Normative ethics: how ethical decisions ought to be made; the study of rules and principles that determine what is morally right or wrong in any given situation.

Descriptive ethics: how ethical decisions are made; the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices to describe how people actually behave when dealing with moral issues. (might be tempted to do something immoral, because you for example believe that everyone does that)

Trolley problem is a thought experiment (hypothetical situation). A train is on the loose and if nothing happens 5 people will die. But if you interfere you will only kill 1 person. Ethical question do you interfere or not? Most people will interfere

Another scenario: a train is on the loose again and if you do nothing, 5 people will die. One person can stop this train, but you have to push him. Ethical question: Do you push him or not? Most people will not push him

So why are we willing to kill 1 person in the first scenario (better to save five than one) but are not willing to do that in the second one. So can we find a moral principle that does not come up with contradictions. Normative ethics try to answer this question.

Our actions should:

1. promote the overall good (utilitarianism)
2. respect human dignity, individual right (ethics of duty)

Ethical relativism claims morality is subjective and context-dependent (this is wrong). It is hard to say that one culture is wrong. But that does not hold up for facts (example height of Martini toren).

More problems:

1. If it is true, criticizing other for their moral beliefs would be like criticizing others for their tastes
2. If it is true, one could find out what is right or wrong by observing what people in a certain culture believe about right an wrong. Child labour could therefore be for example right, because the culture accepts it
3. If it is true, it would not make sense to talk about moral progress. We would like to think that we do better today.

Ethical absolutism claims there are eternal, universally applicable moral principles. So we can determine what is right and what is wrong.

Consequentialist: rightness or wrongness the outcomes/consequence mattes (utilitarianism)

Utilitarianism: the moral theory which states that we should act in ways that produce the most pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people affected by our actions (least amount of suffering) Key figures: Bentham (How can we shape society in such a way that promotes the greatest happiness), Mill (developed Bentham his theory) and Taylor (wife of Mill, helped develop Mill his theory)

Principle of utility: actions are right if they promote the greatest human welfare, and wrong if they do not.

Three important factors (in business estimating pros and cons):

1. Consequences (all actions is for the sake of some end, and rules of actions … must take the whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient)
2. Happiness (the ultimate end is  an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality)
3. Equality (as between his or her own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him or her to be strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator

So avoid harm, promote good and weigh good and bad effects. Appears to be fair: everyone’s preference count equally. à greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action.

Problems:

1. Measurements problems; how do you measure units of happiness and how do you measure good?
2. It could lead to unjust outcomes; we sometimes have to make choices that are wrong

Non-consequentialist: rightness or wrongness of a theory depends on the motivation principles (ethics of duty)

Ethics of duty: an ethical theory that consist of abstract, unchangeable obligations, defined by a set of rationally deduced a priori moral rules, which should be applied to all relevant ethical problems.

Founder: Immanuel Kant; all of us have some and deserve internal dignity. Therefore you cannot weight one person’s happiness to another ones.

Out motivation is of critical importance, the right motives seek goodness’ sake (simply because it is out moral duty). moral prescription are universal. But how do we know what our duty consists in.

Categorical (because it applies to everyone unconditionally) imperative (because it imposes on us with the force of a law):

Moral prescription are universal, everyone would assent to them if they are considered rationally.

A tool to derive moral laws (definition categorical imperative):

1. Act only according to that maxim whereby can at the same time will that is should become a universal law without contradiction) means: act only according to principles that you can think (imagine the world) and want (would it be good or bad) to be universal principles.
2. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. Means: treat humans as an end, never as a means only. respect each other as rational, autonomous persons: give someone the autonomy to set and reach the goals themselves.

In business:

The categorical imperative provides a sold standard for the formulation of rules that are applicable to any business circumstance; stresses the importance of our motives, intentions and human dignity.

Problems:

1. Ethics of duty is too extreme; lying is for example always wrong
2. Ethics of duty focusses on motives of duty only; what if we do the right thing out of empathy.