Jonathan Smith
Philosophy 1000-025
Intro to Philosophy Problem Paper
ETHICS
Ethics is a problem that will most likely always be just that, a problem. Throughout
written and recorded history there have been a number of brilliant minds pose what they
believed or thought to be the ethical answer or standard. Of the models laid out for ethics most
all have logic or reason supporting them. Normally this would be a good thing as we have
irrefutable logical proof that a theory is correct. However in this situation it only serves to cause
more problems as the theories contradict each other. Some such ethics models are Divine
Command, Deontology, Consequentialism, and sentiment based ethics.
Consequentialism is the idea that consequences matter. That is to say that what the
outcome of an action or scenario is directly affects whether something is right or wrong. Within
this school of ethics are the ideas of Utilitarianism, which is the idea of whatever gives the most
good to the most people is ‘right’ or ‘good’. Another is that of ethical egoism, or everyone
ought to act in their best interest.
Utilitarianism determines what is good or bad with both Hedonism and equating good
to things like having money, safety, health, and life/liberty. Hedonism which essentially breaks
down to good is the lack of suffering and bad is suffering. While using those definitions of good
and bad, or right and wrong Utilitarianism deems whatever brings the most ‘good’ to the most
people is ethically right. A common thought experiment initially posed by Philippa Foot (1) that
demonstrates this well is the Trolley thought experiment. It goes like this: someone tied five
people to the tracks. An out of control trolley car is moving toward them. However, you can pull
a lever and divert the trolley to another track. The problem is that someone is also tied to that
track. Given the above, should you pull the lever? Utilitarianism however calls for altruism
which isn’t always readily practiced, thus we also have ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism is the notion that everyone ought to act in their own best self-interest. Or
when posed with a situation that one can make a choice for either good or bad they should only
consider their own self-interest and pick whichever option leads to the most self-benefit. This
isn’t to say that sometimes ethical egoism doesn’t produce choices that seem, at least on the
surface, to be altruistic. When acting in your own self-interest and still being under the
consequentialism school of thought people also consider the social repercussions of their
actions. Specifically the negative social repercussions, such as if a man chooses not to steal
something for only the reason of how people would think of him were he caught.
Divine command stems from the ‘Gods’, that is to say that It is the chain of command
where god says what is good and it is good. Period. This theory or model really is only present in
religion. This school is probably the easiest or second easiest to refute. It inherently has
contradiction and problems built in. The biggest issue was posed by Socrates. It is the internal
problem of do the Gods say it is good because it is good or is it good because the Gods say it is
good? This leads to a problem that isn’t logical and human minds cannot comprehend
contradiction. Another issue is that of which God or the dilemma of people who don’t believe in
God. Taking those into consideration this school doesn’t factor largely into the problem of what
is ethically right.
Deontology is the school of ethics which was used down by Immanuel Kant. Kantian
ethics is ethics through duty. Kant argued that we all have a duty to be morally correct. In his
world of ethics there is an ethical formula that you use to determine if something is good or
bad. Part of that formula is that you can never treat another human as a means to an end. Only
as an end. So it is immoral to take advantage of anyone or use anyone for anything. Another
aspect is that of universalization, or the idea that unless you can will everyone to do what you
want, to do it is immoral. To explain it you cannot will that every single person can lie. If you did
then there would be no truth and speech and your ‘word’ would be meaningless. Considering
these aspects, Kantian ethics are absolute. There are no shades of gray. An act is either moral or
immoral. When using the formula for deciding if something is good or bad you do not consider
the outcome as that is something that is impossible to know. Not considering consequences
leads to a wall, barrier, or distance between this school of ethics, and consequentialism which is
nothing more than a grayscale of ethics.
Moving back to the consequentialism side of the gap we find sentiment based ethics.
These are ethics based upon culture. More specifically the upbringing a person has and the
environment they are raised in. These things undeniably color an individual’s world view. Every
event that individual witnesses and every choice they must make it is both made and judged
through the lens of their world view. Taking that into account it is to be expected that you will
come to a clash in what people feel is right and wrong; what is right in one culture can be
wrong in another culture as to them what is right and wrong is relative to their world or their
culture.
With the rudimentary view expressed of the ethical views/models it becomes much
more clear how there is a deep seeded problem. To deny that emotion isn’t a factor in an
ethical decision could be argued denies what makes us human. The juxtaposition of that, is that
if we allow pure emotion and sentiment to rule us we lose the other aspect of our humanity,
logic and reason. To rephrase the problem of ethics can be stated as this: There is no one
ethical model, theory, or view that can be applied to 100% of situations and be ‘right’.
Somewhere in some situation another school of ethics will fit, explain and solve that scenario
more completely.
One purposed theory of ethics, published by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
which seeks remedy the problem is the non-cognitivist theory. This theory is based in the
structure of sentences and implies that ethical sentences are neither true nor false. (2) The
premise of this persuasion is that sentences ultimately break down into two categories:
cognitive sentences and non-cognitive. Cognitive sentences are descriptive and make true
statements, while normative (non-cognitive) sentences are more ambiguous and have a
different kind of illocutionary force. The same proposition can be used in many sentences or
taken in many different ways, such as for asking a question, making an assertion, or demanding
something; thus a sentence can be viewed as an illocutionary act, which can neither be true nor
false.
There are known problems to this theory such as the Frege-Geach problem. (2) The FregeGeach problem is summarized as, “sentences that express moral judgments can form part of
semantically complex sentences in a way that an expressivist cannot easily explain. According to
Geach, the sentence “Telling the lies is wrong” has the same meaning regardless of whether it
occurs on its own or as the antecedent of “If telling the lies is wrong, then getting your little
brother to tell lies is also wrong.” (2) This argument displayed by the modus ponens below
shows that meaning of ‘wrong’ is the same in both the normative and descriptive sentence.
1. If tormenting the cat is wrong, then getting your little brother to torment the cat is
also wrong
2. Tormenting the cat is wrong
Therefore, getting your little brother to torment the cat is wrong.
This solution, although founded in language rather than culture, still seems to closely
follow with Humean ethics. The ethics are still relative to whatever the proposition of the
ethical statement/sentence is and whether or not the sentence is normative, or in essence
there are no absolutes as everything is relative. While this is an interesting approach to me
personally this theory is contingent upon whether or not a sentence is a descriptive sentence,
which isn’t always clear. With that implication this theory to me doesn’t seem like it can bring
any relief to the problem of ethics.
Sources:
1. Philippa Foot, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect in Virtues and
Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978) (originally appeared in the Oxford Review, Number 5, 1967.)
2. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peer reviewed article on non-cognitivism in Ethics.