The Complete Guide to Ethics: How Should We Live?

1. The Lever

A thought experiment that has been ruining dinner parties since 1967.

Five people are tied to a railway track and a runaway trolley is coming. You can pull a lever and divert it onto a side track, where it will kill one person instead. Almost everyone says pull. Now: same five people, no lever, but you are on a footbridge beside a very large stranger, and pushing him off would stop the trolley. Same arithmetic — one dies, five live. Almost nobody pushes. If your ethics is really about the numbers, why not?

The philosopher Philippa Foot introduced the first version in 1967, and it has since been run on hundreds of thousands of people across many cultures with strikingly consistent results. The point was never to find out what you should do to trolleys. It was to expose that our moral judgements come from at least two different systems that do not agree.

Ethics is the attempt to make those judgements into something better than a set of reactions. Not because reactions are worthless — they carry a lot of accumulated wisdom — but because reactions alone cannot settle a disagreement, and because history is full of things that felt obviously right to almost everyone and were monstrous.

The three families of answer

• Consequences — an action is right if it produces the best outcomes. Judge by results
• Duties and rules — an action is right if it follows a principle you could defend universally. Judge by the act itself
• Character — the question is not 'what should I do?' but 'what kind of person should I become?'. Judge by the person

Normative ethics: The branch that asks what we ought to do, as opposed to meta-ethics (what moral words even mean, and whether moral facts exist) and applied ethics (specific questions: medicine, war, animals, climate). Almost everything in this guide is normative.

Brain-imaging studies find that the footbridge version activates emotional processing far more strongly than the lever version. The distinction that changes our answer is not logical at all — it seems to be whether we would touch the person. Knowing that does not tell you which answer is right, but it should make you suspicious of trusting an intuition just because it is strong.

What just happened

• The trolley problem produces opposite answers to arithmetically identical cases
• Foot introduced it in 1967 to expose conflicts between our moral principles
• Ethical theories fall into three families: consequences, duties, character

Our moral intuitions conflict with each other. Ethics exists because we need something better than 'this feels wrong' when we disagree.

Start with the answer that sounds most obviously sensible: do whatever produces the most good.

2. The Greatest Good

Utilitarianism: beautifully simple, and monstrous in exactly the right places.

Jeremy Bentham's principle is as clear as ethics gets: the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. No appeal to scripture, no tradition, no rank. Bentham was a radical, and this deceptively simple idea led him to argue for prison reform, animal welfare, women's rights and the decriminalisation of homosexuality — in the 1780s.

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

He is talking about animals. Two centuries later this single sentence is still the foundation of most serious arguments for animal welfare.

John Stuart Mill refined it against the obvious objection that a philosophy of maximising pleasure sounds like an argument for a life of comfortable stupidity. Mill distinguished higher from lower pleasures — poetry over pushpin — on the grounds that people who have genuinely experienced both prefer the higher, and concluded that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Utilitarianism: Judge actions by the total wellbeing they produce, counting everyone equally. Act utilitarianism assesses each individual action; rule utilitarianism asks which rule, generally followed, would produce the most good — which rescues many everyday moral rules from case-by-case recalculation.

Its strength is impartiality. Nobody's suffering counts for less because of who they are, where they live or whether you have met them. That principle is why utilitarian arguments underlie a great deal of modern public policy, disaster response, and the case that a distant stranger's life matters as much as a neighbour's.

The transplant case: does utilitarianism justify killing one to save five?

• The objection: Five patients need five different organs. A healthy visitor walks into the hospital. Kill him, harvest, save five. The arithmetic is identical to the trolley lever, and the conclusion is intolerable — which suggests something is missing from a theory that only counts outcomes.
• The reply: A rule permitting surgeons to kill visitors would produce catastrophic consequences: nobody would ever enter a hospital again. Rule utilitarianism forbids it on its own grounds. Critics say this is a rescue, not a refutation — the theory should not need saving from that conclusion in the first place.

What just happened

• Bentham proposed maximising happiness, counting every affected being equally
• Mill answered the 'philosophy for pigs' objection with higher and lower pleasures
• Cases like the transplant expose the theory's willingness to sacrifice individuals

Utilitarianism is the most influential moral theory in modern public life, and its greatest strength — total impartiality — is also the source of its most disturbing conclusions.

One German philosopher thought counting consequences was not merely mistaken but a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality is.

3. The Man Who Refused to Count

Kant, duty, and why lying to a murderer is still lying.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

Never travelled more than a few miles from his home town, and rebuilt morality from scratch.

Kant's daily walk was reportedly so punctual that neighbours set their clocks by it. He produced, late in life, a series of books so difficult that people still argue about what some sentences mean — and an ethical system built on a single idea: that a moral rule worth the name must be one every rational being could follow at once, without the rule destroying itself.

His starting point is that consequences cannot be what makes an action good, because consequences are luck. Two people act identically; one gets a good outcome, one does not. It would be strange if that made one of them virtuous.

What matters is the maxim — the principle you are acting on. And the test is whether you could will that principle to become a universal law without contradiction. Consider lying to get a loan. If everyone did that, promises would mean nothing, and the very act you are attempting would become impossible. The maxim destroys itself when universalised. That is not a prediction about consequences; it is a logical failure.

The categorical imperative: Kant's supreme moral principle, in two of its formulations. First: act only on a maxim you could will to be a universal law. Second: treat humanity, in yourself and others, always as an end and never merely as a means. The second is why using a person as a tool — even for good outcomes — is the central Kantian wrong.

That second formulation is Kant's greatest contribution and it is why he can refuse the transplant case flatly. Cutting up the visitor treats him purely as a supply of parts. It does not matter how the arithmetic comes out; you have used a person as a means, and persons are not for using.

Commonly believed: Kant's ethics is just 'follow the rules'.

Actually: You generate the rules yourself, by reason, and you are bound by them because you are rational — not because anyone commands you. Kant calls this autonomy, literally self-law-giving. His ethics is demanding precisely because it makes you the author of the law you must obey.

And then there is the murderer at the door. Kant was asked directly: if a killer asks where your friend is hiding, may you lie? He said no — a strict duty holds regardless of consequences. Most people find this indefensible, and it is the standard objection to his system: a theory that cannot bend for a hiding friend seems to have lost sight of what morality is for. Some Kantians argue he answered his own case badly and that the framework survives. That argument is over two centuries old and still running.

The same case, three ways

What just happened

• Kant argued that consequences are luck and cannot ground morality
• The categorical imperative tests maxims for universalisability and forbids using people merely as means
• His refusal to permit lying to a murderer is the classic objection to the theory

Kant supplies what utilitarianism most obviously lacks: a reason why individuals cannot be sacrificed for totals, however good the totals look.

Both theories ask what to do. An older tradition thought that was the wrong question entirely.

4. The Question Behind the Question

Aristotle: stop asking what to do and ask what to become.

Aristotle thought a life aimed at pleasure, honour or wealth was aimed at the wrong thing, because each is wanted for the sake of something else. The final aim — the thing wanted only for itself — he called eudaimonia: usually translated 'happiness', better rendered as flourishing, or a life going well as a whole, judged over its length rather than at a moment.

You get there by developing virtues: settled dispositions of character. And virtue, in his account, sits between two vices — the famous doctrine of the mean. Courage lies between cowardice and recklessness. Generosity between meanness and extravagance. Honesty between deception and a brutal candour that ignores everyone's feelings.

Commonly believed: The golden mean means always taking the middle option.

Actually: It is not the arithmetic midpoint. It is what the right amount is for this person, in this situation — as Aristotle puts it, feeling the right thing, at the right time, towards the right people, for the right reason. Sometimes courage means charging and sometimes it means retreating; there is no formula, which is why he says virtue requires practical wisdom, and practical wisdom requires experience.

The startling implication is that you become virtuous by practice, the way you become a musician. Nobody becomes generous by reading about generosity. You perform generous acts, initially awkwardly and possibly for the wrong reasons, until the disposition settles and you are the kind of person who does that without deliberating. Ethics, for Aristotle, is a training programme.

Marcus Aurelius (AD 121–180)

Ruled the Roman Empire and wrote a private notebook telling himself to be better at it.

The Meditations were not written for publication — they are the emperor's own reminders to himself, often repetitive, sometimes exhausted. Stoicism, the tradition he practised, taught that the only thing genuinely in your control is your own judgement and response; everything else — health, reputation, whether you live until evening — is external. The discipline is to stop spending your life on things that were never yours to control.

Stoicism: A Greek and Roman philosophy of living according to reason and nature. It is not the modern 'stoic' meaning of suppressing feeling; it is a claim that most distress comes from our judgements about events rather than the events themselves, and that judgements can be trained. It is also the direct ancestor of modern cognitive behavioural therapy.

What just happened

• Aristotle located the goal of life in eudaimonia — flourishing across a whole life
• Virtues are trained dispositions lying between two vices, judged by practical wisdom
• Stoicism narrowed the focus to what is genuinely within your control

Virtue ethics explains something the other theories struggle with: why we admire people rather than merely approving of acts, and why moral education is about habits and not just arguments.

Now the theories have to meet a case none of them can dodge — and where each one's weakness shows.

5. Where They Pull Apart

Take one hard case and watch three theories give three answers.

Any week, in a real hospital — An intensive care unit with one bed and two patients

Both patients will die without it. One is seventy-eight with other conditions and might gain two years. One is nineteen, healthy until last night, and might gain sixty. There is one bed. Someone has to choose, in the next few minutes, and then live with it.

Three answers

• Utilitarian — maximise expected wellbeing, which points to the nineteen-year-old. Cleanly decided, and it implies that your life is worth less as you age, which is a conclusion most people refuse
• Kantian — both are persons of equal and unconditional worth, so neither may be treated as the lesser. Which respects them both and does not tell you who gets the bed
• Virtue ethics — what would a person of practical wisdom, compassion and justice do here? Which is honest about the difficulty and is not a decision procedure

Notice that none of them is useless and none is sufficient. This is the actual state of ethics, and it is not a failure. The theories are best understood as three different lenses that each make some morally relevant feature visible — outcomes, respect for persons, the character being formed — and each of which can blind you to the others if used alone.

There is also a criticism all three have had to answer: that ethical theory built by a few European men, mostly in comfortable circumstances, has systematically underweighted care, dependency and relationships. The philosopher Carol Gilligan and the tradition of care ethics argue that morality is not mainly about impartial rules between strangers but about responsibility inside relationships — which is, after all, where most actual moral life happens.

Ask people whether they are consequentialists and most say yes. Then present the footbridge case, the transplant case and a case about betraying a friend for a small collective gain, and most abandon the position within three questions. Almost nobody is consistently one theory — including, in their private letters, some of the philosophers who invented them.

What just happened

• A single hard case produces three different verdicts from the three theories
• Each theory highlights something real and misses something real
• Care ethics challenges the whole framing of morality as impartial rule-following

Anyone who tells you moral philosophy has an answer key has not tried it on a hard case. The value is in seeing more clearly what is at stake, not in a formula.

One last experiment, and it is the one that will follow you around: would you plug in?

6. Would You Plug In?

A thought experiment that tests whether you actually believe your own theory.

Robert Nozick asks you to imagine a machine that can give you any experience you want. Neuroscientists can stimulate your brain so that you believe you are writing a great novel, or making friends, or reading an interesting book. You would be floating in a tank with electrodes on your scalp, and you would not know it. You can programme your whole life in advance. Would you plug in for the rest of your life?

Most people say no, immediately and firmly. Nozick's point is that this answer is devastating for any theory that says the only thing that ultimately matters is the quality of our experiences — because the machine offers strictly better experiences than real life can. If experience were all that mattered, refusing would be irrational.

Why people say no

• We want to do things, not merely have the experience of having done them
• We want to be a certain kind of person, and someone floating in a tank is not any kind of person
• We want contact with a reality that is not of our own making — a manufactured friend is not a friend

Does refusing the machine prove anything?

• Yes — it shows experience is not everything: The refusal is nearly universal across cultures and it is not confused: people know exactly what is on offer and decline it. Whatever they want, it is not just the feeling of a good life. That is a substantive discovery about human value.
• It may just be status-quo bias: Reverse the case: you are told you have been in the machine all along and can leave to a duller real life. Most people now want to stay. If the answer flips depending on where you start, the experiment may be measuring our discomfort with change rather than our deepest values.

This is not an idle puzzle any more. A great deal of technology is designed to deliver the pleasurable signals of achievement, connection and status without the underlying thing. Nozick published in 1974, before any of it existed, and described the choice we now make in smaller doses every day.

Where does that leave you? With better tools and no verdict. You can now identify which kind of reason someone is offering, notice when a theory has been quietly swapped mid-argument to reach a preferred conclusion, and — hardest of all — apply the same test to your own position that you would happily apply to someone else's.

What just happened

• Nozick's experience machine offers perfect experiences at the cost of reality
• Nearly everyone refuses, which undercuts theories based purely on experience
• The reversed version suggests part of the refusal may be attachment to the familiar

It is the cleanest test of whether you actually believe what you say you believe about what makes a life good.

Now you know the story

You will not finish ethics with an answer, and anyone who offers you one cheaply is selling something. What you get instead is better equipment: the ability to see which kind of reason you are actually giving, and to notice when you have switched theories halfway through an argument because the first one produced a conclusion you disliked.

• Explain the difference between judging actions by their results, their rules, and the character they build
• Apply utilitarianism, Kantian duty and virtue ethics to a case and see where each breaks
• Say what Stoicism actually taught, as opposed to what 'stoic' means in ordinary speech
• Hold a serious argument about a moral question without simply asserting your intuitions

Back to Ethics: How Should We Live? →

Beyond the specification. Incandio does not currently support an A-level Philosophy or Religious Studies specification, and this course is not mapped to one. Nothing here is required for any exam course Incandio supports.