INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL AND ETHICS: Without ethics we would not be human, everyone agrees with that. Blackburn calls this our ethical climate or environment, which is analogous with our physical one (Blackburn 2001, pp.1–6). Just as much as human beings need physical shelter so they also need an ethical one. Ethics describes the ways in which human beings, in any culture, value certain kinds of behavior over others. The ancient Greeks, who were the first philosophers, would have described the difference between the physical and the ethical environment, as the separation between φύσις and νομός. Just as much as there are laws of nature, then there are ethical laws of every society. Again, Blackburn is probably alluding to the etymology of the word ‘ethics’, which comes from ancient Greek ἧθος, meaning, a place or customs. But what is the difference between a natural and ethical law? We can understand the necessity of natural law. In nature, every event has its cause. Such a necessity is what we call law. But are there laws of ethics? Does not every culture have its own different values? Even Hitler, Blackburn argues, for example, had his values, the purity of a race; it is just that we do not value them. Are we right not to? What gives is the right to say that there are ethical laws, that there is an absolute difference between good and evil? Is there a necessity to ethics? If there is, then it cannot be the same as the necessity of nature. The laws of nature are intrinsic to the physical universe; they are indifferent to human beings. If there are laws of ethics (and maybe we should not use the expression ‘law’ to describe it), then they must belong to what we consider ourselves to be, what it is to live a human life, and not nature. Even the nature of human being is not important to ethics. It is not the fact that we are certain type of animal which makes us ethical, but what we value in ourselves and others, and the meaning of such a value does not belong to the natural world. Philosophy has always, from the very beginning, tried to describe what this ethics is in terms of rationality. It is because human beings are rational that we are ethical, and not the other way around. Kant would argue that it is because I have to give reasons for my actions that I take responsibility for them and expect others do so. Without reason, there would be no ethics. This is why we do not expect small children and animals to be ethical. Bentham and Mill, on the other hand, would argue that it not my intentions that count, but the consequences of my actions, which again can be measured rationally through the principle of utility of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And yet is reason sufficient to explain ethics? Was not Ruolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, moral to his friends and family? Did he not keep promises and probably love his wife and children? How is it possible that at the same time he could send so many other human beings to the gas chamber (Rees 2011)? It is at this point, I believe, that we must make a difference between morality and ethics. Höss had his morality. Such a morality is precisely what allowed him to murder one million Jews and a hundred thousand other human beings, but what he lacked was ethics. It is morality that differs across cultures, whereas ethics does not. Morality is the codes and values we live by. They have their origin in the societies in which we shelter, and they are the ways in which we judge one another. Such a morality is what Blackburn calls our ‘ethical environment’, but I do not think in and by itself it is ethical at all. It is morality that philosophy attempts to justify rationally, though we might like Nietzsche think that this is just a smokescreen to legitimate power. A morality without ethics, however, soon descends into murder and despair, for what it lacks is recognition of the humanity of the other. This is why Höss could go home every night to his wife and children and live a perfectly respectable middle-class life (it is important to recognise that the Nazis were not on the whole mad men, like Amon Goeth played by Ralph Fiennes in Schindler’s List), because he did not see the Jews and the others, he murdered in the gas chambers as human beings at all. It is precisely a morality without ethics which allows us to commit such crimes against humanity, and we see it again and again throughout human history, both in our distant and immediate past, and in other cultures than our own. It is this ethics, as opposed to morality, described by Raimond Gaita in his book A Common Humanity (Gaita 2000, pp.17–28) and which I would claim is universal. He tells us of an event that happened in his own life when he was seventeen years old and was working in a psychiatric hospital. The patients there seemed to have lost any status as human beings. He writes that they were treated like animals by the staff in the hospital. Some of the more enlightened psychiatrists spoke of the ‘inalienable dignity’ of the patients, but others treated them sadistically. It was only when a nun arrived and behaved differently to them that the attitude of the staff was revealed to Gaita. They had ceased thinking of them as human beings. But what is important is that it is the behavior the nun which reveals this. Humanity, then, is not a property of someone like green is a property of thing. Rather, humanity is revealed in the relation that one person has to another. It is because the nun loved the patients unconditionally that their humanity was revealed to him. Without this love, they were less than human. Ethics, then, is not a moral code, but this unconditional love for other human beings, especially for those who have fallen out of what society might call humanity, the poor, the sick, the destitute and the mad. Our humanity, and the humanity of the society in which we live is measured by the love we have for others, and equally our inhumanity and inhumanity of the society in which we live is measured by the lack of love we have for others. Such a love is fragile, because it cannot be justified rationally, and our own moralities can work against it (in the sense that Blackburn speaks about ethics as an ethos). We can use morality to legitimate why we should not treat others as human beings, but not why we should love every human being equally. Such a love is both what makes us human and humanizes others, but it is not rational, if one means by a rational, a belief or intention. This is why Gaita stresses that it is not the nun’s beliefs that justify her behavior; rather her behavior justifies her beliefs. The behavior comes first. I act before I understand, and I do so because I am open to the humanity of the other. This is first of all an openness to the vulnerability and suffering of the other, before it is a thought about this vulnerability and suffering, and it is precisely because Höss can harden his heart to such vulnerability and suffering, because of his morality, his ethos, that he could have murdered so many human beings and then returned home to his wife and children every night believing himself to be a moral human being. It is very important that this ethics of love does not slide into mawkish sentimentality. An ethics without morality or politics is just as dangerous as a morality or politics without ethics because it makes no attempt to change the world in which there are millions of people who are suffering. This is what Badiou warns us of in his book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil (Badiou 2002, pp.30–9). There is a subtle connection, Badiou, argues with our obsession with the suffering of others in our society and the moral nihilism of our consumer society. Their suffering has almost become a spectacle we enjoy so that we can feel good about ourselves. Yet we do nothing at all about the political situation, which is the real cause of this suffering, that is capitalism. We just accept this as an economic necessity. Badiou’s argument is that our obsession with ethics, whether it is a question of rights, or the sufferings of others, is just the opposite side of this necessity. ‘Children in Need’, the BBC’s charity, could happen every year for the rest of time, but it will never change the political situation in which there are children in need, because we live in a society where it is perfectly acceptable to give billions of pounds to the banks but to let the large majority of children live in poverty and misery. Every year, we can watch on our computer and TV screens some war or disaster, and we can feel the suffering of others, and many will generously send their own money, but we do nothing to change the unjust global economic system that is the real cause of this suffering. It is as though we need our yearly fix of ethical feeling, so that for the rest of the year we can ignore the fact that it is our empty consumer lives that are the real cause of poverty, starvation, and death in this world. We cannot, therefore, separate politics from ethics. If our ethics does not change the world, then it is empty gesture, a beautiful sentiment, but without any real effect in this world. To quote Kant’s famous phrase and change it slightly, morality (or politics) without ethics is blind, but ethics without morality (or politics) is empty. Albert Camus - is a 20th century existentialist and philosopher - said that “a man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” ❖ Roots of philosophical ethics stretch back to the ancient Greeks over 200 years ago. Ethics is more than just a study of morality. According to JOHN DEIGH: Ethics - is a study of what are good and bad ends to pursue in life and what is right and wrong to do in the conduct of life. It is therefore, above all, a practical discipline. Its primary aim is to determine how one ought to live and what actions one ought to do in the conduct of one’s life. Morality - is the standards of right and wise conduct whose authority in practical thought is determined by reason rather than custom. Philosophers: Ethics is a normative discipline - Because ethics is concerned with prescribing action (not describing action) it is said to concerned with the normative realm Anthropologists: Ethics is descriptive Ethics - is descriptive rather than normative - Anthropologists observed, described, and explained the actions and behaviors of individuals. - Anthropologist do not like to prescribe actions What makes actions moral, or in other words, good or bad, right or wrong? Why should one behave in accordance with an ethical theory? Meta-Ethics - are questions concerned with the nature of ethical statements not and not with prescribing how one should act One of the questions in meta-ethics: Is morality objective? Do moral judgments have a truth value? (ex. Can they be determined to be true or false? In a manner which is independent of one’s personal opinions and attitude) Moral or ethical subjectivism - Those who deny that moral judgments can be true or false in a sense that it is independent of one’s personal opinion or attitude. They believe that moral judgments reflect personal preferences/opinions/attitudes. There is no rational way of deciding two conflicting judgments. Moral judgment is subjective. Moral Realism or Moral Objectivism - those who believe that moral judgments can be true or false and are made so by objective features of the world. The ‘Is-Ought’ Problem - Closely related to the question whether morality is subjective or objective - Examined by a philosopher named David Hume (known for his exposition of the problem called Hume’s Law) - Concerned whether one can derive a statement of what ought to be the case from descriptive statements about the world. ❖ Hume is commonly interpreted as being of the belief that one cannot logically derive an “ought” from an “is”. Example: The way the world is. Descriptive statement: there exists great disparity of wealth in certain areas of the world We cannot derive the… Normative statement: we ought to equalize wealth through redistribution / we ought to abstain from redistributing wealth TELEOLOGICAL VS. DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ETHICS: According to ROBERT ALMEDER: Teleological Theory / Consequentialist - asserts that the morality, or the immorality, of an act (and hence the rightness or wrongness of an act) is a function solely of the consequences of the act and the natural tendency of those consequences to produce pleasure or pain, or goodness, or happiness, in some degree and in some way Deontological Theory - asserts that the morality or the immorality of an act has basically nothing to do with the consequences of the act. Teleological Theory - “telos”, Greek word meaning “end” or “purpose” - Actions are evaluated as moral or immoral depending on whether they help or hinder in the achievement of the chosen end - Put forth by some known philosophers like: Plato, Aristotle, & Epicurus Ex. Egoism – ultimate end as happiness or pleasure Eudaimonism – ultimate end as well-being Utilitarianism – ultimate end as general good or welfare of humankind Deontological Theories - “deon”, a Greek word meaning “duty” - The morality of an action is grounded by some form of authority independent of the consequences that such actions generate - Accounts that people must obey the actions prescribed by morality because they are duty-bound - Have used a god as the authority which grounds morality - Original sources of this theory are the Judaic and Christian conceptions of law Ethics - Centers around normative theories and their application According to PETER SINGER: - Is not a matter of factual knowledge in the way that the sciences and the other branches of inquiry are - It has to do with determining the nature of normative theories and applying these sets of principles to practical moral problems WHAT ARE THE NORMATIVE THEORIES? A moral dilemma wherein you are situated in a trolley problem. You are in control of a lever, and it controls the path of the trolley which will go down one of two tracks. And if you don’t pull the lever, the trolly will continue to its original tracks and run over five people and kill them. However, if you act and try to change the lever, the track will change, and the trolley will run over only one person and kill him/her. Choice 1: pull the lever to save 5 people but the other person will die. Choice 2: don’t pull the lever and let the five people die. Normative Theory: Deontology (rule or obligation – based theory) - Actions hould be governed by rules or obligations - “you should not choose to kill someone without their permission.” - Since we don’t have the one person’s permission to kill him/her, WE DON’T PULL THE LEVER. Choice: don’t pull the lever and let the five people die. Normative Theory: Teleological Theory / Consequentialism (outcome-based theory) - Actions should serve for the greater good - “you should save the life of as many people as possible, even if that means others die.” - Five people is larger than one person, WE PULL THE LEVER. Choice: pull the lever to save 5 people but the other person will die. Normative Theory: Virtue Ethics (character-based theory) - Evaluates the morality of actions which includes consideration of the individual’s motivation and their virtuousness - Whatever the action, what does it say about you? What is the intention or benefits?” - This doesn’t offer much help and THE CHOICE COULD BE EITHER OPTION 1 OR 2, both could still be considered equally morally good. ❖ One of the problems of virtue ethics is that it doesn’t really offer much help but it’s still very popular. Ethics Normative Ethics Meta-Ethics Applied Ethics Descriptive Ethics Meta-Ethics - attempts to study what the fundamental aspects of normative ethics entails such as “what is the nature of being good or bad/” or “what is the definition of goodness?” - asks more general questions and some more deeper questions about morality Applied Ethics - we take normative ethics and apply them in real life situations to consider what action to take Descriptive Ethics - attempts to quantify what people believe about ethics or what people believe is good or bad - analyzes peoples’ beliefs about morality Ethics - branch of philosophy that studies morality or right and wrong behavior Metha-ethics - studies the very foundations of ethics - “What is morality?” Situation: There is a burglar and intending to steal at an old woman’s house. He waited for the time he know she will usually be at church, but when he got there and broke the window of her house, he the old woman lying on the floor. Assuming that she was dead, the burglar ran away because he didn’t want to be accused of murder. Surprisingly, she woke up. This is because she was just unconscious because her house was full of carbon monoxide, and the moment he broke the window, the carbon monoxide was able to escape, and fresh air came in. Allowing her to regain consciousness. The question is: “did the burglar do a good thing? Did he deserve a praise even though he didn’t intend to help the woman?” or did he deserve blame even though he didn’t actually end up stealing anything?” Your answers to these questions will help you find out where your moral subsides. Moral Realism one of the mostly widely held meta-ethical views - the belief that there are moral facts, in the same way that there are scientific facts - in this view, any moral propositions can only be true or false Grounding Problem of Ethics - is a search for a foundation for our moral beliefs, something solid that would make them true in a way that is clear, objective, and unmoving Moral Antirealism - the belief that moral propositions don’t refer to objective features of the world at all - there is no moral facts - if you can’t find a ground for morality Ethical Theories - moral frameworks or foundations that help you come up with consistent answers about right and wrong conduct - have starting assumptions because all our beliefs rest on basic and assumed beliefs Natural Law Theory - relies on the starting assumption that God created the universe according to a wellordered plan Utilitarianism - relies on the starting assumptions that all beings share a common desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain Moral Principles - are building blocks that make up the different theories - can be shared between more than one theory MORAL STANDARDS VS NON-MORAL STANDARDS ❖ It is important to moral standards from non-moral standards because societies have different moral beliefs, and our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture. ❖ Some values have moral implications while others don’t. ❖ Different cultures have different moral standards. Ex. In western countries: it is accepted or normal for women to wear daring clothes or show skin. In Muslim communities: women must wear hijab and sometimes must not show their face or their toes How can cultural conundrum (clash in cultural beliefs) be avoided? - People have to understand the difference between moral standards and non-moral ones. - Identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions Moral Standards - We may have the right to force others to act accordingly - Norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong - The values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad - Normally promote the good like welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment - Norms + values = moral standards Norms – general rules about actions or behaviors Ex. Killing innocent people is absolutely wrong Values – enduring beliefs about what is good and desirable, or not Ex. Helping the poor is good CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL STANDARDS: 1. Deals with matters we think can surely injure or benefit humans, animals, and the environment (like child abuse or rape) 2. Not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies 3. They take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest 4. Based on impartial considerations 5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary Non-Moral Standards - We don’t have the right to impose it on others - Refer to the standards by which we judge what is good or band and right or wrong in a non-moral way - Are matters of taste and preference Ex. standards of etiquette, law, standards or aesthetics or arts THE MORAL AGENT CULTURE AND MORAL BEHAVIOR • The case of female genital mutilation* (FGM) as rite of passage for womanhood (Kenya and Sierra Leone). *FGM – involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. • Sudan, Egypt, and Somalia: a means of preserving a girl’s virginity until marriage. • Significantly increased risks for adverse events during childbirth ❖ We invoke the norms of our culture in deciding whether our choices mirror the true, the good, and the beautiful, or if it disgraces our cultural moral ideals. Norms - refer to social and cultural regulations and decrees that govern the everyday activities of people, inclusive of its moral and ethical imperative, customs, and cultural practices (Barker, 2004). Moral Behavior - is clearly hinged from what was ingrained to him as right, proper, and acceptable in his cultural context Culture - defined as the complex whole which includes, knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Burke, 2008) How do you think your community influences your behavior? THE FILIPINO WAY • Distinct Filipino Moral Norms: o Group-centeredness or group think o The “Don’t be caught” attitude on shame or fear of the authority figure o Complacency when one is aware but not concerned. o Rationalization FUNCTIONS OF CULTURE: 1. Culture provides identity to the people in the society 2. Culture mirrors the laws of the land 3. Culture unifies people in ways that only those who belong in that society understands 4. Culture influences our concept of morality Culture Relativism “Different strokes for different folks” - the view that moral beliefs and practices vary with and depend on the human needs and social conditions of particular cultures (Holmes, 2007) - there is no culture that can be the basis of all that is good and true - it is important to recognize the vitality of cultural differences since ethical judgements are relative to cultural contexts - morality can only be understood based on what is culturally acceptable or not in the society where we belong - cultural relativism should be understood as a celebration and appreciation of cultural diversity (Kellenberger, 2011) Moral Relativism - resulted by cultural relativism - maintains that different societies (and ages) hold distinct systems; there is no objective and transcultural criteria for judging between these systems (Herder, as cited in Sikka, 2011) Ethnocentrism - the practice of taking one’s own people, society, and culture to be the vantage point from which all else is viewed and judged (Bruce & Yearley, 2006). - leads to the prejudgment of people Xenocentrism - belief that one’s own cultural features are a downgrade in comparison to those of the other cultures ❖ The history of the Philippines affected the way Filipinos view themselves as a part of the bigger world. ❖ Cultural relativism purports the unseemliness of both ethnocentrism and xenocentrism. Cultural Tolerance - Cultural relativism should result to cultural tolerance in order to preserve the distinctiveness of people regardless of whichever context they come from - Perpetuation of culture can only be possible through tolerance - How people value certain traditions in their culture is very much a part of who they are - Cultural sensitivity is the key to cultural tolerance. CHAPTER SUMMARY • Although diversity of cultures is heavily encouraged, this should be exclusive of customs and traditions which disrupt normal functioning. • There still are moral absolutes which should precede cultural norms. • Since we are all a product of our culture, our societal norms have always been the basis of our everyday decisions.
