INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Ethical Systems
QUESTIONS PHILOSOPHERS ASK:
“WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?”
“HOW DO YOU PHILOSOPHIZE?”
“WHAT IS REAL?”
“HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW?”
“HOW SHOULD YOU LIVE?”
“WHAT OUGHT WE TO DO?”
THE LAST TWO ARE QUESTIONS OF ETHICS, A CATEGORY OF PHILOSOPHY THAT
IS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE PREVIOUS CATEGORIES
(METHODOLOGY, LOGIC, METAPHYSICS, EPISTEMOLOGY).
ALL OF THE REST DEAL WITH THE HEAD (MOSTLY). ETHICS IS NOT PRIMARILY A
MATTER OF THE HEAD, BUT OF THE HEART, NOT OF THE INTELLECT BUT OF THE
WILL.
Still, philosophy seeks to find rational concepts to guide us in moral decision-making. In doing
so, it has done one of two things, historically:
1. CONSIDER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
2. EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM CONSIDERATION
These two stances have been procedural positions, adopted for practical reasons.
Ethical systems are either
RELIGIOUSLY BASED, OR
SECULARLY BASED
Systems based (partially or totally) on religious beliefs include:
A. DIVINE COMMAND ETHICS
B. NATURAL LAW THEORY
Systems based on beliefs which exclude religion include:
A. EGOISM
B. UTILITARIANISM
C. KANTIANISM
D. EMOTIVISM
E. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Professor Christopher Ullman
1
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
DIVINE COMMAND ETHICS SYSTEMS
An act is right and moral because God says it is
so. An act is wrong or immoral because God says
it is so.
MEMORY IMAGE: THE BOOK
Far and away, this is the most commonly followed
system, throughout history.
Plato knew of it, and tried to show it was irrational
by posing the following dilemma in his dialogue
Euthyphro:
1. Is something right because God commands it?
2. Or does God command it because it is right?
1. If you said, "Because God commands it," does that mean that God could command you to lie
to your neighbor, and that would make it right? This renders the moral law arbitrary, "right" just
because God said so, and perhaps God could change his mind. If you object, "Oh, but he
wouldn't! God is moral," you are agreeing with the second position.
2. If you said, "God commands it because it is right," then this means that God is not allpowerful but must limit his choices to that which reason shows is moral. Is God the only one
who has reason? Can we not also use our reason to discover what is moral? If so, of what use is
the idea of divine command, when it comes to making moral decisions?
Plato's crucial assumption: "The Nature of God" and "Moral Standards for Actions" are two
separate categories.
The Nature of
Moral Standards
God
for Actions
Therefore, when God considers whether a given Act X is moral, he must use reason to compare
 the attributes of Act X to  the attributes of Morality:
The Nature of
Moral Standards

God
for Actions

Act X
If this assumption is true, then we have the classic unanswerable dilemma: Which came first, the
chicken or the egg?
However, Plato, and the many ethicists who have agreed with him, have committed a fatal
mistake in logic: The Strawman Fallacy. (This occurs when you distort or exaggerate a person's
argument for the purpose of more easily destroying it. It's easier to kill a strawman than a real
Professor Christopher Ullman
2
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
man.) Do all the world's great religions teach that the nature of God and moral standards of
action are actually separate categories? NO. Instead, throughout the literature that comprises the
beliefs of the great religions, it is easy to show that the prevailing belief is that morality is one of
the key facets of God's nature:
The Nature of God
Morality
&
occur
simultaneously
Action X
The question is now, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken?" Thus, there is no dilemma
for the believer, if s/he believes that God cannot violate his own nature, and this is a near
universal belief for theists.
Q. How can something religious qualify as a system?
A.1. By furnishing the basis of moral obligation
 Theonomy
 Not Autonomy
 Not Heteronomy
A.2. By referring to a publicly available body of ethical writings containing what are
believed to be
divine commands that are authoritative and normative.
Incomplete list of examples:
 The Bible (Christianity)
 The Torah (Judaism)
 The Koran (Islam)
 The Granth (Sikhism)
 The Code of Manu (Hinduism)
 The Pali Sermons (Buddhism)
 The Analects (Confucianism)
 Tao Te Ching (Taoism)
How does a divine command system work?
1. Categorize the situation: what kind of ethical decision needs to be made?
2. Search the scriptures, looking for:
a) outright specific commands
b) general commands
c) underlying principles
3. Then, look for a conflicting command or principle. To what does it apply?
4. Resolve the difficulty (if any) rationally
5. Follow the command
6. In doubt or indecision? Consult a religious leader, and/or pray for understanding
Objections and responses
1. “The separation of church and state make religious ethical decisions illegitimate, or at
best subjective.”
The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment does not mandate the elimination of religious
beliefs from ethical decision-making. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
Professor Christopher Ullman
3
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is a simple matter to
research the original intent of both Thomas Jefferson, the one who coined the term "wall of
separation between church and state," and of the framers of the Constitution, to see that
religious beliefs are not only not excluded as a basis for moral and legal justification but
that religious beliefs literally saturate their writings, even on the role of government. 1
(They did caution that the federal government should not make a specific denomination the
official religion of the United States, however.)
2. “Which religion? They are each so different from one another.”
Similarities in ethical standards among the world religions are very apparent.
Differences in the basic moralities are very minor. The biggest areas of difference between
the world's religions are not ethical, but theological.2
3. Religion is neither rational nor philosophical.”
Philosophy was born among highly religious people, and flowered among highly
religious cultures.
4. “Does this mean I can’t be ethical if I’m not religious?”
No. It means you can be ethical if you are. Divine command ethicists agree that
atheists can and often are very moral individuals, but they reason that it is because they
have discovered what God says is right without acknowledging that God is the source of
morality and of sound moral decisions.
This inscription is attributed to Mother Teresa.
It is a plaque on the wall of her home for children in
Calcutta.
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends
and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
1
For example, the Founders quoted heavily from the Bible, and from authors such as John Locke (who wrote,
among other things, A Rational Defense of Christianity) and Charles Montesquieu (who based his three-part
government structure of separate judicial, legislative and executive branches on two Biblical verses: Isaiah 33:22
and Jeremiah 17:9).
2
For an enlightening illustration of this amazing agreement throughout history on ethical standards, see the
Appendix of C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
Professor Christopher Ullman
4
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway. 3
THE BASIS OF OBLIGATION
 THAT SOMETHING IS OR WILL BE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WE OUGHT TO SEEK
IT.
 OBLIGATION IS
SELF-IMPOSED (AUTONOMOUS)
OTHER-IMPOSED (HETERONOMOUS)
GOD-IMPOSED (THEONOMOUS)
 IF OBLIGATION IS SELF-IMPOSED, I AM ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO
WHATEVER I FEEL I OUGHT TO DO.
 PROBLEM:
-VALUE MAY ARISE FROM A GOLDEN-RULE, ‘RECIPROCITY’
UNDERSTANDING OF THE VALUE OF ME. BUT WHAT GIVES ME SUCH A
VALUE?
 IF OBLIGATION IS OTHER-IMPOSED, I OUGHT TO DO WHAT THE GROUP
TELLS ME I OUGHT TO DO.
 PROBLEMS:
-WHICH GROUP?
-DOES ALL THAT THIS GROUP COMMAND BECOME AN OBLIGATION?
-IF AT ANY POINT I OBJECT, ON WHAT GROUNDS MAY I OBJECT?
3
http://www.ot-mp.net/mother_teresa.html Accessed on September 18, 2008
Professor Christopher Ullman
5
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
 IF OBLIGATION IS GOD-IMPOSED, I OUGHT TO DO WHAT GOD SAYS I OUGHT
TO DO.
 PROBLEMS:
-WHICH GOD?
-IS AN ACT RIGHT BECAUSE GOD SAID IT IS RIGHT, OR DOES GOD SAY IT IS
RIGHT BECAUSE THE ACT IS RIGHT?
(THE SECOND PROBLEM ARISES FROM AN UNDERSTANDING THAT GOD IS ONE
ENTITY, AND MORALITY IS SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF GOD. THE PROBLEM
VANISHES WHEN ONE ASSUMES GOD TO BE THE SOURCE AND GROUND OF ALL
MORALITY.)
WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT EACH BASIS REQUIRES FAITH, AND EACH
REQUIRES SINGLE-MINDED, WHOLE-HEARTED DEVOTION.
IN SUMMARY, EACH BASIS OF OBLIGATION RELIES UPON SOME
ASSUMPTIONS.
BASIS
ASSUMPTIONS
AUTO-
“THE VALUE OF ME IS THE REASON FOR ETHICS.”
NOMOUS
“THE VALUE OF ME IS REAL & IN NO NEED OF OUTSIDE
SUPPORT.”
“I CAN LOOK TO MYSELF AS THE ULTIMATE MORAL
AUTHORITY.”
HETERONOMOUS
“THERE ARE GROUPS WITH MORAL STANDARDS I CAN KNOW
AND FOLLOW.”
“I WILL CHOOSE A GROUP.”
“ONCE I CHOOSE A GROUP, I CAN LOOK TO IT AS THE ULTIMATE
MORAL AUTHORITY.”
THEONOMOUS
“THERE IS A GOD, AND THIS BEING HAS MORAL STANDARDS I
CAN KNOW AND FOLLOW.”
“ONCE I CHOOSE TO FOLLOW GOD, I CAN LOOK TO GOD AS THE
ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY.”
Professor Christopher Ullman
6
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
NATURAL LAW ETHICS
There is a natural order in the world that humans can discover. This
natural order is good. An act is right and moral when it is in
agreement with the natural order. An act is wrong and immoral when
it violates that natural order.
MEMORY IMAGE: A GARDEN
Formative influences:
Aristotle’s view of categories

The Stoic philosophy of order

Aquinas’ Christian filter

1. Individual things are of different kinds
2. Each kind of thing functions in ways determined by its nature
3. The nature of each thing is to function in the way
it was designed by the Creator to function
4. Natural laws can be deduced from this fact
5. Even without the knowledge of God, humans have reason,
which is the essence of our nature, and therefore humans can discover
the laws necessary for human flourishing
6. “Good” is that to which a thing is naturally inclined to do,
considering the purpose for which it was made.
7. “Evil” is any thing contrary to a thing’s nature
8. Humans are created beings with a unique nature
to serve and enjoy fellowship with the Creator
Some principles of Aquinas’ version of natural law theory:
1. Double effect (hinges on intention)
a) Act must be no worse than morally neutral
b) Bad effect must not be the means to achieve the good effect
c) Intention must be to achieve the good effect
d) Bad effect must not outweigh the good effect
2. Totality (hinges on stewardship or custodianship)
a) Each of the body’s organs was created with the purpose of contributing to the
function of the whole body
b) Wholeness is to be preserved
c) Actions which threaten wholeness must be necessary to be moral
d) Always treat your body as something entrusted to you
Objections and responses:
Professor Christopher Ullman
7
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
1. “Maybe we weren’t put here for a purpose.”
Response: There is plenty of evidence we were. For example, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics teaches that every closed system goes from order to randomness, from
usefulness to uselessness, from information to confusion. This is confirmed by
experimentation, and by everyday experience. Where did the initial high level of
organization come from, if not from an Intelligent Designer? The evidence supporting
the Anthropic Principle is significant.
2. “‘Function’ and ‘nature’ are imprecise terms.”
Response: Empirical observation can clear them up. Faith can aid understanding
3. “What humanity affirms solely on the basis of inherent instincts and philosophical
reasoning lacks normative force. Once God’s authority as lawgiver is used to support a
particular law or principle offered by a natural law, the question becomes, ‘How then
does this differ from divine command ethics?’”
Response: There are so many principles for humans that are so essential for ethics. The
rational person cannot not know them. For example, to plead ignorance of the principle
that one ought not to harm another is absurd, even if the person has no belief in God.
By following natural law, cross-cultural accountability is possible, without invoking a
particular passage of sacred scripture.
Professor Christopher Ullman
8
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
EGOISM
Psychological egoism is the view that human beings always act from a single motive: self-love. Ethical egoism
is the moral theory that we ought to act only from self-love.
Image: A Big Number
Five things to know about egoism:
1. Egoism teaches that everyone should always act in his/her own self-interest, regardless of the interests of
others, unless their interests also serve his or hers.
2. This was taught by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 B.C.), Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900), and by the contemporary American philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982).
3. It’s easy to determine self-interest, as opposed to the difficulty in determining what is in the interest of
others, and then doing it.
4. Once you have determined your own self-interest, take responsibility for your actions (no more
dependence upon someone else’s instructions).
5. Egoism works best for people living in isolation (e.g., Grizzly Adams), and for those who are financially
self-sufficient (e.g., a Fortune 500 CEO).
Objections and responses:
1. “What do you do when conflicts arise between selves?”
-Egoists believe that the carefully considered self-interests of rational people will never conflict.
2. “Egoism works best when you keep it a secret. What another self ought to do is not something you can
openly encourage in most cases.”
-If it is in the egoist’s best interest to conceal motives, nothing should stop him/her from doing so.
3. “Egoism is antagonistic to most of the tasks of the helping professions (nurse, physician, teacher, etc.)
Who wants to change a bedpan, or tell a person he has cancer, or fail a hard-working student?”
-There are enough non-egoists in the world to take care of those tasks, for some
misconceived higher good. It is in my interest as an egoist to let them carry on.
4. “Egoism is where we begin, as moral agents. (‘MINE!’ ‘NO!’ ‘I DON’T WANT TO!’) It’s why we
need ethics in the first place!”
-You need “ethics” because you haven’t the courage to pursue your self-interests unswervingly. An
egoist does not need ethics as you have described them.
5. “Egoism is actually self-defeating. Unrestrained pursuit and indulgence of wants creates a world which it
is in nobody’s best interests in inhabiting.”
-We egoists will lose often enough to keep it interesting.
Professor Christopher Ullman
9
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
UTILITARIANISM
(a.k.a. “consequentialism” or “teleological ethics”)
Originators: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (19th century)
MEMORY IMAGE: A SET OF SCALES
Key terms: utility, goal, consequences, prediction
The principle of utility:
1. We will choose to do what is most useful (has the most utility) in
reaching our goal
2. This is impossible to prove, but it is axiomatic, unquestionable, and unavoidable
The goal:
1. The most famous utilitarian goals are either
a) Maximize pleasure/minimize pain (Bentham)
b) Bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Mill)
1) Both goals beg the following questions
a) For how long?
b) By whose definition?
c) At what cost?
d) By what measure?
Consequences – that which results from the action you decided to take or the rule you chose to
follow
Prediction – what the utilitarian must do, in every instance
1. Will the consequences of the chosen action or rule be the most useful possible
consequences for achieving the chosen goal?
2. If the answer is yes, the action or rule is moral
3. If the answer is no, the action or rule is immoral
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do . . . They govern us in all we do, all we say,
in all we think . . .”
-Jeremy Bentham, “The Principle of Utility,” from The Principles of Morals and Legislation,
1789.
Ways to measure the value of a pleasure (Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus)
1.
its intensity
2.
its duration
3.
its certainty or uncertainty
4.
its nearness or remoteness
5.
its fecundity, or its ability to create more pleasure
6.
its purity, or the absence of pain with it
7.
its extent, or the number of persons enjoying it at the same time
“By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the
privation of pleasure.”
-John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 1863
Objections and responses to utilitarianism:
1. “What about minority concerns, if the greatest good for the greatest number of people is
the chosen goal?” – Enlightened societies know that minorities cannot be ignored
without harm to the overall society.
Professor Christopher Ullman
10
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
2. “Utilitarianism encourages people to ignore or rationalize away their deepest intuitive
moral feelings, at times” – Careful consideration of goals will point out which moral
feelings have utility. Pay attention to those.
3. “How can we accurately predict the consequences of our actions?” – No one has a
crystal ball; do the best you can with what you’ve got.
4. “What keeps utilitarians from breaking their word, or from breaking the law, to
accomplish their goals?”
5. “Is this really a situation-specific ethical system? Do absolutes get smuggled in
somewhere?” - _________
Professor Christopher Ullman
11
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
KANTIAN ABSOLUTISM
Kant felt that the consequences were not the important thing.
Principles ought to win out.
His system has been called a deontological system, because it
emphasizes duty, not goals.
MEMORY IMAGE: A LIGHTHOUSE
Five basic things to know about Kant:
1. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) – lived all his life in the university town of Konigsberg,
Prussia. Began as a rationalist, was awakened from his “dogmatic slumbers” by the
radical empiricist David Hume, and then brought about a remarkable fusion of the
two.
2. The Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a
universal law.”
 Universalizability
3. The Humanitarian Principle: Always treat persons as ends in themselves, not merely as
a means to some other end.
 Inherent worth vs. Lifeboat Game values
4. What is absolutely good? A good will
 Altruism
5. What drives our ideas of right and wrong? Duty, not goals.
Four points from Kant on ethics:
1. It’s always wrong to lie
2. You must always treat each person as an end in him/herself. Never treat a person
merely as a means to get something else.
3. An action is right when it satisfies the Categorical Imperative
4. Some duties are unavoidable (“perfect duties”). Some duties are optional (“imperfect
duties”). Rights are rooted in perfect duties, freedom is rooted in the concept of
imperfect duties.
Objections and responses
1. Conflicting duties arise. How do you resolve the conflicts, if every duty is based on the
Categorical Imperative?
2. There is no logical limit to the number of maxims to be formulated.
3. The Humanitarian Principle depends upon the definition of a person: personhood from
conception? From birth? Only upon demonstrating you can function as a person?
4. The Good Will may be wishful thinking. Does anybody have an autonomous selfregulating will?
Kant’s responses generally included an appeal to the amazing rational abilities of
humankind. “Upon analysis and reflection, the answers to these can be found.” His
answers are at times enigmatic, and the objections are still being debated.
Professor Christopher Ullman
12
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
EMOTIVISM
The Boo-Hurrah Theory
Core ideas of emotivism
1.
When we say some action
or person is morally “good”
or “bad”, we are doing
nothing more than
expressing an emotion
about the action or person.
2.
Ethical statements are merely emotional responses, in the same class as other interjections such as “Ouch!”
and “Ahhhhh!”
3.
Making a moral judgment is just venting a feeling.
How do the following verses relate to the core ideas of emotivist ethics?
 Matthew 27:22-23  Psalm 37:12  Ephesians 4:31 What is good about emotions that come with our ethical evaluations and decisions?
What triggers emotions? List some causes.
Can we control the way we feel about an action, person, or idea?
What does it mean to say that all facts are theory-laden?
What makes consequences of an action (for example, capital punishment) “good” or “bad?”
What do these verses mean in the context of our considerations of emotions and ethics?
 Isaiah 29:13 - The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
 Proverbs 26:23-24 - Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart. A malicious
man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit.
 Ephes. 6:6 - Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing
the will of God from your heart.
Can you think of other passages that link emotions and ethics in some way?
Professor Christopher Ullman
13
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
RIGHT OR WRONG?
“IT ALL DEPENDS . . .”
OR DOES IT?
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Flowing out of anthropological studies comes the idea that people
think that what is right is what the culture says is right. It is
defended by the anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Graham Sumner,
and has been considered in various forms by philosophers Thomas
Hobbes, William James, John Dewey and Melville Herskovits.
Five things to know about relativism:
It teaches that the folkways (the customs, mores, and traditions of each society) are so
ingrained in its members that they naturally come to think of them as objectively
‘right’ and ‘good.’
In America, relativism is frequently expressed in platitudes, such as
 “Nothing is right or wrong in itself.”
 “Things are right or wrong, depending on the ________________.” (fill in
‘person,’‘culture,’ ‘situation,’ ‘administration,’ etc.)
 “To each his own.”
 “Different strokes for different folks.”
Relativism is closely tied to post-modernism, which teaches that nothing is objectively
“true.”
Relativism is similar to secular existentialism, which teaches
 There is no such thing as a ‘given,’ no such thing as ‘human nature.’
 Nothing is prescribed.
 You are utterly free, and condemned to be free.
 You create your own meaning in life by your choice of a life project.
 You are utterly responsible for your own choices.
Relativism teaches that there are no absolute values, and that all values are relative to
time, place, person and/or situation.
Professor Christopher Ullman
14
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Objections
1. By cutting oneself off from absolutes, how does one know what something is relative
to?
Relativism risks being self-referentially incoherent. In other words, without looking
outside of the system, it is nearly or actually impossible to make sense of moral
judgments, upon analysis. Relativists may depend upon an intuitive, unspoken
consensus that there are some absolutes, but by definition they cannot admit it.
2. Relativism supports actions such as female circumcision, slavery, child labor, etc.,
which receive a nearly universal response of moral revulsion. (Why do we respond
with a shudder and outrage when we hear of rape, or abuse of infants, or bestiality, or
necrophilia, or terrorism?)
3. No relativist can tell you that relativism is the best of all ethical systems.
4. Cultural relativists must grant legitimacy to any system of values: Hitler’s values are no
better than Jesus’s values. “It just depends on what society you come from.”
5. The practicality of living itself requires us to qualify relativism and state some
guidelines or limits within which we all must behave if we are to survive as a race.
Where do these limits come from?
Three Kinds of Relativism
(but only two of them tell us what to do)
Kind of relativism
“SOCIETY DOES”
Core belief
Each society has morals
that are different from
other societies
Implication
Attribute
There can’t be any
Descriptive only
absolutes, and there can’t
be any objective moral
standards
There aren’t any absolutes You should do what your
Descriptive and
“SOCIETY SAYS”
or objective moral
society says is right, and
Prescriptive
(Cultural Moral
standards
that will be the right thing
Relativism)
to do
There
is
nothing
more
I should do what I
Descriptive and
“I SAY”
authoritative than each
privately believe to be
Prescriptive
(Subjective Moral
person’s private opinions
right. You should do what
Relativism)
you privately believe to be
right.
It’s relatively easy to conclude that one kind of relativism inevitably leads to another, and then to another.
Professor Christopher Ullman
15
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
FIVE REASONS WHY CULTURAL DIVERSITY DOES NOT WARRANT MORAL
RELATIVISM4
There are many different cultures. This fact is called the diversity thesis.
Moral relativists teach that the diversity thesis is proof that there should be many different moralities, each one
dependent on the culture in which one finds oneself. This belief is called the dependency thesis.
Moral relativists teach that what is right for one society, group or individual may be wrong for another society,
group or individual, even if the two parties are similarly situated.
If this is to be accepted as correct, moral relativists must be able to show that the same act could be both right for
one society, group or individual and at the same time wrong for another society, group or individual.
1. Frequently, the act that is condoned by one is not the same act that is condemned by the other.
This means the moral relativists’ requirement has not been met, in these cases.
2. Even when the same act is being compared, for that act to be right for a society, group or individual to do, it
must be possible for that party to be able to discern the act as right. However, frequently it is the case that the party
could not have arrived at the same judgments that we think are morally right.
This means the moral relativists’ requirement has not been met, in these additional cases.
3. Moral relativists frequently fail to indicate what a moral judgment is supposed to be relative to. For cultural
relativism, a group that is the continuing point of reference must be specified. However, very frequently this
information is not offered by moral relativists.
This means the dependency thesis is undecipherable, when the reference group has not been identified.
4. Even when a reference group has been specified, the means of determining the moral judgments of the group,
which are then to be related to specific acts in question, are highly problematic. Voting, polling, and other means of
arriving at a consensus on a value or an act require the individuals to make judgments without the help of the group
as a whole. After all, at some point prior to the vote or poll the group theoretically has no opinion. By what means
is that first consensus reached? Apparently by some sort of non-relativist means.
If so, moral relativists have failed in making their case.
5. Moral relativists claim to be stating a truth about morality that is true for all times and places. In other words, its
truth is not relative to being a member of any particular society or group, nor is it relative to living in a certain time
or place. But if truth is not relativistic, why should morality be relativistic? Moral relativists fail to provide an
adequate answer to this question.
In so doing, they demonstrate their belief to be self-referentially incoherent.
A summary of James Sterba’s Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995),
pp. 97-99.
4
Professor Christopher Ullman
16
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe5
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
Question #1 for Mr. Saxe:
Who does see the elephant as it really is?
Question #2: What gives him this
privileged perspective?
And now a question for the student of
ethics: What does this poem have to do with
moral relativism?
5
American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based
the following poem on a fable which was told in India
many years ago.
Professor Christopher Ullman
17
ETHICS
RELATIVISM’S SEVEN FATAL FLAWS
1.
Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
2.
Relativists can’t complain about the “Problem of
Evil.”
3.
Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
4.
Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or
injustice.
5.
Relativists can’t improve their morality.
6.
Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
7.
Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

Beckwith, Francis J. and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1998), p. 61-69.
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
18
ETHICS
Virtue Ethics
Until now we have been looking at action-based ethics: what a person ought to do. Virtue ethics is a different
stream of thought entirely, for it focuses on how a person ought to be.
Contrasts
ACTION-BASED
What to do
Derivative
Conduct
Rules
Outwardly manifested
Overt behaviors
Temporary
VIRTUE-BASED
How to be
Fundamental
Character
Traits
Inwardly developed
Inner states
Enduring
Some famous lists of virtues:
BUDDHA
PLATO
Enlightenment Courage
Right views
Temperance
Right intention Wisdom
Right speech
Justice
Right conduct
Right occupation
Right willpower
Right awareness
Right concentration
ARISTOTLE
Courage
Temperance
Liberality
Magnificence
Pride
Friendliness
Justice
PAUL
Faith
Hope
Love (Agape’)
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
BOY SCOUTS
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent
SOCRATES (PLATO) ON VIRTUE
Socrates taught that there are some things more important than life itself, such as being true to your
principles. TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE, and THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING.
For Socrates, the GOOD LIFE is not a pleasant life in which we seek gratification for the sake of having a
good time. The GOOD LIFE is strenuous, but gratifying in its own way because one knows that one seeks and sees
the Truth, and one is in control of oneself.
THE ROLE OF REASON, IN THE GREEK IDEA OF THE GOOD LIFE




We can’t hope to attain virtue without the use of our reason.
A person who does something unjust to others is either ignorant or sick.
If he knew better, he wouldn’t have done it.
His problem is that his appetites (the needs and wants of humans) rule him, and they must be controlled to
achieve a good life. A person ruled by his appetites does not have a good life.
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
19
ETHICS
IN HUMANS THERE ARE THREE POWERS AT WORK
REASON
Reason and spirit
SPIRIT
APPETITES
will keep the
body
healthy and the
soul balanced.




Reason is the name of the charioteer.
Spirit (willpower, ambition) is the name of the well-behaved horse.
Appetites is the name of the wild, unruly horse.
The charioteer must make both horses work together; he can’t just untie the wild horse and let it go. His
strategy is to make the well-behaved horse control the wild, unruly horse and subdue it.
When REASON rules, the person is WISE (virtue of the intellect).
When SPIRIT controls the APPETITES, that person is also BRAVE (virtue of the spirit).
When the APPETITES are completely controlled, that person is TEMPERATE (virtue of the appetites).
Such a person is well balanced and would not dream of being unjust to anybody.
Therefore, JUSTICE is the virtue that describes the WELL-BALANCED PERSON (virtue of the harmony of
reason, spirit and the appetites).
Virtue takes on meaning when we consider the non-virtues or anti-virtues (known as vices). Paul mentions
his list of virtues (he calls them fruits of the Spirit) after listing a variety of vices (he calls them works of the flesh):
sexual immorality, impurity, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, selfish ambition, fits of rage, envy, drunkenness, orgies.
Aristotle draws attention to the middle traits or virtues (he called them means) by describing the excesses and
deficiencies.
ARISTOTLE ON VIRTUE
The virtues are the ways we attain the highest goal of humanity: HAPPINESS.
Why happiness? Why not honor, or pleasure, or intelligence, or good health, or wealth, or power?
Because each one of the latter are things which we strive to attain partly for themselves, and partly because
they make us happy. But happiness is never sought to make us honorable, or intelligent, or healthy. So it alone is
the final end.
This happiness is not something that you can attain in a moment or in an afternoon or over the summer
vacation. It takes a lifetime. Happiness is more than an emotional state: it is a state of complete being, balance and
harmony.
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
20
ETHICS
It is a state of character or soul.
Aristotle’s three practical rules for good conduct:
1.
Keep away from that extreme which is more contrary to the mean.
2.
Know your own weaknesses.
3.
Guard yourselves especially against pleasure and pleasant things, because we are not impartial judges of
pleasure.
A fourth rule to remember: the mean is not merely the halfway point between extremes of excess and deficiency. It
is the optimal way to be.
BERNARD MAYO ON MORAL CHARACTER VS MORAL PRINCIPLES
Aristotle will not tell you what to do, but he will tell you what to be. If I am ruled by an ethical system of
moral principles, my decision making will have to go like this:
1.
What kind of situation is this?
2.
What kinds of rules govern actions in a situation like this?
3.
If there is no rule, I will have to discover a new rule which will work in situations like this in the future.
If I am ruled by an ethical system of moral character, my decision making will look like this:
1.
What ought I to be, in this situation?
So there is a simplicity to character morality that cannot be found in principle morality.
Character can not be summed up by a list of dispositions or rules. It has an organic unity that is greater
than the sum of its parts.
In times of perplexity, we can ask not only “What shall I be?” but also “Who shall I be like?”
 Plato’s answer: the ‘just man’
 Aristotle’s answer: the man of practical wisdom
 Augustine’s answer: the citizen of the City of God
 Marx’s or Lenin’s or Mao’s answer: the good Communist
 John Wayne’s answer: the gunslinging, strong, quiet cowboy
Sometimes a particular role model is held up to be imitated:
Socrates, Buddha, Christ, St. Francis, Mohammed, Mike. The Hero and the Saint are very much the expression of
this approach to moral decision making. Heroes and saints are not merely people who did things; they are people to
be imitated in the way they were. We should not only act as they acted, in specific situations; we should be like they
were. Their lives became examples for us to follow.
Kant predictably said that this idea of emulation was fatal to morality. The exemplar is useful only to
render visible an instance of the moral principle. Should we say that principles are less important than personalities?
No, since we identify role models by the principles they follow. Yet, the person is not nothing, when you are
struggling to decide how to be moral.
The morality of character gives room for ideals, and more importantly, it appeals not only
to the reason but also to the psyche. Heroes and saints embolden us by their example in
ways that mere principles cannot. They can win our hearts and our heads.
ALISDAIR MACINTYRE ON VIRTUE
I best understand my life when I see it as a story, with episodes in which I acted out a certain role. I am the
subject of a narrative that runs from birth to death. My life furthermore is a part of the story of your life and your
life and your life and your life, and in each I have a certain role. I can only answer the question, “What am I to do?”
if I have already answered the question, “Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?”
We learn what a child or a parent is through the stories we are told, as we are developing as moral agents.
Deprive children of stories, and your leave them unscripted, “anxious stutterers in their actions as in their words.”
Mythology is essential for teaching virtues.
Since each one of us is the star character of the narrative which is our individual life, we are accountable
for what we do, if our life is to be narratable. The story of your life is supposed to make sense, but if you can’t give
any reasons for the way you acted in a situation, it doesn’t make any sense.
Since I am also a character in the narrative of someone else’s life, I can ask them to give account of their
actions as well. Asking what you did and why, saying what I did and why, are the essential elements in all
narratives. Without this, the narrative becomes unintelligible.
In what does the unity of an individual life consist? The unity of a narrative in a single life.
What is the good for me? It is the best way to live out the story and bring it to completion.
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
21
ETHICS
What is the good for humanity? It is what all answers to the former question have in common.
This commonality has different names.
In Aristotle’s thought: happiness.
In Plato’s thought: justice.
In the Apostle Paul’s thought: Christlikeness.
In Buddha’s thought: enlightenment.
In Marx’s thought: communist utopia.
In Hollywood’s John Wayne mythos: the American dream.
HOW IS IT THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY SEE
THINGS AS THEY REALLY ARE WHEN THEY
ONLY SEE A SHADOW OF REALITY?
This was and is the philosopher’s
burden, and the first to bear it was
Plato, in “The Allegory of the Cave.”
He taught that people are prisoners of an
artificial idea that the physical world is all that there
is. Isn’t it obvious, though, that everything in the
physical realm is but a poor copy of its perfect form?
Cat, chair, color, and character traits: these conjure up
images, ideas, which serve as templates for what we
actually sense. We compare what we see to those
images, those ideals, those concepts of catness,
chairness, redness, treeness, beauty, truth, justice, and judge how close to the ideal the physical approaches. We
never will see a perfect copy, with our senses. Yet we can reflect and discover the perfect Form, or prototype, upon
which all copies are based. There is a realm of the Forms, but it is not a physical place. It is an intellectual and
psychic state, to which we are liberated at death, according to Socrates and Plato. While we stay in the flesh, we
struggle with the imperfect copies, believing they are all that there is, yet knowing that perfection is yet to be
attained, in every area.
Yet there are some who by Reason comprehend the Forms. By training the mind, they break the chains of
merely empirical observation and ascend out of the cave and its darkness into the pure light of the Form of the
Good. As they grow accustomed to the real light radiated by the Good, they see things as they really are. Equipped
with this vision, they gain control of their minds, spirits and appetites. By Reason their lives are transformed, and
they learn to embrace the ideals and to esteem them most highly above the physical, which is illusory and shadowy.
The Forms of Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, Justice, Beauty, Truth and ultimately the Good are the real
meaning of life. These virtues are changeless and eternal, worth basing one’s life upon, and if need be, worth dying
for. Once beheld, Plato believed, they will never be turned away from, and will continue to bring one’s life into
conformity with them. The reflective mind, exhilarated by the perfection of the Forms, will never again be satisfied
merely with the changeableness of the physical realm. The Forms provide landmarks which never move by which
one might plot one’s course from birth to death, and a life well lived from cradle to grave, a GOOD LIFE, will result
in being reborn, not in the physical realm, but in the realm of the Forms.
Was Plato a religious man? Certainly. He worshipped as all Athenians did the gods of the Greek
Pantheon. But obviously the real object of his devotion was the perfection of the ideal realm of the Forms, and the
means by which humans can ascend out of the cave-like existence to behold the Form of the Good: REASON.
DOES THIS IDEA OF IDEALS FIND EXPRESSION IN OTHER THOUGHT-SYSTEMS?





HINDUS seek the perfection of awareness of the ONENESS OF ALL THINGS IN BRAHMAN.
BUDDHISTS seek the end of craving and absorption into the perfect realm of NIRVANA.
TAOISTS seek to enter that stream of harmony with the world in which all is recognized as being as it should
be: the TAO.
The great MONOTHEIST RELIGIONS seek communion and fellowship with the ONE GOD, who is perfect
and unchanging, whose character embodies in one Person the purest expression of the Virtues.
Even New Age religions and Earth-worshippers recognize and aspire for a perfection which transcends mere
physical existence.
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
22
ETHICS
Are they all alike in every way? Not hardly.
Are they all correct? Not hardly. The specifics of each system contain truth claims which contradict the truth
claims of other systems. A  non-A.
Is there a great similarity they seem to share with one another? Yes.
It appears to be, in one form or another, the belief in the existence of an IDEAL.




A LIFE OF VIRTUE is a life well lived, the ancients all affirm:
A GOOD LIFE.
For PLATO, the saying “It takes a village” would be restated as “It takes a POLIS.” A Polis ruled by
philosophers, in which each person had discovered and accepted his/her proper role in the society, and worked
together with other citizens to attain virtue and a realization of the Form of the Good.
For AUGUSTINE, a 4th century African bishop who lived in the final days of the Roman Empire, it required a
MIRACULOUS REBIRTH BY THE POWER OF GOD, to become a citizen of the City of God, and to work
by faith and the grace of God to bring about the kingship of God in each person’s life.
For MAHAVIRA, founder of the Jainist religion, it involved a RENUNCIATION OF THE FLESH in every
conceivable way, and a life of severe devotion and fasting in order to enter into that perfect realm.
For CONFUCIUS, it called for a life of careful training in the PROPER WAYS OF CONDUCT AND SOCIAL
LIVING, to become a superior human being whose life reflected the stability and order of the universe.
TO LIVE A LIFE OF VIRTUE, THE GOOD LIFE,
REQUIRES MOST OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Early discipline and a well-ordered social environment
Instruction
Parental modeling of virtue
Peers who serve as role models of virtue
Awareness of a society’s heroes and heroines and saints
Continued reflection
Repeated choices of virtue over vice
In many systems, an awareness of the need for help from a higher power
Christopher Ullman, Instructor
23