The Usefulness of a Comprehensive Systematic Moral Theory

In the fall 2009 issue of Teaching Ethics C.E. Harris wrote an article with a question as the title, “Is Moral Theory Useful in Practical Ethics?” which he answered in the affirmative.1 In Harris’ article he considers two moral theories. “For utilitarianism the purpose of morality is to promote human well-being, and moral principles and judgments should be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in accomplishing this aim.” (p. 57) “For RP theory, [which is a Kantian type of theory emphasizing the ethics of respect for persons] the purpose of morality is to protect persons from violations of their moral agency.” (p. 57) In 1988 I gave a talk, “Morality versus Slogans” to the Western Michigan University Center for the Study of Ethics in Society and in 1989 that talk was published as a pamphlet by the Center. In that talk I said, “Morality is too important to be summarized in terms of slogans.”2 (p. 31) Unfortunately, Harris’ discussion seems to regard much of the value of moral theories to depend on their ability to be summarized by a single powerful slogan. Harris distinguishes four levels of moral thinking. “First, there are moral judgments about particular acts. Examples are: ‘Mrs. Jones should (or should not) get an abortion.’” (P. 53) Second are general moral judgments about classes of actions. Examples are: “Abortion is never permissible.” (Ibid.) “The third category is intermediate moral principles.” Examples given are “W.D. Ross’ prima facie duties” (Ibid.) and “Bernard Gert’s variously formulated ‘moral rules.’” (Ibid) “The fourth category is high-level moral principles, or moral standards, such as those associated with utilitarianism (‘Those actions are right that maximize utility’) or what I have called RP theory (‘Those actions are right that respect the moral agency of individuals.’). (Ibid) Harris then gives reasons “for believing that moral theory in the fullest sense should