Virtue Ethics vs Deontology vs Consequentialism: Three Theories

Question

How do virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism compare? The three great ethical theories have shaped two and a half thousand years of moral philosophy, and their comparison is the best introduction to the question "what should I do?"

Quick Answer

The three great ethical theories give three different answers to the same question — "what should I do?" Consequentialism answers by the outcomes: the right action is the one that produces the greatest good — the best overall consequences for everyone affected. Its most famous form is utilitarianism, the ethics of Mill and Bentham: act so as to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Deontology answers by the duties: the right action is the one that conforms to duty — the action that respects persons as ends in themselves, whatever the consequences. Its classical form is the ethics of Kant: act only on the maxim that you could will as universal law, and treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means. Virtue ethics answers by the character: the right action is the one the virtuous person would do — the action that expresses and develops the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance. Its classical form is the ethics of Aristotle: the good life is the life of virtue, and the right action is the one the person of practical wisdom would choose.

Historical Wisdom

The three theories represent the three great answers that the tradition has given, and each has a defining moment. Virtue ethics is the oldest: the ethics of Aristotle and the ancients, for whom the central question was not "what should I do?" but "what kind of person should I be?" — the moral life was the cultivation of character. Deontology is the ethics of the Enlightenment: Kant's response to the question of what makes an action right, answered not by the consequences but by the form of the will — the action is right if it conforms to the moral law, the categorical imperative. Consequentialism is the ethics of the same Enlightenment, answered differently: Bentham and Mill located the rightness of the action in its tendency to produce happiness. The twentieth century saw the revival of virtue ethics — the publication of Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958 and MacIntyre's After Virtue in 1981 challenged the dominance of deontology and consequentialism and recovered the ethics of character — and the three theories now stand as the permanent framework of the moral life.

Philosophical Perspectives

Each theory answers a different question, and each has a characteristic strength and weakness. Consequentialism answers "what should I do?" with the calculation of the outcomes: the strength is the moral seriousness of the consequences — the refusal to hide behind rules while the world burns; the weakness is the demandingness and the danger — the theory can justify the unjust if the arithmetic favors it, and the objection is the case of the innocent person sacrificed for the greater good. Deontology answers with the duties: the strength is the protection of rights — the refusal to treat the person as a means, whatever the arithmetic; the weakness is the rigidity — the rule that admits no exception can produce the outcome that everyone knows is wrong, and the conflict of duties leaves the agent with no guidance. Virtue ethics answers with the character: the strength is the texture — the account of the moral life as the cultivation of the whole person, the emotions and the perceptions as well as the actions; the weakness is the guidance problem — the virtuous person is the standard, but the person who is not yet virtuous needs to know what to do in the hard case.

The three theories are not simply rivals. The most influential modern view, developed by Bernard Williams and others, is that each theory captures a real dimension of the moral life — the consequences, the duties, the character — and that the mature moral agent draws on all three: the attention to outcomes, the respect for persons, and the cultivation of the character that perceives and chooses well. The theories are the lenses of the moral life, and the wise agent uses them together.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Aristotle: the character is the foundation — the right action is the one the virtuous person would do. From Kant: the duty is the foundation — treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means. From Mill: the consequences are the foundation — the right action produces the greatest happiness. And from the modern debate: the theories are the lenses — the mature moral agent draws on all three.

Practical Application

The comparison has direct practical application. When you face a moral decision, run the three examinations. The consequentialist question: what are the outcomes for everyone affected, and which option produces the best overall result? The deontological question: what duties and rights are at stake — what could I will as universal law, and does this action respect the persons involved as ends in themselves? The virtue question: what would the person of good character do, and what does this choice say about the kind of person I am becoming? The three answers will not always agree — the hard case is the one where they conflict — but the three examinations together give the complete picture of the moral situation, and the decision made with all three in view is the decision made with full moral awareness.

Quotes

Kant states the deontological formula: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means." Mill states the consequentialist formula: "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness." And the virtue-ethical answer is stated in the tradition: "The right action is the one the virtuous person would do, from the character that the virtues have formed."

Related Questions

• What Is Virtue Ethics? — the ethics of character.
• What Is Deontology? — the ethics of duty.
• What Is Utilitarianism? — the ethics of consequences.
• Virtue Ethics vs Deontology — the two-way comparison.