TL;DR - In which I discuss the differences between Conditional Morality and conditional moral forms.

Moral Conditionality

It is generally true that, outside of the absolutist moral forms, morality has some conditional elements. Even Kant would accept some (very little) wiggle room in moral action. Absolutist theories of morals and ethics tend to cause substantial problems in application.

However, some ethical paradigms are characterized by conditionality (or situationality). These paradigms, it is important to note, does not mean that the morals are applied without rules, inconsistently, or haphazardly. Nor does this concession mean that there is a heated debate in the Sociological or Philosophical academic circles about whether or not morals are conditional. In fact, there is quite the consensus that morals are, by nature, conditional. However, the conditional forms of morality do not match the vernacular use of “Conditional Morality”. When individuals use “Conditional Morality” in the vernacular it is almost always as a short form for “inconsistent” morality whereby a moral rule that would otherwise be applied is not for the benefit of the person acting. This does not reflect any of the forms of conditional morality, but selfish and immoral action. Educated discussions about conditional morality are about situations that are moral and consistently applied, but where the moral rules may depend on a change of situation.

Umbrella Theories Protecting us from Immoral Rain

There are three main theories of ethics that govern moral action. These three umbrella theories cover most of the other ethical and moral forms, and are differentiated by the perspective of what makes the action ethical: The Society (deontology), the person (virtue ethics), or the outcome (consequentialism). The three theories are, more clearly:

These theories inform the morals that guide personal actions in a sociological context. Each of these umbrellas has multiple forms that change how the framework is applied in determining if an action is moral. In this essay, the focus is on the conditional forms for these various umbrellas. It is important to note that each framework also has absolutist forms, and flexible forms that we will not be discussing.

Conditional Forms of Ethical Frameworks: Is the action moral right now?

These conditional forms cover how and when to determine if an action is moral based on a situational framework. The conditions in which the action is taken are a strong determining factor regarding the morality of an action in these forms.

Conditional Deontology, oft attributed to W.D. Ross, contrasts with Kantian Deontology in that it rejects the notions of a set of moral imperatives that must always be true. Conditional Deontology allows for a different set of rules for different situations. For instance, it may be generally immoral to engage in violence, however if one is attacked it may be moral to be violent in self- defense.

Moral Particularism, oft attributed to Jonathan Dancy, says a similar thing in that there are rules that apply in different situations, but it goes further to say that there is no defined moral thought or set of rules. Each situation is unique, and thus an action can only be considered moral when considering the whole situation. Generally, the viewpoint is that an action is moral when the person who took the action was acting from a place of virtue, and the outcome of the action did not create a negative result. Overall, particularists rely on the virtues of the specific individual taking the action.

Then we come upon Utilitarianism as a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism is oft attributed to Jeremy Bentham, and is outcome-focused. This is not quite as bad as just accepting Hobbes’ postulate that the ends justify the means, in that it takes the viewpoint that an action is moral based on having a net benefit of happiness and well-being for the most people. This can be summed up really well by a quote from Mr. Spock of the U.S.S. Enterprise (Star Trek references abound!) that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” Thus an ethically reprehensible action, such as murder, may be moral if it creates a net benefit for the society affected by the murder.

Ok, but what do I do?

Each of these conditional forms has their respective benefits, detriments, and complications. Ultimately, studying theory like this does not lend itself well to judging which is best. These theoretical forms all exist for that reason: there is no easy objective answer to how one MUST behave. In fact, sociologically the question gets a little bit more complex in that morals and ethics are rooted in the society in question and what may be moral in one society may not be moral in another. However, and generally, theorists consider a person morally sound when they apply the same framework consistently within their own actions.

Crucially, all moral actions in any umbrella theory or framework are guided by a criteria of not causing harm. (This is outside the realm of this discussion but it does not mean that all moral theories are consequentialist.) All of these frameworks provide rules for proper and improper action based on a shared reality.

Ultimately, the study of ethics, morality, and sociology try to stay away from judging these theories in terms of better or worse. It is also something I will not be addressing in this essay. That is far beyond me.

So what do YOU do?

Personally, I follow a conditional deontology. I think there are a few absolute imperatives that cannot be ignored, but I also believe that there are some rules that are heavily dependent on the situation. That said, it is a personal view. I agree with the world of Philosophical and Sociological theorists that believe the best thing to do is to act, consistently, within the same moral framework.