Chapter 2: Bioethics & Moral Theories – Utilitarianism, Kant, Virtue & Care Ethics

Bioethics & Moral Theories – Utilitarianism, Kant, Virtue & Care Ethics , “Bioethics and Moral Theories,” from Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases explores the foundational ethical frameworks used to evaluate moral questions, defining moral theory as the explanation for why actions are right or wrong or why character is good or bad. The discussion primarily categorizes theories as consequentialist (judging rightness purely by outcomes) or deontological (judging rightness by intrinsic nature, independent of consequences). The leading consequentialist theory, utilitarianism, requires maximizing the overall beneficial balance of good over bad (utility) for everyone affected, with distinctions drawn between act-utilitarianism (focusing on individual actions) and rule-utilitarianism (focusing on adherence to maximizing rules). In direct contrast, Kantian ethics, the influential deontological view, centers morality on following the rational, universal commands known as the categorical imperative, which mandates acting solely out of duty and respecting all persons always as an end, never merely as a means. Alternative frameworks presented include principlism, which employs multiple prima facie duties (like autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) that must be weighed and balanced against one another when conflicts arise; Natural Law Theory, which relies on human reason to deduce moral standards from nature, using the doctrine of double effect to differentiate between intended bad actions (always wrong) and foreseen but unintended bad effects (sometimes permissible); and Rawls’s Contract Theory, a form of contractarianism that generates principles of justice (prioritizing basic liberties and benefitting the least advantaged) through a hypothetical agreement reached behind a veil of ignorance. The chapter also covers perspectives focused on character, namely virtue ethics (emphasizing developing excellent character traits, or virtues, to achieve eudaimonia) and the ethics of care (stressing relationships, compassion, and empathy over abstract impartiality). Finally, the document outlines three essential Criteria of Adequacy used to judge moral theories—consistency with considered moral judgments (Criterion I), consistency with the facts of the moral life (Criterion II), and resourcefulness in problem-solving (Criterion III)—and includes Susan Wolf’s argument that striving for the unattainable ideal of the moral saint (maximally moral person) is undesirable, as it inevitably forces the sacrifice of essential nonmoral interests and traits necessary for a rich, well-rounded life.