Making decisions based on principles that you want to be universally applied is an example of:

Non-consequentialism

All deontological ethics theories are non-consequentialist. This means that they place the emphasis on the decision or action itself - on the motivations, principles, or ideals underlying the decision or action - rather than being concerned with the outcomes or consequences of that decision or action. This reasoning is founded on the desirability of principle (usually duties or rights) to act in a given situation. The two main non-consequentialist theories are ethics of duties and ethics of rights and justice. Both of these are rooted in assumptions about universal rights and wrongs and responsibilities. This means that people who promote these types of ethical principles usually believe that they should be applied to everyone, everywhere in the world. If a child in one country has a right to an education, then this means that all children, everyone in the world, should have a right to an education. Examples of these types of principles can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the text in 2.2.1 is taken.

2.2.1 Article 2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

Source: UN (2012)

Read 2.2.1, Article 2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, once again. Make a list of at least ten rights which you think that all people on the planet have.

Duties

Most people believe that all human beings have some duties to other human beings. Duties can be positive, such as the duty to look after one's children, or negative, such as the duty not to murder another human being. When people use the language of duties, they usually do so in a way that implies that the duty is universal to all human beings (or at least to all adult humans of sound mind). The foundation of theories of duties is the theory developed by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Rather than relying on religion to tell us what our duties are, Kant believed that we can rely on our powers of reason to do so. At the centre of Kant's theory of duty is what he termed categorical imperatives. Some actions and decisions are founded on our personal desires. For example, you could say, 'If you want to live in a beautiful house, you ought to work hard'. However, this is not a categorical imperative, as it is based simply on fulfilling our desires. A categorical imperative tells us that we must do something, irrespective of our personal desires: for example, 'You ought to look after your parents'.

A central principle of the categorical imperative is that we should treat people as an end, never as a means to an end. This means that people should be treated with dignity. Treating someone as a means to an end involves using them as a tool to achieve something else. Buying products made by workers who have been paid unacceptably low wages in order to ensure a cheap price for the goods they produce, is treating the workers as a means to an end and it not fulfilling the duties we have to those workers. Buying guaranteed 'fair trade' products, in contrast, recognises our duty to ensure that the workers who produce our goods earn acceptable wages.

The concept of duty is not only used in terms of secular arguments. The exhortation to 'do to others as you would have them do to you' is a text that is taken from Christian scriptures, but it has parallels in many other religious traditions. Both secular and religious notions of duty give us many duties, such as those to keep promises, to avoid injuring others, to compensate others when we do them harm, to uphold justice, to improve the living conditions of others, etc. Duties are very often closely linked to the notion of rights. When somebody has a right, usually this implies that others have a duty to uphold this right.

Look back at the list of (at least) ten human rights that you wrote for the exercise above. Do you have a duty to uphold any of these rights for anyone else?

Rights

Rights theory is one particular duty-based theory of ethics. A right is a justified claim against another person's behaviour. So rights and duties are related in that the rights of one person imply the duty of someone else to uphold that right. As Traer (2009 p. 103) explains, '[t]he most widely accepted justification for moral rights relies on Kant's deontological argument that we have a duty to treat every person as an end, and not as a means to our ends, because every person is autonomous and rational, and thus has intrinsic worth'.

The concept of individual human rights is fundamental to Western legal systems, and has developed both from the argument that all humans have certain natural rights and from religious notions that rights come from God (Traer 2013). The American Declaration of Independence asserts that 'all men' [sic] are 'endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights' (Traer 2009 p. 104). The 'French revolution proclaimed that the "rights of man" [sic] are natural rights intrinsic to the humanity of each person' (Traer 2009 p. 104). Throughout the 19th century, the justification for rights became more secular, but rights were usually confined to the nation. However, the idea that rights were liberties guaranteed to citizens of a nation was challenged in the 20th century by the realisation that Nazi Germany acted legally under German law when it committed what were later classified as crimes against humanity. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (see 2.2.2) is based on the reasoning that justice and equal treatment of humans ought to be applied universally.

2.2.2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his [sic] religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Source: UN (2012)

Look at Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2.2.2. Can you think of any ways in which these two rights could conflict? What duties do you have to uphold these rights for others, if any?

Which of these refers to our choices and decision

Which of these holds that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions based on self interest?

Which of the following is the first step of making an ethical decision?

Is related to influencing behaviors to act in accordance to the law or face consequences?