Ethics unit - notes
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is good?
What is bad?
ACTIVITY 1.
ETHICS BASICS
1. We begin with a commonly agreed moral principle e.g cheating is wrong.
2. Does the action fall under that moral principle? e.g looking at your neighbour's paper in a
test?
Example: What is the moral principle in this case? “Jenkins should be allowed to do the exam again
– he didn't receive the correct paper.”
3. We need to be consistent in our moral principles and judgements, so if it is wrong for you to
cheat, then it is wrong for everyone to cheat.
Example: You believe it is wrong to cheat, but you photocopy textbooks. Is this an inconsistency?
4. Are the facts in the case true? Have we based our judgements on true facts? Have our values
affected our judgements?
A simple model of moral reasoning is: moral principle – fact – value-judgement
Example: What if you think cheating is okay? How can we convince you that it is not?
Moral relativism
Moral relativism says that our society that we grow up in determines our values – there are no
universal values.
Example: Perhaps your society says it is okay to cheat.
There are two main arguments for moral relativism: the diversity argument and the lack of
foundations argument.
Moral relativism arguments 1 – the diversity argument
There are a great variety of moral practices, so that means there are no objective moral values.
Some cultures believe it is okay to eat human flesh, for widows to throw themselves on the burning
pyres of their dead husbands and so die themselves, keeping slaves. Is morality in the eye of the
beholder?
Example: Are these morally wrong or matters of convention?
a. Burning your country's flag?
b. Males wearing dresses to school/work?
c. Women having more than one husband?
Moral relativism arguments 2 – the lack of foundations argument
Moral values lack foundations. There isn't an independent moral reality that we can test our values
against – so this means our values are the result of how we are brought up and our society.
Often we settle disputes in knowledge by appealing to perception and reason but it is hard to do this
with values. We cannot see values and for reason, we cannot get from an “is” statement to an
“ought” statement.
Example:
Some people in the world are starving.
I have more food than I need.
Therefore, I ought to give some of my food to the starving.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Perhaps this argument works better:
Given that people with more food OUGHT to give some of it to the starving,
and I have more food than I need,
then it follows that I OUGHT to give some of it to the starving.
But if we can't justify these principles, then we have no choice but to accept moral relativism.
Does relativism imply tolerance?
Different cultures have different beliefs, so it would be arrogant to think our cultural values are
better than another's. We don't want cultural imperialism – where one culture's beliefs are imposed
on another culture's. We have our values and they have theirs.
What if you meet a culture which imposes their culture on others and they think it is okay to do so?
The moral relativist will say they have no right to do this. They turn round and say that in their
culture it is okay to impose their culture on others, and that you have no right to impose your
values on them. If you are a consistent relativist, you have to say their intolerant values are no
worse than your tolerant values. The belief in universal tolerance is not consistent with moral
relativism. But once moral relativism is not connected with tolerance, then it is a much less
attractive proposition.
Example: Which of the following “cultural practices” should we tolerate and which should we seek
to have banned?
a. Punishing adultery by stoning to death (the adulterer is buried up to their neck and then others
throw stones at them until they die)
b. Punishing murder by lethal injection
c. Female genital mutilation
d. Infanticide
e. Imprisoning suspected terrorist without trial
f. discriminating against minority groups
Arguments against moral relativism
1. Argument 1 - There are some core values that have been accepted by all cultures. For
example there is evidence to suggest that every society has some kind of rules to limit
violence, protect property and promote honesty. But perhaps it has been outsiders who have
been treated differently? For example the Conquistadors thought the people in the New
World were sub-human so it was okay to kill them. (Is this a factual error?)
ACTIVITY 2 VALUES
2. Argument 2 - We can justify our values.
Some core values are intuitively obvious.But we need to take care when using intuition to justify
our moral beliefs. Why? Do we have a consensus on what is intuitively obvious?
Self-interest theory
is another idea which threatens to undermine our moral values. Human beings are always and
everywhere selfish. Selfish behaviour is seen as being the opposite of moral behaviour.
There are 4 arguments for self-interest theory: the definitional argument; the evolutionary argument;
the hidden benefits argument; the fear of punishment theory.
1. Argument 1 for self-interest theory - the definitional argument
It is true by definition. Everyone is selfish. You are being selfish when you do what you want to do,
and this is what you end up doing most of the time anyway.
Unselfish = altruistic.
X likes making money. Y likes giving their money to the poor. Both are selfish because both are
doing what they want to do.
But then selfish is not bad in this case.
We should distinguish between self-regarding desires and other-regarding desires. In this example,
X is “ bad selfish” because this is self-regarding desire, and Y is “good selfish” because this is
other-regarding desire.
2. Argument 2 for self-interest theory - the evolutionary argument
Human beings are naturally selfish creatures who are programmed to pursue their own interests. We
look after “Number 1”.
But empathy and altruism are part of us too.
3. Argument 3 for self-interest theory - the hidden benefits argument
We get various hidden benefits (gratitude, praise, a positive image of ourselves) from being kind to
others. We can get help from those we have helped when we are in trouble. Or maybe not. We can
be seen as good people and this can be socially advantageous.
What about a mother and her love for her child? And the soldier who throws himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?
What about great examples of altruism such as Schindler and his list?
4. Argument 4 for self-interest theory - the fear of punishment theory.
The main thing that keeps us in line is our fear of punishment.
So, what prevents you plagiarising someone's work? Fear of punishment?
Not all good behaviour is motivated by fear.
How selfish are we?
Do we pursue our own interests at the expense of others?
Are we frightened of being caught?
Theories of Ethics 1 – Religious Ethics
Some believe that ethics would be easier if we had an authoritative rule book which told us which
moral principles to follow. Some believe that these books are found in religion. But we still have to
decide which religions to follow and how to interpret and apply their rules. Also, we have to amend
some rules to apply to modern times – we should follow the spirit rather than the letter of a moral
code.
Plato (428-348 BCE) raised the question,”Is something good because God says it is good, or does
God say that it is good because it is good?”
Theories of Ethics 2 – Duty Ethics
According to some philosophers, ethics is fundamentally a matter of doing your duty and fulfilling
your obligations. Most people prefer to talk about their rights rather than duties. Rights and duties
are 2 different sides of the same coin. If you have a duty not to steal, there must be a corresponding
right to property. If you have a right to life, there must be a duty not to kill.
ACTIVITY 3 Duty Ethics
But there needs to be a common understanding of what duty is. We could appeal to intuition but
people have conflicting intuitions. Kant, a philosopher, says we can work out our duties by using
reason.
What does Kant say?
How to decide if something is your duty? It is if you can consistently generalise it. Want to jump
the lunch queue? What would happen if everyone did that? Chaos, so of course you don't do it.
Kant was aware of 'special pleading'. Rules should be respected but each of us is special and so
rules do not apply to us. But how do we feel when others do the same to us?
We should have a dual conception of ourselves, as “me” and as “one among others”.
The Golden Rule – Do to other people what they will do to you. This is in all the world's great
religions.
A good way to be objective is to imagine various situations through a veil of ignorance.
Imagine: X does action p to Y. Imagine you are X. How do you feel about the action? Do you think
it is acceptable or not? Imagine you are Y. How do you feel about the action? Do you think it is
acceptable or not?
Values and Dignity
Kant says no individual should ever be discriminated against.
He says there is a difference between objects and persons. Objects have value but only persons have
dignity. Something of value can be replaced but dignity is irreplaceable.
The importance of motives
Kant says the moral value of an action is determined by the motive for it (why did we do it) rather
than the consequences. For example, if you do something for someone and it turns out bad, we do
not blame you because you did it with the best of intentions.
Also, Kant said to be truly moral our actions should be motivated by reason and not feelings, he
said feelings were too unreliable. He tried to base values on reason instead of on feelings and said
that reason tells us we have duties regardless of how we feel.
There are 3 different motives for doing good:
1. If you expect something in return
2. sympathy
3. duty
According to Kant your motive has moral value if you acted on 3 – duty.
Criticisms of Kant
We can criticise Kant's approach to ethics on a number of grounds:
1. Rule worship – certain moral principles should always be followed irrespective of context.
For example, it is always wrong to lie. [Or is it – what if your life depended on it?] Perhaps
it would be better if we judged the context of the situation first and then decided whether we
should lie or not?
2. C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
o
f
d
u
t
y
–
Kant doesn't help us when we need to resolve conflicts of duty. For example, what would
YOU do in this situation?
Your grandmother and a world-famous doctor are trapped in a burning building. You can only save
one person. Who do you save? Your grandmother because she is part of your family or the doctor
because she is more useful to society?
3. Moral coldness – Kant's approach is too focussed on reason at the expense of feelings. But
what if someone is irrational? No feelings mean ethics will be cold and hard. But feelings
are what connect us to other people.
Should we follow our hearts (emotion/feelings) or our heads (reason)?
Theories of Ethics 3 – Utilitarianism
This is a deceptively simple theory which says there is one and only one supreme moral principle –
that we should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number., i.e. maximise happiness.
Bentham and Mill (UK philosphers in the 18th and 19th centuries) said the only thing that is good is
happiness, and actions are right if they increase happiness, wrong if they don't.
Arguments in favour of utilitarianism
a. It is a simple and coherent theory which is able to explain all of our beliefs about right and wrong
in terms of the greatest happiness principle - a simple way of solving moral dilemmas.
b. it is a democratic theory because each individual is considered to be the best judge of what makes
him/her happy.
c. it is rational because it encourages us to take into account not only the short-term but the
long-term consequences of our actions.
d. it is egalitarian – it can help us to justify redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor
EXAMPLE – Take a moral dilemma from a novel or play you have studied and explain how a
utilitarian and a Kantian would analyse it.
Practical objections to utilitarianism
How can we measure happiness? How can we measure different pleasures on a common scale? Do
we put a price on them? Does a constant stream of pleasures lead to a happy life?
The more we look for happiness, the more difficult it is to find. Sometimes we cannot predict the
consequences of our actions.
Theoretical objections to utilitarianism
3 common criticisms
a. pleasure or happiness is not always a good thing
- there are bad pleasures such as malicious pleasures (from the suffering of others) and empty
pleasures (these do not help us develop our potential, or flourish as human beings)
b. actions should be judged by their motives rather than their consequences but in utilitarianism the
rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its consequences; an action is right if it increases
happiness
c. utilitarianism is incompatible with the belief that we have moral obligations and individual rights
Is utilitarianism too unprincipled? Should we lie to people because it makes them happy?
EXAMPLE
If someone asks you what you think of them, how honest is your answer? How honest should you
be?
EXAMPLE
X is a classmate who is negative all the time. He brings down the mood of the class. You kill X. You
have raised the general level of happiness. A utilitarian would say this is good (would they?).
But is it right?
The Place of Rules
According to rule utilitarianism, we should judge the rightness or wrongness of an action not by
whether it promotes general happiness but by whether it conforms to a rule that promotes general
happiness.
CONCLUSION
In the end we have to make our own decisions about what to do. We can never be sure we have
done the right thing. Maybe we could have done better?
ACTIVITY 4 - 5 Moral stances
ACTIVITY 5 Newspaper articles
ACTIVITY 6 – 12 Angry Men