Is that so, disembodied voice? Well, then, you are probably taking on a non-consequentialist framework of ethics!

Under this framework, the visible, physical results of our decisions matter less than what motivates us to make the decisions themselves.

 

All of the subcategories of the framework discussed below are variations of the unifying principle of motivation-centered judgement:

 

• Rights approach: all ethical decisions must be made in consideration of the inherent rights that humans have, such as dignity and having their needs met. In other words, others’ rights are the key to our decisions.

 

• Justice approach: Justice, or the need to treat everyone fairly, is what must drive ethical decisions. It would not be right for a select few to exclusively make decisions for the rest of the population, for example, because not all people have an equal say here.

 

• DIVINE COMMAND approach: God’s will must be the standard of ethical decisions. Essentially, everyday ethics produced by humans cannot compare to the standards of their Creator.

 

The use of “must” and “need” throughout the subcategories is not accidental. The non-consequentialist framework appears to be the ethical framework with the most focus on obligation; the ethical standards of decision-making, though varying in definition, are uncompromisable.