Conatus: REVISED EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

(Deontological ethics might be equated with ethical (or moral) formalism, especially Kant. The others do not easily equate with the divisions given above.) This three-fold division was proposed by Rosalind Hursthouse, and is based on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Consequentialism is a moral doctrine that holds that the right action in any situation is the one that leads to the best outcome over all. Utilitarianism and distributive justice are consequentialist in nature (although rule utilitarianism has an element of deontology). Virtue ethics starts with the individual person and proposes that, if a person can be educated or otherwise persuaded towards good behaviour, then this, in turn, would lead to a better society. Or it could simply be said that all moral theories are somewhere on a consequentialist/idealist spectrum (deontology, arguably, being idealist).

The move from five broad categories down to three obviously leaves out some of the types of ethics and morality that we have discussed previously. Most notable perhaps is that the idea of morality as being innate (either to the universe or to ourselves) is disregarded. Ethical or moral subjectivism seems to have been left out, but perhaps the five categories take this up via ethical relativism. Also, the ideas around morality being socially constructed seem to require a braoder sweep than might be suggested here. I will return to this idea below. The other idea left out is moral relativism. However, it could be argued that this forms part of consequentialism.

I want to consider two further theories, which might be added under the banner of

234