NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3
The basic argument of this chapter is that it is not possible to rely totally upon the
law in making decisions that result in positive outcomes for some but negative
outcomes for others, or that recognize the rights of some and ignore the rights of
others. The law can be defined a set of rules, established by society, to govern
behavior within that society, and that behavior certainly includes both outcomes
and rights. Why not, then, let the law decide, particularly in a democratic society
where the argument can easily be made that the law represents the collective
moral standards held by members of society? The problem is that this
“democratically enacted law represents collectively held standards” argument
does not hold up. The social and political processes by which the individual
moral standards that guide personal conduct are coalesced into the legal rules
that govern societal behavior are flawed. There is a considerable degree of
overlap between the moral standards of the members of society and the legal
requirements of the full society, but that overlap is far from complete.
Now review this quote from an early part of the chapter:
The analytical method of legal requirements can be summarized very simply in
the statement that everyone should always obey the law. The law in a
democratic society can be said to represent the minimal moral standards of that
society, and those minimal moral standards should recognize the nature and
understand the worth of individual human beings. You may or may not agree
with the extent of those standards, or the degree of that recognition and
understanding, but – the legal argument continues – you cannot really fault a
person who obeys the law. You may feel that a person within an organization
who faces a complex moral problem in which some people are going to be
harmed and harmed badly, or have their rights eroded and eroded harshly,
should go beyond the law. That person, however, may disagree with you. He or
she may say, “We plan to optimize returns for our firm and benefits for our
society. If you don’t like that outcome, get together with a majority of your fellow
citizens and pass a new law, which more fully recognizes the nature and
understands the worth of other people, and we will obey the provisions of that
new law. But until that happens, please do not lecture us on the superiority of
your moral standards. We see nothing wrong with what we are doing, and
evidently other people don’t either, for what we are doing is currently legal and
approved by a majority of the population.” “It’s not against the law,” as if that
totally settled the matter. That attitude is popular because it is simple and direct,
and offers a basis for choice that can be ascribed to others without accepting
responsibility oneself. “I may not like it but it’s the law” is an easy evasion of
responsibility…. just because a practice is legal, it is not necessarily “right,”, and
may very well indeed be clearly “wrong.”
Do you agree with this statement?
What about an action that is clearly wrong, but was at one time entirely legal,
such as slavery? Racial or gender discrimination? Water or air pollution?
Professor notes: Chapter 4 notes NOTES FOR CHAPTER 4
The basic argument of this chapter is that moral philosophy adds one more evaluative
dimension, or moral perspective, to help in making decisions that result in positive
outcomes and the recognition of rights for some and negative results and the denial of
rights for others. Philosophy, of course, is the study of thought and conduct and moral
philosophy is the study of proper thought and conduct; that is, how we should think and
ought to behave. Essentially moral philosophy proposes the existence of a set of
objective norms of behavior and universal statements of belief that are “right,” “just," and
“fair” in, of and by themselves. The norms and beliefs that all of us hold intuitively are
based upon our religious and cultural traditions and our economic and social situations.
They are subjective and personal; they vary between people. But there are some norms
and beliefs that can be said to be objective and universal, to be based upon reason rather
than emotion. These can be considered to be “right” and “just” and “fair” in, of and by
themselves because they can be logically seen to lead to a “good” society in which
everyone will have equal degrees of liberty, opportunity, dignity and respect. This is
moral reasoning, logically working from an objective and universal first principle through
to a decision on the ethical duties we owe to others. There are some problems here, also;
though perhaps not as serious as in the other two approaches of economic efficiency and
legal obedience. Moral reasoning does recognize the nature and value the worth of
individual human beings as expressed by their needs for liberty, opportunity, dignity, and
respect.
The chapter discusses six of those objective norms of behavior or
universal statements of belief that can be considered to be based upon reason
rather than emotion, and that can be said to lead to a good society in which
everyone will have equal degrees of liberty, opportunity, dignity, and respect.
Those objective norms or universal statements are 1) Eternal Law; 2) Personal
Virtue; 3) Utilitarian Benefit; 4) Universal Duties; 5) Distributive Justice; and 6)
Contributive Liberty. The problem is to use, and so become familiar with, those
six concepts. Market forces and legal requirements are familiar ideas (or ideals)
to most of you; but ethical principles are not so familiar.
Write an essay with word count 250-300 words
(Select one of the following question for this chapter's
Discussion Board) in -text citations and a reference page. If
necessary additional words may be added.
H3-A What do you think is the single most influential force in
today's society that sets the tone for an individual's personal
values, and why? Does this force affect Christians positively
or negatively, and what is your advice about it?
Because of the loss of family and the lack of discipline in schools all too often,
children seem to be learning their values today from the media. While programs such as
Sesame Street and other PBS children’s programs still value respect for others,
kindness, politeness, and friendship, that is not the case for most of children’s
programming. Many of the programs developed for children no longer show the respect
children owe adults, their parents, or authorities. On top of that movies have children in
roles which make them all-knowing or have them successfully battle things that no child
should. Daily news reports show famous and revered “elites” in our nation, such as
movie stars, athletes, and political figures, acting inappropriately. Rarely, if ever, are
these people reprimanded for those actions. How can our society’s values, or beliefs of
what is right or wrong, not be affected by this?
We have lost the idea that shame is, and should be, felt when we do things that
are not right. We have also forgotten that some things, regardless of reasons or beliefs,
are just wrong and should not be done. At one time shame may have been overused in
our society as a way to make others feel bad because of who or what they were. That
was absolutely unacceptable and it is good that, for the most part, society no longer
permits that. However, there should be a certain amount of shame felt by a person
when they lie, steal, act recklessly, embarrass their family or friends by their behavior, or
otherwise act poorly. If we no longer believe such actions are shameful can we truly be
surprised that our values have undergone such a transformation due to the media and
society?
I believe outside influences can have an effect on one’s personal religious views
or values positively or negatively. Children’s values and religious views may also change
depending on what environment they are exposed to and whom they associate with.
Those who feel the effect is negative may be referring to the hardship of raising children
with certain values or of maintaining one’s values given the many temptations or
distractions available.
My advice is to set an example for your own children. As parents and Christians it is
our duty to instill morals and values to our children and to minister to others. If your
children have already left home many other children still need you. Volunteer at your
church, or other organizations within the community, such as the Salvation Army. The
number of lives you touch may surprise you.
Reference