Welcome to Applied Ethics!
In the previous chapters, you’ve explored big, abstract theories like Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Virtue Ethics. Now, it’s time to see how those theories actually work in the real world. Think of this chapter as the "testing ground" for your philosophical toolkit. We are going to apply these theories to four specific issues required by the AQA syllabus: stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, and telling lies.
Don't worry if these topics seem complex. We’ll break down each one by looking at what our three main "Moral Giants" (Bentham/Mill, Kant, and Aristotle) would say about them. Let’s dive in!
1. Stealing
Stealing is generally defined as taking someone else’s property without their consent. While most people agree it’s wrong, philosophers want to know why it’s wrong and if there are ever exceptions.
The Utilitarian View
Act Utilitarianism: An Act Utilitarian (like Bentham) would look at the specific situation. If a poor person steals a loaf of bread from a wealthy supermarket to save a starving child, the pleasure (saving a life) might outweigh the pain (a tiny loss of profit for the shop). In this specific case, stealing could be "right."
Rule Utilitarianism: A Rule Utilitarian (like Mill) would be more cautious. They would ask: "What if we had a general rule that stealing was okay whenever you really needed something?" This would lead to a lack of trust, people wouldn't work hard to own things, and society would become chaotic. Therefore, we should follow the rule "Do not steal" because it maximizes happiness for society in the long run.
The Kantian View
Kant is very strict here. He uses the Categorical Imperative (specifically the Formula of Universal Law). If I steal, I am acting on the maxim: "I will steal when I want something." If we universalise this, the concept of "property" would disappear. You can't "steal" something if nobody "owns" anything. This is a Contradiction in Conception. Therefore, stealing is a breach of a Perfect Duty and is always wrong, no matter the reason.
The Aristotelian View
Aristotle treats stealing as one of the few actions that has no "mean." In his Nicomachean Ethics, he says that some actions are simply vicious in themselves. Stealing is always an injustice because it involves taking more than one’s fair share and depriving others of what is theirs. It prevents us from reaching Eudaimonia because it doesn't build a virtuous character.
Quick Review: Stealing
• Act Utilitarian: Depends on the happiness produced in that specific case.
• Rule Utilitarian: Generally wrong because it undermines social trust.
• Kant: Always wrong (fails the universalisation test).
• Aristotle: Always wrong (no "Golden Mean" for theft).
2. Simulated Killing
This refers to "killing" in video games, plays, or films. Since no real person actually dies, why is it a moral issue? Philosophers worry about the effect it has on the person doing it and the culture at large.
The Utilitarian View
Utilitarians look at the balance of pleasure and pain.
Example: Playing a violent video game gives the player (and the developers) a lot of pleasure. Since the "victim" is just pixels, there is no real pain.
However, Mill might argue that this is a Lower Pleasure. He might also worry about "harm to others" if the player becomes desensitised to real-world violence, leading to a decrease in overall social utility.
The Kantian View
Since the characters aren't "persons," you aren't technically failing to treat them as ends-in-themselves. However, Kant argues that we have an Imperfect Duty to develop our moral feelings. If you spend all day "killing" in a game, you might blunt your natural sympathy for real humans. By damaging your own moral character, you are failing in your duty to yourself.
The Aristotelian View
This is all about Habituation. Virtue Ethics asks: "What kind of person does this make me?" If we repeatedly practice "killing," even simulated, are we building the virtue of temperance or kindness? Probably not. Aristotle might worry that simulated killing encourages vices like cruelty or aggression, which stops us from flourishing.
Did you know?
Some philosophers argue that simulated killing acts as a catharsis (a release of emotion), which actually makes people less likely to be violent in real life. This would be a strong argument for a Utilitarian!
3. Eating Animals
Can we justify the pain caused to animals for the pleasure of eating them?
The Utilitarian View
Jeremy Bentham famously said: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Since animals can feel pain, their pain must be included in our "utility calculus."
Peter Singer (a modern Utilitarian) argues that ignoring animal pain just because they aren't human is Speciesism. Because the pain of the animal in a factory farm is usually greater than the fleeting pleasure of a human eating a burger, many Utilitarians argue we should be vegetarians.
The Kantian View
Kant believed that we only have duties to rational beings (persons). Since animals cannot reason or give themselves laws, they are not part of the "Kingdom of Ends." We have no direct duties to them.
However, Kant says we have an indirect duty: if we are cruel to animals, we are likely to become "hard" and cruel towards humans. So, we should treat animals well, but only for the sake of human morality.
The Aristotelian View
Aristotle believed in a Hierarchy of Souls. Humans have a rational soul, while animals only have a sensitive soul. He argued that nature made animals for the sake of humans. However, a modern Virtue Ethicist might ask: "Is eating meat a sign of temperance or compassion?" If we eat meat purely for luxury while knowing the animal suffered, it might be seen as callous or greedy, which are vices.
Key Takeaway:
The debate often boils down to: Does the animal count? Utilitarians say "Yes (because of pain)"; Kantians say "Only indirectly (because of us)"; Aristotelians say "Generally no, but watch your character."
4. Telling Lies
Most of us tell "white lies" occasionally, but is it ever truly moral?
The Utilitarian View
Act Utilitarianism: If telling a lie saves a life or prevents a great deal of misery (and doesn't get caught), it's the right thing to do. The end justifies the means.
Rule Utilitarianism: They would argue that a society where no one tells the truth would be miserable. No one could trust anyone else. Therefore, we should keep the rule "Don't lie" because the trust it builds creates more happiness than any individual lie could.
The Kantian View
Kant’s most famous (and controversial) example is the Inquiring Murderer. If a killer asks if your friend is hiding in your house, Kant says you must not lie.
1. Universalisation: If everyone lied, the concept of a "promise" or "truth" would become meaningless (Contradiction in Conception).
2. The Formula of Humanity: By lying to someone, you are manipulating them. You are not letting them make a rational choice; you are treating them as a means to an end.
The Aristotelian View
Truthfulness is a Virtue. It is the Golden Mean between two vices:
• Boastfulness (exaggerating the truth)
• Mock-modesty (understating the truth)
A virtuous person (the Phronimos) knows how to be truthful in the right way, at the right time, and for the right reasons. While Aristotle generally values honesty, he might allow for a lie if Practical Wisdom suggests it is the most courageous or kind thing to do in a very complex situation.
How Meta-Ethics Fits In (A Quick Note)
When you write about these topics, remember to link back to Meta-ethics if the question asks about the nature of these judgements:
• Moral Realists (like Naturalists or Intuitionists) believe there is a "fact" about whether stealing is wrong.
• Moral Anti-realists (like Emotivists) would say that saying "Stealing is wrong" is just like saying "Boo! to stealing!"—it’s an expression of emotion, not a fact.
Summary Checklist
Don't forget! When answering exam questions on Applied Ethics, always check:
1. Have I applied the Primary Theory (e.g., Kant’s Categorical Imperative)?
2. Have I considered different versions of the theory (e.g., Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism)?
3. Have I used Key Terms (e.g., Eudaimonia, Universalisation, Speciesism)?
4. Have I explained why the theory reaches that conclusion?
Study Tip: Try to create a grid. Put the 4 topics on one side and the 3 theories on the top. Fill in the boxes with one sentence summarizing each view!