Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you encounter an ethics question on your exam, you're not just being asked to recall who said what—you're being tested on your ability to distinguish between fundamentally different approaches to moral reasoning. Each philosopher represents a distinct answer to the question: What makes an action right or wrong? Some say it's the consequences, others say it's the intention, and still others argue it's about the kind of person you become. Understanding these frameworks lets you analyze any ethical dilemma from multiple angles.
The philosophers in this guide fall into recognizable camps: consequentialists who judge actions by their outcomes, deontologists who focus on duties and rules, virtue ethicists who emphasize character, and critics who challenge the entire enterprise. Don't just memorize names and dates—know which theoretical tradition each thinker belongs to and how their ideas respond to or critique other approaches. That's what separates a strong exam response from a mediocre one.
Virtue ethicists argue that morality isn't primarily about following rules or calculating outcomes—it's about becoming a certain kind of person. The central question shifts from "What should I do?" to "What kind of person should I be?"
Compare: Aristotle vs. Aquinas—both emphasize virtue and reason, but Aquinas adds a theological dimension, grounding natural law in divine creation. If an FRQ asks about secular versus religious ethics, this contrast is essential.
Deontologists hold that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. The rightness of an action depends on whether it conforms to moral rules or duties.
Compare: Kant vs. Mill—Kant says consequences are morally irrelevant; what matters is whether you acted from duty according to universalizable principles. Mill says consequences are all that matter. This is the classic deontology vs. consequentialism debate—expect it on exams.
Consequentialists evaluate actions solely by their results. An action is right if it produces good outcomes; wrong if it produces bad ones. The challenge lies in defining "good outcomes" and measuring them.
Compare: Bentham vs. Mill—both are utilitarians, but Bentham treats all pleasures as equal while Mill introduces a hierarchy. Mill's distinction addresses the "pushpin is as good as poetry" objection. Know this refinement for essay questions on utilitarianism's development.
Social contract theorists ask: What principles would rational people agree to for organizing society? This approach grounds political morality in hypothetical agreement rather than divine command or natural law.
Compare: Rawls vs. Utilitarian Justice—utilitarians might sacrifice minority interests for majority benefit; Rawls explicitly protects the least advantaged. This distinction matters for questions about distributive justice and fairness.
Some philosophers don't fit neatly into the major traditions because their primary contribution is challenging conventional moral thinking. They force us to question assumptions others take for granted.
Compare: Hume vs. Kant—Hume says reason is "slave of the passions" and morality stems from sentiment; Kant insists morality must be grounded in pure practical reason alone. This is the rationalism vs. sentimentalism debate in ethics.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Virtue Ethics | Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas |
| Deontological Ethics | Kant |
| Consequentialism/Utilitarianism | Bentham, Mill, Singer |
| Social Contract Theory | Rawls |
| Moral Sentimentalism | Hume |
| Critique of Traditional Morality | Nietzsche |
| Natural Law Theory | Aquinas |
| Animal Ethics | Singer |
Both Aristotle and Aquinas emphasize virtue, but what key element does Aquinas add that distinguishes his approach from purely secular virtue ethics?
Explain how Mill's utilitarianism differs from Bentham's. What problem was Mill trying to solve with his distinction between higher and lower pleasures?
If an FRQ presents a scenario where lying would produce the best overall outcome, how would Kant and Mill each evaluate the action? What specific concepts would each invoke?
Compare Rawls's difference principle to a utilitarian approach to distributive justice. Under what circumstances might they recommend different policies?
Both Hume and Nietzsche challenge traditional moral philosophy, but from different angles. What does each thinker identify as the source of our moral beliefs, and why does each consider this problematic?