejecting hedonism and defining utility through preference satisfaction.
This illustrates an important point:
an objection to one form of utilitarianism need not defeat every form of utilitarianism.
See Problems for Utilitarianism, Pleasure, Rights and Liberty.
Fairness, liberty and rights
Maximising total utility could appear to justify:
unfair treatment
restriction of individual liberty
violation of rights
tyranny of the majority
This is a challenge to the maximising structure of utilitarianism rather than simply to its definition of utility.
Rule utilitarianism may respond by supporting rules protecting rights where general acceptance of those rules maximises utility.
However, the protection still ultimately depends upon utility.
Calculation
Utilitarianism may require difficult predictions about:
future consequences
causal connections
how utility should be measured
which beings should count
how far into the future to calculate
Changing from pleasure to preference satisfaction does not remove the general need to calculate.
Partiality
Utilitarianism's concern with overall utility can conflict with giving special treatment to:
family
friends
loved ones
The theory may therefore require impartial action even where partiality appears morally appropriate.
Integrity and intentions
Utilitarianism may require an agent to act against:
deeply held commitments
personal projects
moral convictions
It may also evaluate the action by its utility while giving insufficient importance to the agent's intentions.
These objections challenge whether moral evaluation should concern more than consequences.
Problems for Kantian Ethics
Clashing duties
Two genuine duties may sometimes appear to demand incompatible actions.
If both cannot be fulfilled, the theory needs a way of determining what to do.
A perfect duty takes priority over an imperfect duty, but conflict between equally binding duties creates a deeper problem.
Universalisability problems
Kant's first formulation faces the objections that:
not every universalisable maxim is distinctly moral
not every non-universalisable maxim is immoral
This questions whether universalisation reliably separates morally acceptable from unacceptable principles.
The second formulation may identify moral problems missed by the first, but this raises questions if the formulations appear to produce different results.
Consequences
Kant can explain why moral worth should not depend entirely on luck.
However, critics can argue that foreseeable consequences still matter.
This objection presses Kant from the opposite direction to the objections against utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism may give consequences too much importance.
Kant may give them too little.
Love, friendship and kindness
Kant's emphasis on acting from duty may fail to capture the moral value of other motives.
Aristotle's theory may be better placed to respond to this particular criticism because it incorporates:
character
feelings
reasons for action
However, this does not automatically establish Aristotle's theory overall.
Foot's hypothetical imperatives
Philippa Foot challenges Kant's claim that moral requirements possess categorical rational force independently of an agent's desires.
If morality is actually hypothetical, Kant's attempt to ground unconditional duties in rationality is weakened.
See Problems for Kantian Ethics.
Problems for Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Insufficiently clear guidance
Aristotle's theory is not fully rule-based.
The doctrine of the mean does not specify the exact action required in every situation.
Practical wisdom is intended to provide context-sensitive guidance.
The objection is that someone who does not already possess practical wisdom may still not know what to do.
See Practical Wisdom and Problems for Virtue Ethics.
Clashing virtues
Different virtues can point towards incompatible actions.
A virtue can even clash with itself in different applications.
Practical wisdom provides a possible response because it allows judgement based on the particular circumstances.
However, critics can ask whether this genuinely resolves the conflict or simply describes the ability required to resolve it.
Circularity
A possible circularity arises if:
a virtuous person is defined as someone who performs virtuous acts
while:
a virtuous act is defined as an act performed by a virtuous person
Aristotle can partly answer this by connecting virtue independently with:
human function
good rational activity
eudaimonia
But the success of this response depends upon the function argument.
Virtue and eudaimonia
Aristotle connects moral virtue with the individual's flourishing.
However, a person might:
live morally well
act virtuously
nevertheless fail to flourish
This suggests that:
moral good
and
the individual's good
may not always coincide.
The objection therefore challenges the relationship between virtue and eudaimonia established in Aristotle, Eudaimonia and the Function Argument.
How the Theories Answer One Another's Problems
Utilitarianism and Kant's consequences problem
One objection to Kant is that he gives insufficient importance to consequences.
Utilitarianism clearly addresses this concern because consequences are fundamental to right action.
However, that solution creates new problems involving:
rights
fairness
integrity
intentions
So solving one problem can generate another.
Kant and utilitarianism's rights problem
Utilitarianism may permit one person to be sacrificed for greater overall utility.
Kant's second formulation provides a strong contrast by requiring respect for persons as rational agents rather than treating them solely as instruments.
This gives Kant resources for resisting some rights-based objections.
However, Kant then faces problems involving:
clashing duties
consequences
other morally valuable motives
Aristotle and Kant's motives problem
Kant is criticised for giving duty a uniquely important role while failing to capture the value of love, friendship and kindness.
Aristotle's theory gives feelings and character a much more direct moral role.
A virtuous person should have emotional responses that harmonise with correct moral reasoning.
Aristotle can therefore accommodate morally valuable character and feeling more naturally.
However, the price may be less precise action-guidance.
Aristotle and utilitarianism's integrity problem
The integrity objection claims that utilitarianism may require people to act against their deepest commitments simply to maximise utility.
Aristotle's focus upon:
character
reasons
practical wisdom
gives the agent's moral identity a more central role.
However, Aristotle must then explain how virtuous character provides sufficiently reliable guidance when virtues conflict.
Utilitarianism and Aristotle's guidance problem
Utilitarianism provides a clear general criterion:
maximise utility
This may seem to provide more explicit guidance than:
act as practical wisdom requires
However, the apparent clarity can be undermined by the practical difficulty of calculating utility.
So there is an important comparison:
Aristotle: difficult to identify the appropriate virtuous response.
Utilitarianism: difficult to calculate which consequence really maximises utility.
Both theories can therefore face guidance problems for different reasons.
Kant and Aristotle's guidance problem
Kant also offers a clearer formal decision procedure through the categorical imperative.
This can appear to answer Aristotle's lack of codified rules.
However, Kant's own test faces:
problematic universalisable maxims
problematic non-universalisable maxims
clashing duties
So formal rules do not automatically guarantee unproblematic guidance.
Comparing action, motive, consequences and character
Feature | Utilitarianism | Kantian ethics | Aristotelian virtue ethics |
Action | Right if it maximises utility | Must conform to rational duty | Should express virtue and practical wisdom |
Motive | Not fundamental to rightness | Central to moral worth | Important to fully virtuous action |
Consequences | Fundamental | Not fundamental | Relevant to circumstances but not the criterion of rightness |
Character | Not fundamental | Good will matters, but no Aristotelian theory of habituated character | Central |
Reason | Used to determine utility-maximising action | Establishes categorical moral duties | Used through practical wisdom |
Feelings | Relevant mainly through effects on utility | Not the basis of moral worth | Appropriate feelings are part of virtue |
Rules | General maximisation principle, act/rule variants | Moral duties and categorical imperative | Ethics is not fully codifiable |
Ultimate aim | Maximised utility | Rational moral action from duty | Eudaimonia |
Applying the three theories to the same issue
Consider telling lies, one of AQA's specified applied ethics topics.
Utilitarianism
The utilitarian asks:
What consequences can reasonably be expected from lying or telling the truth?
The morally right action depends upon which option maximises utility.
So the same type of action could receive different evaluations in different circumstances.
Kantian ethics
The Kantian examines the agent's maxim and asks whether it can be universalised.
Lying may also conflict with the second formulation if deception prevents another rational agent making a properly informed choice and treats them solely as a means.
The focus is therefore on:
duty
universalisation
respect for rational persons
rather than utility.
Aristotelian virtue ethics
The Aristotelian asks what a virtuous, practically wise person would choose in the particular circumstances.
The analysis considers:
character
virtuous ends
reasons
practical wisdom
the details of the situation
The theory does not simply apply a utility calculation or categorical rule.
This is developed fully later in Telling Lies.
Same action, different explanations
The theories may sometimes recommend the same action, but for completely different reasons.
Suppose all three oppose an action in a particular case.
That does not mean the theories agree philosophically.
One might say:
Utilitarian: it reduces utility.
Kantian: it violates duty.
Aristotelian: it expresses vice rather than virtue.
So when comparing theories, distinguish:
agreement about what to do
from:
agreement about why it is right
This is an excellent way to construct comparative arguments.
Comparing moral impartiality
Utilitarianism
Utility is maximised across those affected.
This gives utilitarianism a strongly impartial structure.
But it creates the partiality objection, since relationships with family or friends do not automatically receive special priority.
Kant
Kant's categorical moral requirements also resist simply giving oneself special exceptions.
Universalisation requires consistency across rational agents.
Aristotle
Aristotle's theory is much more focused upon:
individual character
particular circumstances
practical judgement
It does not begin from a mathematical aggregation or a universalisation procedure.
This context-sensitivity may help it accommodate particular relationships, although it also contributes to the clear-guidance problem.
Comparing moral flexibility
Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism can be highly flexible because the correct action depends on consequences in the particular case.
Rule utilitarianism introduces greater consistency through utility-maximising rules.
Kant
Kant's theory is less flexible because duties are categorical.
This gives morality stability but can create difficulty where:
duties clash
following duty produces harmful consequences
Aristotle
Aristotle's theory is deliberately context-sensitive.
Practical wisdom responds to the particulars of a situation.
This gives flexibility but creates the opposite concern:
Is the guidance precise enough?
Comparing responsibility for moral outcomes
The three approaches also ask different questions about responsibility.
Utilitarianism
The focus falls on what outcomes the agent could reasonably expect or predict.
Kant
The focus falls more strongly upon:
the maxim
duty
motive
because consequences may be partly beyond the agent's control.
Aristotle
Aristotle considers:
voluntary action
the control condition
the epistemic condition
the agent's reasons and character
This gives his theory a detailed account of how an action relates to the agent.
See Moral Responsibility in Aristotle.
Constructing comparative arguments
A strong comparative argument does more than list a strength and weakness for each theory.
Instead, use one theory to illuminate a problem faced by another.
For example:
Comparative argument 1: consequences
Kantian strength:Moral worth is not made dependent entirely upon luck.
Utilitarian objection:Foreseeable consequences still appear morally important.
Kantian response:Consequences outside our control should not determine moral worth.
Further assessment:This may defend Kant against accidental outcomes but does not fully answer concerns about consequences an agent could reasonably predict.
Comparative argument 2: rights
Utilitarian difficulty:Maximising utility may permit violations of individual rights.
Kantian response:The second formulation requires rational agents to be treated as ends rather than solely as means.
Further assessment:Kant may therefore handle this particular objection more directly, but his theory faces separate problems of clashing duties and harmful consequences.
Comparative argument 3: motives
Utilitarian difficulty:Right action may be identified without giving enough moral weight to the individual's motive or integrity.
Kantian response:Motive is central to moral worth.
Further objection to Kant:Giving duty a unique role may undervalue love, friendship and kindness.
Aristotelian response:Character, feelings and reasons all contribute to virtuous action.
Further assessment:Aristotle's richer account of motivation creates a new problem about how such considerations translate into clear action-guidance.
Comparative argument 4: guidance
Aristotelian difficulty:Practical wisdom may be too vague for someone who needs direct guidance.
Kantian response:The categorical imperative provides a rational test.
Problem for Kant:The test faces objections involving universalisable and non-universalisable maxims.
Utilitarian response:Maximise utility.
Problem for utilitarianism:Calculating utility can itself be uncertain and demanding.
This shows why comparison should not assume that one theory's apparent solution is problem-free.
How to evaluate an objection properly
For each objection, ask four questions.
1. What exactly does the objection attack?
Does it target:
consequences?
motive?
duty?
character?
the definition of good?
practical decision-making?
2. Does it attack the whole theory?
For example, Nozick's experience machine attacks hedonistic utilitarianism more directly than preference utilitarianism.
3. Does the theory have an internal response?
Examples include:
preference utilitarianism responding to the pleasure-only objection
rule utilitarianism responding to some rights concerns
Kant's second formulation supporting respect for persons
practical wisdom responding to Aristotle's guidance problem
4. Does the response create another problem?
This is where evaluation becomes stronger.
A response may solve one difficulty while producing another.
Avoiding simplistic comparisons
"Utilitarianism cares only about happiness"
Too simple.
Different versions define utility differently, including preference satisfaction.
"Kant only cares about rules"
Too simple.
Kant also gives central importance to:
the good will
moral motivation
rational agency
"Aristotle just says be a good person"
Too simple.
Aristotle provides a structured account involving:
eudaimonia
human function
virtues
habituation
the doctrine of the mean
moral responsibility
practical wisdom
Accurate comparison begins with accurate theories.
Comparing the most important tensions
The unit can be organised around four major tensions.
Consequences versus duty
Utilitarianism makes consequences fundamental.
Kant makes rational duty fundamental.
Rules versus context
Kant offers categorical duties.
Aristotle emphasises context-dependent practical wisdom.
Impartial maximisation versus the individual
Utilitarianism maximises overall utility.
Objections concerning rights, partiality and integrity ask whether the individual can be lost within the total calculation.
Action versus character
Utilitarianism and Kant focus more directly upon what makes an action right.
Aristotle gives much greater importance to developing the kind of person capable of living and acting well.
These contrasts provide excellent organising principles for 25-mark essays.
A synoptic comparison of objections
Theory | Major AQA objections | Possible response within the theory |
Utilitarianism | Pleasure only good | Preference utilitarianism |
Fairness, liberty and rights | Rule utilitarianism may support protective rules | |
Calculation | Reasonable prediction rather than certainty, although difficulties remain | |
Partiality | Impartiality can itself be defended as morally attractive | |
Integrity and intentions | Alternative utilitarian formulations may reduce but do not automatically remove the objection | |
Kantian ethics | Clashing duties | Distinguish perfect and imperfect duties, although perfect-duty clashes remain problematic |
Universalisability problems | Second formulation may identify problems missed by the first | |
Consequences | Moral worth should not depend entirely upon outcomes outside one's control | |
Love, friendship and kindness | These may accompany duty, though critics challenge duty's exclusive moral status | |
Foot | Kant can argue rational requirement is different from psychological desire | |
Virtue ethics | Unclear guidance | Practical wisdom and context-sensitive judgement |
Clashing virtues | Practical wisdom evaluates the particular circumstances | |
Circularity | Function and eudaimonia may provide an independent basis for virtue | |
Virtue and eudaimonia can diverge | Eudaimonia is broader than immediate benefit, though difficult cases remain |
What does each theory capture particularly well?
Rather than simply ranking the theories, it is useful to identify what each was designed to explain.
Utilitarianism captures
moral importance of consequences
concern for everyone affected
comparison of alternative outcomes
Kantian ethics captures
moral importance of motive
rational consistency
duty
respect for rational agents
Aristotelian virtue ethics captures
character
moral development
feelings
reasons for action
context-sensitive judgement
flourishing
The philosophical question is whether these strengths are sufficient to overcome each theory's specified objections.
Building a reasoned judgement
A strong judgement should state why a particular objection matters.
Avoid:
"Utilitarianism has lots of problems, so it is weak."
Prefer:
"The rights objection targets the maximising structure of utilitarianism rather than merely its hedonistic definition of utility. Preference utilitarianism therefore cannot solve it simply by replacing pleasure with preference satisfaction."
Similarly, avoid:
"Kant is better because he respects rights."
Prefer:
"Kant's second formulation directly addresses a problem utilitarianism faces by requiring respect for rational agents, but whether this establishes the overall adequacy of Kantian ethics depends upon separate objections involving duty conflicts and consequences."
The second form shows evaluation rather than simple preference.
The three theories at a glance
Utilitarianism
Central question:Which option maximises utility?
Main strength to consider:It makes consequences central.
Main family of problems:Maximisation may conflict with individuals, rights, partiality, intentions and practical calculation.
Kantian ethics
Central question:What does rationally determined duty require?
Main strength to consider:It gives moral significance to duty, rational consistency and the agent's motive.
Main family of problems:Duties and universalisation may generate difficult results, and the theory may undervalue consequences and other motives.
Aristotelian virtue ethics
Central question:What would virtuous character and practical wisdom require for human flourishing?
Main strength to consider:It integrates character, reasons, emotions and moral development.
Main family of problems:Its context-sensitive approach may lack clear guidance, virtues may conflict, and the relationship between virtue and flourishing can be challenged.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Normative ethical theory | A theory concerned with what is morally good, bad, right or wrong and how we ought to act. | Use when introducing the three ethical approaches required by AQA. |
Consequentialism | An approach in which the consequences of actions determine moral rightness. | Use to explain the basic structure of utilitarianism. |
Deontological ethics | An approach based upon duties or rights and the conformity of actions or motives to moral rules. | Use when distinguishing Kant from utilitarianism. |
Virtue ethics | An approach centred on virtuous character, good human functioning and flourishing. | Use when comparing Aristotle's focus with action-centred theories. |
Practical wisdom | Context-sensitive reasoning about how to achieve morally good ends through appropriate action. | Use when explaining Aristotle's alternative to fixed moral rules. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
No lesson-specific examiner guidance was identified in the provided reports.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Comparing only the conclusions of the theories
Why this is a problem:Two theories might recommend the same action for completely different reasons.
How to improve:Compare the justification: utility, duty or virtue.
Mistake: Saying utilitarianism is simply about pleasure
Why this is incorrect:Preference utilitarianism is non-hedonistic.
How to improve:State that all utilitarian theories maximise utility but disagree about what utility consists in.
Mistake: Saying Kant judges actions only by motive
Why this is too simple:Kant also requires actions and maxims to conform to rationally determined duties.
How to improve:Distinguish rightness or conformity to duty from moral worth through acting out of duty.
Mistake: Saying Aristotle ignores actions and focuses only on character
Why this is incorrect:Aristotle explicitly connects virtues with actions, reasons and practical wisdom.
How to improve:Explain how character produces appropriate action through practical reasoning.
Mistake: Assuming one theory automatically solves another theory's problem
Why this is a problem:A solution often creates a new objection.
How to improve:Use the structure: objection → response → counter-response.
Mistake: Listing objections without identifying what they attack
Why this weakens evaluation:Different objections challenge different parts of a theory.
How to improve:State whether the objection targets the theory's account of utility, duty, motive, guidance, character or flourishing.
Mistake: Treating comparison as ranking
Why this is weak philosophy:Simply calling one theory "better" does not explain why.
How to improve:Compare how successfully each theory responds to a specific philosophical problem.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
What is meant by a consequentialist ethical theory? (3 marks)
Question 2
What is meant by a deontological ethical theory? (3 marks)
Question 3
Explain one difference between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. (5 marks)
Question 4
Explain one difference between Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics. (5 marks)
Question 5
Explain how utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics differ in their treatment of motives and consequences. (12 marks)
Question 6
Explain how the three normative ethical theories differ in their accounts of morally right action. (12 marks)
Question 7
'A successful ethical theory must give clear guidance about how to act.'
Is this a convincing basis for evaluating utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics? Justify your answer. (25 marks)
Question 8
'No one of the three normative ethical theories gives an adequate account of action, motive, consequences and character.'
Is this a convincing view? Justify your answer. (25 marks)
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1: What is consequentialism? (3 marks)
A consequentialist ethical theory determines moral rightness through the consequences of actions.
Utilitarianism is consequentialist because an action is morally right if it can reasonably be expected or predicted to maximise utility.
A precise answer should connect consequences with the criterion of right action.
Question 2: What is deontological ethics? (3 marks)
Deontological ethical theories are based upon duties or rights and focus upon actions or motives conforming to moral rules.
Kantian ethics is deontological because moral requirements are rationally determined duties rather than being established simply by calculating consequences.
Question 3: Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. (5 marks)
A strong answer could explain that utilitarianism determines right action through utility-maximising consequences, whereas Kantian ethics determines duties through rational moral requirements such as the categorical imperative.
For utilitarianism, consequences are fundamental.
For Kant, motive also matters to moral worth, particularly whether the agent acts out of duty.
The strongest response develops one clear difference rather than merely listing several terms.
Question 4: Kant and Aristotle. (5 marks)
Kantian ethics focuses upon rationally determined duties and acting from duty.
Aristotelian virtue ethics focuses upon:
virtuous character
eudaimonia
practical wisdom
Kant therefore gives a much stronger role to categorical moral requirements, whereas Aristotle emphasises developed character and context-sensitive practical judgement.
A strong answer should connect this difference with how the theories determine moral action.
Question 5: Motives and consequences. (12 marks)
A strong answer should compare all three theories.
Utilitarianism:Consequences are fundamental. Right action maximises utility. Motive or intention is not the fundamental criterion of rightness, generating objections concerning integrity and intentions.
Kantian ethics:Consequences are not the fundamental basis of morality. Duty and rational moral requirements determine what should be done, while acting out of duty gives an action distinctive moral worth.
Aristotelian virtue ethics:Neither consequences alone nor duty alone is central. A fully virtuous action reflects virtuous character, a morally good end, appropriate reasons and practical wisdom.
The strongest responses make direct comparisons throughout rather than presenting three separate mini-essays.
Question 6: Accounts of right action. (12 marks)
A strong response should explain:
Utilitarianism:An action is right if it can reasonably be expected to maximise utility.
Kantian ethics:An action must conform to rationally determined duty. Maxims are assessed using the categorical imperative, including universalisation and the requirement not to treat rational agents solely as means.
Aristotelian virtue ethics:Right or fully virtuous action arises from virtuous character and appropriate reasons, using practical wisdom to determine how a morally good end should be achieved in the particular circumstances.
A high-quality answer should make the contrast explicit:
consequences versus duties versus virtuous practical reasoning.
Question 7: 'A successful ethical theory must give clear guidance about how to act.' (25 marks)
A strong response should use the criterion of moral guidance to compare the theories without assuming that one type of guidance must automatically be superior.
Utilitarianism
Its central principle appears clear:
maximise utility
This offers an identifiable criterion for right action.
However, practical calculation may be difficult because agents must predict consequences, measure utility, determine which beings count and compare different outcomes.
So the principle may be clear while its application remains difficult.
Kantian ethics
The categorical imperative offers a structured rational procedure.
Universalisation and the second formulation can give definite moral constraints.
However, problems arise through:
clashing duties
questionable universalisable maxims
questionable non-universalisable maxims
So a rule-based theory can also encounter uncertainty.
Aristotelian virtue ethics
The doctrine of the mean and practical wisdom are context-sensitive rather than codified as fixed rules.
This may make the theory less straightforward for an inexperienced agent.
However, an Aristotelian can argue that moral reality itself is too complex for complete codification and therefore requires experience and judgement.
A strong judgement should assess whether clarity of decision procedure is necessary for a successful ethical theory and whether any of the three theories genuinely achieves it without significant difficulties.
Question 8: 'No one of the three theories gives an adequate account of action, motive, consequences and character.' (25 marks)
A strong response should compare what each theory captures and what it risks overlooking.
Utilitarianism
It gives consequences a clear moral role and considers how actions affect those included in the utility calculation.
However, it can face objections concerning:
intentions
integrity
rights
partiality
This suggests that consequences may not provide a complete moral picture.
Kantian ethics
It gives much greater importance to:
motive
duty
rational consistency
respect for rational agents
This can address some concerns about rights and intentions.
However, critics can argue that Kant gives insufficient weight to:
consequences
love
friendship
kindness
and faces problems where duties conflict.
Aristotelian virtue ethics
It integrates:
character
feelings
reasons
moral development
practical judgement
This gives it resources for addressing some weaknesses in both utilitarian and Kantian approaches.
However, it faces problems involving:
unclear action-guidance
clashing virtues
circularity
the relationship between moral virtue and eudaimonia
A strong conclusion should not merely announce that one theory is superior. It should assess whether the criticisms show that each theory is fundamentally inadequate or whether the different theories illuminate genuinely different aspects of moral life which any successful ethical account must address.
Comments