Unformatted Attachment Preview
You must integrate at least three direct quotations from the linked articles AND from Everyday Use to
support your points.
- https://www.cusd200.org/cms/lib/IL01001538/Centricity/Domain/361/Everyday_Use.pdf
- https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethicaldecision-making/
Write an essay of 1,000 words or more in which you analyze and discuss the choice the protagonist
makes at the end of “Everyday Use” from a rule-based ethics (deontology) approach, a consequencebased ethics (teleology) approach and a virtue-based ethics approach.
View and discuss the character's choice from the three moral perspectives explained in the two
assigned articles and end your essay by explaining which approach the protagonist uses to make their
final choice.
1 of the sources that must be used and quoted:
Moral Inquiry - Ronald F. White (Excerpts)
FROM THE INTRODUCTION
Whatever Truth is, we do know that our beliefs about it have a tendency to change over time. I used to
believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and governmental efficiency. Scientists used to believe that the
earth is the center of the universe, and that bloodletting cures insanity. Based on the flow of history, it is
safe to assume that most of what we believe to be true today will eventually be regarded as either
imprecise or false. We also know that human beliefs concerning Truth vary between individuals, groups
of individuals, and between cultures. Generally speaking, we deal with this cognitive dissonance by
summarily dismissing beliefs that conflict with our own. Our beliefs are true, theirs are false.
Human beings also believe that some human behavior is good and praiseworthy, and that other
behavior is bad and blameworthy. It is true that human beings murder each other, steal from each
other, drive too fast, and fart in elevators. Under most circumstances, none of these behaviors are
considered to be good or praiseworthy, although there may be particular circumstances when they
might be. Farting is a perfectly natural phenomenon open to descriptive inquiry. It can be explained in
terms of the laws of human physiology, (the production of nitrogenous waste) and the laws of physics:
our knowledge of both sets of laws change over time. Killing and stealing can also be explained in
biological terms. But many philosophers argue that there is a difference between inquiring into whether
something is true and/or whether it is good.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORIES
Teleological moral theories locate moral goodness in the consequences of our behavior and not the
behavior itself. According to teleological (or consequentialist) moral theory, all rational human actions
are teleological in the sense that we reason about the means of achieving certain ends. Moral behavior,
therefore, is goal-directed. I have ice in my gutters right now. I am deliberating about when and how to
get that ice out in order to prevent water damage inside the house. There are many strategies (means)
that I might employ to remove that ice (end). Should I send my oldest son, Eli, up on the icy roof today?
After careful deliberation I finally decided not send him on the roof because it is slippery and he might
fall. How did I decide? Well, I took into account the possible consequences. There is nothing inherently
wrong with climbing on the roof. What made roof climbing the morally wrong thing to do at this
particular time and place were the possible consequences. The issue has moral significance in so far as it
affects persons. So from the teleological point of view, human behavior is neither right nor wrong in and
of itself. What matters is what might happen as a consequence of those actions in any given context.
Thus, it is the contextualized consequences that make our behavior, good or bad, right or wrong. In the
case of roof climbing in the winter, I decided to climb up on the roof myself, because it‟s dangerous. Eli
might fall off and get hurt. If that happened, my wife would blame me and so would the community. But
if I fell off the roof, I would be judged to be imprudent, but not necessarily immoral.
From a teleological standpoint, stealing, for example, could not be judged to be inherently right or
wrong independent of the context and the foreseeable consequences. Suppose I am contemplating
stealing a loaf of bread from the neighborhood grocery store. Many moral theorists would argue that
morality requires an analysis of my motives (or intent) that brought about that behavior. However, from
a teleological perspective, motives really have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the act.
What really matters lies in the potential pains and pleasures associated with the short-term and longterm consequences. If my children were starving, and if stealing a loaf of bread would immediately
prevent them from starving, then I might seriously consider stealing. But I‟d have to know if the
consequences would significantly harm the grocery store? What would be the odds of getting caught? If
I got caught, what would happen to me? Would I go to jail? Get fined? If I went to jail, who would take
care of my children? Therefore, even if my motive (preventing my children from starving) was
praiseworthy, the act of stealing might still be wrong because other actions might be more costeffective in bringing about the desired consequences. Perhaps I‟d be better off signing up for food
stamps or asking the storeowner to give me day-old bread. On the other hand, suppose that there were
no other options and that I invented a foolproof system for stealing bread. Would I be wrong for doing
it? If you think about the consequences of your actions when you make moral decisions, you are
applying teleological moral theory.
DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES
There are many philosophers who reject the entire teleological agenda by arguing that moral goodness
has nothing to do with generating pleasure, happiness, and or consequences. Deontological theories are
by definition duty-based. That is to say, that morality, according to deontologists, consists in the
fulfillment of moral obligations, or duties. Duties, in the deontological tradition, are most often
associated with obeying absolute moral rules. Hence, human beings are morally required to do (or not
to do) certain acts in order to uphold a rule or law. The rightness or wrongness of a moral rule is
determined independent of its consequences or how happiness or pleasure is distributed as a result of
abiding by that rule, or not abiding by it.
It's not difficult to see why philosophers would be drawn to this position. In ordinary life, we often
encounter situations where doing our duty toward others does not necessarily increase pleasure or
decrease pain. In early nineteenth-century America, many members of the anti-slavery movement
argued that slavery was wrong, even though slaveholders and southern society in general, economically
benefited from it. Suppose, also that the slaveholders were also able to condition the slaves to the point
where they actually enjoyed living under slavery. From a teleological perspective, slavery might appear
to be an ideal economic institution. Everybody is happy!
A deontologist, however, would argue that even if the American government conducted a detailed
cost/benefit analysis of slavery and decided that it created more pleasure in society than pain, it would
still be wrong. Therefore, deontologists believe that right and wrong have nothing to do with pleasure,
pain, or consequences. Morality is based on whether acts conflict with moral rules or not, and the
motivation behind those acts. An act is therefore, good if and only if it was performed out of a desire to
do one's duty and obey a rule. In other words, act out of a good will. Hence, slavery is wrong, not
because of its negative consequences, but because it violates an absolute moral rule. The problem here
is: "How does one distinguish absolute moral rules from mere convention, prudence, or legality, without
reference to the distribution of pleasure and pain?"
VIRTUE-BASED MORAL THEORIES
In the Western world (and the Eastern World) there is a venerable system of moral reasoning based on
the idea of virtue. Let‟s call those various systems virtue-based moral systems. In the history of Western
moral theory, there are two different types of virtue-based systems. The non-secular line of inquiry
relies on divine command theory in order to discern moral virtues from vices, as illustrated by the JudeoChristian moral tradition. The secular line of inquiry relies primarily on reason and experience, and not
divine command theory. It goes back to the ancient Greeks, via the writings of Homer, Hesiod, Plato, and
Aristotle. The particular virtues espoused by non-secular and secular theories are often contradictory;
therefore it‟s hard to discern the common thread that binds these two virtue-based systems. But I‟ll try.
First of all, all virtue-based systems tend elevate community over individuals. Therefore, they tend more
toward communitarianism than individualism. Secular virtue-based systems usually identify
communities with political regimes. In the case of the Greeks, it was the city-state. Judeo-Christian nonsecular virtue-based systems theorists identify with religious communities.
For both the non-secular and secular traditions, the virtue of something refers to its excellence:
something that performs its function well. So anything subject to degrees (good, better, and best etc.)
has its virtue. Hence, virtue determines status within a prescriptive hierarchy. Although we can talk
about the virtue of a specific kind of computer over others, the Greeks most often referred to virtue as
excellence of human character and behavior. Aristotle differentiated between two spheres of human
activity that are governed by virtue: the intellectual sphere and the social or political sphere. Intellectual
virtues reflect excellence of thought (wisdom etc), while moral virtues reflect excellence of human
behavior (courage etc.) Hence, Aristotle, a hedonist, envisioned two alternative paths to human
excellence and consummate happiness: the intellectual life of the philosopher-scientist and the social
life of the politician. It‟s not clear which road to the good life that Aristotle valued more.
All virtue-based moral systems focus on big questions such as: “What is the „Good Life? And “How do I
go about living the „Good Life?” Therefore, they tend to focus on how to live one‟s life, over the long
run, rather than how to address particular issues that pop up at any given time. In short, virtue-based
systems focus on character development within harmonious communities. These systems also tend to
rely on moral exemplars, or role models. Once a person has internalized the virtue of kindness, then that
person will exemplify that virtue in his/her actions.
All virtue-based moral systems differentiate between virtues (good behavior) and vices (bad behavior).
Ultimately, non-secular virtue-based theories differentiate between virtues and vices based on religious
authorities, usually traced back to the authority of the Bible and/or its official interpreters. The Christian
authorities have identified faith, hope, and charity as its primary virtues. If you pursue these ideals over
the course of your lifetime, you‟ll lead a “good life.”
Aristotle believed moral virtue consists in choosing the mean between the extremes of excess and
deficiency within any given sphere of action. The vice of excess consists in choosing too much of a good
thing and the vice of deficiency consists of not enough. Excellence is found midway between the two.
For example, the virtue of bravery can be found midway between the vices of cowardice and
foolhardiness. Today bravery is most often confused with foolhardiness. Obviously, an excellent army
must have brave soldiers that are not afraid to die. But the purpose of going to war is to kill the soldiers
in the opposing. An army of foolhardy soldiers will not last any longer than an army of cowards.