Bernard Williams
A philosopher who critiqued utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, arguing that they fail to account for personal integrity and individual commitments. He introduced the concepts of negative responsibility and moral self-indulgence.
Immanuel Kant
The central figure in deontological ethics, who argued that morality is grounded in reason rather than consequences. He developed the Categorical Imperative, the Good Will, and the formula of the end in itself.
Epictetus
A Stoic philosopher who taught that happiness comes from mastering what is within our control (desires and aversions) and accepting what is not. He emphasized self-discipline and belief in divine providence.
Thomas Nagel
A philosopher best known in this context for his work on moral luck, arguing that factors outside our control nonetheless influence moral judgment in ways that are philosophically troubling.
John Rawls
A political philosopher who developed a theory of justice grounded in fairness. He is responsible for the Original Position, the Veil of Ignorance, and his two principles of justice.
Trolley Problem
A thought experiment that asks whether it is morally permissible to actively cause harm to one person in order to save several others. It is used to probe the tension between deontological and consequentialist reasoning.
The Dirty Hands Problem
The moral dilemma that arises when a person in power must commit a wrongful act (e.g., lying or harming someone) in order to achieve a morally necessary outcome. It highlights the tension between clean moral principles and the messy realities of leadership.
Integrity
For Williams, integrity refers to a person’s deep commitment to their own values and projects, which he argued must not be sacrificed merely to maximize overall utility. Losing integrity means acting against one’s core sense of self.
Personal Commitments
Williams’s term for the projects and relationships that give an individual’s life meaning and identity. He argued that ethical theories like utilitarianism wrongly demand that we abandon these commitments whenever the numbers favor it.
Negative Responsibility
Williams’s concept that, under utilitarianism, you are just as responsible for harms you fail to prevent as for harms you directly cause. He saw this as a deeply counterintuitive and problematic implication.
Moral Self-Indulgence
Williams’s charge against the person who refuses to do a lesser wrong even when it would prevent a greater one, prioritizing their own moral “cleanliness” over real-world outcomes. He considered this a kind of ethical vanity.
Deontology
An ethical theory that judges actions based on whether they conform to rules or duties, rather than on their consequences. For Kant, an action is moral only if done from duty and in accordance with rational principle.
Motivation
For Kant, the moral worth of an action depends entirely on why it is done. Only actions performed out of duty — not inclination, self-interest, or emotion — have genuine moral worth.
The Good Will
Kant’s foundational concept: the only thing that is unconditionally good is a will that acts out of duty and rational principle. A good will is good regardless of whether it achieves its intended results.
The Categorical Imperative
Kant’s supreme moral principle, which commands us unconditionally, regardless of our desires. Its most famous formulation is to act only on maxims you could universalize without contradiction.
Hypothetical Imperatives
Commands that are conditional on having a particular goal (e.g., “If you want X, do Y”). Kant contrasted these with the Categorical Imperative, arguing they cannot ground genuine moral obligation.
Mere Means
Kant’s prohibition on treating people solely as instruments for one’s own ends, without regard for their rational autonomy. People must always also be treated as ends in themselves.
The Formula of the End in Itself
A formulation of the Categorical Imperative stating that one must always treat humanity — in oneself and others — as an end and never merely as a means. It grounds human dignity in rational autonomy.
A Priori Reasoning
Reasoning that is independent of experience, derived through pure logic or reason alone. Kant argued that genuine moral principles must be a priori because they need to be universal and necessary, not contingent on circumstances.
The Original Position
Rawls’s hypothetical thought experiment in which people choose the principles of justice for their society without knowing their place in it. It is designed to ensure impartiality.
The Veil of Ignorance
The condition within the Original Position where individuals do not know their race, class, gender, talents, or conception of the good. Rawls argued that principles chosen under this veil would be genuinely fair.
Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice
The two principles Rawls believed rational people would choose from behind the Veil of Ignorance: the Basic Liberties Principle and the Difference Principle (with fair equality of opportunity).
Basic Liberties Principle
Rawls’s first principle, stating that every person must have equal basic political and civil liberties (speech, conscience, association, etc.), which cannot be traded away for economic gains.
Fair Equality of Opportunity
Rawls’s requirement that positions and offices in society must be open to everyone under conditions of genuine equal opportunity, not merely formal non-discrimination. Social background should not determine life prospects.
