NOTES ON PRACTICAL ETHICS
1st Seminar: Demystifying Ethics
P
Values
Decide
Policy
By
Professor Ian E Thompson
Principal Consultant with Corporate Ethical Services:
28 Links Street, Musselburgh, EH21 6JL, Scotland
Telephone: 0131 665 46741 — Email: iethompson@btinternet.com
Demystification of Ethics
Unethical conduct and corruption in public life has been a constant focus of the mass media in recent years —
whether it be Politicians fiddling their expenses claims, Stockbrokers involved in insider dealing on the Stock Market,
Banks manipulating the Libor inter-bank rate that affects our mortgages and savings, corruption in the Police and
others interfering in the course of justice, and journalists involved in phone-tapping in search of a scoop. This has all
served to create a sense of moral crisis in our society, in government, business and communal life. Public opinion
surveys have given evidence of a growing loss of public confidence in politicians, journalists, church leaders, and
professionals of all kinds to give moral leadership, and public concern about the lamentable lack of ethical standards
in private and public life.
The knee-jerk response to this situation has been for people to react into negative and defensive postures in relation
to the challenges facing us. There are constant calls for Royal Commissions of Enquiry, or for new laws with more
rigorous methods of ‘Fraud Management’ and harsher sanctions against those who abuse their power and influence.
At state level new laws and statutory controls have been introduced and new disciplinary bodies created, with wideranging powers but these have not allayed public anxiety that there is ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark.’
While there have been repeated calls for new Codes of Ethics or Codes of Conduct to improve standards public life,
there is little evidence that such ‘top-down’ and juridical approaches work and only serve to sustain the illusion that
something is being done to improve things.
Apart from a few outstanding individuals, moral philosophers have not provided leadership in this situation. Most
academic philosophers have been content to engage themselves in meta-ethical analysis and debate about ethical
theory, and generally have been conspicuous by their absence from participation in public life, practical ethics or social
reform.
This sense of moral crisis would appear to be connected with a number of threatening global trends, affecting publc
confidence that impact on individuals and states, restricting their freedom of manoeuvre:






The global economic crisis, recession, and the funding crisis for governments and 'welfare states'
Destabilization of the geo-political order, proxy wars causing major political/demographic effects
New types of terrorism exploiting the digital media to publicise, suicide bombings, beheadings etc.
The Third World debt crisis and its impact on global human development and world health
World-wide concern about degradation of the environment and its sustainable future
The devastating economic and social effects of the HIV/AIDS, and other pandemics.
Public anxiety and moral panic about these issues has put traditional morality under pressure and challenges our
personal values and the assumptions about the adequacy of ethical and legal means to address these issues
constructively. The real challenge is how to build moral communities at all levels of our society. This means engaging
people in the practical tasks of acquiring competence in individual and corporate values clarification, well-grounded
ethical decision making and effective procedures for setting ethical policies to which people will be committed and
apply in their daily work. These skills are essential to the exercise of our professional roles, effective participation in
work-place teams, in corporate management, and responsible participation in the political ethics of inter-agency
collaboration and ultimately in national and international relations. Knowledge of ethical principles and study of ethical
theory are not sufficient to change things. What we need is competency-based training in the core skills in practical
ethics. As Aristotle observed over two thousand years ago: “Ethics is a practical science!”
THE PRACTICAL NATURE OF ETHICS
It is important to demystify ethics by restating four fundamental theses about ethics — presuppositions that are
fundamental to most of the great religions and both Western and Oriental cultures and philosophy:



Ethics is a social or communal not a private enterprise
Ethics is about power relations - with power-sharing and preventing the abuse of power
Ethics is a practical, skills-based discipline applicable to the problems of everyday life.
Ethics is the educational process of promoting moral competence and independence in people
We appear to be confronted with a stark choice [comparable to that facing people during the Great Depression and
the run-up to the Second World War] namely, a choice between return to religious or nationalistic fundamentalism or
rediscovery of faith in universal and fundamental moral principles, as the foundations for justice and peace and a
willingness to work together to build moral community in our own society and the family of nations. Let’s not belittle the
achievements of the United Nations and other international agencies, working to promote human development and
world peace. They have achieved a great deal in my life-time. Instead of accepting the current divorce of ethics from
politics we need to reaffirm that they should form a continuum. When Plato said that ‘The State is but Man writ large’
he was emphasising a fundamental truth (however we may disagree with some of his model Republic), namely that
the fundamental ethical responsibility of the State is to promote human flourishing by encouraging us all to develop our
talents and human potential, not simply for our own sake, but to promote the common good.
We must thus begin by de-mystifying ethics. Instead of adopting a predominantly negative and reactive approach, the
real challenge is to address the basic ethical question: viz: "What are the essential conditions for human flourishing or
well-being? We need to put ethics back in the public domain by restating the classical belief that ethics is
fundamentally about justice and power-sharing. Unless the foundations of justice are in place, personal rights and
choices are expensive luxuries, affordable only by the rich. Ethics is not just a private matter, but a quest for
community. The concept of being part of a commonwealth is fundamental to the ethos of British society. Ethics is at
its heart. It is the basis of our concern for others, and sense of duty to contribute from our common wealth to the
commonweal.
In our classical tradition, ethics is concerned with 'the good'. This means developing consensus in our moral
community about what constitutes the good of individuals and the common good, rather than focusing on crime, fraud
or politicians' definitions of our 'common needs'. The first task of social ethics is to ensure that all of us are able to
participate in the definition of our common social values, reasonable decision-making procedures and ethical policies,
and support our systems for monitoring the common good. The second task is to work to ensure that we achieve our
positive goals for individual and social well-being.
PRIVATISATION OF ETHICS
The chief obstacle to this enterprise has been a persistent tendency in the past century to 'privatise' ethics.
Ethics is confined to the sphere of personal and private living and comes to be dissociated from politics, economics,
science and law. Alternatively ethics has become the domain of experts, religious authorities, the professions and
politicians — and the power-struggles between them.
Both processes are associated with the attempt of increasingly powerful middle class groups to impose their values on
society. These values are in particular, the ideals of individual autonomy, unrestricted competition, free enterprise
economics and faith in technology to solve all our problems — summed up by Mrs Thatcher: “There is no such thing
as society, only individuals and machinery of government!”
Privatised ethics and economic rationalism go together. The reduction of ethics to personal feelings and attitudes
conveniently evacuates business itself of moral content. "Business is business" after all! Politics becomes a matter of
"managing the economy" on the supposedly value-neutral "business criteria" of effectiveness and efficiency. This is,
of course, a myth! It also distorts our whole European tradition of ethics as the collective exercise of responsibility for
the common good!
A common view in our secularised modern world has been that ethics is an intensely private matter, concerned with
one's personal feelings, attitudes and values. Of course our feelings, attitudes and personal values are important particularly as they relate to our own life goals and striving for fulfilment, wellbeing and happiness. Such concern for
our own fulfilment may be pursued in a selfish way, but self-concern is not necessarily selfish. Concern with being a
fulfilled human being necessarily raises questions about the rights of other human beings.
One-sided emphasis on our personal feelings, attitudes and value choices can lead to the view that all ethical
judgements are subjective or just matters of taste, and cannot be open to public scrutiny or debate. This view runs
counter to both the moral traditions of East and West for these insist that ethics is a community enterprise, based on
rational public debate, and the quest for social justice and fairness fundamental to that endeavour. Even the JudeoChristian 'love ethic' is not based on how we feel about people, but about our mutual responsibility for one another in
any moral community, and how we demonstrate care by our practical commitment to the well-being and fulfilment of
other people, by what we do for them and with them.
Relegating ethics to the private sphere, of capricious and volatile feelings, tends to undermine confidence in rational
debate and/or negotiation about our moral choices and value-judgements. It also has the serious consequence of
driving a wedge between ethics and law, ethics and politics, ethics and business, ethics and science — where ethics
is assumed to belong to the private sphere and law, politics, business and science to the public domain. Restating the
principle, as old as Aristotle, that ethics is about power and power-sharing - whether in the domain of sexual politics,
family life, education, business and professional life, or politics and inter-national relations - puts ethics back squarely
in the public domain.
Our experience of being subjected to the moral authority of parents, teachers and religious figures, lends credence to
the view that ethics, and moral codes, like the Ten Commandments, are handed down from above by God or his selfappointed agents, that they are absolute and set in stone. Such an approach tends to be absolutist, prescriptive and
authoritarian. It infantilises people by denying them scope for the expression of their own moral autonomy through
exercise of personal choice and responsibility.
If ethics is about how we negotiate and agree a set of common principles for the well-being of a community, and the
skills we need to apply them, then ethics, as an human activity, must be about how we educate people for
independence, to accept personal responsibility for what they do.
If all ethical choices and value-judgements are based simply on feelings or hunches, 'the voice of conscience' or
'divine guidance' or ‘gut feeling’, then ethics cannot be the subject of rational investigation, practical problem solving,
nor be a matter of intellectual knowledge and critical insight. Ethics is relegated to the sphere of the irrational or
arbitrary personal caprice. By contrast, our tradition is that personal 'conscience' is an intellectual faculty (cum
scientia) in which theoretical knowledge of principles and practical experience are combined and expressed in skilled
application to the real problems of living.
An analogous difficulty arises if all moral difficulties are treated as 'dilemmas'. It has become fashionable to
refer to every kind of moral difficulty or quandary as a ‘moral dilemma’. Strictly speaking a real moral dilemma
involves an irresolvable conflict of duties, so to treat all moral difficulties or problems as irresolvable dilemmas
encourages people to either avoid taking responsibility for making difficult decisions, or to treat the matter as simply a
matter of personal judgement.
As a matter of fact only a very small proportion of moral issues turn out to be real dilemmas. To make difficult moral
choices demands a particular kind of courage from us, willingness to take risks, and to accept personal responsibility
for the consequences. All we can do is to choose the best available course of action, that causes least harm to
others. To throw up our hands in despair or dodge making difficult choices, or to treat them as just a matter of arbitrary
choice, shows lack of moral courage or understanding.
By far the greater proportion of ethical difficulties faced by professionals in everyday practice can be reframed as
problems. Because we have methods for dealing with problems, we can generally find solutions to them, provided
time is taken to look at them carefully. And we can develop greater competence by learning to apply systematic
approaches to decision making about routine ethical problems.
However, some difficult dilemmas will always remain. Since there can be no general rules for dealing with dilemmas,
it requires personal courage to tackle them. Faced with a crisis, which presents as a serious dilemma, we can only
attempt to act as wisely as we can in the particular circumstances, and apply our principles to choose the best
available solution [or the least harmful] and be prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences.
Moral decision making is not a mysterious or occult process. Exercising one’s ‘conscience’ involves applying our
knowledge of moral principles and acquired experience of life to the interpretation of situations, and choice of the best
known and available means to achieve good outcomes. Aristotle insists that ethics is a practical science, that is, it is
not about grandstanding opinions, or getting lost in theoretical debate. Ethics is fundamentally about how we reach
well-informed and justifiable decisions, so that we can act purposefully and responsibly and give a coherent account of
how and why we undertook one particular course of action rather than another.
Aristotle did not speak of conscience but rather of ‘prudence’ or practical wisdom. In defining prudence he gave us the
first logical account of sound moral reasoning. Prudence he suggests is the ability to apply universal moral principles
to the demands of particular situations, using our knowledge, skills and past experience to make sound practical
judgements about the best available means to achieve a good result or outcome. Here in analysing the nature of
moral judgements and moral actions, Aristotle suggests that all human acts have the same basic structure, viz.:
Causes -> Means -> Ends. If this is true, it is logical to suggest that in planning a course of action, making a rational
decision, or acting in a purposeful way, then you should always:
Review the prevailing circumstances and the facts of the specific situation, including what principles and rules apply to
the particular ‘ball-game’ in which you find yourself
Consider what practical options are available to you, what expertise, assistance or resources you need, and what
means or methods you need to solve the presenting problem.
By anticipating the likely outcomes of each option, and having specific goals and realistic objectives it becomes
possible for you to make an informed and responsible assessment of the likely outcome of your action.
There are many variants of problem-solving approaches to ethical decision-making that involve reviewing the factors
involved in this basic Causes -> Means -> Ends structure of intentional acts. (C/f: ICAA [1997], Grace D & Cohen S
[1998] App 1; & Seedhouse D [1988] Pt 3 Moral Reasoning). However we propose the following D.E.C.I.D.E. model,
because it is a tried and tested method of systematic ethical decision-making.
The Causes -> Means -> Ends Structure of Human Acts
CAUSES
[Circumstances & Rules]
D
E
D-etermine the
E-stablish the
Facts
Rules
Principilism or Deontological Ethics: Focus: Ethical Principles, Legal and
Moral Rights & Duties
MEANS
[Agency and Methods]
C
I
C-onsider
I-dentify Possible
Available Options
Outcomes
Virtue Ethics / Prudential Ethics Focus: Personal Competence &
Institutional Integrity
ENDS
[Goals and Outcomes]
D
E
D-ecide on
E-valuate the
Action Plan
Results
Teleological/Utilitarian Ethics Focus: Costs & Benefits, or
Consequences & Efficiency
Similar problem-solving methods are widely used by health professionals, accountants, private and public sector
managers, because it is necessary to take account of all three aspects {Causes, Means and Ends] of our moral
actions and experience. The three classical types of ethical theory: Deontological, Axiological and Teleological can
each be seen to emphasise just one aspect of the intentionality of human acts, and any adequate account of moral
action must take account of the context and causal conditions giving rise to the need for action, and consideration of
the available means for action and whether or not we are competent to act as required, and finally the ‘test of the
pudding is in the eating’ — namely the outcomes of our action show whether or not we have succeeded in making a
sound prudential judgement andshow whether or not we acted responsibly. To justify our actions to others, or before a
court, we are normally required to given an account of how we formulated our action plan, to explain exactly what we
did and how we would assess the success or failure of our action in reaching our objectives.
While on careful examination most ‘dilemmas’ turn out to be resolvable problems, some intractible dilemmas remain.
Reframed as 'problems' ethical quandaries or difficulties become amenable to the application of proven problemsolving methods; but what we require is practice in using these sound decision making methods and acquired
confidence and competence in applying them to different situations. Faced with genuine dilemmas we cannot rely on
our own knowledge or skills, or other people’s past experience. We may be tempted to ‘cop out’ and avoid making a
decision, or if we must act, have to take courage and hope that informed by our best knowledge and experience we
will act in such a way that the outcome is the best possible in the circumstances, or at least causes the least harm.
THREE TYPES OF RELATIVISM AND FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
If ethics is to have any credibility it must be based on principles that are universally acknowledged and respected.
Here we seem to be up against an immediate difficulty, for the popular view of ethics is that everyone has different
ethical principles and that no agreement is possible. Now, this seems to imply that all points of view have equal
validity, or that all moral points of view are relative. If all moral beliefs are just that [points of view] then it would not
seem to be possible to talk of moral truth or of universal moral principles.
Is this really true, or is it just a "cop out"?
In a liberal society tolerance of religious, moral and cultural diversity is encouraged. We live in a 'multi-cultural society'
and we we are taught that
• everyone is entitled to their own opinions about matters of ethics and politics
• people should not be prevented from expressing these views, and
• people should not be discriminated against because of the views they hold.
However, if we stop to think about it, these demands are based on fundamental principles. Entitlement to freedom of
expression, and protection from discrimination on the grounds of religious, moral or political beliefs, sexual orientation
or race is a requirement of the principles of beneficence, justice and respect for the rights of other persons and
groups. Although these principles are expressed in different ways in different societies, the ‘Golden Rule’ (Do unto
others what you would have them do unto you, or do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you!), the
demands of universal fairness and non-discrimination, and respect for human life and the rights of individuals, as
comparative ethics has shown, are common to all known human communities — because, without them, human
societies cannot flourish.
However, we need to consider three different kinds of relativism and their function in moral discourse.
Inter-personal relativism emphasises that different people [even within the same family] may base their lives on
different values. Does this disprove the universal nature of moral principles ? Of course not. A brother and sister
may be brought up in the same family traditions and one become a priest and another an atheist marxist, but this does
not mean that they abandon faith in principles. Rather what happens is that they end up choosing different values as
means to express and apply these principles to their lives.
Principles do not give us answers to our moral problems. They are 'starting points' 'beginnings' [from the Latin
principio = beginning ]. As such, principles simply point a direction. Like navigation instruments, principles help us
orientate ourselves. They do not provide us with a map nor dictate a course to us. We have to choose our own
destinations and routes for getting there. The adoption of our own moral beliefs, values and ethical rules is necessary
to enable us to chart a course through life, and to achieve our personal life goals in a world where we have to live with
other people.
Cultural relativism, emphaisises that in different cultures around the world, different values from those we espouse
can be given priority in social life and relationships. Recognition of this fact is necessary if we are to to be tolerant of
and respect human diversity. It is also a healthy antidote to dogmatic fundamentalism, smug parochialism, or
chauvinistic nationalism. Historically, the liberal tradition has used relativist arguments on the one hand to attack
religious and political bigotry on the one hand, and to defend the need for respect for civil liberties like freedom of
speech and freedom of association on the other hand. However, the liberal defence of personal rights and freedoms,
is based on an appeal to the more fundamental and universal moral principles.
For example, the demand that we show tolerance and respect for cultural differences, do not persecute or discriminate
against other people, and respect other the rights of other people is based on the underlying universal moral principles
of beneficence, justice and respect for persons. To argue that we OUGHT to allow everyone the right to express their
views on ethical, political and religious matters, is based on an unstated ethical principle, namely, that of Respect for
Persons and their Rights. To argue that we OUGHT NOT to persecute or discriminate against other people, with
moral, political or religious views different from our own, is based on appeal to the Principle of Justice. To argue that
we OUGHT to protect vulnerable individuals, or minority communities, is a demand of the Principle of Beneficence
— the duty those in power have to the weak, because while we may be strong today we may need others to protect us
and our rights tomorrow — when we are weak and unable to defend ourselves or claim our rights. These moral
demands all depend on the principle of reciprocity, summed up in what is called ‘The Golden Rule’: ‘Do unto others
what you would have them do unto you’ or ‘Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.’ Without
this reciprocal duty of care we have to one another society could not function at all.
It is noteworthy that the Principles of Beneficence (do good not harm to others), Justice (universal fairness and nondiscrimination) and Respect for Persons and their Rights (enabling others to be themselves and claim their rights),
each principle deals with different modalities of power and responsibility — ways that power can be expressed or
shared in relations between people. The basis of justice is equitable power-sharing between people. Beneficence
has to do with the duty of the powerful to protect those that are weak and vulnerable [Eg: as parents have a duty to
care for their children and not to abuse or exploit them]. Respect for people's rights has to do with our duty, as
members of a moral community, to assist others to achieve their full potential, to empower people to claim and
exercise their rights.
Philosophical relativism emphasises that there are many different ways that we can and do seek to justify our moral
beliefs or commitment to a philosophy of life — and tends to suggest, or imply, that everything in ethics is contestible
and that rational agreement on moral principles is impossible.
Social Anthropology and Comparative Ethics suggests the contrary, for not only do different societies adopt [albeit in
different forms] the same principles of beneficence, justice and respect for persons, but also manage to co-operate
and do business with other societies and have done so successfully over the centuries. Wars and conflicts may be
justified by appeal to religious or ideological differences, but these are rarely the real causes of conflict, for these are
usually driven by much baser needs and greed — for land, control of water and scarce resources, for gold or wealth
and power to dominate and control other people.
However, disagreements between different kinds of ethical theories, or methods for justifying our ethical beliefs can be
seen to arise from a tendency to exaggerate one or other feature of human intentional acts while neglecting other
aspects that are equally important. It can be argued that different kinds of moral theories (e.g. Divine Command
Theory, Natural Law, Deontology, Consequentialism or Virtue Ethics) each serve to emphasise different but equally
important aspects of human action and different dimensions of our moral experience. So, each type of theory has its
own validity. They are complementary not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. Rather, as we will see, they need to be
understood to be each relevant in making informed and competent ethical decisions, that can be rationally justified in
one’s daily life and work, as well as before a court if we are required to do so.
FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
If ethics is to have any credibility it must be based on principles that are universally acknowledged
and respected. When considering this claim we face an immediate difficulty, for the popular view of ethics
is that everyone has different ethical principles and that no agreement is possible. We need to ask
whether this is really true, or merely an attempt to find an easy answer to a difficult problem. In a liberal
society tolerance of religious, moral and cultural diversity is encouraged. We live in a 'multi-cultural society'
in which we are taught that
We are entitled to our own opinions about matters of ethics and politics
We should not be prevented from expressing these views
We should not be discriminated against because of the views that we hold.
Now, this seems to imply that all points of view have equal validity, or that all moral points of view are
relative. If all moral beliefs are just that —points of view—then it would not seem to be possible to talk of
moral truth or of universal moral principles. However, arguing that we ought to allow everyone the right to
express their views on ethical and political matters, is based on an unstated ethical principle, namely,
respect for persons & their rights.
To argue that we ought not to discriminate against people with moral, political or religious views different
from our own is based on appeal to the principle of justice. This fundamental principle of universal
fairness and non-discrimination, is expressed, for example in the demand that public officials exercise
their duties with integrity, objectivity and independence.
Historically, the liberal tradition has used relativist arguments both to attack religious and political bigotry
on the one hand, and to defend civil liberties like freedom of speech and association on the other hand. It
has defended our personal rights and freedoms, by appeal to the more fundamental and universal
principles of justice and respect for persons. Linked to these arguments are similar arguments about our
duty to defend the rights of those who are too young or too weak (physically or numerically) to defend their
own interests. Here appeal is being made to the underlying principle of beneficence , or duty of care the
strong owe to the weak.
Moral Principles correctly understood, are not dogmatic rules nor do they give us ready-made answers to
our moral problems. Moral principles as aspirational statements of universal ideals and values, are
starting points for the more specific definition of particular rights and duties, serving as a basis for the
development of more specific rules of conduct. Moral principles must apply universally if they are
fundamental to ethics, but each society, culture or group may give different expression to them. We may
sum up some of the main features of each of these fundamental principles and set out some examples of
the duties which may be derived from each of them below:
PRINCIPLE OF BENEFICENCE [or Principle of Responsible Care]
§
§
§
Duty of the strong to do good to others [beneficence] and avoid doing them harm [non maleficence] e.g: to dependants, clients and
customers.
Duty of care, on the part of the strong to protect the weak and the vulnerable
Duty of advocacy, defending the rights of those unable to defend their own rights
This demand is based on our reciprocal duty to use power responsibly for the good of one another, rather than to do harm, for we
are all weak at times and must rely on the protective care of others when we are vulnerable and need help
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE [or Principle of Universal Fairness]
§
Duty of universal fairness or equity, viz: both justice in terms of equality of opportunity for individuals and equitable of outcomes for groups
§
Duty to treat people with dignity, treating them as ends in themselves, never simply as means to some other end i.e: the duty not to exploit
other people.
Duty to avoid discrimination, abuse or prejudice against people on grounds of race, age, sex, class, gender, religion, etc.
§
Power-sharing here is expressed by the Test of Universalisability, viz: Justice demands that any rule we apply to our own actions,
should also be capable of being applied equally to everybody else
PRINCIPLE OF RESPECT FOR PERSONS [or Respect for the Rights of Others]
§
Duty to respect the dignity, freedom and rights of other people as persons, e.g: the right to know, the right to privacy etc.
§
§
Duty to promote the happiness, well-being and autonomy of other people - to assist them to develop their potential.
Duty to be truthful, honest and sincere with other people - honesty is a demand of respect for other people, just as lying or deceit shows
contempt toward other people.
Respect for Persons is about empowerment of other persons as 'bearers of rights and duties'. Personhood is a formative
requirement of ethics and is also basic to law and government, politics and economics
However, principles alone will not suffice to help us make sound ethical decisions, we need knowledge of
the facts in a given situation, experience and ability to develop and use critical and logical models that will
enable us to make well-reasoned and well-justified ethical decisions.
SO WHAT THEN IS ETHICS?
WHAT ETHICS IS NOT
WHAT ETHICS IS
ETHICS IS NOT simply about matters of a private nature or
about personal feelings, attitudes & values.
ETHICS IS a community enterprise, based on universal
principles and reasoned public debate.
ETHICS IS NOT about mysterious occult processes, feelings
in the gut, or privileged access to moral truth.
ETHICS IS about real power relations between people & the
basis of power-sharing between them.
ETHICS IS NOT a business for experts, for religious
authorities, lawyers, philosophers or gurus.
ETHICS IS about participation in a moral community and
ownership of the policies it develops.
ETHICS IS NOT about endless disputes, dilemmas and
disagreement, nor about grandstanding our opinions.
ETHICS IS a problem-solving activity based on knowledge of
principles & skills in their application.
ETHICS IS NOT a matter of innate knowledge, special powers
of intuition or supernatural revelation.
ETHICS IS an educational process in which we discover
what it means to be responsible moral agents.
Our everyday ethical life and discourse has three distinct but connected aspects, namely:



Deciding with reference to rules and principles whether our actions are right or wrong
Cultivating personal moral character — virtuous or vicious, competent or incompetent
Determining whether the outcomes of our planned actions are good or bad
Thus an adequate account of ethics must comprehend all three aspects because:
Ethics is concerned with what is good or bad for human beings, that is, with the pursuit of values that will ensure
the flourishing of human societies, and the avoidance of what will cause harm. Ethics is concerned with specifying the
requirements for the general well-being, health and happiness of people, and what kind of things prevent this
happening.
Ethics is also concerned with defining what is right or wrong that is, with such regulation of human society as is
necessary to foster an environment in which individuals and communities can flourish, and with what means are
necessary to protect people from those who would harm them. Protective rules or regulations defining what is right or
wrong, legal or illegal must be value-based and promote personal and social well-being if they are to be fair and
ethical.
Ethics is concerned with how we cultivate a virtuous character and avoid moral corruption or vice. That is,
ethics is practically concerned with striving for excellence, with how we should develop our human potentialities, both
our intellectual and moral competencies, in order to flourish as individuals and contribute more effectively to society. It
must address the issues of defective will, bad habits and moral weakness, as well as social evils.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RIGHT & WRONG, GOOD & BAD, VIRTUE & VICE:
RIGHT AND WRONG
We are all born into a morally structured world, and encounter rules and regulations which ever way we turn. Our
parents lay down rules for us to obey, the church and religious communities seek to lay all kinds of rules on us.
Schools seem to be rule factories. Society is governed by rules, laws and regulations. Not surprisingly some say: "In
the beginning was the Rule!"1 However this legalistic perspective, tends to focus on regulation, ‘black letter’ law,
and to devalue the virtues of prudent moral judgement.
Rules are not absolute, we may always question whether a rule is a good rule or not. As adolescents, we challenge
family rules in this way, and will not 'own' a rule unless we feel that the rule benefits us as well as others. In this
sense, judgements of value have to be made about rules, as to whether they are fair, respect the rights of all parties,
and protect those who cannot defend their rights. Value judgements are therefore more fundamental than rules. Like
the law, sound statutory law must be based on and consistent with common law and natural justice. Legislation alone
does not make a law just or fair. It must also serve to promote human well-being.
To be a mature and responsible moral agent, means that we do not simply do our duty because we are ordered to do
so by some authority, or because the law says we must. We have to make our own commitment to the law [or
conscientiously object to unjust laws] and we have to take full responsibility for our actions. To make conscientious
moral choices means that we have internalised the moral law and made it our own.
GOOD AND BAD
Deciding what things are good or bad for us is not something other people can do for us. Parents and other people
may well try to tell us that smoking or lazing about on the beach is 'bad' for us. We are not convinced until we have
examined the facts or tried these things for ourselves. We may learn from bitter experience to avoid certain things that
hurt us and to strive for others that bring us pleasure or fulfilment.2
We can only be said to be free moral agents when we can challenge our inherited attitudes and test these by the light
of reason and experience. In this way we come to adopt beliefs as our own. In the light of tested beliefs about
ourselves and the world around us, we may come to change our attitudes to many things, to challenge the prejudices
of our parents or teachers, and may begin to react differently to people.
We cannot inherit values from other people, nor have them imposed on us, as is the case with attitudes and
unquestioned beliefs. Values must be of our own choosing, or they are not values. Values determine our choice of
means to achieve our life goals. While we make testable truth claims for our beliefs, we need not act on them. Value
judgements embody commitments we make, life-style choices, things on which we stake our lives.
VIRTUE AND VICE
Virtue literally means strength or power. It is important to emphasise that virtue does not have a narrow pious or
religious meaning, but relates directly to the development of our personal character, our mental, physical, emotional
and social potentialities and skills. In striving to improve our health and strength, knowledge and expertise, our
powers of self-discipline and ability to control our feelings and appetites, and to develop our social skills and ability to
communicate effectively with other people — in all these activities we are cultivating our personal identity and integrity
of moral character.
Vice is a word that tends to have gone out of currency, but it comprehends at least three forms of deficient character,
for which we can be held responsible: namely: incompetence, due to the failure to develop our potentialities;
dysfunctional forms of behaviour or bad habits that frustrate our attempts to achieve our own or society’s goals; and,
corrupt or destructive actions which damage ourselves, or our friends and families, or our work and professional
colleagues— and may lead us into crime.
What this means is that we are not simply born good or evil, but these dispositions are learned and hardened into
habits, for good or ill, through the pattern of our practice. To become skilled in driving a motor car, or playing a
musical instrument, requires a complex process of learning, effort and practice. In the same way the achievement of a
state of realised moral integrity and virtuous character is the result of growing knowledge and life-skills, self-insight
and self-mastery through discipline and practice. Virtue is a developmental concept and is linked to our striving to
improve our personal competencies, our striving for excellence. So too, unfortunately, is vice learned and as we all
know bad habits are often difficult to unlearn.
MORAL EXPERIENCE AND MORAL THEORY
We may sum up the differences between these three complementary features of our moral experience, and
their relation to the classical types of moral theory as follows:
RIGHT & WRONG
VIRTUE & VICE
GOOD & BAD
'Right' & 'Wrong' are terms that
‘Virtue’ & ‘Vice’ are terms we use in
relate to and presuppose a system appraisal of competence/
of formal rules, laws and regulations incompetence in ourselves or others
as moral agents, and the
effectiveness of our actions
'Good' and 'Bad' are terms that relate to
value judgements about what
does/does not promote our well-being
or that of others
'Right' & 'Wrong' belong to a binary
system where things must be either
'right' or 'wrong' i.e. mutually
exclusive and collectively
exhaustive terms.
‘Virtue’ & ‘Vice’ are antithetical states
of being or character of a person, and
the developed or under-developed
nature of their personal potentialities
'Good' and 'Bad' are polar terms in a
continuum [like 'health' and 'disease']
they are not mutually exclusive
opposites, but admit of degrees of
comparison
'Right' & 'Wrong' only appear
'absolute' and 'more objective' so
long as we do not question the
system of rules itself.
‘Virtue’ & ‘Vice’ relate to personal
attributes we value and cultivate, in
ourselves or others, as expressing our
human nature
'Good' and 'Bad' may appear 'relative'
and 'subjective' because we have to
make personal appraisals of things /
experience
Justification of judgements that
things are 'Right' or 'Wrong' is
based on appeal to authority, that of
the rule or rule-giver.
We seek to justify claims that people
are Virtuous or Vicious [evil] by
evidence of the good or harm they do
to themselves or others
Judgements that things are 'Good' or
'Bad' have to be based on appeal to
evidence, facts & experience [not
authority or rules]
A system of rules defining what is to
be 'Right' or 'Wrong' also serves to
define our rights and obligations
within that system of rules.
‘Virtue’ & ‘Vice’ are axiological terms,
by which we assess whether the way
a person develops helps or hinders
them in achieving their life goals
'Good' /'Bad' are normative terms, by
which we judge the degree things
approximate to or deviate from a norm
or ideal standard
'Right' / 'Wrong' thinking seems to
offer moral certainty and security
and is often associated with
authoritarian dogmatism
‘Virtue’ & ‘Vice’ are states of being or
fixed dispositions, i.e. skills, expertise
and moral knowledge gaine in the
course of our life and experience
Judgements that things are 'Good' or
'Bad' always involve making our own
riskful decisions based on personal
experience.
The main focus of Virtue Ethics,
Prudential or Axiological Theory
The main focus of Goal-based,
Utilitarian or Teleological Theory
The main focus of Duty-based or
Deontological Moral Theory
SUGGESTED READING — relevant to the whole Seminar Series:
Bartley lll, WW, 1971, Morality and Religion, Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, University of Glasgow Press, [Series: New
Studies in Philosophy of Religion] (An exploration the risks of reductionism — reducing Morality to Religion or vice
versa — and emphasis on their historical and essential connection)
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich: (ed Eberhard Bethge), 1955, Ethics, SCM Press Ltd, Bloomsbury Street, London. (Incisive
reflections from a Gestapo prison on ethics in the contemporary world)
Frankena William K, 1973, Ethics, (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (A typical general
survey of Ethical Theories).
Jonsen Albert R & Toulmin Stephen: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry — A History of Moral Reasoning, University of
California Press, Berkeley (Involves a critique of the ‘tyrranny of principles’ and, despite its title, is a defence of the
role of casuistry in prudential ethics}
Maritain, Jacques, 1964, Moral Philosophy: An Historical and Critical Survey of the Great Systems, Charles Scribner’s
Sons, New York (A masterly overview of developments in ethics leading to the position we confront today).
Mitchell, Basil, 1980, Morality: Religious and Secular — Dilemmas of the Traditional Conscience, Clarendon Press,
Oxford (Discusses our contemporary moral confusion and addresses the issues of Religion, Scepticism and the
demand for moral Autonomy)
Rachels James: 2003, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, (5th Edition by Stuart Rachels), McGraw Hill, Boston, Burr
Hill IL (A constructive discussion of the problems of defining ethics, ethical relativism, subjectivism and scepticism).
Endnotes:
1
See Solomon RC, [1994] Above the Bottom Line - An Introduction to Business Ethics, Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, London and New York, Chapter 4.
2
Although the attempts to make the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain the basis for ethics are as
ancient as the early Sophists, criticized by Plato and Aristotle in the 4th Century BC and further developed by
Epicurus in the 3rd Century BC, it was Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th Century AD who
gave particular prominence to the pleasure principle as a basis for ethics.