The central issue in modern moral philosophy is the question of what acts are morally right, and why. An answer to this question is a theory of the right, and such theories have fallen into three groups.
We may distinguish, in rough terms, between motive theories, results theories and deontological (rule) theories. That is, some moral philosophers hold that an act is right if and only if Off) it is done from certain motives. Other moral philosophers hold that an act is right iff it leads to the best results. And yet other philosophers say that an act is right iff it possesses certain 'intrinsic' features.
As examples of motive theories, we can cite agapism and existentialism. Agapism is the view that an act is right iff it is done out of love. The rightness of an act (under this theory) consists not in any features of the act itself, but rather in a feature of the agent: his love for those affected by his act.
Similarly, existentialists tend (so far as I can tell) to hold the view that an act is right iff it is undertaken with full commitment, 'authentically,' not 'aesthetically,' or some other such notion. Here again, the rightness of the act depends upon a feature of the agent, to wit, his wholeheartedness.
Rather different are results theories, which include (for example) egoism and utilitarianism. The egoist believes that an act is right iff it produces the maximum balance of good over evil for the agent himself. The utilitarian holds that an act is right iff it produces the maximum balance of good over evil for everyone affected by the act (including, but not limited to, the agent himself). In both these theories, the rightness of an act lies not in features of the act itself, but rather in features of the consequences of the act i.e., later events to which the act gives rise -namely, the desirability (in a nonmoral sense) of those results.
Thus, in both motive and results theories, while the question addressed focuses upon the rightness of the act, the answer involves shifting our gaze away from the act and to either the agent or else later events. In contrast, the deontologist asks us, when assessing an act, to 'look to the act itself,' to focus upon features intrinsic to the act per se.
9 ~s examples of deontological theories we should mention four. First, there is legalism, which is the theory that an act is right iff it accords with the laws of the