THEORIES OF MORAL AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad" (Abraham Lincoln)

    When it comes to classifying moral or ethical theories, there is some unusual vocabulary, and frankly, a bunch of unnecessary big words, usually ending with the -ism suffix.  This lecture note attempts to simplify that vocabulary and hopefully express the ideas in such terms that it is easy to make an identification with one or more of the fully-developed ETHICAL THEORIES in philosophy.  Furthermore, this lecture note touches on some of the theories of moral development, because we are not solely interested in classifying ideas, but in how a person comes to embrace one of these belief systems.  It should be noted that the theories of moral development are not mutually exclusive, but the ethical theories usually are mutually exclusive.

THE TWO (2) BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

    Most ethical theorists start from a point which looks at what is being judged or evaluated as good or bad, right or wrong, and they usually look at one of two things -- (1) the inherent nature of the act -- or (2) the consequences of the act.  It is intellectually impossible to do both because of what is called the "means-end" problem in philosophy.  You probably know the phrases associated with this problem; "the means justifies the end" or "the end justifies the means."  It's one or the other, not both.  One would do well to stay away from the means-end problem in philosophy unless they have the benefit of advanced academic training.  So, if you're the kind of person who thinks that something is good when a person "means well," "tried their best," or had "good intentions," then you believe it's the inherent nature of the act that matters, and your philosophical beliefs are classified as a DEONTOLOGICAL ethical system.  For deontologists, it doesn't matter if the consequences turn out bad, since all that matters is the principle of the thing.  On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who thinks goodness, badness, rightness, and wrongness reside in the consequences of action, then your belief systems are classified as a TELEOLOGICAL ethical system.  Teleologists are usually guided by the precedent or example that something sets.

1 - DEONTOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

    From a deontological point of view, something is moral not because of its consequences, but is moral because the motive or intent is "good."  The clearest example of a deontological ethical system is FORMALISM, developed by the famous philosopher-of-philosophers, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  Kant's approach to ethics begins with an analysis of "ulterior motives."  Something could look good, and really be bad; and vice-versa, something could look bad, and really be good.  Kant then proceeds to analyze the acts of so-called "Good Samaritans" to see why they do good things for complete strangers.  What matters is whether or not the Good Samaritan is truly, or formally, doing the good thing out of the kindness of their heart -- or whether they expect payment, glory, or the return of a favor.  Only if something springs from a desire to do good with no expectation of reward or benefit, can we truly say the "goodness" of an ethic has been achieved.  The question then becomes: "Under what circumstances will people sincerely do good with no expectation of benefit?"  Kant says the answer is when people are "doing their duty" and the concept of DUTY becomes an important part of ethical formalism, which consists of three components:

    1. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
    2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, including yourself and others, as an end in itself, and never as a means to an end.
    3. Act as if you were a lawmaking member of a kingdom of ends.

    Please note the absolute character of these principles.  There is no room for flexibility, no wiggle room.  Together, they form what is known as the categorical imperative, but there are many smaller categorical imperatives in life.  A categorical imperative is something that "commands" action without reference to any purpose or consequence.  If you say to yourself that "I must attend college because a degree will help me in life," then you are still thinking in terms of consequences, and that statement is NOT a categorical imperative.  If you say to yourself that "I must attend college because that is a good thing to do in itself," then you are experiencing a categorical imperative, and doing a "good" and "right" thing.  The leading criticism of Kant's ethical formalism is that it doesn't tell you what to do in cases where there is a clear-cut "conflict of duties."  When we get to the topic of punishment later on, you'll find that deontological systems provide the underpinning for the philosophy of punishment known as RETRIBUTION.  

2 - TELEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

    From a teleological point of view, something is good as determined by its consequences, and morality is seen as a phenomenon where the consequences are the cause, although in some cases, morality has to be imputed, or attributed, to the cause.  Consequences matter, but so does doing good.  The clearest example of a teleological system is UTILITARIANISM, developed by the famous British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).  Bentham's approach to ethics makes extensive use of the "pleasure principle" which holds that humans are always predisposed to maximize pleasure and avoid pain.  Everything else, including logic and rationality, follow from the pleasure principle.  In 1768, Bentham came across something written by the English scientist Joseph Priestley in which Priestley (1767) said "The good and happiness of the members, that is the majority of the members of the state, is the great standard by which everything relating to that state must finally be determined," and Bentham turned this into the famous utilitarian doctrine of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."  Bentham elaborated on this phrase in his first book (Bentham 1776).  Bentham's second book (Bentham 1780) became a foundational document in utilitarianism and introduced the notion of a "hedonistic calculus" which was meant to distinguish things with "social utility" from things that are selfish (personal "hedonic" calculus).  From 1791 to 1794, Bentham actively campaigned for his "model prison" -- the "Panopticon" based on what would become the philosophy of punishment known as DETERRENCE.  Bentham was a close friend of English philosopher James Mill, and became a mentor to Mill's famous son, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), and it was J.S. Mill who refined Bentham's philosophy into a fairly systematic way of weighing goods (utilities or benefits), and Mill's well-known work, On Liberty (Mill 1859), points out that no one can claim the liberty to break someone's head without the policeman interfering.  Hence, there is both toleration and limitation to individuality.  The implications of this for political economy is the principle of "majority rule, minority right."

    The root word in utilitarianism is "utility" which means "useful."  If something is useful (its consequences turn out to be desirable) in the short-run, then that is called act-utilitarianism.  If something is useful in the long-run (establishes a precedent to follow), then that is called rule-utilitarianism.  Deterrence is likewise divided into individual or specific deterrence and societal or general deterrence. 

    Specific deterrence often takes the form of an older principle called incapacitation.  The idea is to make it impossible for an individual to commit another crime, at least while they're in prison.  Specific deterrence calls for inmates to be closely guarded and monitored at all times.  In fact, Bentham proposed a type of prison system known as the Panopticon design (Panopticon means all-seeing eye).  Other factors are also important with specific deterrence, like the type of facility, the length of stay, the treatment opportunities, and the demographic mix of the prison population. 

    General deterrence is what most people mean when they speak of deterrence.  The principle here is that others (potential criminals) will want to avoid criminal behavior because of the example provided by punishment.  A person is punished not so much because they deserve it, but in order that others will not be inclined to do the same or similar thing.  This kind of goal makes prisons as responsible for crime prevention as police are expected to be.  Theory development has a long way to go in criminology before we can really say there's such a thing as deterrence theory, but here's a sample of some basic tenets in the principle of deterrence:

• punishment must be used to uphold society at all costs

• prisoners should be treated as means to an end

• justice employees ought to be hyper-vigilant in crime detection

• the public ought to intimately know about the penal sanction

• the threat of punishment may work as well as actual punishment

THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

INTERNET RESOURCES
Classical Utilitarianism Website
J.S. Mill's Politics and Ethics
The Vintage John Stuart Mill HomePage

PRINTED RESOURCES
Bentham, J. (1776). A Fragment on Government: being an examination of what is delivered, on the subject of Government in General in the introduction of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries. London: T. Payne [html copy]
Bentham, J. (1780/1996). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne. [pdf copy]
Bentham, J. (1843/1970). "The Rationale of Punishment." In R. Beck & J. Orr (Eds.) Ethical Choice. NY: Free Press.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society. NY: Norton.
Kant, I. (trans. 1949). Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the Development of Moral Thought. NY: Holt, Rinehart.
Mill, J.S. (1859/1909). On Liberty. NY: Collier & Son. [html copy]
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul.
Pollock, J. (2004). Ethics in Crime and Justice, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Priestley, J. (1768). The First Principles of Government and the Nature of Political, Civil and Religious Liberty. [publisher unknown]

Last updated: Sept. 30, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.