api: YAML JSON TOON Database version: 1.0.0 format: yaml dataset: id: 2789 slug: ethics-moral-philosophy title: Ethics and Moral Philosophy description: "Normative ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, social contract theory, and applied ethics dilemmas (trolley problem, privacy, bioethics)." summary: "The major theories of moral philosophy: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics and social contract theory, with the trolley problem as a thought experiment. Each entry gives founders, the core principle, strengths, criticisms and variants." use_when: - You need an even-handed summary of a major ethical theory with its main objections. - You are analyzing a dilemma from more than one ethical perspective. caveats: - The theories are frameworks; many philosophers combine elements or work with other approaches such as care ethics. - The summaries describe positions, not endorsements. related: - philosophical-traditions - major-philosophers - criminal-law-terms - economic-systems entry_count: 5 fields: - section: theories field: name type: string example: Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) - section: theories field: founders type: array example: "[3 items]" - section: theories field: core_principle type: string example: Maximize overall happiness/well-being; the righ… - section: theories field: formula type: string example: Choose action A that maximizes Σ(utility of all… - section: theories field: strengths type: array example: "[3 items]" - section: theories field: criticisms type: array example: "[3 items]" - section: theories field: variants type: array example: "[2 items]" - section: theories field: kant_formulations type: array example: "[2 items]" - section: theories field: aristotle_virtues type: array example: "[3 items]" - section: theories field: eudaimonia type: string example: Human flourishing; living in accordance with re… - section: theories field: rawls_veil_of_ignorance type: string example: Principles of justice chosen behind a veil of i… - section: theories field: rawls_principles type: array example: "[2 items]" - section: theories field: scenario type: string example: A runaway trolley will kill 5 people. You can p… - section: theories field: variations type: array example: "[2 items]" - section: theories field: ethical_analysis type: object example: "{utilitarian,deontological,virtue_ethics}" - section: theories field: significance type: string example: Reveals tension between consequentialist and de… category: Philosophy category_slug: philosophy tags: philosophy,ethics,moral-philosophy,utilitarianism,deontology,virtue-ethics,trolley-problem,applied-ethics view_count: 67 created_at: 1778695229 updated_at: 1778695229 data: theories: - name: Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) founders: - Jeremy Bentham (founder; hedonic calculus) - John Stuart Mill (higher/lower pleasures; 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied') - Peter Singer (preference utilitarianism; effective altruism) core_principle: Maximize overall happiness/well-being; the right action produces the greatest good for the greatest number formula: Choose action A that maximizes Σ(utility of all affected beings) strengths: - Intuitive appeal of maximizing well-being - Impartial (everyone counts equally) - Provides clear decision procedure criticisms: - May justify harming minorities for majority benefit - Difficult to calculate consequences - Demands too much (constant sacrifice for others) variants: - Act utilitarianism (evaluate each act) - Rule utilitarianism (follow rules that maximize utility) - name: Deontology (Duty Ethics) founders: - Immanuel Kant (categorical imperative; duty-based ethics) - W.D. Ross (prima facie duties) core_principle: Actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of consequences; morality is about following universal moral laws kant_formulations: - formulation: Formula of Universal Law description: Act only on maxims you can will to become universal law - formulation: Formula of Humanity description: Treat humanity (yourself and others) always as an end, never merely as a means strengths: - Respects individual rights and dignity - Clear moral rules - Doesn't sacrifice individuals for collective good criticisms: - Rigid rules may conflict (lying to protect innocent) - Ignores consequences entirely - Difficult to derive specific duties - name: Virtue Ethics founders: - Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics; eudaimonia; golden mean) - Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue; traditions and practices) core_principle: Focus on character and virtues rather than rules or consequences; asks 'What would a virtuous person do?' aristotle_virtues: - virtue: Courage mean_between: Rashness (excess) — Courage (mean) — Cowardice (deficiency) - virtue: Temperance mean_between: Licentiousness (excess) — Temperance (mean) — Insensibility (deficiency) - virtue: Generosity mean_between: Wastefulness (excess) — Generosity (mean) — Stinginess (deficiency) eudaimonia: Human flourishing; living in accordance with reason and virtue; not mere pleasure but fulfilling one's function as a rational being strengths: - Holistic (considers whole life, not isolated acts) - Emphasizes moral education and character development - Flexible and context-sensitive criticisms: - Virtues vary across cultures - No clear action guidance in specific cases - "Circular: virtuous person = one who does virtuous acts" - name: Social Contract Theory founders: - Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan; state of nature = 'nasty, brutish, short') - John Locke (natural rights; limited government) - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (general will; popular sovereignty) - John Rawls (A Theory of Justice; veil of ignorance) core_principle: Moral and political obligations arise from implicit agreement among individuals to form society and submit to authority for mutual benefit rawls_veil_of_ignorance: Principles of justice chosen behind a veil of ignorance (not knowing your position in society) would be fair to all rawls_principles: - Equal basic liberties for all - Social and economic inequalities arranged to benefit the least advantaged (difference principle) strengths: - Explains legitimacy of political authority - Grounds rights in rational agreement - Rawls provides framework for distributive justice criticisms: - Historical fiction (no actual contract was made) - Excludes non-rational beings (animals, disabled) - May not generate specific policy guidance - name: The Trolley Problem scenario: A runaway trolley will kill 5 people. You can pull a lever to divert it, killing 1 person instead. Should you pull the lever? variations: - variant: Fat Man description: You can push a fat man off a bridge to stop the trolley. Is this different from pulling the lever? Why? - variant: Transplant Surgeon description: A surgeon can kill 1 healthy person to harvest organs and save 5 patients. Is this the same as the trolley case? ethical_analysis: utilitarian: "Pull the lever: 1 death < 5 deaths (maximize lives saved)" deontological: "Don't pull: actively killing is morally different from letting die; using someone as a means is wrong" virtue_ethics: What would a wise and compassionate person do in this situation? significance: Reveals tension between consequentialist and deontological intuitions; used in AI ethics and autonomous vehicle programming