Unit 8 Philosophy paper
PHIL1100 Unit 4 Lecture: Ethics
>
The branches of philosophy
As we have learned from our first lecture, philosophy is the study of the most fundamental questions in life. These questions fall under the five branches of philosophy:
1. Metaphysics 2. Epistemology 3. Logic 4. Aesthetics 5. Ethics
This lecture will explore the fifth branch, ethics.
What is Ethics?
By ethics, or moral philosophy, it is meant a philosophical area that studies all matters relating to morality; and by morality it is meant the way human beings do and ought to treat others, the environment, animals, and themselves. In other words, morality concerns right or wrong or good or evil actions and conduct.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
1 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Four areas of ethics
Typically, ethics is divided into four major areas:
1. Value Theory
The area of ethics that studies what is valuable in and of itself, and the element of a good life.
Some examples: What is the ultimate good? What is a good life?
Is it happiness?
Is it getting what you want?
Is it one?
Is it many?
Is it virtue?
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
2 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
2. Normative Ethics
The second area is normative ethics, which studies ethical theories. Theories of ethics are much like scientific theories in that they purport to explain and clarify moral issues, and ultimately give moral directions.
Moral philosophers generally recognize two distinct types of moral theories: Deontological and teleological.
Deontological: Theories that propose universal moral rules. Accordingly, making the right moral decision is a matter of adhering to certain rules. Such rules are derived from rationality or religion or other factors. As we will see later, Immanuel Kant (1784-1804), a champion of deontological ethics, argues that all moral rules are determined by rationality.
Teleological (also known as consequentialist ethics): Making the right decision is based on the outcome—the consequences—of our actions. The right action, thus, is the one that brings about the most favorable outcome.
Some examples of ethical theories:
The Divine Command Theory: Acts are right because God commands them.
Utilitarianism: Right action is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Deontology: Acts are right if we can use them consistently without any contradictions.
Social Contract: Morality is a set of rules that people agree to follow on the condition that others follow as well.
Prima Facie Duties: Rather than one single principle, there are several important duties. When they conflict, we decide which takes precedence.
Virtue Ethics: It places the virtues at the center of morality. Right is what the virtuous person does.
Feminist Ethics: Ethics has been the business of men to address other men. Women should be taken into consideration.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
3 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
3. Metaethics
Meta-Ethics is the area of ethics concerned about the nature and origin of morality.
Metaethics asks broad questions: "Is it possible to acquire knowledge of right and wrong?" "Are certain actions objectively right or wrong" "If certain actions are objectively wrong or right, what makes them so?"
Some examples of metaethical theories:
Cognitivism: holds that moral judgments (such as "Slavery is wrong!") express truth-evaluable mental states (they can be true or false) that represent moral facts.
Non-cognitivism: holds that moral judgments express some other sort of non-truth-evaluable, non- representational mental states, such as your gut feelings or personal preferences.
Moral nihilism: a meta-ethical theory according to which nothing—and I mean absolutely nothing—is morally right or wrong. A nihilist, to be clear, is not a monster. However, he or she maintains that, for example, killing an innocent person is neither good nor evil, neither right nor wrong. For a nihilist, right, wrong, good, evil, and other such moral values, are man-made.
Some nihilists argue that moral statements such as "Slavery is wrong" or "Saving innocent lives is good" are neither true nor false because there are no moral facts in the world that would make such statements right or wrong.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
4 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Nihilism seems quite a bizarre theory. So let me try to clarify it using an analogy. Let's say you have a container of gas molecules. If all the molecules are organized in one corner we say that the molecules are in a low entropy state. As the particles move out throughout the container the entropy (or dis-order disorder) increases. What I just described is the second law of thermodynamics. Such a statement is true by virtue of there being molecules; and we can test the statement. The point is that the statement is true independently of whether or not you or I believe it is. Now going back to morality, if I say, "Slavery is immoral!" on the basis of what is such a statement true (or false)? Obviously, you might point out the fact that slavery causes pain, that it makes people sad, that it is ugly, etc. However, these are observations of facts. But from where do we get the moral value wrong? It is not as if in a case of slavery, a giant neon sign that reads "THIS IS IMMORAL" appears above the slaves' heads. Moral values are not like molecules, independent of human minds. Moral values are not self-evident. Moral values, nihilists argue, are not contained in matters of fact, such as slavery, but rather are supplied by people. People like you and I make moral judgments, such as this is good and that is bad, this is moral that is immoral. If facts in the world participated in rightness and wrongness, rightness and wrongness would have to be independent entities that exists in the world. But where are they? No one has ever detected such values. Consequently, human action is neither moral nor immoral. Rather, it is we who attach such labels as moral, immoral, right, wrong, etc.
4. Applied Ethics
Moral philosophers regard this branch of ethics as one that deals with more particular problems, such as moral issues that arise out of sports, business, medicine etc. Applied ethics then is the branch that helps to select the right ethical theory to solve particular problems.
However, there is disagreement about which theory is correct.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
5 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
A Challenge: Who are we to Judge?
If you have travelled a lot, you might be aware that different cultures behave differently. Some cultures practice incest, cannibalism, infanticide, or geronticide (the act of killing or abandonment to death of the elderly). The world is full of examples of practices that you may find not only repulsive, but also immoral. Equally strange is the fact that the cultures that practice such customs regard them as perfectly moral.
As a result, some moral philosophers take this as evidence that morality is not the same for everyone, but rather relative. Relative to whom, you might ask. They argue that morality is relative to cultures. Or in other words, according to this view, known as moral relativism, there is no ultimate right or wrong; rather, it is up to a culture to decide what is (morally) right and what is wrong.
Note that moral relativism does not argue that in morality anything goes. It does not argue that there are no moral rules. Moral rules do exist, but are relative—those decided by the culture.
If moral relativism had a slogan, it would be, "Who Are We to Judge?"
Implications of Relativism
To say that moral relativism is a controversial notion would be an understatement. Think about the implications of such a theory. According to moral relativism, there was nothing wrong with Nazi morality or with slavery! After all, Hitler thought that what he was doing was right. And the slave owners thought that enslaving other human beings was right. If you accused Hitler or slave owners of immorality, according to moral relativism they would retort, "Who are you to judge?" Perhaps they would add, "Maybe enslaving others is wrong to you, but not to us."
Not surprisingly, moral relativism is no longer defended or regarded as a viable moral theory.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
6 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Moral Theories
Consequentialism
Consequentialistic theories regard right and wrong completely dependent on the consequences of actions. These theories argue that what makes an act right is its capacity to lead to consequences that promote the highest net good that is possible.
Act Utilitarianism
An important example of consequentialism is act utilitarianism. According to this theory, right actions are those that maximize happiness for the greatest number of beings involved.
Why happiness? Because happiness is the ultimate value. Think about it, why do you go to school, get a job, get married, learn a language, etc.? Answer: Not because of school itself, or the job itself, or marriage itself, or the language itself. These are just means to a common human end, that is, happiness. Everything we do is done for the sake of happiness. Consequently, according to act utilitarianism, our actions are morally right if and only if they promote the maximum amount of happiness for the greatest number of beings. This, however, does not mean that any act is right just because it promotes the greatest amount of happiness. For example, suppose that acting in X way produces a great deal of happiness for a large number of beings. However, the happiness produced comes with a rather large amount of unhappiness. But acting Y produces a lower amount of happiness than X; but on balance, it comes with a much lower amount of unhappiness than X. Accordingly, then, the right act is Y, despite the fact that it produces a lower amount of happiness than X.
Which act ought we carry out?
We assess an act by following these aspects: First we identify the choices. Next we determine the amount of happiness and the amount of unhappiness produced by acting in one way or the other. We assign values to these choices. For example, I can cheat on my exam or not. If I do, how much happiness from 1-10 can I (and others who are involved) attain? What is the amount of unhappiness? Then I consider the option of not cheating and I assign values. At the end of this, I do the math and the choice that produces more happiness than unhappiness on balance will be the right act. Consequently, if something leads to the greatest good for the greatest number, that is all I need to worry about.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
7 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Immanuel Kant and Deontology
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was one of the most important philosophers ever. He made important contributions to science, art, law, psychology, and philosophy.
His moral system is known as Kantian Ethics, which is a form of deontology. Morality, according to Kant, must be based on reason. Our feelings are subject to change. Happiness is not the ultimate good for everyone. After all, it is even absurd to pursue happiness because how can you possibly be happy by acting in ways that may be unjust, or callous just because acting in that particular way will bring about maximum happiness? It seemed to Kant nobler to act out of respect of certain duties dictated by reason. Consider this example. You know a very grumpy old man, Joe, who outlived all his relatives. No one likes him. In fact he is evil, and rather racist. He is ultra rich and signed a will that bequeaths all his wealth to you. Suppose that for some wacky reason, there is a clause in his will stating that you will inherit Joe's patrimony if and only if Joe is murdered. If Joe dies of old age, you will get zilch! Now Joe has enough money to help fight poverty and famine in the world. Think about what you can do with that money: feed the poor, build schools, and, of course, there is enough for you, your friends, and family. In other words, if you murder Joe, you will produce the maximum amount of good for the greatest number of beings (I say being because even animals will benefit from Joe's money). In fact, even if you go to jail for the murder, the amount of happiness produced still outweighs the unhappiness produced by your (hypothetical) incarceration. According to utilitarianism, then, the right thing to do is to murder Joe! But this seems to be an unjust act. Why kill an innocent person and use it as a means to our end?
Kantian ethics avoids this kind of issue because according to his theory of ethics, you must never use people as a means to your end, even if the end brings about the greatest happiness or the greatest satisfaction. You must do what is rational. Murder is never permissible, regardless of the consequences. Acting morally is acting rationally. Acting immorally is acting irrationally. A true moral act is one that is done out of duty irrespective of the consequences.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
8 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Immanuel Kant proposes a neutral procedure to determine right acts. He calls this procedure the Universalizability Principle, and it goes like this:
UP: An act is morally permissible if, and only if, its principle can be universalizable.
A principle is what you follow when you choose to act the way you do. For example, if you decided to cheat on your ethics exam, your maxim might be,
"I will promise to pay back my loan in order to obtain it although I do not intend to pay it back."
Notice that a moral principle has two components:
1. A statement of what you are about to do, "I will promise to pay back my loan."
2. The reason why you want to do it, "To obtain the loan."
Now, to know how to do the right thing, Kant proposes that you follow these steps:
STEP 1: Formulate your maxim clearly: State what you intend to do and why.
STEP 2: Imagine a world in which everyone lived by that principle.
STEP 3: Then ask, "Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?"
If the answer from STEP 3 is "yes" then the maxim is universalizable, and the action is morally permissible. If the answer is "no" then the maxim is not universalizable, and thus the action is not morally permissible.
Suppose you owe money to Joe and if you don't pay him back he will break your arms and legs. No one will lend it to you because you have bad credit. I'm your last resort. So, you ask me to lend you the money and promise that you will pay me back, though you don't actually intend to pay me back. You have made a lying promise.
Problem: In a world where your maxim becomes a universal law, no one would believe such promises, and so no one would be so crazy as to lend you money.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
9 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Thus, according to Kant, among many others, we have an obligation not to lie, regardless of the outcome. In other words, morality is a governed by categorical rules from which we never deviate. These rules must be obeyed out of duty. This is, according to Kant, the only way that an act is truly right. Certainly if you do not lie to me, but not because you do your duty, but rather because you are afraid of lying or for whatever other reason, you do the right thing, that is, you do not lie. However, you do not do the right thing for the right reason, which is the recognition that reason demands that you do not lie. Thus, only acts performed out of respect of duty have moral worth.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
10 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is yet a different moral approach from duty ethics and consequentialism. It emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues rather than rules or duty. Rather than right actions, virtue ethics prefers noble, admirable, virtuous actions.
The main focus and goal of virtue ethics is to create a good, noble individual, whose acts are always expressions of justice, magnanimity, compassion, friendliness, etc.
Why? Because according to many virtue ethicists, living a life as a virtuous individual enables one to achieve the purpose of existence. Human beings are different from one another; but what they have in common is that they can flourish. Flourishing is the main goal of humanity. Think about a chef's knife. What's its purpose, its goal, if not to be sharp and serve the chef's purpose, which is to cook well? It would be simply absurd to produce a chef's knife that is constantly blunt. And what is the final goal of a butterfly egg if not to become a butterfly? If the development of a butterfly egg were interrupted, the butterfly would not fulfill its final goal. Similarly, human beings must achieve flourishing. The only way to achieve this is through a life of virtue guided by rational wisdom. Rational wisdom is the capacity to discern what is really important in life and how to apply the virtues correctly. For example, the virtue of courage is applied correctly if one uses it to benefit others. But if one uses his courage to rob a bank, then the virtue of courage here is misapplied because it violates other virtues, such as justice.
Aristotle (384-322) argued that moral virtues are means between two corresponding vices, one of excess and one of deficiency. For example: courage is a virtue found between the vices of cowardliness and rashness.
Rashness Courage Cowardliness
|_______________|______________|
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
11 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Gyges' Ring and Socrates' Dilemma
The legend of Gyges is a story told by the fictional character Glaucon in Plato's book The Republic. (Plato, Book II, 359d.) The legend tells of a shepherd, Gyges, who finds a magical ring that when worn renders one invisible. Gyges uses the ring to murder the king and take over the kingdom. Glaucon tells this story to show ultimately, people practice justice because of its reputation, and not because it is good or beneficial to be just. The sole reason people are just is that they fear punishment. In fact, according to Glaucon, anyone—even the most upright person—would practice injustice if he or she had a way to get away with anything.
When I was a child, I recall being reluctant to go shopping with my parents because they only cared about groceries, while I desired toys, which they refused to buy. I often fantasized having a magical remote control that freezes time. I thought I could use it to get all the toys I cared for and go unpunished. Now as an adult I could use such a remote control, for example, to freeze time, walk into a bank, and help myself to enough money to pay my bills, feed my family, go on vacation to one of those exotic places I always desired to visit, but could never afford. Once I unfreeze time, no one will ever know (or need to know) that I lifted a few thousands. And the best part is that I could keep my reputation as a good, law-abiding citizen.
Now, Gyges's question is very simple: If you had the magical ring, or my remote control, what could possibly prevent you from using it to get ahead in life? As Glaucon points out, imagine two possible lives: in one, you are perfectly just, but have a bad reputation, and suffer as a result. In the other, you are perfectly unjust, but have a wonderful reputation, and prosper as a result. Which of the two lives would you choose? Who in their right mind would not choose the unjust life that promises a good reputation? According to Glaucon there is no thinkable reason anybody would prefer a life of justice. What is the explanation? Justice is not worth having or pursuing. It is the reputation that matters. For Glaucon, reputation is the only valuable thing, while justice is undesirable on its own.
Surely, Glaucon's proposal seems contemptible. But think about it: Why be just? It appears that what motivates people to be just is fear of punishment and the desire to have a good reputation. Let's be honest, Glaucon may point out, if you could do whatever you want, steal, cheat, lie, kill, and have the certainty to get away with it—and enjoy a reputation as a just person, why not? Why would you go to work, stand in line, pay taxes, say thank you and please, etc.?
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
12 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Summary and Conclusion
In this lecture, we have learned that ethics is a philosophical branch that studies morality. Morality is how we treat one another; it is about right and wrong actions. Ethics is divided into 4 areas: (1) Value theory, which studies what is a good life and what is the ultimate good. (2) Normative ethics, which proposes norms in the way of ethical theories. (3) Metaethics, which is the study of ethics itself. That is, what is ethics, what is right and wrong, are moral values discovered or invented? (4) Applied ethics, which is the application of norms to resolve specific moral problems in sports, medicine, environment, etc.
We have also learned about three main ethical theories: act utilitarianism, deontology (Kantian ethics), and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism is a form of teleology or consequentialist ethics because according to utilitarianism the right act is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Kantian ethics (or duty ethics) on the other hand regards consequences as unimportant. It argues that the right act is one that results from a rational procedure. Morality according to deontology is a system of universal moral rules from which we must never deviate. Finally, virtue ethics is a theory that concerns itself with the goodness of human beings rather than worrying about which act is right and which act is wrong. The point is that we humans have a purpose according to our nature, just like screwdrivers, knives, eggs, and other things in nature have a purpose. Consequently, a good life is one that leads to our ultimate goal. And the only path that leads to our ultimate goal is a life of virtuous actions in accordance with practical wisdom.
Furthermore, we have considered Gyges' challenge to morality: Why be just? What is the reason that people act justly? According to Glaucon, certainly not because acting justly feels good or is beneficial to us. Rather, we act justly because we cannot get away with what we want to do in life. We fear punishment, and consequently we practice justice. But if we got away with anything and avoided punishment, we would practice injustice. What evidence do we have that this notion is true? Glaucon proposes a powerful thought experiment: Assume you have the power to kill, steal, lie, in short do whatever advances your interest without getting punished for your misdeeds. And as if that were not enough, imagine that you were considered a paragon of morality and justice. If that were the case (unless you were crazy) you would choose such a life because it is the most beneficial.
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
13 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM
Reference
Plato. (2005). Republic by Plato. Hackett Pub. Co.
(CSLO 1, CSLO 2, CSLO 3, CSLO 4, CSLO 5, CSLO 6, CSLO 7, CSLO 8, CSLO 9, CSLO 10)
PHIL1100 https://www.softchalkcloud.com/lesson/files/yo1w4pveY2UEjX/les...
14 of 14 7/6/20, 12:38 PM