Ethics and Moral Philosophy
Ethics and Moral Philosophy tests normative theories about what we ought to do, metaethical theories about the status of moral claims, and applied reasoning. GCE questions often ask you to compare utilitarianism, Kantian deontology and virtue ethics, and to assess relativism and the is-ought gap.
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences, aiming at the greatest happiness. Bentham's hedonic calculus measures intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity and purity; Mill distinguishes higher and lower pleasures and defends the harm principle. Act utilitarianism assesses individual acts; rule utilitarianism assesses rules whose general adoption maximises utility. Criticisms include sacrificing individuals for the majority, demanding impartial calculation, and neglecting integrity.
Deontology
Kant grounds morality in reason and duty, not consequences. The categorical imperative has formulations: act only on maxims you can will as universal law, and treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means. A good will acts from duty, not inclination. The test is whether a maxim can be universalised without contradiction.
Virtue ethics
Aristotle centres eudaimonia (flourishing), the human function of rational activity, and virtues as stable character traits lying between extremes. Phronesis (practical wisdom) determines the mean relative to the situation. Virtue is habituated, not merely known.
Metaethics
Cognitivists hold moral statements express beliefs that can be true or false; non-cognitivists such as emotivists hold they express attitudes. Moral realism affirms mind-independent moral facts; anti-realism denies them. Hume's is-ought gap warns that descriptive premises alone cannot entail a normative conclusion. Moore's naturalistic fallacy is the attempt to define 'good' in natural terms.
Worked example
Kant's false-promise maxim: 'When in financial difficulty, I will promise to repay money with no intention of doing so.' Universalised, everyone in difficulty may make such promises. But then promises would no longer be trusted or accepted, and the institution of promising would collapse. The maxim cannot be conceived as a universal law without contradiction, so making a false promise is wrong. The reasoning tests the maxim, not the consequences in a particular case.
Traps
Utilitarianism is not egoism; it requires impartial concern for all affected. The categorical imperative is not simply the golden rule, because it tests maxims for universal consistency. Virtue ethics does offer guidance through phronesis and models of character. Cultural relativism as a descriptive claim (people differ) does not establish normative relativism (we ought to tolerate all practices). Do not confuse the is-ought gap with the naturalistic fallacy.