Name of Theory	Basic Principle(s) or Insights	Comments	Selected Criticisms and Limits
Act Utilitarianism (C = consequentialist theory)	Everyone should act so as to produce, by his or her action, the greatest balance of good over evil for (the group consisting of) everyone affected.	Good and evil are measured in terms of pleasure and pain or satisfaction and frustration of preferences or financial equivalent gained and financial equivalent lost respectively.	It is difficult to determine the good/bad consequences for others. Hard to find common denominator for such diverse values as property and life. Impractical to calculate consequences for each action. Act Utilitarianism can produce unjust consequences for a minority.
Rule Utilitarianism ( C )	Everyone should follow the set of rules, which, if everyone followed them, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil for (the group consisting of) everyone affected.	Same as above	It is difficult to determine value consequences for others. Hard to find common denominator for radically different positive or negative values. Rules can be stated with so many qualifications that rule utilitarianism dissolves into act utilitarianism.
Kant's duty ethics (D=deontological)	An act is wrong if its maxim (the rule of action considered by the acting person) cannot be willed to be a universal law.	An act is also wrong if it does not treat human nature as an end.	It is not clear that Kant's approach can give us positive duties. We're not told how to resolve conflicts when two permissible maxims conflict.
Distributive Justice (D) (This is a set of analogous principles, different ones applicable in different cases.)	Individuals similar in relevant respects should be given similar benefits and burdens; individuals dissimilar in relevant respects should be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity. (Fundamental Principle of Distributive Justice)	"Respects" include ability, seniority, effort, productivity, need . . .	Various specific versions of the fundamental principle of justice may dictate different distributions; thus we must decide which principle applies in which circumstances. Justice is impersonal and cannot fully explaiin duties based on concrete relationships (a criticism raised by Care Theorists).
John Rawls' Principle of Fairness (D) This principle should not be confused with Rawls' two principles of justice that apply to the basic social structure.	A person is required to do his part as defined by the rules of an institution (or practice) when two conditions are met: first, the institution is just . . . that is, it satisfies the two principles of justice; and second, one has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the arrangement or taken advantage of the opportunities it offers to further one's interests.	The institution or practice should be tested for justice by asking whether it is com- patible with Rawls' Equal Basic Liberties principle and his combined Equal Opportunity/Difference Principle. See Rawls' Principles.
Libertarianism ( D )	One should always respect the non-interference rights (e.g., life, liberty, property) of other persons. Libertarianism assumes that persons have property in their own lives and powers.	Any uncoerced or voluntary transaction between individuals is morally permissible.	One has no duty to help others when they are in need. There is little guarantee for equal opportunity. Apparently voluntary transactions between persons unequal in power can create oppressive situations.
Care Ethics	One should preserve and nurture the concrete relations we have with specific persons; exercise special care for those with whom we are concretely related	Care ethics deemphasizes the independent individual and stresses that persons exist in a web of relationships.	A one-sided care ethics can conflict with the demands of justice. Some concrete relations are oppressive or exploitative--should these be nurtured or maintained?
Virtue Ethics	One should seek to develop the character traits known as virtues and act in accordance with them.	Virtues (e.g., courage, generosity) are dispositions to choose, related to a mean, determined by reason. Vices (e.g., cowardice and rashness, stinginess and wasteful giving) express extremes.	Different cultures seem to provide different models of moral virtue, and there may be several, some conflicting, within a given culture. It seems that we have to fall back on consequences (as in, say, utilitarianism) or rules (as in, say, Rawls) in order to evaluate the models.
Liberation Ethics (LE) aka Critical Theory	The history of relations between oppressors and oppressed provides information that is often concealed but essential for moral judgment. (There are feminist, race-critical, neo- populist, and post- colonial versions of liberation ethics.) LE insists that correct description has norma- tive consequences, that historical ignorance reinforces systematic injustice. LE is especially concerned with power equity.	LE studies (1) past and present patterns of domination between males and females, whites and nonwhites, rich and poor, center and periphery; (2) the use of theory and myth to maintain power inequities; and (3) forms of resistance against oppression. It often joins Care Ethics in rejecting extreme individualism in ethical theory.	A one-oppression focus in liberation ethics can actually collude with the preservation of the forms of oppressions it ignores. The language of LE can be used to evade personal responsibility. Even at its best, liberation ethics as such is incomplete: though perhaps required for revealing and eliminating the misuse of traditional ethical theory, it does not do away with the need to properly use ethical principles from more traditional perspectives once the distortions of principle and suppressions of fact are cleared away.

1. Consequentialist theories are a set of ethical approaches that instruct us to produce the best results for some target class (the individual choosing in the case of egoism, every sentient being affected in the case of traditional hedonistic utilitarianism).

2. "Balance" is understood in the "checkbook" sense, as the difference between two quantities (good results minus bad results instead of credits and debits). It is also possible to understand "balance" of good over evil as the ratio of the good results to the bad results.

3. (group consisting of): The parenthetical phrase has been added to indicate that not every individual affected need receive the greatest balance of good over evil. What is important is the total good and the total evil when every affected individual is taken into account.

4. Deontological theories, also called nonconsequentialist theories, justify our obligations or ideals on some basis other than the production of the best results for some target class. These include rights-based and justice-based theories. Deontological theories are generally associated with one or more rules that we are obliged to follow even if doing so does not produce the best "balance" of good over evil. Because Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics deemphasize the role of rules, they are generally not classified as deontological, although they do not strictly fall under consequentialism either.

5. If respects includes how many each person is (namely, one), then egalitarian justice too can be understood as a specific version of the fundamental principle. The egalitarian principle states: "Every person should be given exactly equal benefits and burdens."