Graeme High – RME Dept
Morality in the
Modern World
[Higher RMPS]
2
AREA ONE: The Relationship between
Religion and Moral Values
The plan: in this section you will study
The Euthyphro Dilemma
“Are actions ‘good’ simply because the
gods command them or do the gods command certain actions because
they are ‘good’?”
Possible Relationships between Religion and Moral Values
Guiding Principles
• The interpretation of sacred writings guided by faith, tradition
and/or reason
•The Golden Rule (in both religious and non-religious contexts)
• Human Excellence or Virtue (Virtue Ethics)
• Consequences (Utilitarian Ethics)
• Duty and Reason (Kantian Ethics)
3
Introduction: What is Morality?
Task One
Answer the following questions (truthfully) and give
reasons for your answer
1. You withdraw money from your bank account
for the deposit on a flight ticket to see a sick
relative abroad. The bank teller gives you £500 instead of
£50. It will show only as £50 withdrawal on your account. You
do not realise the mistake until you get home. What would you
do and why?
2. The student you sit next to in Maths is terribly upset. In a
moment of desperation he confides in you that he was involved
in a vicious drunken gang attack upon a stranger last night. He
is terribly upset but swears you to secrecy. What would you
do?
3. You have left your bag in the last classroom and the teacher is
on a break (a rare occasion) so she gives you the classroom
keys. You catch sight of the prelim paper from a subject you
are really struggling with. No one is around and it is clear you
could have a quick browse of the exam paper without being
caught? What would you do and why?
4
Let’s consider some difficult questions about who is
moral and where does morality come from
Answer the following questions. Give one reason for
your answer.
1. Should religious people have higher moral
standards than non - religious people?
2. Where do the standards for religious people come from?
3. What problem does the fact that there is more than one religion
pose for morality?
4. Are religious people more consistent in their morality than people
who do not believe in God?
Every single one of us has to make moral decisions - it is a part of daily life.
However, it is probably true to say that one of the features of being a religious
person is that you have a consistently observed set of moral standards. You
stick to these through thick and thin and they guide you through life’s moral
puzzles. Being ‘religious’ implies that you are also moral, but does being
moral also imply that you have to be religious? Can you have morality without
religion, or religion without morality?
5
The answers to the questions will depend on whom you ask. A follower of a
religion might well say that you need the structure and meaning of a religion
behind any moral decision, while someone who is not religious would most
definitely say that you could live a moral life without any reference to religion
at all. Must the answer to this be ‘either/or’, or isn’t it as clear-cut as that?

Do you think religious people should live moral lives? Explain your answer.

What do you understand by the word morality?

What do you understand by the word religious?

Give 4 examples of moral decisions someone might have to make.

Give 4 examples of religious decisions someone might have to make.

What things would you expect or not expect by way of moral behaviour from a religious
person? Make 2 lists.
6
Euthyphro Dilemma - Plato
The dilemma arising out of these questions can be found in a piece
of Greek philosophical writing known as Euthyphro’s dilemma
The dilemma is found in the writings of the Greek philosopher Plato, in his Last
Days of Socrates. Socrates is in trouble. He’s been stirring up the young people
of Athens with troubling questions. Outside the court where he’s about to be
tried, he has a conversation with a young man called Euthyphro. Socrates asks
Euthyphro what he thinks holiness is and this leads to a conversation which went
something like this.
Stop Press!!!! The word holy is also to be taken
to mean right – ie what is good
Euthyphro: ‘What is holy is that which the gods like and what is not holy is that which they
do not like.’
Socrates: ‘But the gods disagree about so many things. They don’t all like the same things.
So what is holy or not can’t be the same for all of them.’
Euthyphro: ‘Perhaps, but surely they would all agree that killing a man is wrong.
Socrates: Have you evidence for this?’
Euthyphro: ‘What’s holy is what all the gods approve of and what’s unholy is what they all
disapprove of.’
Socrates: ‘Ah, but is what’s holy approved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy
because it’s approved?’
Socrates has cleverly turned the argument on its head – turning it into a
Do the gods call something right
because it is in itself right, or is it right only because
they say it is?
chicken-and-egg problem.
7
TASK
1. A father can be loving but sometimes he might decide to be ‘cruel to
be kind’. Think of some examples.
2. Who decides what is good? If it is God who decides what is good, then
presumably he could call lying good and it would be. But who wants a
God like that? If it is not God – since he has to obey a higher law just
as we do – then he is not supreme because laws exist independently of
him. Who wants a God like that? Discuss.
3. What issue is raised by the Euthyphro dilemma?
Is something good because God
Commands it?
or
Does God Command that which is
already good?
Let’s look at this dilemma in 2 stages
1.
Is something good because God Commands it?
This position assumes that a moral action is one that is willed by God. He is the
source of morality and humans act morally when they fulfil God’s will
obediently. A moral law is made right when it is a divine command. The God who
commands this moral law is omnipotent creator of moral standards and without
him there would be no right or wrong. This places God clearly above morality,
and it is under his control.
8
Problems with “Is something good because God commands it?
– Divine Command Theory “
a) If God commands something is this sufficient ground to
say that this is moral? It has the effect of making moral law
arbitrary since it depends upon God’s whims. So if he commanded that
all blue eyed people be killed would that make it morally right to do so?
b) Can humans always correctly interpret what they believe
God is commanding them? If we say no to the above example
because we know that God in his wisdom would not command such a
thing, then we would be saying that killing all blue eyed people is wrong
in itself and God would not command this. This means that God is not
all – powerful but subject to the laws of reason which humans also
share. Gods’ power is therefore limited by reason which means that
God too must be limited.
c) What happens if we do not have a command that directly
applies to the situation? Religious leaders suggest that they
would extrapolate from the information that we have already.
Q. How would we work out what Christians should do on the issue of
euthanasia, an issue that does not appear in the Bible?
d) Does this mean that anything and everything that God
commands is a moral law?
9
e) What about all the people who do not believe in God? They
still make judgements concerning right and wrong which they believe to be
reliable. A non – believer must be able to be moral without consciously
deriving his/her morality from God.
f) If moral behaviour is motivated by fear of God’s punishment
then is this not rather questionable. Surely people should obey God
out of love not fear.
2. God commands that which is already good.
This second position also assumes a link between God and morality but suggests
that moral values are not established by God’s will. He operates according to
moral laws already in place in the universe. The moral laws already exist and God
approves of them.
Problems with” God commands that which is already good”.
a) God is limited by laws of morality. He is reactive rather than
proactive. God responds to the laws rather than sets them.
b) We must wait for God to reveal what is moral by commanding
it. He is the channel through which moral values are passed down to human
beings.
Euthyphro dilemma expanded This philosophical problem gets right to the heart of the question, ‘Are things
right or wrong in themselves or are they only right or wrong in relation to the
wishes of the gods (or God)?’
Do the gods1 call something right because it is in itself right, or is it right only
because they say it is? The implications of this for how you live your life are
very serious because it means that your moral decisions can either be absolute
or relative to the decrees of a god (or the gods) – for example:
1
the plural gods is used here because Plato was a Greek – Greeks worshipped many Gods
10
Suppose you are standing guard over a suspected child-murderer while waiting
for the police to arrive. You have a gun. You are a devoutly religious person.
Suddenly you hear a voice from the heavens. ‘This man is worthless – shoot him.’
Everything you have ever been taught and believed says that killing is wrong, but
you are absolutely convinced that the voice is the voice of your God. What do
you do?
Now suppose, just as you’re struggling with your decision, the
world leader of your faith arrives on the scene to tell you that
he has had a message from God which says that this man must
die and you have been chosen to carry out the sentence right
now. What do you do?
Now change the whole scenario from standing with your gun over a child-killer
to standing next to someone at the bus stop with a gun in your pocket.
The issue is clear, and is a version of Euthyphro
dilemma. Once a God (or gods) decrees that
something is right, does it become right – or are
some things wrong no matter what God or the gods
think of it?
Are there any things which are absolutely wrong no matter what, or is
everything subject to the whims of whatever God you happen to follow? History
is full of people who have done something that would be considered bad, but who
did it because they genuinely believed that it was sanctioned by their religious
belief and therefore by their own God or gods – their god thought it was right;
therefore it was right.
Absolute, relative, arbitrary
Euthyphro’s dilemma takes us further still. If something is wrong, no matter
what, then we refer to this as an absolute. Many people think that killing is
absolutely wrong – including many religious people. Some religious groups,
like Christian Quakers, believe that this should lead to a life where killing is
renounced and so they will be conscientious objectors in a war and live a life of
non-violence or pacifism. Similarly, the Hindu concept of ahimsa relates to living
11
a life which causes the minimum of suffering to other living things. This has one
of its ultimate expressions in the life of Jain monks who live a life which has the
avoidance of harm to all things at its core.
However, many religious people do take part in wars and they do support things
like capital punishment
Quite simply, for many religious people, morality is not absolute, it’s relative.
This means that while there are general principles which in almost all cases
should be adhered to, there are inevitably exceptions to this rule where
the circumstances demand it. For example, although just about all religions
believe that killing is wrong in principle – they would accept killing where it is
done out of necessity in order to avoid a greater harm. So, for example, if you
had the means to kill a man who himself was about to kill twenty people, then not
only is it something you can do even if you normally think killing is wrong – in
such a case it is something you probably should do. But does that make it right?
There are some religious people who might agree that it does, some who would
not agree, and some who would simply say that the action itself is never right,
though it might be necessary. In short, for a religious person, it might
sometimes be right to do something which is wrong without that turning the
wrong thing into the right thing!
So most religious people would probably accept that moral principles can be absolute,
but that moral actions can be relative to the situation in which we have to move from
principle to practice. However, the answers even from within a religion are not always
straightforward.
That said, most religious people would not accept the notion of an arbitrary
approach to moral decision-making – and almost certainly not that their God
could act in an arbitrary way about morality. That’s why the person standing at
the bus stop in the example above should be very dubious about the voice of God
telling him to shoot the person next to him in the queue.
Religious people would be right to expect some kind of consistency in the direct
and indirect teachings of their faith about right and wrong. Religious people
would probably therefore be right to doubt what they thought they were
hearing from their God because it would be so out of step with everything else
12
they had learned about their God’s views on killing. They would also have to
presume that their God always acted for the good.
These are the kind of points Socrates was really trying to make. For him, the
gods sometimes acted in arbitrary ways. Perhaps they would think something
was right today but wrong tomorrow – and the Greek gods weren’t just as godly
as you might expect.
They often used humans for their enjoyment – setting them tasks or putting
obstacles in their way for their own pleasure – in many ways they acted like
humans with all the problems and dramas of any modern TV soap. So perhaps
they weren’t the most reliable judges of what was and wasn’t right.
The Greek gods displayed the quality of arbitrariness in their dealings with each
other and with humanity – so perhaps Socrates was right to question whether
right and wrong could be based on their commands.
Should modern religious people similarly doubt the commands of
their God or gods?
13
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY (DCT)
One implication of Euthyphro’s dilemma is that something is right because God
commands it. Religious people often say that God is all-powerful as well as
perfectly good. If this is so, then anything he commands should be
obeyed and should be thought of as right.
Perhaps God does command people to do things which are normally thought of as
wrong, but He does so for reasons which are unknown to us but are, in
themselves, right. This would mean that we might have to readjust our idea of
right and wrong in line with God’s commands – what might seem wrong to us
might actually be right – the only thing stopping us knowing that it is right is the
small matter that we are not all-knowing like a God. So – to extend the example
used earlier. . .
“You are a devoutly religious person sitting at home watching the TV news. It’s
an item about a man who has blown himself up in a crowded market place killing
hundreds of people. His picture flashes on the screen. Suddenly the cold
realization comes to you that you know this man. In fact, just two months ago
you were standing next to him in a bus queue. You had a gun in your pocket. You
were convinced that you were hearing the voice of God telling you to shoot this
man. You didn’t do it because your God would never ask you to do such a thing.”
For some religious people, if God commands it, then it is good. They might argue
that it is not for humans to work out God’s motives. This leads to an
unconditional acceptance of what God wills and the notion that something is
right because God says so – a more conservative position. In short,
1.
2.
God is always right.
If God appears to be wrong, refer to point 1 above.
Many modern religious people would be very wary of this kind of approach. They
would think of it as very naïve and simplistic. Religious people tend not to
operate at such a robotic level and would not expect their God to treat them
like thoughtless robots either.
Why?
14
Intelligent responses to Divine Command Theory
For the vast majority of religious people, what their God or gods command is
vitally important. However, it comes in many guises. The intelligent religious
person cross-checks such commands in a variety of ways –




by referring to their holy books,
the traditions of their faith,
how their faith has historically responded to moral problems,
what teachers in their faith have taught throughout the ages about right
and wrong, and so on. What is right therefore, for a religious person,
almost certainly goes beyond what they think their God might be telling
them at one point in time in only one way. It is the end result of a long
process of teaching, reflection, study, discussion, trial and error.
Religious people arrive at decisions about what is right in many different ways.
Most religious people, however, would agree with the view that what God
commands has significant moral weight and that God is concerned about humans.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that what God would consider to be right
and wrong would be because of its implications for humans. So perhaps, for the
religious person, the Euthyphro dilemma has a relatively straightforward
answer. Something is good (holy) because God commands it, but God only
commands that which is good.
Homework 2
Summarise the Divine Command Theory and the modern approach to it. (6ku)
15
Summary

It seems that no satisfactory answer can be given to the dilemma:
‘Is an act right because God commands it, or does God command it
because it is right?’

If an act is right simply because God commands it then its being right is
merely arbitrary (not based on a plan). God could arbitrarily command a
person to murder his wife or child and that would supposedly make it
right. But would it?

If morals are separate from God, there is no religious reason to be good.

If God commands an act because it is right, then is there a standard of
rightness that exists independent of God’s commands? It might be, say,
the principle of utility (the greatest good for the greatest number). If
so, then we could discover this principle without knowing God’s commands.
God’s commands therefore are not necessarily are prerequisite for living
a moral life.

The various arguments about the connection between religion and ethics
point to a common conclusion. Right and wrong are not to be defined in
terms of God’s will; morality is a matter of reason and conscience not
religious faith; and religious considerations do not always provide definite
solutions to the specific moral problems that confront us.

However this conclusion does not undermine the validity of religion but
illustrates that the discipline known as ethics can remain independent.
For believers and non believers alike making moral judgement is a matter
of listening to one’s reason.
16
Remember
The divine command theory: an act is morally right if it has been
commanded by God and morally wrong if God has forbidden it. Right and
wrong become an objective matter. Ethics is not merely a matter of
custom and personal feelings but relates to a ‘higher good’.
The Euthyphro dilemma: Is conduct right because the gods command
it, or do the gods command it because it is right? If God’s laws are
absolute, why does God not command laws that allow cruel actions as well
as good actions? If God is good, can he only command what is right? Is
there a standard of goodness independent of God?
Why is the Euthyphro dilemma important for philosophy of religion?
Although many believers consider God to be the ground of morality, what
exactly does this mean in practice? Is it that God is the ground of morality in
that what God wills is good and trustworthy?
If so, then God's commands are arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable to
argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to
do. Or is it? If one questions the viability of this possibility is it because of an
innate sense that committing adultery is wrong?
If so, God's commands are not arbitrary but are formed on the basis of what is
good. But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which
God's decrees must conform. In other words, if God cannot decree adultery to
be good it is because the notion that adultery is wrong exists outside the Divine
realm. But if this is so then who, or what, has instigated this supra-moral realm?
Here the problem is clearly exposed. Is an act morally good because God wills it
or is it good because God agrees that it is good? We place an enormous amount
of trust in the character of God if the former is true (E.g. we assume God is allgood but we cannot know for sure), whilst we are led to question the status of
God in the presence of the latter (E.g. God's omnipotence).
17
1. In your own words, outline the Euthyphro dilemma.
2. What would your solution to the Euthyphro dilemma be?
3. Are there certain things that you think are always wrong?
4. Should a moral decision be based on the situation the person finds themselves in?
Explain.
5. Do you think it is important for people to be consistent in their moral decisions?
Explain.
6. Do you think that you have to believe in a God to live morally?
7. What implications could there be for someone who does not think through their
moral decisions carefully?
8. In what ways can religious people decide what is right and wrong? Give examples.
18
This is the view that what you believe to be morally right or wrong is separate from your
religious beliefs.
Autonomy literally means being a law unto yourself – making your
own decisions.
Religions differ in their approach to autonomy. For example some Christians see
moral autonomy as a result of the fall – putting your own ideas before God and making
yourself a little God by deciding for yourself what is right and wrong.
On the other hand, many Christians would argue that moral autonomy is something to
be valued. God gave humans the special gift of free choice and it is therefore
important to exercise that freedom by making moral decisions for yourself.
Many Christians would argue that because we are made in the image of God, IMAGO
DEI, our freedom to make moral choices is what makes us, as humans, unique.
Religious people believe that what you do in this life will have an effect on what
happens to you in the next one. This idea gives moral strength to moral values. Nonreligious people might see this as religion adopting common sense morality and giving it
a supernatural slant to make it more likely that you will act morally.
For someone who argues that moral decisions are best made
autonomously, the argument might be that deciding based on reason
and consequences is far more likely to produce good moral decisions
than basing them on the changing whim of a God. A religious person
would refute this arguing that things as important as moral
decisions should be made based on foundations that are more
secure than the reasoning of the individual.
19
Some religious people argue that making moral decisions is best done on the
foundations of religious belief, authority and tradition. This is because religious
beliefs are based on solid ideas which will, if put into practice, produce good
outcomes. Religious people might argue that there is very little in today’s world
that is morally new. Certainly, what’s possible using the new technologies we have
needs careful thought, but the principles are the same ones that have been
around for a long time and just need reapplied in new contexts.
In religion your decisions are rarely made for you, rather the principles
of your faith act as signposts guiding you in the right direction – or
rather in the direction of what is seen to be right. Religious people
argue that something as important as a moral decision has to be
built on foundations and the foundations themselves must
be strong. Without such foundations the things you build will just fall down.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE MORAL VALUES WHICH EVERYONE ON EARTH SHARES
WHETHER THEY ARE RELIGIOUS OR NOT?
Forming these values has tended to take the “You shall not” approach instead of the “you
shall”.
Can there be such a thing as a common set of moral values that everyone living can
agree to uphold? Discuss this as groups of 3 and report your conclusions to the rest of
the class.
Using your conclusions from the first task write a new set of commandments for
today’s society which focus on the “You Shall” rather than the “you shall not”.
Present them in poster form on A3 paper.
20
Sources of Moral Guidance
Guiding Principles
1. The interpretation of sacred writings guided by faith,
tradition and or reason
For all faiths, the role of sacred writings is central. All have written traditions
either in a single book or a collection of writings. Varying levels of importance
are given to these sacred writings.
In Islam, the Qur’an is regarded as the actual word of God, while the Hadith
are the teachings and example of Muhammad the prophet.
What counts as scripture?
In Christianity what is in the Bible varies according to traditions. Although most
Christians believe that the Bible was inspired by God, there are disputes about
what’s in and what’s out – the Catholic Apocrypha for example. Even those
which remain in the Bible are sometimes regarded as books which shouldn’t have
been included – like the Song of Songs.
In other faiths, different texts are given different moral standing. In Judaism,
the Torah is central while Talmudic commentaries on it give less binding, but
nevertheless helpful, moral guidance. Once included as part of sacred scripture
in a faith – or the canon – there’s still room for debate.
How should scripture be interpreted?
Even once something has been accepted as a part of a faith’s sacred scripture
that’s only the beginning – then it is subject to study and analysis throughout
the ages. Different people have different views on what a passage means and
how this relates to living the faith. Such differences can be minor in the
understanding of a word or passage, or can result in major differences within
the faith leading to splits and deep divisions.
For example, in Christianity, the word PARTHENOS can mean either a ‘young
girl’ or a ‘virgin’ or both – leading Christians to very different conclusions about
the nature of Jesus’ birth. This also highlights a significant problem for
religious people today. Almost all sacred scriptures are rooted in the past –
often written in ancient languages. This can lead to specific problems.
21
Not everyone has the time to study these languages in the original, and so most
people have to depend on the translation of the language by those who have
taken the time to study the language.
In the past this meant that only a few in a faith had the knowledge of what was
written in the scriptures and ordinary people had to depend on them. This gave
priests and holy men great power which, it is probably true to say, they guarded
jealously. Even here in Scotland, one of the reasons for stained-glass windows is
that they were a visual aid to help ordinary people who could not read to
understand the Bible stories. Now the trouble with translating a language is
that you sometimes change the meaning of things when you translate.
This is extremely important for moral decision-making because the meaning of
scripture is often very closely tied to the time in which it was written. Once you
take the words out of that context you lose a bit of what the teaching meant in
the first place and it might not be all that easily transposed into the 21st
Century. This means that you have to work things out for yourself. How
might you do this?
Interpreting sacred scriptures
A possible format for working out what a scripture’s teaching is might be
as follows:
1. Work out what the teaching meant at the time it was written.
2. Work out any underlying principle or idea which can still apply today.
3. Compare this specific teaching with others in the scriptures of your faith
– is it a common idea or a very specific one? Does something contradict it
elsewhere in scripture? Does it seem like a reasonable position to hold?
4. Pray to your God or meditate on your scripture in order to get it more
clearly understood in your own mind.
5. Consult the teachings of your faith in terms of the teachings of the
groups within your faith – your holy teachers or your guru, for example. Or
look at how this piece of scripture has been interpreted throughout the
ages by the traditions of your faith.
6. Discuss and analyse with fellow followers of your faith.
As you can see, interpreting scripture isn’t all that straightforward, and
different religious people will give different weight or importance to each of
the six steps above.
22
This is one of the reasons why there are so many different groups within each
faith and why religious believers can have so very many different views on the
same moral problem. The meaning of specific words becomes important when
interpreting scripture.
There is the teaching in Judaism that you should not work on Shabbat.
But what does the word ‘work’ mean?
Throughout the ages rabbis have debated this, leading to some Jews today
taking it to mean simply not attending your work, while others interpret it as not
so much as dragging a chair across the floor because it resembles the act of
ploughing.
But even these single words can be overruled where a greater good, will follow.
In Judaism there is the belief that helping actions take precedence over the
command not to work on Shabbat, so a doctor could save a life on Shabbat
even though this would count as work.
So, interpreting Holy Scripture is not easy and will lead to followers of the
same religion coming to very different conclusions about moral issues – even
basing their decisions on the same holy writings.
Be aware too, that non-religious people often have their own canon of important
writings and texts to which they might refer for moral guidance. The founder
of their school of philosophy might be an example; another might be an
organisation which they belong to, like the British Humanist Association.
Referring to these sources will be subject to the same issues of interpretation
which apply for religious people
Task
Describe the use of reason in the interpretation of sacred
writings
23
Guiding principles
THE GOLDEN RULE
2. The Golden Rule (in both religious and non-religious contexts)
Is it possible to have moral values which everyone on earth shares whether they
are religious or not? Forming these values has tended to take the ‘You shall not’
approach instead of the ‘You shall’.
Can there be such a thing as a common set of moral values which everyone living
can agree to uphold? Many National Constitutions of human rights have tried to
encapsulate these, whether it’s the American notion that all are created equal
or the French idea of liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Are there common ideas about right and wrong which you can agree to
whether you are religious or not?
In the book Ethics in the World Religions, Keith Ward suggests the
‘possibility of a global ethic’ which comes down to the following principles:
•
•
•
•
Benevolence – showing kindness to others
Liberty – freedom for all
Truthfulness – living in the ‘right’ way
Justice – fairness, tolerance, equality
Perhaps looking at guiding principles in moral decision-making might help to
make clear whether moral values can be universal or whether there’s always
going to be some kind of division between believers and non-believers.
Is there, however, a rule which everyone might agree about? One possible
contender for this might be. . .
24
The Golden Rule
Aboriginal Spirituality
We are as much alive as we
keep the Earth alive.
– Chief Dan George
Baha’i Faith
Lay not on any soul a load that you would not
wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for
anyone the things you would not desire for
yourself.
– Baha’u’llah, Gleanings
Buddhism
Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
– The Buddha, Udana-Varga 5.18
Christianity
In everything, do to others as you would
have them do to you; for this is the law
and the prophets.
– Jesus, Matthew 7:12
Judaism
What
Islam is hateful to you, do not do to
your
neighbour.
This believes
is the whole
Not one
of you truly
until you
Torah;
all
the
rest
is
commentary.
wish for others what you wish for
–yourself.
Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
– The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith
Confucianism
One word which sums up the basis of
all good conduct . . . loving kindness.
Do not do to others what you do not
want done to yourself.
– Confucius, Analects 15.23
The Golden Rule is common across religions in
one version or another.
It expresses a simple view, that what is right is
the kind of behaviour towards others which you
would not mind being on the receiving end of
yourself.
However, it is not only religious faiths which think
this is an important rule. Non-religious groups
and individuals agree:
Hinduism
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain
if done to you.
25
– Mahabharata 5:1517
What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.’
ANCIENT GREECE – Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90 CE
‘You should always ask yourself
what would happen if everyone did
what you are doing.’
FRANCE – Jean-Paul Sartre, French
existentialist philosopher, 1905–80
CE
’Treat other people as you’d want to be
treated in their situation; don’t do things
you wouldn’t want to have done to you.’
British Humanist Association, 1999 CE
One should be ‘contented with so much liberty against other men, as he
would allow against himself.’
GREAT BRITAIN – Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher, 1588–1679 CE
The Golden Rule seems to be pretty much universal and can be expressed
positively as in:
Do to others only those things which you want done to yourself.
Or negatively as in:
Do not do to others those things you would not want done to yourself.
The Golden Rule is not only shared across religions and non-religious
philosophies. Its meaning has found its way into the very centre of world
declarations about rights of the person:
Article 1: All human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another in a spirit
of brotherhood.
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION.
26
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are
LIFE, LIBERTY and the PUSUIT of
HAPPINESS.
US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Golden Rule works on the simple premise that a world where we all behave
towards others in the way that we would like them to behave towards us would
be a good world. It is based on the principle of mutual self-interest.
You be nice to me and I’ll be nice to you because we’d both like that.
One notable response to this view was the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell
who famously stated:
‘Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, their tastes
may be different.’
Although Russell may have considered this to be a novel reflection on the Golden
Rule, it says little more than the rule itself which presupposes that one of the
features of how you treat other people is establishing whether your course of
action would or would not be something which they would be happy with.
The Golden Rule implies the principle that there is something about humans
which is common whoever you are. It presupposes the view that just as humans
share many common features, they also share a generally common approach to
what is right and wrong behaviour.
This approach to morality is common across many faiths and non-religious
stances. It is particularly evident in the teachings of the philosopher Aristotle
about Virtue Ethics.
27
Task
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN YOUR JOTTER
1. Why might a religious person be wary of making moral decisions on their own?
2. Choose a religion and state what it teaches about Moral Autonomy.
3. What might be the advantages of basing your moral decisions on religious
foundations?
4. In your opinion, is there such a thing as a moral code upon which everyone might
agree?
5. What problems are associated with the interpretation of writings which help
people to make moral decisions?
6. How far can individuals without specialist knowledge understand the teachings of
sacred writings?
7. To what extent do you agree that the Golden Rule is as close as you’re likely to
get to a universally accepted ethic?
Human Excellence or Virtue (Virtue Ethics)
Moral theories tend to work out what the right or good thing to do is by
suggesting a set of principles for working out the best choice.
28
Virtue ethics asks, ‘How can you be a better person?’ It tries to define good
people and the qualities that make them good. The roots of virtue ethics are
found in Greek literature especially Aristotle (384-322 BCE). New interest in
the theory has been generated by John MacIntyre in his book ‘After Virtue, a
Study in Moral Theory’ (1981).
Aristotle was a pupil of Plato (famous for?) and was an
empiricist who believed that knowledge was only to be
gained through experience and the senses. He believed
that all things including humans have a purpose or
function – a telos, to understand anything you have to
understand the final cause or purpose which is ultimately
to fulfil ones goal. Aristotle believed that the purpose of
human life was to flourish and develop characteristics
which help create a virtuous human being. His emphasis
was not on what people do but what kind of people they
are.
Task one
You are to imagine that you are a pupil of Aristotle eager to learn about virtue
ethics. Follow the instructions carefully
1. Put the following virtues in order of individual preference
justice
constancy
kindness
courage
patience
generosity
humility
honesty
wisdom
loyalty
acceptance
faithfulness
cheerfulness
sincerity
thoughtfulness
altruism
29
graciousness
2. In groups agree on the top three
1.
2.
3.
3. Choose a spokesperson to convince the rest of the class in one minute
that your virtue is the one we should most strive for. Give reasons and
examples to support you argument.
Being moral is about rationally applying good sense to your chosen ends and
finding a middle way between one extreme and another
Aristotle referred to this as the golden mean. Here are some examples:
Vice of Deficiency
Cowardice
Extravagance
Insensibility
Virtuous mean
Courage
Liberty
Temperance
(moderation)
Vice of excess
Rashness
Meanness
Intemperance
Aristotle’s own views on what virtues are might shed some light on whether or not his approach to
morality can stand up in today’s world. For him, virtues are:







Temperance
Courage
Gentleness
Liberality
Magnificence
Wittiness
Behaving acceptably in good company
Virtue ethics is concerned with what makes a good person rather
than what makes a good action
30
For example, say you like chocolate. There’s nothing wrong with eating it – but
if you ate it all day you’d probably be sick – so, eating too much chocolate is
wrong, but so too is eating too little because you might depress yourself by
denying yourself something you like. Now that’s OK for chocolate, but it’s not
perhaps the same when something you like – even in very tiny amounts – is
what others might regard as morally wrong in itself.
Aristotle believed that the virtues are those qualities that lead to a good life
and we should cultivate these qualities to maximise the potential for a happy
life.
People are not born with these virtues but should learn from role models, train
and exercise the virtue through habit until it becomes an automatic way of living
and behaving and part of their character. They can exercise their virtue
without thinking or trying too hard.
Homework 4 – exercise the virtue honesty – prepare to report back
The trouble with Aristotle is knowing when something has tipped over the
edge of reasonableness to become extreme. It’s a fine line between
acceptable and unacceptable, and Aristotle doesn’t give a lot of guidance about
when the line has been crossed.
Some philosophers argue that Aristotle’s upper-class background meant that his
golden mean wouldn’t mean the same thing to ordinary people as it did to him. It
is argued that his golden mean quite simply means that you can do anything you
like, provided you don’t go over the top – at that point what you are doing
becomes wrong instead of right.
MODERN VIRTUE ETHICS
Comments
31
Elizabeth Anscombe2 in “Three Philosophers”
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/anscombe.html
She encouraged a revival of virtue ethics because the reduction in the number
of people believing in God led a heteronomous approach to moral law to be
outdated. To concentrate on a moral code based on human flourishing was much
more suitable.
Alasdair MacIntyre
3
“After Virtue”
Alasdair MacIntyre (1929–) is a modern (Glaswegian) philosopher who is
interested in the whole idea of virtue ethics. He regards the decline in modern
morality as the result of the abandoning of any coherent system of moral
values. MacIntyre thinks that a society is moral where people recognize
commonly agreed virtues and try to live up to them.
He agrees that courage and faithfulness are important virtues and that those
who demonstrate them can be considered good people.
MacIntyre argues that trying to work out what is good by following a set of
rules isn’t as powerful as simply responding to something by following your
understanding of what a good person would do.
2 the most distinguished woman English philosopher ever, G.E.M. Anscombe is a member of the analytical
school of philosophy, contributing widely to the fields of logic, semiotics, semantics, and theory of
language. She studied at Oxford, graduating in 1941, and went on to teach at numerous places including
Oxford.
» Philosopher, born in Glasgow, W Scotland, UK. After several positions at British universities, he went to the USA in
1969, His works include Marxism and Christianity (1954), After Virtue (1981), and other influential writings on ethics
and philosophy of mind
3
32
To be a moral agent is ... to be able to stand back from any and every
situation in which one is involved, from any and every characteristic that
one may possess, and to pass judgment on it from a purely universal and
abstract point of view that is totally detached from all social
particularity.
MacIntyre means that what is right is independent of where and when you
live. It is something which is related only to the notion of what a good person
does.
MacIntyre believes that moral philosophy has lost its way. There’s not much
point in arguing about what good actions are or what ‘good’ means and there’s
certainly little value in trying to discuss the nature of good and evil with a
murder victim’s relatives.
MacIntyre regards society today as having lost its moral language and now
being unable to meaningfully debate specific issues in any sensible way.
MacIntyre believes that what we are left with is a modern, liberal conception
of morality, in which individual free agents possess the option of choosing
their own set of virtues.
Right and wrong is about being a virtuous person. It’s about community
values and shared human values
Thus, morality has been reduced to little more than personal
choice.
After Virtue ends on a very pessimistic note suggesting that in
our moral thinking today we are heading into a new version of
the Dark Ages.
Problems
33
1. How do we decide which virtue is the most important one to cultivate?
Virtues change because of contexts and situations the person is in e.g.
courage may be important in a survival situation.
2. The Golden Mean is sometimes difficult to work out. Courage is easy but
what about loyalty? Honesty – how tactful should you be and
what about little white lies?
3. The virtues provided by Aristotle are from a patriarchal society and
frequently associated with the battlefield e.g. bravery, honour. We would
need to broaden the list of virtues.
Patriarchal: dominated by men, controlled by men and benefiting men
4. Virtue ethics could be seen as very selfish – you may
only be developing yourself and not too worried about
the effects of your actions.
Q. Explain the cartoon in terms of Virtue ethics
Summary
34







Based on philosophy of Aristotle (384-322 BCE). Revived by Alasdair
MacIntyre and Elizabeth Anscombe.
Virtue Ethics focuses on what it means to be a ‘good/virtuous person’ rather
than what makes an individual act ‘good or right’
A normative theory based on character, not actions (normative ethics are a
study of the moral norms or principles that people use to justify action)
Based on Greek concept of arête – virtue, excellence.
Virtue according to Aristotle – an inner state rising from harmony of health,
beauty and strength of character.
Actions are good where they enhance the inner state.
Three characteristics have to be in harmony: wisdom/courage/self-control
 Reason is an important guide in determining what
constitutes a virtuous person/disposition








general or rigid rules are regarded as unhelpful/irrelevant
living a ‘good/virtuous’ life is an end in itself rather than a way of achieving
some other ultimate goal
Virtues lie between the extremes of excess and deficiency (the Golden
Mean)
Balanced personality leads to good actions.
By living virtuously, human beings fulfil their true potential
Does not depend on religious belief but is compatible with religious belief.
Central question not ‘What ought I to do?’ but ‘What sort of person ought I
to be?’ a Being not a Doing debate.
Eudaimonia (Greek term for happiness) – the final goal of human activity.
Task
a) Outline what is meant by Virtue
Ethics.
b) WHICH OF ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUES
DO YOU THINK ARE SENSIBLE
ONES? Explain your answer.
c) What is your definition of a ‘good
person’?
d) How far does Alasdair MacIntyre
agree with the position of Aristotle?
e) Why do you think MacIntyre’s work
After Virtue ends on a pessimistic
note? Do you agree with him?
35
36
The second guiding principle regarding ethical situations is consequentialism.
Task One
Read the following case studies;
“The teacher pushed the child with so much force that she fell down the steps
and broke her arm in three different places. Nevertheless she still managed to
run away to safety and although scarred by the experience now leads a
relatively normal life. The teacher was presented with an award for heroism.”
Explain where the school was and why the teacher was made a heroine?
Sara promised to look after the cats while her
friend Tracey was away on holiday in France. Every day, twice a day,
she would faithfully go up to house, feed the cats and play with them. On
Tracey’s return the plane was delayed so Sara went up to the house, put some
milk in the fridge, bread in the larder and soup on the hob and turned up the
heating so that Tracey would have a warm welcome home. They have not spoken
since.
Why have they not spoken?
From these 2 examples what could be the problems with consequentialism?
37
Consequentialism –
This is a teleological ethical theory (telos Gk – end)) which judges whether an
action is right or wrong, good or bad purely on the outcome or result that it
produces – its consequence. Its most popular form is that of utilitarianism
which states that
“An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest
number”
This means
1. Killing is okay if it leads to good consequences
2. Nothing is inherently right or right/wrong – nothing is wrong because of
what it is e.g. abortion is not right/wrong/ in itself, only in its
consequence.
3. Actions have only instrumental values (help us get what we want) rather
than intrinsic values (i.e. valued purely for their own sake)
4. Motives are morally neutral
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) argued for the Principle
of Utility – that an action should be judged according to the
results it achieved. This approach to ethics is called
utilitarianism. Bentham argued that an action should be judged
according to its ability to offer happiness or benefit to everyone
involved, or to avoid unhappiness and pain. He thought all should
be treated equally.
John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) further developed this theory allowing that the
effect of rules should also be taken into account where their
observance would benefit society as a whole. He did not think
all forms of happiness were of equal status, distinguishing
higher and lower pleasures.
38
Utilitarianism states that in any situation where there is a moral choice, the
right thing to do is that which is likely to produce the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people.
But


How do you evaluate the results of an action? (Person’s feelings? criteria
for saying a result is good? immediate or long term?)
The actual results of an action are often themselves ambiguous.
Task
Explain your answers from a utilitarian point of view.
a) In WW2 all German officers had to swear an oath of personal loyalty
to Adolf Hitler. One of these Lt. von Stauffenberg made an
unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Hitler in July 1944. Was he right
to do so? Was Hitler right to have him shot?
b) A priest hears the confession of an undetected murder who may kill
again. Should the priest tell the police?
c) Would you condemn an innocent person to death if you know his
execution would restore law and order?
d) If you liked veal would you eat it?
Utilitarianism
So far, the Utilitarianism we have looked at has been
Utilitarianism which focuses on individual acts. It
is often known as Act utilitarianism. There is,
however, another kind of utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarianism
Instead of looking at every act to see whether it will bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number, Rule Utilitarians try to find rules, which will
bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number and then just
follow these rules.
39
There are two forms of Rule Utilitarianism - Strong and Weak.
Strong Rule Utilitarianism:
Once the rules have been decided it is not
right to break them even when it might be
better in an individual case.
Weak Utilitarianism:
There are special cases when breaking the rules
may be allowed.
Modern Utilitarianism
Review: Utilitarianism is based on the results of actions. Where the actions
produce positive results they are good, and where they produce negative
results, bad. However, if an action produces positive results for the majority
while being accompanied by negative results for the minority the action could
still be considered to be the right course of action. For example, if you killed
one person to save twenty others then you have done the right thing. Even if it
feels wrong and even if your general moral principles go against the act of
killing, killing one for the sake of many is a right action.
However, according to Utilitarianism this could also mean that you could harm
innocent people in order to safeguard the well being of the majority. For
example:
You are a doctor living in a small developing world village where
310 people live. Ten people in the village have a deadly virus
that you can’t cure. It is highly contagious. If those
contaminated are allowed to live then they will infect all the
other 300 villagers. Only you can put a humane end to their
misery and so save the lives of the others in the village.
Q. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
40
Utilitarian might well argue that you should kill the infected ten for the greater
good, and that this would be right.
This highlights one of the greatest issues about Utilitarian thinking. If an
action were right or wrong depending upon its outcome – you would have to be
sure what all the likely outcomes are. Can you ever be that sure? The other
issue is the problem of happiness – who decides what happiness means? What if,
in the example above the infected ten were the only children in the village – the
other 300 villagers being over 90 years old?
For this reason, modern Utilitarians have proposed an amendment to the
principle of Utilitarianism. This is called preference Utilitarianism.
Preference Utilitarianism
Preference Utilitarianism - takes into account what those involved in the
situation would prefer – taking into account their own individual and collective
views of happiness. Perhaps you can hear the 300 villagers crying ‘Spare the
children’?
Preference utilitarianism- The benefits
Traditionally, utilitarians were hedonists, believing that utility consists in
pleasurable mental states.
However, one problem with this view is it implies that what you don't know can't
hurt you. For example, suppose someone secretly spread rumours behind a
person's back and thereby destroys their reputation. But further suppose that
the person never finds out about this and experience no ill effects from it. In
this case, since he never experienced any displeasure from the act, the act
doesn't harm him, according to the hedonist. This is often called "the
experience requirement"; hedonism requires that the subject experience
something in order for that thing to be good (or bad) for them.
On the other hand, preference utilitarianism rejects the experience
requirement. Since the person has a preference (or desire) for a good
reputation, spreading rumours behind his back would harm them even if they
never experienced any ill effects from it. It allows for utlitarianism to be
developed so that potential outcomes can be judged as morally right/wrong even
if they do not actually happen
41
Motive utilitarianism
Another version of Utilitarianism is motive Utilitarianism. Utilitarians
themselves disagree about this. In short, it comes down to this: does an action
become right if it was done for the wrong reasons but produced good
outcomes?
You’re driving along the road one day when you suddenly decide
to run someone over. There’s no reason – you just feel like it.
So you do it. Any sane person would consider such an action to
be wrong. But when the police are dealing with the event they
find that the person you ran over has a bottle of poison in his
pocket. Also in his pocket is a list of 40 names. Checking these
names the police find that 10 of them have already been
murder victims – by poisoning. The other 30 are still alive. Was
your action in running the man over right after all?
Q. WAS IT THE RIGHT DECISION?
Modern Utilitarianism
Peter Singer
Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University in the USA. In
his book ‘Practical Ethics’, 1979, his basic principle is that one should seek an
‘equal consideration of interests’. That does not mean that all have equal
rights or should be treated equally, but that each should be treated in a way
that is appropriate. Consideration will be given to the interests of animals but
not by treating them as though they were persons.
He cites the case of Andrew Stinson as an example.
42
Andrew was born premature. His life was deemed by medics to be ‘marginally
viable’. If he did survive, his life would be ‘permanently impaired’. His parents
wanted no heroics in any attempt to resuscitate him. Doctors considered that
he must be in severe distress. Andrew was kept alive despite his parents’
wishes and despite the great cost of doing so. Singer argues against the idea
that life is always worth preserving by stating that in cases like Andrew’s the
right thing to do is what is in the interests of those involved – in this case, he
was arguing that this would have been to let Andrew die.
Singer also uses the case of anencephalic babies who may be kept alive for a
short time when there is no possibility of any normal brain activity rather than
allowing them to die so as to use them to harvest their organs to save the lives
of babies who will have the chance of a normal life4.
Singer describes his own form of Utilitarianism:
The way of thinking I have outlined is a form of utilitarianism. It differs
from classical utilitarianism in that ‘best consequences’ is understood as
meaning what, on balance, furthers the interests of those affected, rather
than merely what increases pleasure and reduces pain . . . The utilitarian
position is a minimal one, a first base that we reach by universalising selfinterested decision-making.5
Singer’s position is that what is right is what is in the best interests of those
involved in the moral problem. He cites the case of Andrew Stinson as an
example.
What do you think?
In all of these examples, Singer contrasts the extreme measures we take as a
society to save human life – even that which he argues cannot reasonably be
considered human in the agreed sense – while at the same time showing a callous
disregard for all other forms of animal life on the planet. Singer suggests, in
fact, that society should completely redefine the value of life and what it
means to be ‘alive’ or ‘dead’ according to a utilitarian ethic which takes into
account the best interests of all involved.
4
5
P Singer: Rethinking Life and Death, Oxford University Press, Ch 3, 1995
P Singer: Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, page 14, 1993
43
Singer goes further in that he argues that ‘those involved’ need
not be just the immediate group in a specific situation but the
wider community or society as a whole. Perhaps a world, which
treats all life as valuable, would be a better world for all to live
in – hence maximising everyone’s (and everything’s) happiness in
true utilitarian style. To summarise his ethic, Singer compares what he calls the
‘Old Commandments’ (his own, perhaps loose, interpretation of a JudaeoChristian ethic) with his new variations as follows:
‘Old’ Commandment
Treat all human life as of equal
worth
Never intentionally take innocent
human life
Never take your own life, and always
try to prevent others taking theirs
Be fruitful and multiply
Treat all human life as always more
precious than any non-human life
Singer’s New Utilitarian
Commandment
Recognise that the worth of human
life varies
Take responsibility for the
consequences of your decisions
Respect a person’s desire to live or
die
Bring children into the world only if
they are wanted
Do not discriminate on the basis of
species6
Many people disagree with Singer’s views; that is because they
are people who follow an ethic based on unchangeable principles, and Singer’s
ethic seems to them a little like making things up as you go along.
Singer’s utilitarianism might still suffer from the problem of utilitarianism
generally – that is to say: who decides what’s in people’s self-interest and
based on what? – even if we take into account only those immediately involved
in the moral problem.
One final criticism of utilitarianism is that in seeking what’s best for the
majority, you might knowingly or otherwise sanction actions which harm
minorities.
Another example might help:
6
ibid, pp189–204
44
The Bright Light Energy Company has decided to invest in a new
form of energy production, which will reduce the energy bills of
everyone on the planet to . . ., nothing. Free energy for all is its
claim. It has found a way to tap the human aura of energy in such a
way that energy is created beyond our wildest imaginings. One
person can provide enough energy for a city to keep going for 10
years. The problem is that at any one time 100 people need to be
wired up across the globe. Each person can generate energy for
around 100 years. At the end of this, the person dies and must be
replaced. During the person’s lifetime of being wired up she or he will be unable
to communicate or think – effectively the person will cease to exist once they
are wired up (although they won’t be dead in the commonly agreed sense). In
order to make this viable, the Bright Light Company intends to take in donated
babies to use as energy sources. The benefits are enormous, the costs – 100
people’s lives every 100 years.
Remember too that religious people will, on occasion, make moral decisions based
on utilitarian principles, or a consequentialist ethic. The whole notion of
breaking religious rules and laws in order to preserve life is an example of doing
something for the greater good.
Summary
Bentham
 Human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain; all humans pursue pleasure
which is good and seek to avoid pain which is bad.
 The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its ‘utility’, or
usefulness.
 Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure or happiness caused by an
action.
 An action is right if it produces ‘the greatest good for the greatest
number’.
 The hedonic calculus: this weighs up pain and pleasure based on
intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or
remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent.
Mill
 The well being of the individual is of greatest importance, and that happiness
is most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own
ends, subject to rules that protect the common good of all.
 Focused on qualitative pleasures – some pleasures are higher (mind) and
others lower (body)
45
Act and Rule utilitarianism




Act utilitarian’s maintain that the good action is the one that leads to the
greatest good in a particular situation.
Act utilitarianism is flexible, being able to take account of individual
situations at a given moment
Rule utilitarian’s establish the best overall rule by determining the course of
action which when pursued by the whole community leads to the greatest
result.
It may still permit certain practices such as slavery that appear to be
morally unacceptable because minority interests are not respected.
Conclusion
 Reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance
of pain and misery.
 Natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding what to
do.
 Offers democratic morality that promotes general happiness and opposes
individual pursuits.
 Commonsense system that doesn’t require special wisdom.
But
 Relies on knowledge of consequences.
 Difficult to quantify pleasure.
 Some pain is good for us and some pleasure may be bad.
 Problem of justice: utilitarianism doesn’t set out how that pleasure is
distributed.
 Fails to consider different views on what happiness is.
46
Task
1. In your own words, explain how a utilitarian might make a moral decision.
2. Explain the similarities and differences between two versions of
utilitarianism. Act and Rule or Preference and Motive.
3. What problems might there be in working out what will result in the
‘maximization of happiness’?
4. When making a moral decision, do you think motives are more or less
important than outcomes?
5. In what ways might Peter Singer’s utilitarianism differ from that of J S
Mill?
6. Do you think Singer’s ‘New Commandments’ are improvements on the old
ones? Explain your answer.
7. In what different ways might utilitarians respond to the possibilities of
the Bright Light Energy Company?
8. Choose one of the examples of moral dilemmas in this section on
utilitarianism. Explain how you think a utilitarian would respond to the
dilemma, and explain whether or not you think this would be the right
course of action in those circumstances.
Essay Title
Utilitarianism is a cold and uncaring method to decide whether an action is
morally right. Evaluate considering a range of different viewpoints. (15)
47
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that morality is a matter
of following absolute rules – rules that admit no exceptions and appeal
to reason. This is a deontological theory – actions are right or wrong in
themselves, irrespective
of consequences
Kant’s theory of morality is based on reason. Kant started with the idea of
‘good will’.
 To have good will is to do one’s duty.
 Duty implies that it must or ought to be done.
 It also implies that actions should be done simply because they are
right.
 The fulfilment of our duty then does not rest on the consequences of
our actions.

Kant suggested that we should obey moral commands because they
are right in themselves – not for any extrinsic reason.
Kant was also concerned about free choice because if a person is not free to
choose one action over another then morality makes no sense.
In fact, he argued that the way that we know we’re free at all, is in the fact
that we are able to make moral choices.
From this kind of reasoning Kant came up with his idea of the ‘categorical
imperative’. An imperative is what is the case for everyone, no matter
where, when or who they are. In Kant’s view, the categorical imperative is a
priori – in other words, we can see that it is true without having to experience it
first.
48
Categorical Imperative: a command which expresses a general, unavoidable
requirement of the moral law. Its three forms express the requirements of
universalisability, respect and autonomy. Together they establish that
an action is properly called “morally good” only if
(1) We can will all persons to do it,
(2) It enables us to treat other persons as ends and not merely as the means to our own
selfish ends, and
(3) It allows us to see other persons as mutual lawmakers in an ideal “realm of
ends”
From this, Kant gives an explanation of what the categorical imperative implies:
1. Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law.
2. Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.
3. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an
end and never as a means only.
All of this means that for Kant, what is right is what we can agree is a universally applicable law.
This simply means that something is only right if it makes sense for everyone to do
in all circumstances.
49
In the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) Kant described his ethical system, which is
based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any
sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason,
and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom
can be regarded as moral.
For Kant, if something, once it has been made universalisable, no longer makes
any sense then it can’t be right. Also, if you universalise an action and it results
in a plain logical contradiction leading to the logically impossible, then that too
can’t be right. Also, if you universalise an action which results in a situation
which no rational person would find acceptable in every situation – or would be
against the will of all rational people – then that too can’t be right.
The most common illustration Kant used for the categorical imperative goes like
this:
If you need a loan you’ll only get it if you promise to
repay it. If you know you won’t be able to repay
should you still promise to do so? Surely it would only
be right to make such a promise (an unkeepable one) if
you make that a (universalisable) law for everyone?
But how can that make sense? A promise is
meaningless if everyone has to break their promise.
So, it is always wrong to make a promise you know you
can’t keep. It is therefore possible, using reason, to
work out what is right and wrong based on the overall
notion of duty, and whether once something has been
universalised it still makes sense or not.
My head hurts, there
are too many big
words, I hope this’ll
be over soon.
50
Modern Kantian view
Onora O’Neill (1941–) is a philosopher who also happens to sit in Britain’s House
of Lords. She has written on a wide range of ethical topics – from bioethics to
human rights. She states in a BBC programme:
“Some anti-Kantian philosophers fear that ethical thinking that begins by
looking at principles of action begins by taking a wrong turn. They think
that principles will always be too abstract and remote from real life, and
that ethical reasoning focussed on principles will be equally remote. This I
think is mistaken. Principles need not be lofty or forbidding. As soon as we
set ourselves to act in a certain way we have adopted a principle of action.
The principle may be as humble as ‘don’t mix your drinks’ or as grand as
‘seek the good’; it may use what contemporary critics of Kantian ethics call
‘thick’ concepts with a lot of content, as in the principle ‘leave the car in
gear when parking on a hill’, or it may use rather thin, abstract concepts,
as in the principle ‘respect others’ rights’.
Moreover, principles of action need not be ethically uplifting: they can be
far from edifying, for example ‘put yourself first’ or ‘take advantage of the
weak’. Nor need principles of action all take the form of rules that require
or prohibit: they can also be recommendations or warnings or simply policies
that an individual or a community might live by.”
O’Neill believes in a universalist ethic, that some things are right because they
simply are. In society, there is such a thing as duty. If something can’t
reasonably apply, were all to observe it, then it is ethically dubious.
Religious people, almost by definition, observe the principle of duty as a way of
working out what’s right. For example, more or less all religions teach that it is a
duty for the strong to help the weak.
51
Summary
Kantian ethics are deontological. They stress duty and obligation.
They are grounded in good-will. Good-will is not good because of the
consequences. It is good through its willing alone, i.e. good-in-itself.
Good-will is fostered by a human acting rationally. It eliminates inclinations and
desires which undermine rational decision making. There is a distinction between
hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical
imperative tells you what you should do in order to achieve a given result.
Categorical imperatives
tell you that you should do something
without any reference to the likely results.
Reason, not inclination matters – actions are performed from a sense of duty.
An action performed from a sense of duty is a morally good action.
Universalisability principle- Act only according to the maxim by which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Treat humans as ends in themselves, not merely as a means.
It is autonomous. The principles of my action come from my practical reason
alone; they are not imposed on me from outside.
Conclusion
It conforms to what most people think of as morality.
It is rational and certain and does not depend on results or happiness.
It gives humans intrinsic worth, which can not be sacrificed for the majority.
But
Most people do want to take the result of their actions into account and may
feel guilty if harm comes as a result of their good intentions.
There is, a certain arrogance about the view that one should stick to one’s
universal moral principles no matter what the circumstances.
52
ACTIVITIES;
1. What did Kant mean by duty?
2. What duties do you observe in your life?
3. What is meant by the Categorical Imperative?
4. What did Kant mean by the ability to universalise a Moral Law?
5. How does Onora O’Neill reflect Kant’s ideas?
6. In pairs, come up with a series of statements which result from the
application of Kant’s ideas of the Universalisability of Moral Laws e.g.
“It is always wrong to make a promise you know you can’t keep.”
53
EXAM STUFF!!!
Answer all questions – ensure that the length of answer matches the marks needed.
1. Put the following philosophers in order of teacher- pupil : Plato Aristotle,
Socrates (3ku)
2. Which one of the above was forced to drink hemlock (poison)? (1ku)
3. What are heteronomy and autonomy(2ku)
4. Explain Euthyphro’s dilemma. (4an)
5. Explain why some commentators would find the obedience of God from fear of
punishment questionable? (2an)
6. Aristotle considers human life as having telos (Gk). What does telos mean?(1ku)
7. What is Eudaimonia? ( 1ku)
8. Explain Aristotle’s theory of virtue ethics? (4an)
9. Give an example of the Golden Mean? (1ku)
10. Name the text and author who states that virtue ethics should now flourish in a
secular (without God) world? (2ku)
11. What did Alasdair Macintyre say about the merits of virtue ethics (2ku)
12. What is the difference between Bentham’s and Mill’s versions of utilitarian
ethics? ( 4an)
13. Do you agree with Peter Singer’s version of utilitarianism? Give 2 reasons for
your answer? (4ev)
14. Explain Kantian ethics? (6an)
Task
What are your views on the ethical standpoints you have studied in this section? Which
is closest to your own moral decision making?
54
Higher RMPS
Morality in the
Modern World
Revision Notes
55
The Relationship between Religion and Moral Values
THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA










Discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro – ‘What makes an action
morally good?’
Raises the question ‘Are things right or wrong in themselves or are they
only right or wrong in relation to the wishes of the gods (God)?
‘Piety’, ‘pious’ or ‘holy’ refers to that which is morally good.
Euthyphro’s position – whatever the gods (God) command is obligatory
just because they command it. God’s commands are absolute.
Socrates’ position – there is a standard of goodness independent of the
gods (God). The gods (God) no longer the standard of morality.
Is a thing right because the gods command it?
Do the gods command it because it is good?
Socrates – God commands us to do good because it is good. Actions are
good in themselves.
Euthyphro’s position – a divine command theory.
Theists’ position – goodness is intrinsic to God
MORAL DECISION MAKING
ABSOLUTE – if something is always right / wrong regardless of the
circumstances it is referred to as a moral ‘absolute’
RELATIVE – morality is not absolute, there are general guiding principles which
should be adhered to in almost all cases however, there can be exceptions to
the rule where circumstances demand it. Morality is therefore relative to the
circumstances.
56
MORAL AUTONOMY








Moral values are independent of religious belief
Moral autonomy is the opposite of moral heteronomy
Highlights reason as the source of morality
Religion merely sets in stone what has always been sensible moral practice
between humans
Gives reasons for the rejection of religion as the source of morality
Holds that both religious and non-religious people can accept that moral
values are autonomous
Some Christians believe moral autonomy is a result of the Fall – putting
your own ideas before God and deciding for yourself what is right and
wrong
Some Christians value moral autonomy – God has given humans ‘free will’, a
sign that humans are ‘made in the image of God’. Our freedom to make
moral choices makes us unique as human beings
MORAL HETERONOMY







Moral values depend on religious beliefs or moral values have developed
with reference to a set of values provided by religion
Religious beliefs based on solid ideas and historical tradition which, when
put into practice, produce good outcomes. Religious faith provides a solid
foundation for morality
Natural Law – reason is based upon religious principles Society is
influenced by religious views and attitudes. These have an unconscious
effect, even on those who are not religious
Religious inspiration gives courage and conviction to put what one
understands as right into effect
Autonomous systems of morality depend upon the reasonableness and
good-will of individuals but this cannot be guaranteed
Heteronomous moral systems give a greater conformity to moral rules
Ultimate authority for morality is the will of God
57
SOURCES OF MORAL GUIDANCE IN CHRISTIANITY

Divine Command Theory – God is all-powerful and all-good, anything God
commands should be obeyed and should be thought of as right but only if
it cross-checks with the following:





Scripture i.e. the Bible as a source of moral Guidance
Church tradition as a source of moral guidance
How the Christian faith has historically responded to moral problems
What religious leaders , teachers and theologians have taught
throughout the ages about right and wrong
Reason as a source of moral guidance
USE OF REASON IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SACRED
WRITING







What did the teaching mean at the time it was written and what
underlying idea or principle can still apply today
Compare specific teachings is it a common theme or a very specific idea
Consider how scripture has been interpreted throughout history
Pray
Discuss and analyse with religious leaders and / or fellow followers of the
faith
Use of symbolism, analogy, metaphor
Demythologising
THE GOLDEN RULE






Treat other people as you yourself would want to be treated
A world where we followed the Golden Rule would be a better world for
all
Based on the principle of mutual self-interest
Found in all religious traditions and cited by many non-religious
philosophers
Found at the centre of world declarations about the rights of the person
The Golden Rule implies that there is something about humans which is
common whoever and wherever you are
58
UTILITARIANISM / CONSEQUENTIALISM











The moral consequence of the action is the promotion of human happiness
/ wellbeing and the minimizing of pain / unhappiness i.e. a moral action
produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Actions are neither good nor bad in themselves, whether an action is
right or wrong depends upon its likely outcome i.e. the consequences of
the action. Hence Utilitarianism is also referred to as consequentialism.
Act Utilitarianism – What is the likely outcome of an act? It is likely to
produce the maximum happiness for the greatest number of people then
it is right, if not then it is wrong.
Rule Utilitarianism – Some rules are always more likely to produce the
greatest good for the greatest number. Strong Utilitarianism – sticking
rigidly to these rules, Weak Utilitarianism – the rules are flexible
Preference Utilitarianism – takes into consideration what those involved
in the situation would prefer and takes into account both individual and
collective happiness
Motive Utilitarianism – does an action become right if was done for the
wrong reasons but produced good outcomes?
If an action produces positive results for the majority but negative
results for the minority the action could still be considered right
Can never be sure of what all the likely outcomes are
Traditional version – John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham
Contemporary version – Peter Singer – ‘best consequences’ should be
understood as meaning what, on balance, furthers the interests of those
affected rather than merely what increases pleasure and reduces pain
‘Those affected’ or ‘those involved’ can be the immediate group, the wider
community, society as a whole
CRITICISMS




Can never be sure of what all the likely outcomes are
Who decides what happiness is?
Who decides what’s in people’s self-interest and based on what?
Seeking what is best for the majority might lead one to knowingly or
otherwise sanction actions which harm minorities
59
VIRTUE ETHICS












Based on philosophy of Aristotle, based on Greek concept of – virtue
(excellence)
The Golden Mean – Being moral is about rationally applying good sense to
your actions and finding the middle way between extremes. However, how
do we determine what is too much / extreme?
A (normative) theory based on character, not actions i.e. concerned with
what makes a person good rather than what makes an action good. Central
question is not, “What ought I to do?” but “What sort of person ought I
to be?” it is a being not a doing debate.
Through reason we can work out what constitutes a good person and
therefore know what to do in any given situation in relation to what such a
‘good person’ would do.
Virtue according to Aristotle – an inner state rising from harmony of
health, beauty and strength of character
Actions are good where they enhance the inner state
Three characteristics have to be in harmony: wisdom, courage, selfcontrol
Balanced personality leads to good actions
Aristotle’s division Moral and Intellectual virtues. Moral – courage,
patience, friendliness, justice. Intellectual – practical wisdom, technical
and scientific skills, intelligence
The two virtues combine to allow a person to live a happy, satisfying life
Eudaimonia – the final goal of human of human activity
Contemporary commentator Alasdair MacIntyre – Society is moral where
people recognise commonly agreed virtues and try to live up to them.
Modern decline in modern morality is the result of the abandoning of any
coherent system of moral values
CRITICISMS




How do we determine when something has tipped the balance from
reasonableness to become extreme
Pre-supposes that all human beings share some common concept of what is
right and wrong
Doesn’t automatically lead to a helpful way to make moral decisions in
general
How do we work out if there is such a thing as a good person which
everyone should aspire to?
60
DUTY ETHICS









Immanuel Kant concerned with ‘good will’. Morality can only be found in
exercising freedom and putting good will into action.
Stress on duty and obligation – we ought to behave in ways which are
right because it is right to do so.
An action is good not because of its consequences. It is good because it is
good in itself
Actions performed from a sense of duty dictated by reason
Categorical imperative – things that apply to everyone no matter where,
when or who they are
The categorical imperative is a priori i.e. we know that it is true without
having to experience it first
An action is performed from a sense of duty is a morally good action
Universalisability principle, “Act only in accordance to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Contemporary commentator – Onora O’Neill – believes in the universalist
ethic – some things are right because they simply are. In society there is
such a thing as duty.
CRITICISMS


Principles of actions are too abstract and remote from real life
Ethical reasoning focused on principles are equally remote
61
Morality Area One
‘The Relationship between Religion and Moral Values’
Checklist of Topics

Euthyphro Dilemma – Divine Command theory
(Socrates, Plato, Aristotle)




Autonomy and Heteronomy
The Golden Rule
The Interpretation of Sacred Writings
Human Excellence or Virtue (Virtue Ethics)
(Aristotle, Elizabeth Anscombe, Alasdair McIntyre)

Consequences (Utilitarianism)

Duty and Reason (Kantian Ethics)
(Jeremy Bentham, J.S.Mill, Peter Singer)
(Immanuel Kant, Onora O’Neill)
62
63
64