Schools of normative ethics

The first principle

Every ethical theory answers one question: what makes an action right? The schools differ only in where they look for the answer, whether that is the character of the agent, the act itself, its outcome, the agreement behind it, or the relationship it serves. Once you know where each one looks, you can use them as lenses on a case rather than as names to list.

The core

• Virtue ethics judges the agent, so the right act is whatever a person of practical wisdom would do. For Aristotle, each virtue is a mean between two vices, as courage lies between rashness and cowardice.
• Duty ethics (deontology) judges the act. Kant's categorical imperative asks whether your rule could become a law for everyone, and whether you are treating people as ends rather than merely as means.
• Consequentialism judges the outcome. Bentham and Mill's utilitarianism seeks the greatest good of the greatest number, which makes it strong on welfare but weak on minority rights.
• Social contract and justice judges the agreement. Rawls asks which rules you would choose behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing your own place in society.
• Care ethics judges relationships. Gilligan and Noddings argue that responsiveness to those who depend on us is a moral reason in its own right.
• Rights theory judges the claim. Dworkin's "rights as trumps" means that some claims cannot be overridden by aggregate gain.

Dimensions

Each lens has a blind spot. Virtue gives little guidance in a new situation. Duty can be rigid when duties clash. Consequences can sacrifice the few for the many. The contract view leaves out those who cannot bargain, such as animals and future generations. Using two or three lenses together covers these gaps.

In practice

• Constitutional law combines lenses. In K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court tested limits on privacy for legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality. That test joins rights theory with a weighing of consequences.
• Policy echoes. Antyodaya, which puts the last person first, reads as Rawls's difference principle in an Indian idiom. Cost and benefit appraisal of projects is consequentialism applied.
• In a case study, a verdict that two or three lenses agree on is the easiest to defend.

Issues and way forward

• Name dropping. Students attach a thinker to an answer without applying the idea, so use one principle to settle one point of the case.
• Single lens answers. Utilitarian reasoning alone can justify harm to a minority, so check any outcome against rights and duty before you settle on it.

Common confusions

• Deontology and legalism. Kant's duty comes from reason and is universal. Legalism follows whatever the rule says, even when the rule is unjust.
• Utilitarianism and majoritarianism. Utility counts every person's welfare equally. Majoritarianism counts only the preference of the larger group.
• Values and virtues. A value is a belief about what matters. A virtue is a settled habit of acting on it.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: virtue ethics, golden mean, deontology, categorical imperative, utilitarianism, greatest good, social contract, veil of ignorance, difference principle, care ethics, rights as trumps, nishkama karma, antyodaya, proportionality.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Introduction lines:
  • The Supreme Court's proportionality test in Puttaswamy (2017) shows Indian law weighing rights against consequences, two lenses held together.
  • Kant's test, whether one would will the maxim of an action as a universal law, turns a private choice into a public standard.
• Conclusion lines:
  • A decision that satisfies duty, outcome and care together is the one least likely to be wrong.
  • Gandhi's talisman condenses these lenses into a single test: recall the face of the poorest person and ask whether the step helps them.