Hierarchical Ethics

(A Rule Utilitarian Approach)

In life we are confronted with many ethical dilemmas. The Ethical choices we ought to make are often contradictory. Ethical principles often break down in practice leaving us in a condition that Jean-Paul Sartre calls “forlornness.”

The term “hierarchical ethics” is introduced in this article. Hierarchical ethics asserts that ethical rules need to follow a hierarchy. Ethical rules that are lower in the hierarchy could be overridden by rules that are higher in the hierarchy. Hierarchical ethics offers a systematic approach to solving ethical dilemmas.

This paper is focused on Rule Utilitarianism [1]. Other moral paradigms such as virtue ethics and conscience ethics may also benefit from a hierarchical approach.

Imposing rules provides guidance, consistency and clarity. To determine whether a rule should be followed, a rule utilitarian reckons what would happen if the rule was constantly followed. For example, rule utilitarianism would not allow sacrificing innocent bystanders for the benefit of others since it reckons that such frequent acts may lead to large scale sacrifices and destruction. Yet, in rule Utilitarianism exceptions to the rule are allowed. That is, in special cases, rules may be broken if it is deemed necessary for the long-term interest of common good. For example “thou shall not kill” may be overridden by the right to self-defense. Hierarchical ethics offers a systematic approach to breaking of ethical rules.


In practice we often find it necessary to make exceptions to rules or make contradictory decisions that violate certain rules. Furthermore with too many exceptions, rule utilitarianism is reduced to act utilitarianism. That is no rules shall stand. Furthermore, we would be condemned by divine command ethics and deontological ethics (Formulated by Immanuel Kant) that requires strict adherence to rules.

If an ethical paradigm breaks down in practice, if it cannot address the complex moral dilemmas of real life, then for all practical purposes the paradigm is obsolete. In practice the common man abandons cherished religious and moral principles since ostensibly the moral paradigm does not address the complex real life scenarios. Neither divine command ethics nor deontological ethics could be strictly followed without violation of certain rules. Furthermore from a theoretical stand point morality is viewed as a myth.

Hierarchical ethics contends that this needs not be so. Just because in certain complex real world situation a paradigm breaks down it does not mean that the paradigm as a whole needs to be thrown out. The paradigm is deemed obsolete only because it does not offer a systematic approach to solving real world problems. Furthermore, its strict adherence to rules in face of hard moral choices is unrealistic. Adherence to ethical rules should not be preserved to only those who take sanctuary in a monastery

Critics of rule utilitarianism allege that in some circumstances general rules increase pain and suffering. (For example not killing an attacker in self-defense or not destroying life stock that may spread a contagious disease.)

In response supporters of rule utilitarianism claim that exceptions to the rule will take care of aberrant cases.

Yet the critics counter punch that too many exceptions will make rule utilitarianism equivalent to act utilitarianism. That is no rule can consistently be followed.

At this conjecture hierarchical rule utilitarianism states that rules must be based on a hierarchy. Higher rules in the hierarchy may override lower rules. Hierarchy is based on precedence of rules. For example the right to self-defense ought to be higher in the hierarchy than the “thou shall not kill law”. So “thou shall not kill” is overridden by self-defense rule. So based on such hierarchy it is easy to conclude that killing for self defense is justified. Another example: lying is lower in the ethical hierarchy than thou shall not kill. So lying, although unethical, may be overridden or justified by thou shall not kill. That is lying that saves innocent lives is justified.

Hierarchical Morality assures that breaking of the rules is not arbitrary. So, unlimited exceptions need not sprout arbitrarily from general rules. Rather in a hierarchical scheme the old exceptions are derived from the ethical hierarchy.

A person living in harsh conditions of North Pole is prompted to break more moral rules than a person living in peace and comfort. The person living in comfort is not more moral than the person in North Pole or sub-Saharan Africa who is engaged in daily life of survival. This is because the person in North Pole follows a moral hierarchy. Breaking of rules comes out of necessity to survive.

Cultural relativism is essential in construction of a moral hierarchy. Some moral rules that are cherished by one culture may not be as important by another culture. For example in some Jewish Orthodox  and Islamic cultures covering of female bodies is morally obligatory. Most other cultures take a much more liberal attitude towards this issue.

A person may decide that killing of animals for food is morally wrong. He could make such a choice because he is living in a condition where he could survive without eating meat or fish. Should he move to North Pole vegetarian diet would not be an option. He has not become less moral for eating animals. It is well understood that the human right to survival is more important (higher in moral hierarchy) than his rule of not killing animals.

Furthermore, the moral hierarchy may be overlaid with a layer of emotional intensity. Lying to save the life of a person whom you love such as a child or a wife is more justified than saving the life of the murderer who killed your loved ones.


Copyright ©2006, Isaac Levy
ISBN 0-9779918-1-4, Fundamentals of Hierarchical Ethics, Isaac Levy