Craven 1
The Nature and Worth of Ethics
At first glance we must understand the general meaning of the ethics. Ethics is the
study of what’s right and wrong and ways to tell the difference between them. Ethics observes
the moral standards of society and whether or not those standards are reasonable. Ethics and
morality go hand in hand with ethics showing to be a theory or system of moral values.
Morality is described as being a greater social element to values and is accepted abroad.
Values being beliefs a person or group has emotionally invested. The goal for an ethical theory
is to define what is good for an individual and society together. Thus, showing ethics also deals
with people’s belief of what is right and what is wrong, so ethics can be defined as the study of
ethics. In dealing with human behaviors ethics shows you a guide of conduct in relation to
others. Business ethics would be defined as what is right and wrong in relation to business
policies, institutions, and behaviors. Business ethics is as important to learning to be a good
manager as are marketing, finance, and operations.
Do not get ethics confused with being how people act or what people do. That would
be descriptive and ethics is normative, meaning what ought to be, not what it is. Moral issues
tend to raise normative questions about rights and the welfare of others and what kinds of
people we should strive to be. Ethics is also not a study of what people say or think that an
individual ought to do. Ethics is about what is true, not what people believe is true. Generally
people put ethics and their feelings hand in hand. Ethics is not a matter of one’s feelings
because if that were the case people would act upon their feelings and not what is ethical.
Most of the times your feelings help stray from what is ethical anyhow. Ethics should not be
Craven 2
identified with religion even though most religions set high ethical standards. People also tend
to equate ethics with the law. This however is also invalid, much like religion the law practices
high ethical standards. But, the law also is like feelings in that it sometimes can stray from
ethics. Ethics also gets generalized with what society accepts. If we based ethics on what
society accepts, in order to find out what is ethical we would have to give surveys to the
population and then conform to their beliefs. Cultural conditioning does not help describe
ethics either. In our case of Nashu, a female teenager who was sacrificed for her tribe’s annual
ritual to the undergod’s to keep the volcano from erupting, if you believe her situation is wrong
but that’s only because you are not of the same culture. Your answer would then be based
solely on the cultures decision of what they believe is right and wrong, not morality.
Understanding the main parts of Henry Aiken’s chart will help you to distinguish genuine
from defective discourse in ethics. There are four levels in Aiken’s chart. Level one is the
Emotive Level suggesting our emotions determine our decisions. Level two is the Rule Level
where commands are given telling us how we ought to act. Level three, also known as the
Principle Level is where we use moral principles to help guide us in our decision making. Lastly
level four, the Meta-ethical level, this is where basic concepts in ethics or moral principles are
defined. Looking at these four levels we want to use genuine discourse and avoid use of
defective discourse. The main point of the chart is learning that you need to use levels three
and four (genuine discourse) instead of levels one and two (defective).
Now we turn to applied ethics. Applied ethics is the task of resolving moral issues and
moral concrete cases that occur in different areas of life. This brings us to claims. Factual
Craven 3
claims are tested by observation and experience. The acceptance criteria to meet for factual
claims are that the claim is open to verification and then verified or reasonable prediction is
used. Moral claims differ in that they cannot be tested in that fashion. Moral claims
acceptance criteria is first being clear, and then making sure it is applicable and adequate to the
context in use. You then make sure that the moral claim you are making is consistent with
other moral claims you have made previously. When making a claim you need to analyze that
claim. Such as asking yourself, is what I said a claim, if so which kind, and does it meet the
criteria of that type of claim. You can then proceed to do the argument analysis procedure.
First you need come up with a conclusion then list the reasons for why it is what to do. Then
establish why those reasons are acceptable using the claim analysis procedure, or CAP which
was defined earlier. After that, show validity of the connection between your reasons and
conclusion. Lastly in your argument analysis you need to assert the soundness of this moral
argument.
Cultural relativism and moral relativism are often thought to be moral claims. However,
cultural relativism is defined being cultures differ in what they value, showing to be fact verified
by observation making it not a moral claim. Moral relativism states that an action is morally
right or wrong only if some group or person says so. Showing again like the story of Nashu, that
you are basing morality off of what one individual or group thinks is moral. Ethical (moral)
theories are judged on moral claims not observation and experience. For example, a moral
relativist talking to Nazi could not say they are wrong or immoral. Reason is because moral
relativist cannot make any criticisms of another but can only agree with them. Also in being a
moral relativist you would have to choose the correct group you would like to be a part of,
Craven 4
which shows to be no rational way for a moral relativist to choose the right group. We can
disprove moral relativity by showing that if it is correct only groups or individual decisions can
determine rightness and wrongness. If that is the case then it shows power to be the highest
good. Knowing that power is never the highest good, groups and individual decisions by
themselves cannot determine rightness and wrongness. Thus, proving that moral relativism is
incorrect.
Now looking at the value spectrum, which main point is that values differ greatly from
literal taste and habits to decency, rights and duties, and virtue. We see with these differences
that if we conclude all values to be the same then we would again become moral relativists.
The value spectrum shows our areas of necessary agreement. These areas include veracity,
justice, autonomy, fidelity, non-maleficence, beneficence, and rights and duties.
Now we need to distinguish between three similar concepts which are description,
explanation, and justification. Description would be the acceptance assertion of factual claims.
Explanation is the general acceptance of factual claims and asserting those factual claims with
other factual claims needing an explanation or prediction. Justification is described as
acceptance of all types of claims asserted, therefore making it a recommended action.
In discussing the validity of an argument we make sure the premises necessitate the
conclusions. If they do not then we conclude the argument as invalid. However, with validity it
does not matter whether the premises are acceptable. Validity and soundness are often
confused. Soundness is the same as validity but soundness requires the premises to be
acceptable.
Craven 5
The utterly alien placement scenario is described as you being in an alien type location
with only your sense of earth-likeness. You see another individual who you think is of the same
kind as you are. This individual is captured and killed by others without question. You are then
made aware that these others are rational beings. We can ground ethics here by stating that
this scenario is completely immoral because no rational being would ever kill another
unquestionably. That would make this our ground-level moral principle. If implied moral or
conceptual orientation is acceptable in this factual claim then the moral principle is justified.
The ground-level moral principle establishes the principle of autonomy. The principle of
autonomy is defined as implementing the self-determination of rational agents, consistent with
other necessary values. The GLMP also establishes five other principles that are closely related
to the principle of autonomy. The principle of veracity is to find out the truth and apply these
truths only where applicable. Next, the principle of justice recognizes and portrays proper use
of the moral rights of rational agents. Following that we have the principle of fidelity which is
honoring commitments you have made or commitments that are reasonable and are expected
to honor with rational agents. Then we come to the principle of non-maleficence which states
that we should avoid harming other rational agents. Lastly, the principle of beneficence is that
you bring other rational agents well-being. That list of six prima facie principles helps concrete
the moral theory we call moral pluralism. The scenario helps us to understand GLMP which
establishes moral pluralism.
Moral pluralism is defined as saying ethics is mostly based on nature of rational beings.
In other words meaning that beings by nature value certain things which would be the six
principles discussed previously. Other than the six specific principles of moral pluralism we
Craven 6
have two meta-principles. The first of the two is the principle of rationality. The principle of
rationality is defined as acting reasonably wherever you are. The second is the principle of
utility which states you should act to cause genuine good for the most people. Those six
specific and two meta-principles are the make-up of moral pluralism. Those who follow the six
principles are or want to be rational. However in some cases certain principles override others.
Generally the context of the matter will determine which principle will override other
principles. We must decide morally through context which principle we will override.
Contextually speaking we see the importance of case studies in applied ethics. Case
studies help by allowing you to apply these ideas and procedures into context where ethical
issues are at risk to find the correct action. In turn this brings us to our next subject, the guide
to argument reconstruction. This is also widely known as the tactical method for moral
pluralism. First, determine all factual claims. Next, decide which of the six specific principles
are involved. Third, assert whichever moral action is required for this case. Then, put together
in order your grounds and values to make a sound moral argument with your conclusion being
the required action. Lastly, recheck all of this using the argument analysis procedure.
Craven 7
The Paul Alto Case Study Analysis
Initial Reaction: The three adults are doing a great thing by deciding to raise a child. However
deciding to alter the baby’s genes to what you want them to be is wrong.
Background Information: Three adults who have lived together for five years are deciding to
have a child. They have several options to choose from but end up selecting genome
constructed female and male germ cells with in vitro fetal gestation. During the genome
construction, they decide because of their own personal values that they should omit the
sexual response gene.
Aiken’s chart: shows the emotive level to be defective, and that people act upon their
feelings when making decisions but that doesn’t make it moral.
Ethics: defined as what is true or ought to be true, not what people believe is true
Applications to Case:
Premise 1: People believe having children is a good thing
Premise 2: The adults are having a child
Premise 3: The adults believe the child should be without its sexual response gene
Premise 4: Ethics is about what is true, not what people believe is true
Premise 5: Emotions do not justify morality
Conclusion: The actions of the adults was morally wrong
Craven 8
Step 4: The premises for step 3 are acceptable factual, moral, and conceptual claims with all
inferences being valid.
Step 5: being that step 4 is accepted we can prove that this is a sound argument
Craven 9
The question at hand now is whether or not there is moral and political knowledge.
Many doubt whether there is moral knowledge just as you could doubt another type of
knowledge. What you need to remember is that even if you have doubts about a moral
question that still doesn’t change that what is in question is moral or not. If you think about it
on these terms, although I doubt stealing from a store is immoral, that does not change the fact
that it is indeed immoral. As discussed before moral knowledge must be present because if not
everyone would be moral relativist. Moral relativity shows that you as an individual basically do
not have the capability of making moral decisions on your own. Nor can you decide for yourself
which group or individuals morals are ethically the correct choice. From Allan Bloom’s book we
gather that he believes with the openness of today’s society that we will stray/have strayed too
far from old world habits and that the person who is not open to everything is the enemy. He
also states that by building this peaceful space he calls it, we have contracted the moral and
political knowledge. Again showing there must be moral and political knowledge because if not
then there would only be opinions, freedom becoming absolute, in turn making it empty. I
agree with Bloom on the whole but I disagree in the sense that I see us as a society morally
expanding not contracting. Yes we are more open but we are just allowing for a better more
genuine society. We have to accept more and more things to be ethical as life goes through its
changes. We are analyzing moral situations of the past and realizing that there were unethical
happenings occurring and in order to maintain society we must adjust our morals to keep the
majority happy, a concept of moral pluralism. For there to be no such thing as moral and
political knowledge, then there would be complete chaos and no one would know how to act
and could act however they want.
Craven 10
This course has given me a completely different outlook on ethics in comparison to what
I believed it to be before entering the class. Before I thought ethics dealt mostly with religion
and culture. I have found out the obvious truths of business ethics in that it deals nothing with
either. Ethics is something within itself, it is what is true. No person or group has say to
whether or not an action is moral. By learning the difference it has given me a new view and
overall sense of worth for ethics. I now see reasons for why it is one of the keys to being
successful in the business world. Business ethics is easily as important as any other skill to
being a good manager. As a business major myself with a concentration in marketing I see how
important these concepts are and how they can and will affect me once I am in the business
world. I also see how ethics can affect my personal life after looking through the many case
studies. Ethics directly correlates with leadership. Without moral knowledge you cannot know
what to do in situations where ethical problems occur. If you cannot handle a situation and
solve it morally then you have no business being a leader. Overall this course has been a great
eye opener to another extremely important aspect of business that I will need to further
explore in order to increase my chances of one day becoming a manger or leader of an
organization.