Good, Right, Justice, and Duty in Modern Western Philosophy

Learning Outcomes

1. Understand the key concepts of Good, Right, Justice, and Duty in modern Western ethics.
2. Explore the relationship between these concepts within different ethical frameworks.
3. Critically analyze how these notions are interrelated and applied in practical ethical reasoning.
4. Differentiate between deontological and consequentialist approaches to moral philosophy.

The ethical concerns of Good, Right, Justice, and Duty have been central to Western philosophy since its inception. These four terms are pillars of moral reasoning and have been developed, debated, and refined throughout the history of modern Western ethics. Their understanding differs significantly between major ethical theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

The Concept of “Good”

In moral philosophy, the notion of the Good often refers to what is morally valuable or desirable. This concept has been treated differently by various philosophers, but it generally serves as the basis for determining what actions are morally acceptable or worthy of pursuit.

1. Aristotelian Understanding of Good: For Aristotle, the Good is closely tied to the idea of eudaimonia, which can be translated as “flourishing” or “well-being.” To be good, an action or a life must contribute to the flourishing of an individual, which entails living in accordance with virtue. Thus, the Good for Aristotle is essentially what helps humans fulfill their purpose or telos.
2. Utilitarianism and the Good: In the context of utilitarianism, the Good is often defined in terms of pleasure or happiness. For utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the morally right action is the one that produces the most good—understood as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In this framework, the Good becomes a measurable, quantifiable outcome.
3. Kantian View of the Good: Immanuel Kant approached the Good from a radically different angle, insisting that the Good cannot be determined by outcomes or consequences but by the intentions behind actions. For Kant, the Good is located in the good will—the will to act according to moral duty as determined by reason.
4. Contemporary Developments: Modern philosophers like G.E. Moore have criticized earlier utilitarian views and argued that the Good cannot be reduced to a simple natural property like pleasure. Moore introduced the notion of moral non-naturalism, emphasizing that the Good is a simple, indefinable concept.

Important Note: The Good in contemporary discourse is often linked to notions of intrinsic value, which means that something is good in and of itself, not merely for the sake of something else.

The Concept of “Right”

The term Right in ethics pertains to what is morally correct or what individuals are entitled to. Whereas the Good typically refers to a value or end, the Right often involves principles that guide actions irrespective of their consequences.

1. Deontological Theories of Right: Kantian deontology is the quintessential approach to defining what is Right. For Kant, actions are right when they are performed out of respect for the moral law, which is articulated through the categorical imperative. The Right is determined by universalizable principles, not by consequences.
2. Contractualism and the Right: Philosophers like John Rawls have developed theories of the Right based on social contract theory. According to Rawls, the Right is determined by principles of justice that individuals would agree to under hypothetical conditions of fairness, called the original position.
3. Utilitarian Perspective: In contrast to deontological views, utilitarians like Mill argue that the Right is whatever action maximizes the Good. This leads to a consequentialist perspective, where what is morally right is entirely dependent on the outcomes of an action, rather than any intrinsic feature of the action itself.
4. Virtue Ethics and the Right: For proponents of virtue ethics, like Aristotle, the concept of Right is less central than the cultivation of virtue. However, right actions are those that arise from a virtuous character. Here, the focus shifts away from universal moral rules to the development of personal and communal virtues.

The Concept of “Justice”

Justice is often seen as a societal or collective expression of the principles of the Right and the Good. It is concerned with how benefits and burdens are distributed within a community.

1. Justice as Fairness (Rawls): John Rawls is perhaps the most influential modern philosopher of justice. In his work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls introduces the idea of justice as fairness. He suggests that principles of justice are those that free and rational individuals would choose in a fair agreement—behind a veil of ignorance, where no one knows their place in society.
2. Utilitarian Approach to Justice: For utilitarians, justice is interpreted as maximizing overall happiness or welfare. An action or policy is just if it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. This can sometimes conflict with notions of individual rights, as some people’s interests may be sacrificed for the greater good.
3. Kantian Justice: For Kant, justice requires respecting the autonomy and dignity of individuals. This means treating people as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. Kantian justice emphasizes moral equality and the necessity of acting according to universal principles.
4. Virtue Ethics and Justice: In Aristotelian virtue ethics, justice is considered one of the highest virtues. It is about giving each person their due and maintaining harmony in the community. Justice, in this sense, is not merely a matter of rights or rules, but of developing the moral character to act justly.

The Concept of “Duty”

Duty refers to obligations that individuals have, often irrespective of their personal inclinations or desires. It is closely associated with deontological ethical theories, especially in the work of Immanuel Kant.

1. Kant’s Notion of Duty: For Kant, moral duty is derived from the categorical imperative, a principle that requires individuals to act according to maxims that can be universalized. Moral duty is not contingent on personal desires or consequences; it is grounded in reason. For example, telling the truth is a duty, regardless of whether it leads to good or bad outcomes.
2. The Role of Duty in Utilitarianism: In contrast to Kantian ethics, utilitarians do not focus on duty per se but on the outcomes of actions. However, one could argue that there is still a sense of duty in utilitarianism—namely, the duty to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. But this is a teleological duty, directed toward an end rather than an inherent moral law.
3. Duty in Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics tends to sideline the concept of duty in favor of focusing on the development of character. However, there is still a role for duty insofar as virtuous individuals may feel obliged to act in accordance with their virtues. In this sense, duty arises from one’s moral character rather than from external rules.
4. Social Contract and Duty: In social contract theories, particularly in the work of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, duty often arises from agreements or contracts made within a society. Individuals have a duty to obey the laws and uphold social order, based on the implicit or explicit consent to the terms of the social contract.

Process Flow: Good → Right → Justice → Duty

Comparative Table: Key Ethical Theories on Good, Right, Justice, and Duty

MCQ: According to Kant, an action is morally right if it:
A) Maximizes pleasure for the majority
B) Is consistent with personal desires
C) Fulfills a categorical imperative
D) Achieves the greatest overall happiness
Answer: C