Essay

PHI110DeptTextIntro.pdf

Overview of PHI 110: Ethics Course Materials

This document provides an overview of the course materials we will use in this class. The purpose of this class is to introduce first time philosophy students to the discipline of philosophy in the context of ethics. As our subject deals with ethics in theory and action, this purpose will be pursued in two units of study: one focusing on general ethical theory; and one focusing on applied ethical theory. Each unit will contain supporting course materials.

The course materials for unit one outlines philosophical ethical theory in its abstract form. Here we will use the “Introduction to the Fundamentals of Philosophical Ethics” document below, alongside the additional materials explained in the course syllabus, to explore the development and purpose of ethical theory in the context of general philosophy.

The course materials for the second unit will illustrate philosophical ethical theory as it applies to several contemporary ethical issues. Here we will use the course text “Disputed Moral Issues” by Mark Timmons, alongside the additional materials explained in the course syllabus, to explore topics like world hunger and poverty, drug addition, capital punishment and the death penalty, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, non-human animal ethics and environmental ethics. Our purpose in this unit is not only to become more informed about these topics, but to explore the way in which philosophical ethical theory, as introduced in unit one, applies to the study of real-world ethical issues.

Unit I: Introduction to the Fundamentals of Philosophical Ethics

The “Introduction to the Fundamentals of Philosophical Ethics” document below is written in dialogue form. Note that the italics print is the philosophical questioner, while the standard print is the philosophical guide. You will find study guide questions on the D2L “Content” page. Use these questions to guide you through the readings. Have the study guides handy as you read and do your best to answer the questions as you go. This will not only focus your attention on the critical points of each section, it will create a useful study guide for test review sessions.

This introduction dialogue contains the following four sections:

Section 1: What is philosophy? (pgs. 2-11 below)

Philosophy – The Love of Wisdom and the Pursuit of Truth

Three Characterizes of the Philosophical Process

Six Steps of the Philosophical Engagement Process

Branches of Philosophy

Section 2: Introduction to philosophical ethics (pgs. 11-25 below)

Popular Ethics and Philosophical Ethics Approaches

Fundamental Characteristics of Philosophical Ethics

Metaphysical Inquiry and Ethical Evaluation

Ethical Engagement in the Context of the Three “Tools” of Philosophical Inquiry

Section 3: Introduction to philosophical ethical theory (pgs. 25-39 below)

Common Failures in Ethical Consideration

Ethical Theory Approaches

Metaethical Terminology

Theory of the Good Approach

Theory of the Right Approach

Section 4: Applied philosophical ethical theory (pgs. 39-47 below)

Moral Agency – Bringing Ethical Behavior to Life

Ethical Knowing, Doing and Becoming

This Course – “PHI 110: Ethics”

There is a reading schedule for this unit in the course syllabus. Keeping up with this schedule is the first step in effectively preparing for upcoming assessment activities like essays and tests.

Section 1: What is Philosophy?

Good morning class. Welcome to “PHI 110: Ethics.” I am your instructor and I would like to start our discussion today with the general subject of this course – philosophy. While philosophical ethics will be our specific topic of interest for the class, we will first look at philosophy and its relationship to ethical study. We will begin by explaining philosophy as a both an academic discipline and a way of life. Here we will look at philosophy in the two forms of a subject and a process. Then, we will look more specifically into the content of philosophy and the philosophical process. Here we will introduce a few of the central characteristics of the philosophical process, as well as, a few of the fundamental steps involved in the philosophical method of inquiry. Then, finally, we will end our discussion today by briefly looking at the main branches of philosophy. It is in this final portion of our discussion where we will come to identify the specific subject of this course – ethics. But for now, I would like to know if any of you are familiar with our general subject – philosophy. What do you think philosophy is?

For the most part I think philosophy is a bunch of old, grey haired men talking in strange ways about who knows what – I suppose their opinions of the world.

Okay. But you referenced “old.” Why? What is it about philosophy that lead you to point to old age?

Because when I see a “philosophical” character in a movie, or in my mind for that matter, he or she is usually old and grey. And this character is always giving people advice or explaining things in a weird manner. When I think of philosophy I picture Yoda talking to Luke Skywalker in the movie “The Empire Strikes Back”.

So, I see we have a “Star Wars” fan in the group. But what do you think is the significance of the oldness of these characters?

I don’t know – experience maybe? There we go – experience. Experience is a central element to both your explanations. And you are right, philosophy is all about understanding ourselves in the world in an experiential manner. But it is not about random or unreflective experience. That is to say, it is not just about the mere “knowing” and “understanding” elements of experience itself. It is about the manner in which an experience can enlighten the awareness of experiencer. But this “enlightened manner” only occurs when the experience is approached mindfully. So, this leads to our first point – philosophy is about knowing and understanding our experiences in the world in a particular way. Perhaps a look at the word “philosophy” will help to further explain this “particular way.” Philosophy – The Love of Wisdom and the Pursuit of Truth “Philosophy” is an ancient Greek term that is derived from the combination of two words: “phileo” meaning love, and “sophia” meaning wisdom. Thus, the word “philosophy” is best rendered as “the love of wisdom.” But of course, as is the case with all words, philosophy is much more than a word or a phrase. At its core “philosophy” is a way of engaging with our experiences in the world in a way that implies wisdom, not just knowledge. Accordingly, it is not merely an academic discipline; it is a way of living one’s life in terms of philosophical wisdom.

Okay, so what is “philosophical wisdom” then? Since we have already established the relationship between wisdom and experience, let’s turn our attention from the word “philosophy” to the content of the discipline we will study in this course. This will help further clarify the “wisdom” element of philosophy. Philosophy can be explained in two interrelated modes: philosophy as a subject, and philosophy as a process. As a subject philosophy involves a pursuit of truth. Now, there are two concepts here that need our attention – “pursuit” and “truth.” Let’s briefly look at both.

“Truth” is the object of inquiry of philosophy. It is the focus of philosophical inquiry. Perhaps we could even say that it is the reason philosophy is what it is. So, what is “truth” in philosophy’s “pursuit of truth?” “Truth” as it is rendered here refers to more than just true knowledge. It also refers to natural being of the object of knowledge. This “natural being” could be described as the natural “presence,” or simple being of the object as it is “out-there” in the world. It is in this sense that philosophy, as a pursuit of truth, aims to discover and describe things as they are in their natural state in the world. Now, notice to discover and describe something means that we are engaging in a mental activity about an object or event that resides beyond the mind of the discoverer or describer. Let’s look at two additional ideas that will help clarify this: “truth-telling” and “true-being.” “Truth-telling” generally refers to “truth” in the realm of human knowledge and action. Truth-telling involves a situation where a knowing subject, the “truth-teller,” explains an object or event truthfully. “Truthfully” here means a mental idea rendered in accord with the actual object as it actually is in the real world. When one “tells the truth,” one explains things accurately or as we often call it – “factually.” One who tells the “factual truth” about an object or event is not merely communicating her own personal opinion or a whimsical view of things. She is communicating her mental ideas about the object in so much as they reflect or align with the actual features of the object residing in the world. Or to put it in philosophical jargon – she is communicating knowledge about what an object is in itself. It is this “what an object is in itself” that is at the core of philosophy’s pursuit of the “true being” of objects and events. Now, keep in mind that in philosophy stating a fact or proclaiming the factual nature of things is not enough to be called true. In philosophy for knowledge to be called “truthful” or for one to explain things “truthfully” means that what is explained is not just stated as fact. But rather it is explained in a manner that leads to understanding of the fact and its basis. This means that in philosophy’s pursuit of truth we aim to explore and explain not only the facts but the grounding reasons upon which the facts stand. Hang on a minute, what do you mean by “reasons?” Aren’t “facts” and “reasons” the same thing? They are related, but they are not the same thing. As we stated before, a fact could be explained as an accurate description of the features or characteristics of a thing. A reason is that which provides the basis of that factual explanation. A reason provides the foundation of the fact. For example, I may state a fact like, “This boat floats.” And if this boat does float, meaning it manages to remain on the surface when placed in water, then we could simply say that “this boat floats.” Now, while “this boat floats” is clearly a fact in this case, the statement as such gives no reason for itself or for its application to the actual boat residing in the world. In other words, simply stating “this boat floats” provides no reason or explanation of why this is a fact. It does not explain why this particular object is a “boat” and/or why it floats. In providing a reason for the factual statement “this boat floats,” we would need to explain a few different elements involved. For starters, we would need to explain why this specific object is a boat – what makes it a “boat?” Here we may speak about its shape, the material of which it is made, its purpose, its function, etc. Furthermore, in explaining the reason behind “this boat floats,” we would need to provide an explanation for the floating aspect of the stated fact. Here we would aim to explain the objects displacement characteristics in regard to the water in which it is floating. Doing so would establish a grounded explanation of why we can refer to the object as a boat in its form, and describe its functionality in terms of floating. It is in this sense that “reasons” provide the explanations that create a foundation for the “facts” of a thing.

Okay, that makes sense. I can see that better now. But I have never really thought about the difference between a fact and a reason.

Great! I see that we are already starting to think more critically about our experiences. Since we have managed to clarify the subject of philosophy as the pursuit of truth through an understanding of not only the facts but reasons, let’s move on to the second element involved in philosophical inquiry – the “pursuit.” While philosophy’s subject is truth, it manifests as a pursuit of truth. It is in this “pursuit” element where the wisdom aspect comes to us as activity, rather than just a thing. As we established before, wisdom involves someone who

interacts with an experience in a particular way. Accordingly, philosophy, in its love of wisdom, pursues truth in a particular way. This “way of philosophy” aims to go beyond a “shallow” or “superficial” understanding of things. It aims at a critical or deep understanding of things and their reasons, as they relate to the world and its reasons. As such, philosophical understanding relies on a critical method or process of exploration and explanation. It is in this process of exploration and explanation where the “pursuit” and “wisdom” elements come together.

Hmmm. It sounds a bit strange. I can see the distinction between a fact and a reason. But pursuit and wisdom and this process of arriving at the facts and its reasons is not clear to me. Will you explain these parts a bit further please?

Three Characterizes of the Philosophical Process Of course. Perhaps if we outline a few characteristics philosophical engagement it will help us better explain the process element of philosophy. The philosophical engagement process has three distinct characteristics:

1. It places extremely high value on philosophical questions themselves;

2. It focuses on and relies upon clear, adequate descriptions of all elements involved in what is being described;

3. It involves an attempt to continually refine what has been discovered.

The first characteristic, the value of philosophical questions, is a defining feature of philosophy’s pursuit element. Not only are the subjects of the questions important, but questions are a necessary starting point of all exploration, philosophical and otherwise. So, what about the subject of philosophy’s questions? The subject, as you may have derived from our discussion, is understanding the ultimate truth or the truest, most complete being of an object or event. This “philosophical understanding” arises in relation between the facts and reasons of our knowledge of the object of inquiry. Philosophical questions are about the fundamental nature of things. They are about what these objects or events are and what things do in the world. Philosophical questions aim to explore things in their ultimate reality, not just in the views of the one who is exploring and explaining.

Okay, that makes sense. Truth must be about the object or event itself, not merely about the viewer or explainer of the object or event.

That’s right. You’ve got it. As philosophers, we want to know the object in its real state – hence you will often hear the term “reality” or “ultimate reality” in philosophical discourse. The next feature of philosophical questions holds true of all pursuits – questions are the necessary starting point of all exploration and explanation. There are a few things we need to note here. First, questions often arise after we encounter an object, an experience or event. Something presents itself or something happens and then we ask why, when, who or how type questions. Mind you that the questions are not what give rise to the experience or object, but the object or experience which give rise to questions. Making note of this distinction is important as it helps us see that philosophical engagement is chiefly concerned about the world and our experience of it, not just our personal, subjective experience alone. Second, note the vital roles curiosity and intentionality play in the process of exploration. The initial step to any exploration of truth is rooted in curiosity and intentionality. In fact in philosophy, curiosity will not only play a necessary role at the beginning, but throughout the entire process of exploration. Since the goal of philosophy is the pursuit of truth, to engage in philosophy a philosopher must be curious as to what things really are in their ultimate reality– not just what she believes or wants them to be. This means in thinking philosophically we must place curiosity of the object of exploration beyond our personal desire for the object to have such and such a character. As philosophers, our goal is to receive the object from its natural state in the world. We do not aim to project our view of the object into the world. We aim to see the object in its actuality, not in the light of our hopes, desires and wishes. As such, the comfort of familiarity plays a diminished role in the philosophical process. Instead a philosopher learns to find comfort in the exploration itself. Thus, to be a philosopher is not merely to be

thoughtful, aware, knowledgeable, etc. It is to be a wise explorer. And to be wise in this way does not necessarily begin or end with knowledge itself; it begins and ends with curiosity and intentionality.

All that makes sense but I have never thought of questions in that way. Well, welcome to philosophy. You will find that philosophy will push you to think about normal, everyday things and events in ways that have never occurred to you. It’s really something. Now, l think we are ready to move on to the second characteristic of the philosophical process – the focus on clear, adequate descriptions. When a philosophical question arises, we begin not only to explore but also attempt to explain. It is in this explanation process where clarity and adequacy come into focus. For a fact and its reasons to be said to be “truly” or “deeply” understood implies that the description that accompanies this understanding is clear, not murky. We would not be said to understand clearly when we can only explain something as “kind of,” “sort of,” or “more or less like this or that.” Ambiguous, imprecise, and/or vague descriptions are not sufficient for the depth of philosophical understanding. The second element involved in philosophical descriptions is adequacy. “Adequacy” here refers to the depth of explanation. As philosophy aims at a deep or profound understanding of a thing, philosophical descriptions must follow suit. An adequate description is one that clearly and profoundly explains the most essential features of the thing in question. Our ability to identify these fundamental elements become a hinge point of our ability to explain what makes a thing or event what it is. For example, an adequate description of a squirrel would have to go beyond a “furry animal with four legs and a tail.” Such a generic or surface description of features of “furry,” “animal,” etcetera, where all the terms were clearly described, would not help us to know what makes a squirrel what it is and not something else. This is because these elements generally apply to all manner of animals, including a dog, a cat, or a horse. An adequate description would explain a squirrel in a manner that leads us to understand what makes it what it is and not something else – i.e. what makes a squirrel a squirrel, not a horse or dog, etc. Thus, adequate philosophical descriptions are those that clearly identify and explain the fundamental elements that make a thing what it is and not something else. The third characteristic feature of the philosophical process is its continuity. Oddly enough, the philosophical process does not have a definitive stopping point. As a process of engaging the world, it manifests as a constant or ongoing pursuit of truth. It continually aims to explore, re-explore, and refine what has been discovered. With each explanation, it seeks to go deeper in its understanding. It is in this sense that philosophical curiosity and wisdom are not merely features of the beginning of the process, the questioning part, but are present throughout. Perhaps we could say that philosophy sees humans as magnificent explorers above and beyond magnificent knowers. This may be a bit of an embellishment – but I think you get the point. The exploration itself is that which enlightens, it is not merely what the exploration produces, namely a theory or explanation.

Yeah, I think I get it. But a discipline that focuses on the pursuit more than the answers is new to me. It seems like other disciplines tend to focus mostly on the answers.

Yes, this a distinguishing feature of philosophy. In philosophy, the questions can be seen as more valuable than the answers because questions inherently involve curiosity. When we ask a question, we become curious of not only the answer but also of the process by which we come to an answer. But having said that, the inverse is also typically true; curiosity is often let go of when adequate answers are given in response to a question. Once we find our answer, our curiosity is left behind or perhaps we could even say “replaced” by knowledge. Mind you that the goal of the philosopher is not to allow this to happen. The goal is to maintain curiosity even in the face of an answer. After all, one who is “wise” will realize that she can seldom say that she has looked at a question or topic from all possible angles, all possible perspectives. There are nearly always other ways or context in which we can test what the process has produced. Thus, the realization of the importance of questions is not merely at the core of philosophical curiosity but it also sits at the core of its counterpart – philosophical wisdom.

Furthermore, it is in this third characteristic where the “dialogue,” not “debate,” element of the philosophical process comes into focus. Philosophical inquiry and engagement involves an inclusive process, it does not take place in isolation. When engaging in a pursuit of truth, philosophers aim to produce theories that clearly and accurately account the truest, most complete mode of things; the goal is to account for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the object of inquiry. As we are attempting to discover the object that is at the core of all perspectives of the object, philosophical engagement pushes us to go beyond any singular, limited perspective of the object, including our own personal view. Philosophers, in their pursuits of truth, come to rely not only on themselves, but equally on others. As I, a singular philosopher in isolation, tend to explore an object of inquiry from a single perspective, from my perspective, when I engage others, using their own differing angles or perspectives, my pursuit can be expanded. I can work with their ideas to reveal other true elements of the object in question, elements that remained hidden from the limitations of my own personal view of the object. However, keep in mind that this inclusive expansion of our pursuit is not automatic. It occurs if, and only if, I am open to the methods, ideas, and perspective of others. When I am open, it follows that I may have a better chance of discovering a more extensive mode of exploration and explanation. But if I am not open, then I will remain trapped by my own ideas, values, and perspectives of the true being of the object or event in question. Accordingly, when philosophers engage others in the pursuit of truth, they do so in an inclusive dialogue, not in a debate.

So, how is a debate different from a dialogue? When two persons (or ideas) come together in a debate framework, the goal of the interaction often centers on victory. But in victory one must win and one must lose. As this is the case, when involved in a debate it is easy to lose focus of our central purpose – pursuing truth. Our pursuit of truth falls to our focus on winning, and all too often winning through all means possible. Accordingly, philosophical engagement with others occurs in the framework of a dialogue. In this dialogue, we involve others to extend the scope of our exploration. We come together with other philosophers not as opponents ready for battle; instead, as colleagues pursuing truth. Their differing ideas can be that which challenges us to discover a new question, which then gives rise to a more dynamic pursuit of the objet in question. A simple way to think of it is that we aim to include other positions and perspectives in our pursuit to contemplate the true nature of things; not to convince, convert or conquer others and their ideas. Wow! That sounds like a good idea. But an approach like this sounds a little idealistic don’t you think? I suppose so. It may not only sound idealistic; it may be a bit idealistic. But keep in mind that the ideal often provides both the motive and the standard with which we evaluate our progress in coming to understand that object of inquiry in its truest, most complete state. We tend to rate how well we are doing in this pursuit based on a percentage of the ideal. For example, we rate a baseball player’s batting average based on one hundred percent success in reaching base. Or we rate an essay or a test in school in accord with a one hundred-percentile ideal. This one hundred percent is the highest end of the evaluation scale in both cases. And while the ideal is rarely achieved, it is the standard by which we evaluate our progress. Philosophy’s pursuit of truth through an inclusive dialogue is much the same way. The ideal of the all-inclusive dialogue is the standard that motivates, and in many ways, measures our success. I suppose that makes sense. Six Steps of the Philosophical Engagement Process Now, let’s turn from the general characteristics to the specific content of the philosophical process. In order to better introduce philosophy as a process of engaging objects the world in terms of their facts and reasons we will attempt to identify a few basic steps that can be used in philosophical inquiry. While we could not go as far as saying that these steps are the philosophical engagement process, surely we could hold them to be helpful elements of the philosophical engagement process. There are six basic steps we will focus on as we inquire in to the topics of this class. They are:

Step 1: Identify the general topic of inquiry and formulate a specific question about this general topic

Step 2: Explore and explain the individual elements involved in the specific question

Step 3: Explore and explain the relationship between the individual elements involved in the specific question

Step 4: Explore and explain the relationship between the elements in the specific question and the general topic of inquiry

Step 5: Explore and explain the relationship between the ideas or theory produced and the actual world

Step 6: Continuation of the process, aimed at refining what is discovered

Notice how each step builds on the next; each plays a role in perpetuating the next step as well as the overall process. I think that explaining each in the context of a specific example will be helpful to clarify how they operate. In anticipation of future content of the course, let’s look at each one as it applies to J.S. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle or “GHP” as it is typically called.

Okay, I think I may have heard of the “Greatest Happiness Principle” before. Great then it should serve our purposes here. But before we begin let’s take a moment to note our purpose here. The purpose of this illustration is not to explore the content of the topic and question. Our purpose is to merely illustrate the structure of the six steps of the philosophical process. As such, the remainder of our GHP example will be made in hypothetical form. This means that we will merely aim to establish the questions or topics; we will not argue them through.

So, you are saying that we are not going to discuss the GHP in accord with the philosophical process. We are only going to establish what we would talk about if we were going to do so?

That’s right. Since our purpose here is to illustrate the six steps, we will keep it simple. That sounds good. For step 1 of the philosophical engagement process we would begin by establishing the general topic and specific question of our inquiry. As the GHP is a principle of ethical behavior, perhaps we could just say that our general topic is – ethics. Then, following from our general topic, let’s say our specific questions will be – What is the GHP and how does it relate to “ethics?” As we have established our general topic and specific question in step one, in step 2 of the engagement process we would begin by explaining all the individual elements involved in the GHP. The individual elements here would be “greatness,” “happiness,” and “principle.” Our goal in this step would be to provide a clear, adequate description of each individual element, as it is in its own right. Here we would need to clarify what is meant by the terms “greatness,” “happiness,” and “principle.” Our central question would be, for example, “what is ‘happiness’?” Moving on to step 3 we would explore the relationship between the three individual elements of Step 2. The goal here would be to provide clear, adequate descriptions of the individual elements not in isolation (as was the case in step 2) but as they exist in relation to each other. In the GHP example we would explain the relationship between the elements – “greatness” and “happiness,” “greatness” and “principle,” “happiness” and “principle.” The question here is, “How do ‘greatness’ and ‘happiness’ relate to each other inside the GHP?” In step 4 we would explore the individual elements as they relate to the whole. Here we would explain the relationship between the individual elements and the specific topic. However, note that the “individual elements” transition from their individual state outlined in step 2, into “compositional elements” of the specific topic in step 3. It is in this sense that the elements are no longer seen as “independent,” but as an ingredient of the specific topic in question. In our GHP

example we would make the connection between the elements and the whole explicit by explaining the role each compositional element – “greatness,” “happiness,” and “principle” – plays in the specific topic – the “GHP.” An example question for this step would be, “What role does ‘happiness’ play in the GHP?” or “What role does ‘principle’ play in the GHP?” Then in step 5 we would explore the GHP, and its compositional elements, as it relates to the real world of ethical actions and behaviors. Our focus here would be the theory as it relates to the actual world with its actual people and events. Accordingly, step 5 would require us to look not only at the principle outlined in step 4, but it also requires us to introduce our general topic – “ethics.” Here we would have to look at what “ethics” involves – namely in both its theory and interactive states. Then, after doing so, we would be in a better position to explore how our specific topic, the GHP, relates to our general topic, ethics. But these parts of the theory, while essential to the facts and reasons of the arguments given, are theory arguments only. As ethics is something we do to and with others in the actual world, our task here is to better understand the relationship between our theories and the actual interactive world around us. Finally, step 6 the philosophical engagement process ends by returning to its beginning. In the spirit of philosophy’s continual pursuit of clarity and accuracy of thought, in step 6 we return to step 1 or 2 better equipped with the product of steps 1 – 5. In our current example, we would re-explore what we have learned about the GHP, ethics and their compatibility. We would do this to further purge out any obscurities or inaccuracies. It is in this step where the process as a dialogue comes fully into focus. That is not to say that the dialogue element is firstly introduced in step 6; it should be present in all six steps. It is only to say that it comes to play a foremost role in step 6. This is because our goal here would be to re-explore the topic from another perspective to find new, creative ways to test what we have discovered. And it is important that this testing is not done to confirm or deny our mental theory, instead it is there to help us continually pursue the object as it is in the world. Accordingly, continual input from others and from the object in world become helpful tools.

Wow, that seems like a complex process! It is a lot to keep in mind.

Yes, it is. But philosophy and its pursuit of understanding an object in its truest, most complete state is no simple topic to explore, much less explain. And surely a complex topic should be met with an equally thoughtful, thorough, dynamic method of exploration and explanation. While the questions that will arise using these steps will often be quite complex, thankfully the steps themselves are rather straightforward. Remember, our goal in this class is not to become an expert philosopher. Our goal is to introduce the discipline. The purpose is for you to get a “feel” for philosophy and its process of exploring and explaining truth in ethical situations.

Okay. I will do my best. Great! As this is a new discipline, and indeed a new way of thinking about issues for which you already have answers, take it one step at a time. You will be challenged but you need not be discouraged. Philosophy is all about challenging our pre-conceived ideas and lazy assumptions. It does so not to destroy or frustrate, but to spark (or even re-spark) curiosity where answers have come to reign. This curiosity is a key that can push us to come to know ourselves and our world more deeply and sincerely. Before we move on there is one vitally important point to note about what we have discussed thus far – the interdependence of the three elements of the philosophical process. These elements are: (a) the pursuit of truth, (b) the questions, and (c) the six steps we will use while involved in that pursuit. Together these parts make up the overall framework of the philosophical process we will use in this course. While each part has its own characteristics, none exists in exclusivity. Each part is integrally related to every other part, as well as to the overall philosophical process as a whole. As such, each part is both a means to and a goal of our pursuit of truth and should therefore be treated with the utmost care and attention.

So, I understand that when I come across a philosophical question I can turn to these six steps to guide me through the process of exploration and explanation. Will these six steps always apply?

Yes, the steps will remain constant while the topics of inquiry will change. But do not forget about our intention as philosophers – the pursuit of truth defined by the actual being of the object residing in the world, not merely my or someone else’s idea of truth. When this intention is present, the philosophical engagement process will apply to all the topics and questions we will be exploring in this course. If you come to feel stuck during any learning activity in the course, whether it is in a class discussion, a writing assignment, or a reading assignment, make it a habit to turn back to your intention and these six steps. Start in sequential order, mindfully working your way through all six steps. But remember, your job in the course is not to be perfect. Your job is to be curious and to get involved in the philosophical engagement process. As you will soon see, there are some learning activities in the course that focus on particular steps. Take the writing assignments and discussion classes for examples. Given the fact that the essay topics and questions are pre-established, steps 2-5 will be our prime focus on your writing assignments. Regarding our class discussions, step 6 is of prime importance. Our goal in these discussions will not merely be to find a sufficient answer. Our goal is to instigate curiosity, wisdom, and exploration, being the three pillars of philosophical inquiry. The point here is that, given the goal and character of philosophical engagement in contrast to other disciplines, we will do well to continuously return to our intention and these six steps throughout the course. If you get stuck thinking “how do I even start with this question or topic?” – start there. I will try to keep that in mind. Now that we have discussed philosophy in its abstract form, before we finish for the day I want to introduce you to the main branches of philosophical exploration. This will help us move from philosophy as abstract theory, toward philosophy as theory in practice. As we have established thus far philosophy is the pursuit of truth through a dynamic process which aims at clarity and adequacy of thought and understanding by means of an inclusive dialogue. The question that follows is, what are the particular subjects of philosophy? There are five main branches of philosophical inquiry. They are: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics, and ethics. Let’s take a moment to briefly describe each before we come to focus on the particular subject of this course – philosophical ethics. Branches of Philosophy The first branch on the list is metaphysics. Metaphysics, is made up of two words – “meta” and “physics.” “Meta” here refers to “before” or “beyond,” while “physics” refers the study of change or motion in the natural world. Thus, “metaphysics” is the study of the identity of things in their unchanging state. Now, given the seeming ever-changing nature of our world, this gives rise to many questions I am sure.

Wait, wait. Did you say “the study of what doesn’t change?” I am not sure that anything does not change. When I look around I see that everything changes.

Sure, things as they appear to our senses (see, taste, touch, smell, hear) seem to be ever-changing. But when we “look” closely with our minds in conjunction with our senses we notice that things seem to change in one way, and not change in another. Take my personal identity for example. We can see that I am “Joel” but when we try to find my fundamental characteristics we run into a problem with time and change. What “Joel” is seems to transcend what I was in the past – an infant who could not walk, speak, or teach a philosophy class. Furthermore, “Joel’s Joelness” seems to equally transcend what I may become in the future – an old decrepit, senile Joel who could not walk, or make much sense when he talks, much less teach a philosophy class. The point here is that while my physical form will change, there seems to be something in me that goes beyond change. My “Joelness” seems to transcend many of the changing elements of my life.

This “Joelness” could be said to be my first principle – or to put it more plainly, the features that make up a key element of my identity; they make me who I am – “Joel.” But this “first principle” explanation approach does not only apply to me. It will apply to all manner of things. Take a cow for example. While we may see a field of many individual cows, if we pay attention we notice that there is a “cowness” present amid them all. While each cow possesses his or her own specific characteristics, each is a cow as each participates in the general category of “cow.” This “cowness” category is the first principle – or “categorical form” as it is often put in philosophical jargon – which is shared by all cows. The same can be said for “humanity,” “tables,” or any other physical form. While variety and change is ever-present in a room full of chairs, there seems to also be an unchanging category of “chariness” that is equally present. Metaphysics, in studying the unchanging categorical forms or first principles of things, is comprised of two sub-branches: ontology and epistemology. Ontology is the study of being or the fundamental existence of an object, while epistemology is the study of our knowledge and how we know about ourselves and our experiences of the world and its objects. As we saw before, epistemology focuses not only on what is known, but how something has come to be known. This branch deals with the distinction between an opinion, a belief, a fact, and a reason. We will see epistemology, and its partner ontology, play a leading role in several of the ethical theories we will look throughout the course. Next comes logic, a close relative of epistemology. Logic is the study of arguments through valid forms of reasoning. Reason relates to the process by which we think. Our ability to reason is that which enables us to derive a conclusion from premises. A premise provides the foundation for an argument’s conclusion. Premises are often comprised of evidence, beliefs, facts, etc. Accordingly, we come to know not only a conclusion of the argument, but the premises upon which the argument is built. Following from this, logic predominantly studies an argument in terms of the relationship between its premises and its conclusion. Next on our list is aesthetics. Aesthetics is the study of beauty. While aesthetics is often associated with the arts, philosophy studies beauty in all its forms. This means that in philosophical aesthetics beauty is not merely explored in its particular forms – i.e. this is a beautiful rose. But beauty is studied in and of itself. This aspect of aesthetics aims to explore and explain what “beauty” means in its own right, not merely in relation to other things. Finally, there is ethics. It is in ethics where we see a transition from theory to practical application. From philosophical ideas to philosophical actions. The discipline of ethics incorporates elements drawn from the other branches. This is because, at a base level, ethics involves the study of the way ethical agents pursue a good life as an intelligent social creature. This “good life” is not merely an abstraction, but a practical way of knowing, being and doing in the world. This “practical way” involves the manner that ethical creatures take account for the actions they chose during their pursuit of the good life. But the “practical way” of ethics is not defined by individual pursuits alone; it is defined by consideration actor’s actions choices as they take account for the interests and worth of all persons involved in their action choices. This “all involved” includes themselves playing the role of actor (and action evaluator) but also all others included in their actions. Accordingly, ethical study involves exploring the way ethical creatures pursue a good life through their interpersonal interactions. It studies the “way” in which the actor’s views, values and actions choices relate to those around them. It is for this reason that ethical study requires us to draw from all realms of our experience and knowledge.

Those subjects cover a lot of topics. I would imagine that you could study philosophy for a long time and not become an expert in any one of the fields.

Yeah, that’s probably true. But do not forget that as philosophers we are not merely aiming for knowledge, but wisdom. And this “wisdom” element is greatly tied to the philosophical method of exploration. Even if perfection or expertise is improbable, it is the curiosity and the deliberate process of engagement in the pursuit of truth that makes philosophers, philosophers. As philosophers, being an “expert” is not our primary objective. Our primary concern is the wisdom of the pursuit itself.

Okay, I think that is enough for today. Come back next time and we will dig deeper into the specific subject of this class – ethical philosophy.

Section 2: Introduction to Philosophical Ethics

Welcome back class. In our last session, we discussed philosophy and its relationship to ethics. If you remember we talked about philosophy as both a subject and a process. In so doing, we outlined some of the general characteristics of philosophical engagement process, which included three general characteristics alongside six main steps. Then finally, we capped off our discussion by outlining the main branches of philosophical inquiry.

Today we will turn our focus to the specific topic of this course – ethical philosophy. Our plan today is to discuss a few of the main points concerning philosophical ethics. We will begin by looking at the difference between a “popular ethics” approach and philosophical ethics approach to interactive situations. This comparison will prepare us for a more comprehensive description of philosophical ethics and its approach to interpersonal interactive actions and behaviors. Finally, we will outline some of the first principles or fundamental characteristics of philosophical ethics. Here we focus our attention on three main aspects involved in the philosophical approach to ethics: ethical contexts, ethical actions, and the philosophical process as it applies to an ethical framework.

Professor, you said something about “popular ethics.” What do you mean by this? Popular Ethics and Philosophical Ethics Approaches Okay, this question serves as a good start to our topic today. Let me start by saying that when I refer to “popular ethics” I am not referring to a formalized field of ethics. Instead, I am referring to an informal type of ethical engagement. “Popular ethics” is the everyday ethical approach that is known by many who are not familiar with philosophy. This mainstream type of ethical engagement involves “ethics” as is commonplace in our culture. I bring up the popular ethics approach not to clarify its content but to serve as a backdrop against which we can distinguish the philosophical approach to ethics.

I think I am one of those people who are familiar with ethics but not philosophy. While I know very little about philosophy, I feel like I have been taught about “ethics” my entire life.

I am sure you have heard about “ethics” in a variety of places, but I bet that you have rarely, if ever, heard ethics talked about in the context of philosophy. So, the question that follows from this comparative framework is, “What is the difference between ‘popular ethics’ and ‘philosophical ethics’?” In “popular ethics” ethical actions and behaviors are often talked about in the context of religion, culture, or personal values and opinions. When we attempt to explain or justify our ethical approach we often point to one of these three sources. Here we explain that “ethics” has to do with a spiritual belief or religious scripture. If not religion, perhaps we point to a social moray. If not a cultural norm, we many point to a personal inclination or opinion. Either way, notice that such explanations are nothing more than a simple statement of fact. They say, “My ethics comes from X.” As such, they leave both the content and deeper foundation of the ethics unrevealed. While many may believe that the source of the ethic is its justification, this is not the case in philosophy. As we talked about last time, in philosophy we need more than the fact; we need both the facts and the reasons behind the facts that are argued. I see that we are back to the distinction between a “fact” and a “reason” that we talked about last time. Yes. The relationship between a fact and its reasons is a theme that will continue throughout the process of philosophical engagement and explanation. This fact/reasons distinction helps to reveal the first philosophical failure of “popular ethics” approach. “Ethics,” as it is known from a “popular ethics” standpoint, rarely provides more than a “surface-level,” “matter-of-fact” explanation of its approach to ethical situations. As we discussed before, for knowledge to be “philosophical,” whether it comes in the form of an idea, a belief, a theory, or principle, it must be understood and explained in terms of both its facts and reasons. It is important to remember that a main purpose of the philosophical process is to make the implicit or hidden elements of our knowledge, explicit or plain. In our pursuit of truth, our goal is

to unveil all that is veiled in both the world and in our understanding of it. As the reasons for the ethic often remain either hidden or unknown in the “popular ethics” approach, it falls short of the standard of clarity set by philosophical ethics.

Well that seems to me to be in line with the theme that we have been discussing so far. Philosophy is all about depth and accuracy of understanding.

You bet. As you may be thinking, a simple reference “from where” the ethics is derived does very little in explaining the fundamentals of the ethics.

Sure, I see that but I have a question here. Why do I need to justify my ethics to anyone other than myself? It’s mine, so why do I need to justify it to you or anyone else?

Good question! This is an important one for ethics as it points to a critical feature of ethical action. As ethics involves the way we interact with others, others play a key a part of the equation. This means that while my code of ethics may belong to me personally, my ethical actions do not. By their very nature they involve me and others. They involve how I relate to others and how others related to me. Accordingly, we could say that my ethical actions, when acted out in the world become inter-actions that “belong” to me and others they involve. So, whether my ethic is derived from a belief in God, from the Constitution, from my mother, my culture, or even from my own personal opinion, I and others are equally involved in my ethical actions. While I may play the role of the actor, in the context of ethical consideration my personal values, ideas and beliefs alone do not provide sufficient reasons for my action’s ethical correctness. This is because I am not an “I” in solitude in an ethical interaction. I am an “I” amongst an “us.”

Okay, I never thought of it that way but I guess that makes sense. I am acting but my action includes others, therefore, to act ethically I must include them while considering my action.

That is correct. This point highlights the second failure of the “popular ethics” approach. In “popular ethics” when determining which actions or behaviors are appropriate, the value of the acting agent is often considered in an unbalanced manner. This unbalanced view often arises because the acting agent plays two key roles in an ethical situation. She plays the acting role, as well as, the evaluator role. This means that in an ethical situation she must not only choose and carry out her action, she must also evaluate her action in the context of an ethical framework. As an actor, the acting agent often acts from her interests and desires which are drawn from her sense of self-worth. When she finds herself involved in a situation, ethical in nature or not, it is often these personal elements that move her to action. However, in an ethical context we must note that her action involves more than just herself as an actor; it also equally involves others as recipients of her action. Accordingly, to be ethically minded she must consider her interest, desires, and self-worth alongside that of all others involved.

I think I get it but this seems to be rather important here. To make sure it is clear to me, could you explain it a little more?

Sure. As the evaluator of the ethical action it is important that we distinguish the relationship between ourselves as an actor/interest holder, and the interactive action we are undertaking. Let’s explain this relationship using two familiar terms – “public” and “private.” “Public” means that which is shared or held in a manner that includes others, while “private” means that which is personal or held independent of others. Ethical actions, being interactions with others, makes them both a “private” and “public” matter. While they may originate from myself as a “private” agent, my interactions are “public” since they impact lives of multiple other individuals. In this way, ethics involves the private realm of our actions as they relate to the public and vice versa. Yeah, I think that makes sense.

Good. So, if an acting agent cannot see that her interests, desires, and self-worth are her private matter, while the interaction is a public matter, then her judgment is often skewed. To further clarify this point, let’s explain this using a specific example. Take one of the more common versions of the “Golden Rule” – “treat others the way you want to be treated.” As this rule is openly taking the acting agent and others into account, it is clearly a code of ethical behavior. But notice what the “treat others…” phrase is ascribing. It argues that “others” should be treated or acted upon in accord with the values and views of “you,” the acting agent. This ethical code prompts us to act in a manner that pays inadequate regard for the values and views of the one(s) acted upon. To put it in another way, in this version of the “Golden Rule” I am treating others as I see fit, not as they desire. Thus, the values, interest, and standards of the actor are being imposed on the recipients of the action. The actor is being directed to determine her action by her own “private” standard, not by an inclusive “public” standard. Clearly this is an ethical failure as ethics is about consideration of others and myself by receiving their interests, desires, and values, not imposing myself or my values on others.

Wow, that is shocking to me! I have never thought of the “Golden Rule” in this way. But I can see how this approach could lead to an imposition rather than an act of genuine ethical consideration.

Okay, then here we are once again being challenged by philosophical approach to this issue. Philosophy is all about critical engagement with new, and not so new ideas. But, even so, let’s be careful not to overstate what we have discovered here. “Treat others the way you would like to be treated” is but one version of the Golden Rule. As we have not explored other versions, we are not prepared to evaluate their accuracy. We are, however, in a good position to refine the content of this version to make it more ethically correct. Perhaps we could change it to, “treat others the way they want to be treated.” Or even better yet, “treat others the way they should be treated – ‘should’ here implying ‘ethically.’” I think this version of the rule better align with the spirit of what the Golden Rule is attempting to explain. But note that we could not accurately change it to, “sacrifice your own self-worth for the sake of others.” This version would go too far in the other direction. A “self-sacrificial” principle as such would result in us allowing others impose themselves on you. For an action to be correct in philosophical ethical terms means that the action cannot be self- serving or self-sacrificing. It must go beyond both extremes. It must be inclusive of all the ethical entities involved in the exchange. And I do not think we would go too far in saying that the “way of treatment” outlined in the Golden Rule in the form of “treat others the way you would like to be treated” is a way of inclusion, not exclusion.

That sounds good. I think this makes the “way of ethical treatment” of the “Golden Rule” more plain and clear. Okay great. I am glad to see that your curiosity is being stimulated. It is also great to see your willingness to explore some of the core values and views you may hold. This willingness is essential to becoming a philosopher. The second thing I would like to address here is another point of review from our last class. Remember in philosophy the answer is not more important than the process. Notice how we came to see this inconsistency. We did not need to discover “from where” this version of the “Golden Rule” came. All we did was to look at this rule in relation to ethical actions and behaviors. We did not need to turn to an external or arbitrary source to evaluate. Our ability to consider the interaction and interactive context itself provided us with the evaluation tools we needed. Right, another good point. This highlights the third and final failure of the “popular ethics” approach we will discuss today. When facing an ethical situation, the acting agent of the “popular ethics” approach often refers to an exclusive source for a standard to evaluate an ethical action. This referral generally includes sources like a religious text, a written rule like a law, or cultural norms. Now, not only are these standards often vague, but notice how these standards relate to the situation in which they are intended to operate. Wait, are you saying that a personal, cultural, or religious belief is not justified in ethics?

No, that is not my point here. Of course, a person’s personal beliefs are justified in so much as they are held by the holder. But as ethics involves interactive exchanges between multiple people – personal, cultural, or religious beliefs themselves do not play the lead role in evaluating the ethical correctness of an interaction. Evaluation standards derived from personal, cultural, or religious beliefs fall short in ethical philosophy as they often do not meet the standard of inclusivity required in considering action choices relating to both the private and public realms of ethical exchanges.

What do you mean? As ethics necessarily involves an interactive exchange between the actor and others, the standard of evaluating the ethical correctness of the action must be equally inclusive of all the entities involved. The issue here is that, as personal, cultural, or religious beliefs tend to include the values and views of some, while excluding others. They tend to focus on specific persons or groups, making them inadequate foundations from which we can derive a standard to evaluate a “public” or shared interaction.

Sure, I can see that. But what about in the case where a cultural standard or a religious standard is used, but only where all involved fall within that culture or religious group. Could a cultural or religious based standard be correctly used in such a case?

Perhaps only then would the cultural or religious perspective meet the inclusive standard of evaluating an ethical action. But notice that in such a case, it is not the standard of inclusivity of that has changed to meet the cultural or religious standard. Rather it is that the cultural or religious standard that has met the standard of inclusivity required for ethical action evaluation.

At this stage I can see that philosophical ethics and “popular ethics” will approach ethical situations differently. Given my experiences and what we have talked about so far, I think I have a pretty good grasp on “popular ethics” but I would like to understand more about philosophical ethics.” I am not sure how I would even start to discover an appropriate standard to evaluate my ethical action using this approach.

Sure. This is also a good question. Let’s begin with a description of a few of the necessary elements that make philosophical ethics what it is and not something else. Doing so will help us recognize the context in which ethical actions arise and are evaluated. Regarding philosophical clarity and accuracy, this description will contain several parts. We will outline three fundamental characteristics that make philosophical ethics what it is. These are: the fundamental features of an ethical situation; the fundamental features of an action which is evaluated as a correct ethical action; and the philosophical method as it is used in evaluating this correctness. Fundamental Characteristics of Philosophical Ethics As we discussed above, in the “popular ethics” approach an unbalanced amount of attention is often provided to the acting agent. The ethical actor, concurrently playing the role of actor and action evaluator, often tends to place too much weight on her own views and perspectives. When we discover the discrepancy of this position our inclination as the action evaluator is often to move attention from the actor to the recipient of the action. But the result of this change often results in a discrepancy that mirrors the first – the recipient receives too much weight of consideration. And as ethics is a form of receptive consideration, not imposition, the solution to these failures lies in our ability to see more than just the individual persons or individual actions involved; we must see them in the greater context in which they are involved. In exploration of this context, it is important to identify the main question of our inquiry. That question is, “What are the defining features of an ethical situation, as opposed to a non-ethical situation?” These questions are important as they push us to explore which situations provoke ethical consideration from the acting agent. As we have already seen, ethics necessarily involves interaction. While actions themselves are not necessarily ethical in nature, when they play out as interactions they are. That is to say, when our actions ultimately involve two or more

ethical entities, it falls within the scope of ethical engagement. As such, ethical situations are those which involve more than interactions – they involve interpersonal interactions. Ethics deals with actions and behaviors that play out between multiple “persons” or what we will call “ethical entities.” This means, “ethics” deals with interactive relationships between ethical entities. Given that explanation, it is important to note that we are highlighting behaviors and actions because ethics necessarily involves action as a key element. While an ethical intention to consider ourselves alongside others is a critical aspect of ethical engagement, it alone cannot sufficiently explain the totality of an ethical act. For an act to be called “ethically correct” in the full sense of the term it must be actually acted out in the world. And in the world, ethical actions play out as interactions involving multiple persons – including the actor and the recipients of the action.

That makes sense with what we have been discussing. In ethics, we are talking about actions in which two or more persons are involved.

Correct but there are two points that we need to address here regarding the term “persons.” First, many times some of the “persons” involved in the action may not be notably present at the time of the action. Let’s take a situation where we are buying a product in a store to illustrate. While it initially appears that the only ethical “person” involved in an act of purchase is myself as a purchaser, closer inspection will reveal that that are multiple persons equally involved. For instance, if we are paying attention to the context in which we are acting we can see that there are others present when we purchase the product – e.g. a store owner, store employees, other shoppers around us, etc. While these are relatively apparent entities involved in the exchange, a bit of deeper thought will reveal that there are also several “hidden” others. These others are “hidden” in the products involved in the act of purchasing. This is because the creation of the product naturally involves others – e.g. the producer, those involved in packing and shipping, farmers, miners, etc. While this second group of “hidden” persons may not be physically present at the time of purchase, it does not follow that they are not at all involved. Clearly, they are by the necessity of their role in the situation, regardless of their immediate physical presence. So, it is important to remember that just because a “person” is not immediately present and/or directly involved in the ethical action at the time that it unfolds, it does not necessarily follow that they are not involved. As philosophers, we must learn to grasp the totality of the situation through what is immediately before us.

I see. When acting ethically we must be aware of the action as it relates to people who are immediately present and those who are affected but not present at the moment the interaction takes place.

That’s right. The second issue regarding the phrase “ethical persons” is that we need to clarify the ideal of “personhood” as it applies to ethical consideration. The issue here is not that the term “persons” is incorrectly associated with ethics; obviously ethics is all about interactive treatment where we treat persons as persons rather than things. It is that when we refer to “persons” in “popular ethics,” personhood generally applies only to human entities. For example, imagine asking someone using the “popular ethics” approach, “Why in ethics are humans treated as ‘persons,’ not ‘things’?” The typical response would be, “Because they are persons and not things.” If we then asked, “Why is this so?” or “What makes a person a person and a thing a thing?” – the typical response might be, “I don’t know.” or “Just because they are.” Such responses, of course, would not suffice for an adequate philosophical explanation. This is because a philosophical explanation requires us to account for both facts and reasons. As such, we cannot lightly accept one entity, or group of entities as deserving ethical consideration while excluding another. If this same question of “ethical personhood” arose during philosophical engagement, we would begin by clarifying the fundamental features of “ethical personhood.” Then, once we have done so then we would be in a better position to determine which entities are included within the general category of “ethical personhood” and the ethical consideration that follows. Okak yeah, I think I understand the difference. But what makes an entity an “ethical entity” in philosophy then?

General speaking, in philosophy an entity or “being” is often included in the category of “ethical personhood” to the extent to which the entity is invested in living a good life. Furthermore, “living a good life” is a life lived in a manner that brings out the potential of the living agent. This means that a good life is one that is both desirable and beneficial to the one living the life. The term “desirable” in this phrase points to the interest of the one living the life, while “benefit” points to the development of those interests in the context of time. This means that at the lower end of the spectrum, desirable and beneficial may simply involve a life without suffering, whereas on the higher end of the spectrum, “benefit” may include choices and actions which aim at bringing forth the life-liver’s potential. Now having said that, it is critical to note that that while “good life” is a general term that applies to all living beings, the content of any specific person’s good life will vary based upon the identity of the liver of the life. That is to say, the good life of all living beings is not the same. The good life of each being is determined by the being’s makeup. Thus, the good life of a human animal is not the same as a non-human animal; or that the good life of a plant is not the same good life as an animal.

I can see how the good life of an ethical entity is specific to each living person. My good life as a human being will clearly be different than that of other living beings like a dog or cow.

Good. But if not, do not worry. I am sure this will become clearer as we continue along our journey into philosophical ethics. Later in the course we will look at the way our food production system involves non-human ethical entities, particularly farm animals and the ecological environment. These topics will push us to further explore the fundamental characteristics that make an entity an ethical entity. Or to put it another way, the will push us to explore which, if any, entities can correctly be regarded as “things,” and which should be regarded as “persons.” Okay, that sounds like an interesting topic. As the first fundamental feature of philosophical ethics addresses ethical contexts, the second deals with the ethical actions involved in those contexts. The focus question here is, “What makes an ethical action a correct ethical action?” Or to put in another way, “What are the fundamental features of a ‘correct’ ethical action?” In philosophical ethics, an ethical action is often deemed to be correct to the extent in which it considers the interests and worth of all ethical entities it involves. But this inclusive consideration does not arise in the action itself; it arises in the mindset of the actor. To clarify this important issue, it will be helpful to distinguish between an ethical act and ethical behavior. In the context of ethics an “action” arises when ethical agent exercises her ability effect the situation in which she finds herself. That is to say, an agent acts when as she does something that influences or changes the world. An action is exemplified in someone driving a car to shopping or opening the door to enter the grocery store. “Behavior,” on the other hand, indicates the genera of a group of actions. It involves the classification and characterization of a group of actions. Accordingly, behavior accounts for more than just the action itself; it also accounts for additional elements including the actor’s mindset used when evaluating the actions appropriateness for a given situation, and the general characteristics of the action as it compares to alternative courses of action. It is for these reasons that we use verbs to identify an action, and adverbs to identify behavior. The action-verb indicates the act of doing, while the behavioral- adverb characterizes the manner or way of the doing. In returning to the door opening example, we could say that given the needs of the actor in the context of the situation, the act of opening the door to the grocery store falls under the general behavior category of useful and sensible actions. While “opening the door” refers to the specific action applied to this specific context, the “useful” and “sensible” further describe the action through the general behavior elements that are shared by a variety of other actions falling in the same category.

Sure. I can see that. But why is it important to make this distinction in ethics?

So far, we are attempting to explain “ethical engagement” as it relates to the interpersonal interactive context in which it arises. Outlining the foundational characteristics of ethical behavior is important as it will help us see both the manner and context in which ethical agents evaluate the ethical correctness of any particular course of action. In the example above we are looking at an action that is not explicitly ethical. This is because, at face value, it only involves the acting agent, the actor of opening and the door to the grocery store. If we added another person to the situation, say another shopper attempting to exit the building carrying several bags of groceries, we would have an interpersonal interactive context. The “interpersonal” element would be comprised of two shoppers/actors as they relate to each other through the “interactive” element – the act of opening of the door to enter/exit the store. If the entering shopper opened the door to allow the exiting shopper to exit without having to put her bags down, we could say that the act of opening the door in this manner falls under the general behavior category of respect. The opener opened the door in a respectful manner by acting out course of action based in considerate recognition of the interest of both persons – the exiting shoppers need to exit the building with ease, and the entering shoppers need to open the door to enter the store. The “opening of the door” is the ethical action, while the “considerate recognition” is the ethical behavior mindset.

Okay. Got it! That makes more sense to me.

Great! To sum-up this point, thus far in our exploration we have focus much of our attention on uncovering the specific features that make ethical behavior what it is and not something else. And in response to the question, “What are the fundamental features of a ‘correct’ ethical action?” – we have described ethical behavior as based in a mindset of inclusive, unbiased consideration where the acting agent accounts for the interests and worth of all ethical entities involved in her action choices. The next topic of focus will be the specific actions that arise in the context of ethical behavior. Our main question here is, “What is the purpose of choosing an action that adheres to ethical behavior?” The first purpose may be rather obvious given what we argued so far – because it is correct to do so. As an ethical action is a “public” or inclusive interaction, it should be approached and evaluated accordingly. To be correct in our ethical actions, we often attempt to do two things: (1) we attempt to act accurately; and (2) we attempt to act beneficially. Starting with the first purpose – in acting accurately in an interpersonal interactive context we aim to exercise ethical behavior. Accordingly, “accurately” in the context of ethics means that we act in a manner that shows consideration for the particular situation at hand as it relates to the characteristics of philosophical ethics we have been discussing. As consideration is at the core of “acting accurately” in ethics, ethical actions arise from the ethical behavior mindset outlined above. This “ethical mindset” is not based in unbalanced biased consideration, but balanced un-biased consideration; it is ethical to the extent that it equally recognizes the interests of all persons involved. I am a little confused by this balanced/unbalanced distinction. Is there an example you can provide? Acts of slavery, defined as one person owning another, is a good example. Acts of enslavement operate by a course of action that unequally recognizes each person involved. One person is owned by their counterpart, while the other cannot be. In other words, in acts of enslavement, an act which involves multiple persons, the one enslaved can never be an owner (as she does not even own herself, much less another) and vice versa. So, as we can see there is an internal bias in acts of enslavement. By its essence slavery is partial to the interests and worth of one of the ethical entities involved over the other. It is in this way that acts of slavery fail to meet the standards of equal inclusivity of ethical behavior. Sure, I think I am seeing that. I think this will become clearer when we further develop this example later when we talk about theories of ethical behavior. For now, let’s turn our attention to the second purpose – the element of benefit.

Okay, so “benefit.” What’s this purpose all about? The second reason we act ethically correct is because we aim to benefit. In other words, an action manifesting as an interaction is deemed to be ethically correct to the extent to which it is beneficial to all ethical entities involved. As “beneficial action” in ethics includes the tenants of ethical behavior, “all ethical entities involved” includes the acting agent and all others involved in the interactive exchange.

So, here an ethical action is said to be correct to the extent to which it benefits all ethical entities involved. Does this relate to the “good life” we talked about before?

Yes, good work seeing this connection. From the view of benefit, a correct ethical action is one that benefits all ethical entities involved. “Benefit” falls within the context of actions functionality determined in the context of each ethical entity’s pursuit of a good life – again, being a life that is both desirable and beneficial to the one living the life.

Okay, I think I’ve got it. But my next question is if philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not just my individual opinion or personal view of truth. And ethical is the branch of philosophy which studies the truth of the way my action choices relate to the good life of all involved in the situation. How am I supposed to determine the true good life of the person that I am considering? How can I make sure that my idea of their good life is not biased or partial to my own opinion or experiences?

Another great question, but before we move forward let’s briefly review. I think it will help us to answer this question by being prepared for the next stage of inquiry into ethical action evaluation. Our discussion so far today has focused on the key characteristics of ethical behavior and its relationship to specific ethical acts. Since ethical actions arise, and play out, in an interpersonal interactive situation, the standard with which we, as an actor/evaluator, evaluate the correctness of an ethical action cannot be biased, partial or unbalanced. That is to say, in ethics and action evaluation standard cannot be based merely on the singular persons involved identified in their induvial state. Instead, the ethical action evaluation standard must recognize the interpersonal interactive nature of the situation in which its actions will be situated. Such a standard must be inclusive of all persons involved, and it must include them in a way that recognizes the value and worth of each entity in an impartial manner. In being impartial, it cannot show partiality or favor to any one ethical entity over another. Such a standard arises in the context of ethical behavior, which involves not only character of the chosen actions, but also it includes the ethical mindset of the acting agent. This mind set is both philosophical and ethical in so much as it pursues the truth of our action choices as they relate to the consideration of all the ethical entities involved in the interpersonal, interactive exchange. Being a mindset of impartiality and balance, rather than partiality and bias, “ethical consideration” allows for each “person” to be equally considered as having an interest in the good life defined by his or her particular existence. All that sounds good but it is a lot to take in. It sure is. But with further study it will become more familiar in both theory and practice. Now, let’s get back to your important question, “How are we to determine the true good life of the person that we consider?” For starters, an unbiased or impartial standard of evaluation does not begin or end with a discussion of “which” or “whose.” It does not begin with a description of abstract ideas like “idea” or “opinion,” “fact” or “reason,” “is” or “should.” Nor does it begin or end with technical explanations of “how” methodology. Instead, intentionality itself is at the core of impartiality. And keep in mind that impartiality can only arise from our desire to be impartial.

Okay but that seems rather obvious. Of course, you must want something before you start to pursue it.

You are right. But make no mistake; while it may be obvious that ethical consideration begins in ethical intent in theory, this may be the hardest part of philosophical ethics to practice. It can be quite difficult for us to maintain our desire to be ethical throughout all our interpersonal interactions. But doing so is at the core of ethical behavior and its relationship to action choices. Let’s turn back to “popular ethics” to help explain this. Acting in an ethical manner generally is a secondary goal from the “popular ethics” approach. In “popular ethics” our primary goal often is satisfaction of our self-interest, but not to the point where we cause harm to another. Using this approach, we often pursue our self-interests by default and consider the interest of others as a secondary issue when facing an ethical situation. In the pure form of philosophical ethical approach this would not be the case. In philosophical ethics, the goal of our ethical actions does not yield to self-interests in any way, shape, or form. Our intention is to pursue truth through our interactions and their relationship to the overall context in which they arise. And to do so means that we must recognize the dynamic nature of our actions as not only actions, but as they appear in the world as interpersonal interactions. And this recognition turns our attention to the relationship between metaphysical inquiry and ethical evaluation. Metaphysical Inquiry and Ethical Evaluation By bringing our attention to the more subtle and profound elements of the situation, metaphysical inquiry can help reveal an impartial standard with which we can evaluate an ethical action. While metaphysical inquiry will not necessarily bring our attention to all the biases of personal opinion, by going beyond a surface-level perspective it goes a long way in so doing. To further introduce metaphysics let’s recap what we said about the subject in our last class. Metaphysics is the study of a thing in its fundamental being. This means that metaphysics studies our knowledge of things in both their particular and transcendent states. This “transcendent” element is of specific importance in our attempt to derive an impartial evaluation scale.

Wait, I have been thinking about this and I am not sure what “transcendent” even means? Okay, good. I am glad that you are asking questions like this. In philosophy, there are many technical terms that will come up. Many of them may be unfamiliar to you. If they are, do not be afraid to ask questions or turn to other sources, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, for help. I know of a few sources, so do not hesitate to ask. Now, to your question, “What is ‘transcendent’?” “Transcendent” means that which transcends a limit. Transcendence often associated with terms like beyond, or prior to. In the case of metaphysics “transcendent” means to go beyond the limitations of a specific time or particular instance.

So how does this transcendent element relate to metaphysics? To address this question, we need to clarify another philosophical term – “principle” or “principled.” Something is “principled” when it universally applies to all specific instances involved in a particular category. We discover the principles of an objects identity not only in the object itself, but also as it relates to other objects around it. General principles emerge as the shared elements of an objects identity as it relates to other objects in its category. For example, “being alive” is a designation that equally and universally applies to all plants and animals, while excluding rocks, air, and soil. It is in this sense that “being alive” is a principle of identity that applies to all living entities, while excluding non- living entities. Now, in returning to metaphysics. As metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that seeks the truth of things not only in their specific modes, but also in their first principles. These first-principles are the universal elements that serve as the ground of an object’s identity. They are the ground in so much as they are the first – or primary – elements that comprise the identity of a specific object. These elements are principled in the sense that they are elements of the object’s identity that are shared with other similar objects. These universal, first-principle elements are often called “categorical forms” in philosophy. As we said last time, these categorical forms constitute the “isness” or the

fundamental features that make a thing what it is and not something else. These first principles were exemplified in the “deskness” and “cowness” we referred to last session. Oh, okay. I figured that this connects with the “cowness” example we talked about last time. Yes, that is it. But keep in mind that metaphysics is called the “first philosophy” because it is the starting point of all inquiry, whether it be ethical in nature or not. As metaphysical inquiry probes into the concepts which associate with things of our experiences, one could argue that metaphysics is the study of concepts and their association. These concepts are the elements we use to identify the object and evaluate the actions in which it is included. Wait. Are you saying that metaphysics is the study of words? Not exactly. When we speak about “words” most of the time we merely point to the written, spoken or gestured mnemonic devices used to point to things and their identity. It isn’t that this notion is not correct, but it may not go far enough in explaining words as they relate to metaphysical inquiry. Words are not merely sounds or signs that we use to communicate ideas; they are tied to the very form ideas take. That is to say, words and ideas are very close in relation. In fact, we could go as far as saying that they are two sides of the same coin. In order to better explain this relationship, it is important to note that words equally contain elements of connotation and denotation. “Connotation” refers to the way we use words in common language, while “denotation” points to the meaning of words. The former addresses the appearance of the words in language use, while the latter addresses the anchor or ground of their appearance.

I have heard of “connotation” and “denotation” before but I did not know what they meant. So how do they connect to metaphysical inquiry?

It is the denotative element of words that we are primarily concerned with in metaphysical inquiry. This is because the denotative element reveals the way words relate to concepts, and concepts are of central importance in metaphysical inquiry. Why? Because concepts are the building blocks of our knowledge of things. All knowledge is conceptual. Or to be more specific, when we claim to know something, we claim to understand the concepts that apply to the object of knowledge. Whether or not we communicate such knowledge to others, all knowledge comes in the form of concepts.

I think I get the general idea here but I am not sure that I completely understand the claim that all knowledge is conceptual. Could you further explain?

Sure. Let’s look at a specific example to illustrate this principle. Take the “Bessy the cow” example we discussed before. When we encounter a Bessy, lots of things occur to make knowledge of her identity possible. The temporal starting point of all knowledge is a conscious encounter between us and the object of our experiences. In this case it is the moment we encounter the cow (keeping in mind that such a conscious encounter need not be a first-person encounter). But note that in this encounter the concept of “cow” does not arise first. The encounter begins at a much more rudimentary state – as I move about the world some general something enters in to my perceptual awareness. This some-thing that I encounter is recognized as a thing in so much as the concept of being applies to it. That is to say, it initially manifests a noticeable presence in the world. So, our first concepts here is “being” – the conscious presence of things as they reside the world. Now, this initial some-thing is not all that forms the ground of my experience. When I notice its being, I concurrently notice my own being. In fact, we can go as far as saying that before I experience the “other,” I am not yet aware of “myself” in its individual state (this is because I have nothing to compare or contrast it to – there needs to be a “that” so I can recognize a “this”). So, in my bumping-into I become aware that I am a being that is perceiving an-other being, and in this I become aware of my being concurrently (I am one thing and it is an-other thing). This “awareness of my own being” is generally called “self-conscious-awareness” (the second concept involved).

Continuing, as I notice myself noticing another, I see that that I and this other are not just “things,” in the general sense of the word. I notice that we both have a particular being; we are both particular “some-things.” I notice myself as a conscious something – meaning I am a “someone.” Now, on the other side of the experience, this particular something I observe I observe through its existence in the world (the third concept) – denoting the manner in which the thing resides in the world in its particular state. Since we are talking about an encounter with a cow here, its existence appears in material or tangible form. Tangibility means that the object of knowledge, the object I will come to know as a cow, has magnitude and takes up space (fourth). The thing’s magnitude leads it to appear in the context of a quantity or amount of material substance (fifth). But it is not simply quantity in its magnitude, its material existence is the reason it to displays specific qualities (six) like height, color, makes sounds, etc. This chain of reasoning follows all the way through to not only the concept of “cow” in the general sense “Bessy’s kind,” but even more specifically “Bessy the individual cow” of our specific inquiry. Now, whether we communicate these ideas to others or not, when we experience a cow in the world, we know it by these foundational concepts and their relationship to each other. These are the sorts of concepts and explanations that are typical of metaphysical inquiry.

Okay, I see now. Our experiences are not just “experiences.” They are the way we come to know things in our world. And this knowledge is tied back to the concepts we use to identify the things of our experiences. I think I get the connection.

Yes, that is it! Very good. Our rational faculties work with our perceptual experiences to make sense of the world and our place in it. In describing metaphysics in terms of the application of concepts, we are not only looking at what we know about the world, but how we know it. It is in the “what” and “how” elements of knowledge where the “transcendent” element of metaphysical inquiry comes to light. Not only is all knowledge conceptual but when we know something, we know it through the concepts that apply to its identity. These concepts are derived from, and apply to, both the particular and universal elements of the objects identity. This means that we know something as an object as it relates to its surroundings. It is important to note that when we know an object, we do not know it in its raw uniqueness; we know it as it relates to its kind. And this “kind” contains insight into the transcended elements of an object’s identity discovered via metaphysical inquiry. Perhaps an example will help here. In returning to our cow example, we identify Bessy by saying, “This is Bessy the cow.” In order to understand these concepts and the knowledge they denote, we must understand what is being said here. “This is” is the phrase denotes the being and the existence of the object. It points to our conscious awareness to the presence of the object before us, specifically in terms of its location in space and time. “Bessy” is the formal name given to this individual object – this individual cow. Her name denotes her specific features – size, color, weight, height, etc. And finally, “the cow” denotes Bessy not as herself only, but as she relates to her kind. Her kind is critical because it is inherently tied into who and what Bessy is. In fact, if we were to simply say, “this is Bessy”, note that “Bessy” would already contain “the cow” element even if not directly spoken. It is important that we reiterate the two key points of this example: (a) we know of Bessy through the concepts of her identity, and (b) we know her not as she resides in herself only, but as she relates to the universal elements of her identity. To translate this in to this specific case, we know Bessy in to her particular features – color, size, age, etc. – in the context of the concepts of her universal identity – gender, kind, “brownness”, etc. If we only knew her kind, we would not know her. But equally, to know her is to know her kind. That is to say, we know Bessy as herself as she appears in the categorical form of “cowness”. We do not know her as a cow alone, or a Bessy only; we know of her as she appears in herself, which necessarily includes her cowness. This same structure applies to all objects of our knowledge whether they be “things,” “persons,” or “events;” we always know of things, in all their variances, as they relate to universal, transcendent elements of their general universal category.

Okay, I am seeing this better now. But I have never really thought about words, concepts, and knowledge like that before. But my question is, what does this metaphysical inquiry have to do with ethics? It does not seem to be directly related to me.

As metaphysics aims to explore the fundamental identity of an object, person, or event, it plays a key role in our ability to correctly evaluate a course of action in each interpersonal interactive situation. Gaining a clear and accurate understanding of the situation, including who is involved and how they are involved, provides an important foundation for considering who should be treated how, and why. But as ethical contexts involve more than just persons, the “who” elements are only part of the equation; ethical consideration must also account for the “what” elements of the situation. Metaphysical inquiry can also help us better understand the fundamental nature of any given action choice as it relates to the overall situation at hand. In fact, much of our work in this course will be exploring metaphysical makeup of general ethical concepts like “justice,” “duty,” “consideration,” “good” and “right,” as they relate to the way we make decisions about our interpersonal interactions. But note that this means that we will not explore these concepts in abstraction only. Instead we will explore them as they apply to the way we treat people and things. Sure, I can see that. Good. But this means that much of our work in ethical study will fall under the parameters of metaphysical inquiry. And it is important to note that metaphysical inquiry is not involved in the “popular ethics” approach, and therefore may be unfamiliar to many. But metaphysics plays a very important role in philosophical ethics. It not only helps us engage with our world in a deep, dynamic way, it is a critical tool in formulating a standard of ethical action evaluation that tends to be more impartial in so much as it accounts for both the apparent and more subtle elements of the situation.

How so? Good question. Bessy’s “cowness” provides us with a substantial amount of understanding. Because “cowness” involves the ability to think, feel, desire, act, etc., I can come to more deeply understand that the good life of a cow, Bessy included. Given the features of “a cow” we can gain insight into the fact that to live a good life as “Bessy the cow” is to live a desirable and beneficial life in her thoughts, feelings, choices, and actions. While this explanation is quite general, it is informative to the universal condition that all cows share.

I have never thought of a cow’s purpose in that way. But I think it makes sense. The reason cows do what they do is to live a good life.

Yes, that’s precisely it. But notice the frame of reference here. Note how understanding of this categorical form, Bessy’s shared “cowness” in this example, provides a scale with which we can evaluate an ethical interaction that includes her. Discovering the general forms of a thing through metaphysical inquiry can provide us with a scale or standard with which we can evaluate the ethical action that involves them. If the action is ethically correct, it will consider the interaction in terms its accuracy and its benefit. Thus, it is “Bessy’s cowness,” alongside “Bessy’s interests and goals,” which create a standard by which an acting agent can assess her ethical treatment of Bessy. But this standard will include non-ethical entities also. Take an ethical exchange involving only a farmer “Bob-the-farmer,” “Bessy-the-cow,” and “a-field-of-grass.” Metaphysical exploration will reveal which entities have a both a sense of and an investment in their good life, and therefore deserve consideration. As the human and non-human animals, “Bob” and “Bessy,” both have an investment in living a good life, they will be included as “ethical entities,” while the “field of grass”, not having a sense of its good life, will not have “ethical entity” status (or at least not in the same way that “Bob” and “Bessy” do). It is in this manner that metaphysics will help us understand all entities, be they ethical and/or non-ethical, involved in the interactive exchange.

Cool. I like that. The good life of a thing as the standard of evaluating an ethical action. I think that will come in handy in my ethical considerations.

This overall goal that emerges from knowing an entity in the metaphysical sense is called a “telos.” A telos is the ultimate purpose of a thing – “thing” here including tangibles like persons and objects, and intangibles like intentions

and actions. It is the reason a thing is in the world in the context of not only what it is, but what it does. We may, for example, argue that living creatures like a cow or a human have a telos of living a good life defined by pleasure or achievement respectively. Or perhaps we could say that the telos of a hammer is driving nails well. This ultimate purpose in the case of the hammer is the very reason we cut down the tree, mill the wood and carve the handle, or mine the metal, heat and pour it into a mold. But note that the telos of an entity does not refer to an end result in time (the hammer as it appears in material form). It is the (logical, not temporal) reason for an entity’s presence in the world (the hammer in its inception). Okay, a telos. That sounds interesting but do all things and persons have a telos? Yes, many arguments about the makeup of the world hold that all things have a form and a function. If you notice we have been talking about the form of philosophical ethics, as well as, its central telos or ultimate purpose. We have argued that the form of “philosophical ethics” involves interpersonal interactions, and therefore any given action is ethically correct to the extent to which it considers the worth and value of each ethical entity involved. Furthermore, the purpose of acting ethically act in accord with an ethical mindset where the actor aims to act accurately and/or beneficially toward all ethical entities involved in the situation. Even abstract events like an “ethical exchange” and non-living entities like a hammer have both a form and function – both have a telos. The very fact that we are identifying them implies that they have both a particular, as well as, a general makeup and existence in the world that can be identified and discussed. We are often said to know or understand an event, a thing, or a person when we know what it is and how it relates to the world. This clear and accurate knowing is the chief subject of metaphysics. And as ethics involved deliberately considerate interactions as they relate to the persons and the context in which they are situation, as ethical actors we must know (understand) and do (treat). As such, a metaphysical explanation is a critical component of knowing what an entity is, and what it aims to do in its life. As “private” ethical actors, it will help us evaluate our “public” actions in accord with ethical consideration of the interest and worth of all involved in the interactive exchanges we encounter.

And this is where the principles of a thing come in? Yes. Principles emerge in ethical philosophy in several different ways. Our discussion today has revealed that when engaged in ethical behavior, an ethical agent attempts to correctly evaluate a specific course of action based on a “principled standard” which accounts for the “first principles” of the situation. Both the standard of evaluation and the knowledge of identity contain principles – elements of universality. In accord with the “first principles” element, notice that when engaged in ethical behavior we can use metaphysical inquiry to evaluate the treatment of an ethical entity dynamically. That is, we are evaluating it not only by its specific features but also its principled being. This principled being helps us to grasp not only the identity of the object in its most basic form, but also in its more complex forms to include its telos or ultimate purpose. This telos is helpful in determining the overall goal of the entity involved in the interactive exchange, which is critical in understanding how we should aim to treat the entity when engaging in ethical behavior. The appearance of the principles here emerged in the “principled standard” of action evaluation used by the acting/assessing agent engaged in ethical behavior. Such a standard is often called an “ethical principle” or a “principled standard of ethical behavior” in philosophy. This standard is principled not only in the sense that it recognizes the first principles of the situation, but in so much as it accounts for the action choice in terms of its universal recognition the interests and worth of all ethical persons involved in the interactive exchange.

Got it! All this seems like a lot to keep up with, but I will do my best. But I am not sure that an action, an ethical action that is, can ever be perfectly principled. I am not sure that it can perfectly consider everyone involved in every way they are involved.

You bring up another important point. Coming up with the perfect ethical action is tricky. This is because the perfectly unbiased, impersonal, or principled action is an abstraction (a mental category) used to create a transcendent standard for evaluating particular ethical acts. This standard, emerging in the equality of consideration mindset of ethical behavior, is comprised of the foundational elements that all ethical actions hold in common. This means that even if actually achieving the perfectly correct ethical action is improbable in any particular action as it unfolds the real-world, it does not mean that the action evaluation standard itself is not applicable. It is like a 1,000-batting average in professional baseball. Although no player with multiple at bats over a career bats a perfect 1,000, it of course does not mean that the standard is not sound. In fact, the perfect 1,000 is necessitated in the scale used to evaluate particular batting averages.

Sure, that’s true. While the standard recognizes perfection at the absolute highest end of the scale, actions themselves may not meet that perfection.

Exactly. The ideal – the 100% correct scale – is the standard for ethical action evaluation based in the perfectly inclusive mindset of ethical behavior. That is, even if any action acted-out in the world does not perfectly meet the absolute highest point of the evaluation standard. But still, philosophical ethics is a complex way of thinking and acting. It is no doubt. But we are complex creatures living in a complex world. And with this being the case, it should be no surprise that an ethical action requires complex consideration. Ethical Engagement in the Context of the Three “Tools” of Philosophical Inquiry Given the challenge of pursuing ethical actions through ethical behavior, the good news is that the philosophical ethics approach comes with some helpful “tools.” The three main “tools” we will use in this course are: philosophical intentionality, metaphysical inquiry and the six steps of the philosophical engagement process. Let’s briefly look at each to summarize today’s discussion. First up is philosophical intentionality. As our intention in philosophy is pursuing truth, and ethics is a branch of philosophy, when we engage others ethically, we naturally focus on more than ourselves right from the start. Setting our sights beyond our personal satisfaction is a critical first step in engaging others in a manner informed by ethical behavior. Accordingly, the philosophical intention of pursuing truth through our interpersonal interactions can be a useful tool in keeping us on track in this course. The second tool of the philosophical ethical approach we will use in this course is metaphysical inquiry. As we have seen, once an acting agent possess ethical intent, metaphysical engagement can lead to both a deep and dynamic understanding an ethical entity. It is in this way that metaphysical inquiry can help us discover courses of action that properly considers the interests and worth of all ethical entities involved in a particular situation. And finally, one of the most helpful tools we will use is the six steps of the philosophical engagement process. As ethics is a branch of philosophy, the six steps will apply to all the ethical contexts we will explore in this course. In fact, these steps will apply much in the same way that we described them as applying to philosophy in general. The only difference here is the general topic of focus. If our topic was aesthetics or political philosophy for example, those topics would set the general parameters of our inquiry. As our topic is ethics, our general focus of inquiry will be interpersonal, interactive behaviors and actions.

That makes sense. I am guessing that the philosophical method and those six steps will apply to all topics and tasks in the course?

That’s right, it will. If you remember, last time we looked at the six steps as applied to the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Given their role and importance, perhaps we should look at how they will apply in a less abstract form. Let’s look at a particular ethical topic we will look at in the course – capital punishment and the death penalty. Once again, here are the six steps in their abstract form:

Step 1: Identify the general topic of inquiry and formulate a specific question about this general topic

Step 2: Explore and explain the individual elements involved in the specific question

Step 3: Explore and explain the relationship between the individual elements involved in the specific question

Step 4: Explore and explain the relationship between the elements in the specific question and the general topic of inquiry

Step 5: Explore and explain the relationship between the ideas or theory produced and the actual world

Step 6: Continuation of the process, aimed at refining what is discovered

Now, in plugging them into the topic of capital punishment and the death penalty, for starters our initial question in step 1 could be, “Are acts of capital punishment included in a category of ethical contexts?” As capital punishment involves “capital” – the chief or highest form – and “punishment” – a penalty imposed upon someone who has broken a rule or engaged in illegal action – we clearly have an ethical context before us. As “punishment” alone implies both a punisher and a punishee, “capital punishment” – being “the highest form of punishment” – it inherently involves an interpersonal interactive context and therefore it is inherently ethical. Stemming from there, our follow up question could be, “Is capital punishment in the form of the death penalty ethically just?” This question at once establishes our general and specific topics of inquiry. Our general topic here is “ethics,” while the specific topic is “justice” and “the death penalty.” Accordingly, all that is left for us to do is continue with steps 2 through 6. In step 2 we would explore the individual elements – “ethics,” “justice,” “capital,” “punishment,” “death,” and “penalty.” Then we would move on to explore the relationships between them in step 3, and so on and so forth. As we move through each of the six steps we would keep an eye on our intention, alongside, our philosophical standard of clarity and accuracy, while aiming to involve others in an inclusive dialogue. This dynamic, comprehensive process would lead us to deliberately explore both the facts and reasons involved in the ethics of the death penalty. Okay, I think I am starting to get it. Like I keep saying, it’s a lot to think about, but I think I am getting the gist. I think you are too. But not to worry, as the philosophical ethical approach is new to you, it will take time and practice to become more familiar with it. This familiarity is one of the main purposes of the course. With the right intention, effort, and attention it will come with patience and practice. With that, we will finish off for the day. Next time we will talk about some concepts of ethical behavior like “respect,” “goodness,” and “compassion,” as well as, several prescriptive theories of ethical behavior like “virtue ethics,” “consequential utilitarian ethics,” “ethics of care,” and “deontological ethics.” See you then.

Section 3: Introduction to philosophical ethical theory

Hello again. Last class talked about the foundational features of ethical philosophy. We talked about the difference between a “popular ethics” and a philosophical ethics approach to ethical exchanges. We used this comparison to come to a more detailed description of philosophical ethics and its approach to interactive actions and behaviors. Finally, we outlined a few of the first principles or fundamental characteristics of philosophical ethics regarding ethical contexts, ethical behavior, ethical actions, and the philosophical process.

Today we will talk about ethical theory’s role in in philosophical ethics. Our main goal today is to introduce a few of the leading philosophical theories of ethical action evaluation in the context of ethical behavior. But before we talk about theories I want to point out a few areas where ethical failure commonly occurs. Doing so will help us establish the role of these theories in the philosophical ethical approach.

As we discussed last time there are four main features or principles that we need to keep in mind regarding philosophical ethics. First, when we talk about ethics in philosophy, we are not merely talking about behavior in the form of intentionality, knowledge, and consideration. Instead, we are talking about these elements as they relate to an action. This means that when we explore ethics we are exploring intentional, accurately considerate actions. But, in addressing our second principle, as ethical actions are actions that apply to ethical situations, they are not merely actions, they are interactions. This is because an ethical context necessarily involves two or more ethical entities. Accordingly, ethical action is an accurately considerate, interpersonal interaction drawn from intention to behave ethically. Furthermore, an entity is an “ethical entity” or an “ethical person” in philosophy to the extent in which it has interests and self-worth. These factors are connected to the concept of a “good life.” This means that an entity is approached as an ethical entity to the extent in which it has an interest in living a good life. Our third principle addresses ethical actions themselves. We argued that an ethical action is correct to the extent to which it follows ethical behavior in its consideration of the interests and self-worth of all ethical entitles it involves. This consideration must be unbiased and unambiguous to meet the standard of philosophical understanding. Moreover, in the philosophical ethical approach, we generally aim for an internal, principled standard with which we evaluate the ethical correctness of an action. And finally, to our last principle – in arriving at such a standard we will use the three tools of the philosophical ethical approach. These tools are intentionality, metaphysical inquiry, and the six philosophical steps as they apply to ethically considerate actions. Common Failures in Ethical Consideration With these main features at the backdrop of our discussion of philosophical ethics, there are several areas where we often fall short in the course of ethical consideration. The four we will look at today are: lack of intentionality; lack of clear, adequate descriptions of the situation; mistakenly choosing and exercising a “bad” ethical action; and mistakenly choosing and exercising a “wrong” ethical action.

Alright, so let me get this straight. We will explore four failures which often occur in our ethical thinking – intentionality, inadequate or inaccurate descriptions, “bad” and “wrong” ethical actions?

That’s right. We will look at these issues in order to introduce a few theories or approaches that attempt to address these shortcomings. First up is lack of intentionality. “Lack of ethical intentionality” is probably the most straightforward of the four shortcomings. If an inclination or intention toward ethical behavior is not present, then obviously an ethically considerate action cannot transpire. However, when it comes to intentionality we need to look at a few deeper issues, the first is moral agency. Now we simply need to notice that we have introduced two new concepts into our exploration of ethical engagement – “moral” and “agency.” So, what is “morality’? “Morality” is a close relative of “ethics”. In fact, they are nearly equivalent terms for the same core idea – “manner” or “character.” You will soon see in our course text that many philosophers use the terms interchangeably. The main difference is that word “ethics” originates from ancient Greek, while “morality” is a Latin term. However, philosophers often distinguish between them beyond their linguistic origination. They tend to use “ethics” in the framework of standards used to evaluate ethical actions, while “morality” is used in the context of personal choice and values. So, using this distinction, moral agency has less to do with abstract ethical evaluation standards and more to do with our ability to choose in the context of our ethical engagements. As moral agents facing an ethical situation, we can choose our values, our goals, and our course of action. In so doing, we are pressed to decide to be aware of the situation, to choose to describe and define the context involved, to choose an intention, and then to choose to act based on that intention. This brings us to the second term, “agency.” “Agency” here points to the way our choices become our actions. As moral agents, we have the ability to move from awareness to consideration, from consideration to choice, from choice to action, and as we are dealing with an ethical context, from action to interaction. It is in this interaction element where

we have a profound impact on others and the world. So, “moral agency” is a phrase that points to the “choosing” and “acting” elements involved in all ethical exchanges. I was wondering where personal choice fit in in the philosophical ethical approach. While we will focus much of our attention on moral agency and the depth of its role in ethical behavior later in this introduction, for now the rather straightforward point we need to make here it that in ethics choice remains present all throughout the interactive process. It is also important to note that choice and intentionality are closely related. In returning to lack of intentionality, the first failure of many ethical considerations, when a moral agent is disinclined to consider others, then ethical actions cannot transpire. To be ethical is to interact in a particular way, and that way is founded upon not only the station in which we find ourselves, but also upon our intention to act in accord with ethical behavior. And as choice and intentionality are necessary elements of ethics, one cannot accidentally or incidentally be ethical. One’s action choice may incidentally be beneficial to all ethical entities involved, but to be ethical is to choose to approach the situation in a particular – a way of consideration based in the principles of ethical behavior.

Sure, I can see that. Ethics is about deliberate understanding, behavior, and action – the relationship between the elements we mentioned before.

But the catch here is that there is no systematic remedy for lack of ethical intentionality. There is no abstract method or strategy that we can use to develop an ethical intent. There are no universal steps or stages that can be identified in abstract form of moving from a selfish, or non-ethical intent to an ethical intent. This movement, and its concurrent phases, is very personal and therefore must come from within each individual agent. While we can look to others as examples of how to choose to act, but the decision to want to become ethically inclined, and the manner in which you pursue that decision, is yours and all yours.

So, you are saying that I am the only one that I can turn to for my ethical intention? And in so doing even the way I move to become more ethical in my thinking is entirely my own?

Yes, that’s right. You are responsible for that intention in all its manifestations through and through. Now that we have addressed moral agency and ethical intentionality, let’s move to our second shortcoming – unclear and/or inadequate assessment of the situation at hand. When facing an ethical situation, a philosophical ethical agent is often charged with the tasks of assessing the situation, choosing an appropriate course of action, and executing that course of action. When an intention toward ethical behavior is present, alongside the ability to think, consider and act, an ethical agent may inappropriately or unfairly assess the situation by mistake. This inappropriate assessment may be applied to any of the elements involved, to include the ethical and non-ethical entities involved. But it is important to take note that the intention toward ethical behavior is still present, even when the inappropriate assessment arises. This incomplete or flawed assessment arises in accidental error, not on-purpose. As you may have guessed, the process of philosophical ethical thinking itself operates as a helpful remedy for inappropriate or inadequate understanding. When facing an ethical situation, the three tools we spoke of earlier – intentionality, metaphysical engagement and the six steps of inquiry – help us to be more clear, fair, and accurate in our both our thinking and acting. Again, I can see how this fits right with our topic thus far. Okay, so let’s look at the last two shortcomings, as they will introduce a dimension that will account for our attempt to act “accurately” and/or “beneficially,” two elements we discussed in our previous session together. If you remember, “acting accurately” means that we act in a manner that shows consideration for the particular situation as it relates to

the principles of philosophical ethics, while “acting beneficially” falls within the context of actions functionality determined in the context of good life of each ethical entity involved. The third shortcoming involves an ethical situation where the acting agent mistakenly chooses and exercises a “bad” action during action evaluation. As we discussed before ethical actions, as drawn from ethical behavior, often have the goal of benefiting all the ethical entities involved. In this “beneficial” approach, an ethical agent may mistakenly evaluate and choose a “bad” or a “non-beneficial” action. A “bad” action turns out to un-evenly benefit or even harm some of the ethical entities involved. As was the case with our second failure, a “bad” action is one that was mistakenly chosen by the acting agent. The intention to behave ethically is present, while the action itself mistakenly failed to appropriately benefit all involved. The systematic remedy regarding mistakenly chosen “bad” actions comes in the form of a “good based theory approach” to ethical behavior. In a “good based theory approach” to ethical behavior, ethical actions are evaluated in accord with a standard of benefit. This standard of “benefit” arising in a good based theory approach typically falls within the scope of teleology. “Teleology” is the theory that argues that all things and persons in the world have an ultimate purpose or goal. “Telos,” the term we discussed last time, is derived from teleology. The telos or ultimate purpose of a thing is constituted by its fundamental characteristics. These fundamental characteristics of the thing in question includes both its form – that which makes it what it is and not something else – and its functionality – its ultimate reason or purpose. Accordingly, a “good based theory approach” to ethical behavior aims to assess the ethical correctness of an action to the extent at which it appropriately benefits all ethical entities in regard to their telos.

I think I have it. In good based ethical theories, ethical actions are “appropriate” in the sense that they benefit all ethical entities or persons involved. And this benefit is typically assessed in terms of the person’s or thing’s telos.

Great! Now, let’s turn to our fourth and final ethical failure we will discuss today – mistakenly choosing and exercising “wrong” ethical actions.

As we have established, an agent always chooses to behave ethically, but the fact that ethical actions are social interactions, they inherently involve personal intentions alongside public actions. The actor does not choose this fact; it arises from the interpersonal, interactive world in which she lives. Furthermore, given that ethical behavior is about a mindset of inclusive consideration, an ethical action, being a public interaction, must involve a sense of equality of consideration of all persons involved. This fact also is not chosen by the actor. However, as choice is always involved action evaluation, in some occasions an acting agent may mistakenly choose an action that unequally applies to or unequally recognizes the interests and worth of all involved. Now, this inequality will not be limited to the way the action benefits all involved. An agent may accidentally choose an action that is unequal and imbalanced regardless of benefit. These actions are called “ethically wrong” in philosophical ethics as they contain an internal bias. And “internal bias” means that the action itself unequally recognizes or considers one group or ethical entity over another.

The systematic remedy with “ethically wrong” actions falls within a “right based theory approach” to ethical behavior. In this approach, an action’s ethical correctness is not considered in terms of its goodness or badness. Instead, it is considered in a framework of “rightness.” Here “ethical rightness” is based solely in the “ethical correctness” of the action itself as it directly relates to the main tenants of ethical behavior.

So, if the “ethical correctness of the action” is important here, what then is “ethical correctness”?

In the context of the “right based ethical theory” approach “ethical correctness” is…

Wait, wait! Excuse me professor but I think I may have an idea here. As we talked about last class, an ethical action is correct to the extent to which...um...hang on, let me look it up in the reading notes I have here...oh, here it is. An ethical action is correct to the extent to which it follows ethical behavior which is informed by a mindset which intends to consider and actually considers all ethical entities involved in an unbiased manner. Is that it?

Yes, you are on the right track, no pun intended, but not just because you are taking reading notes. But your statement here is also on point. The “theory of the right” approach to ethical behavior takes equality of consideration to its foremost limit. An ethical action is said to be “right” to the extent to which it equally regards and equally applies to all involved. This means that the action is “right” when it universally applies to every “person” or group of persons involved in the ethical exchange.

That sounds like a strange one. I am not sure I completely grasp it yet.

Not to worry, for now all you need to remember is that a “right based theory approach” to ethical behavior operates as a remedy for situations where an ethical agent may mistakenly choose a “wrong” ethical action.

So, why are these four ethical failures – lack of intentionality, inappropriate or inadequate understanding of the situation, “bad” and “wrong” actions – and their remedies important?

These issues pave the way for our next topic – the structure of the good and right based theory approaches to ethical behavior. But before we talk about these approaches, I want to reiterate a key point we discussed last session.

Ethical Theory Approaches As ethical philosophy is a way of thinking, acting and interacting in the world; it is a way of living your life. I do not want you to get the impression that a theory, whatever its content may be, is inherently ethical. A theory is just a theory. It is a mental idea about ourselves in the world. But an ethical action is an actual interaction in the world that adds to our life experiences. In philosophical ethics, ethical behavior, you will remember, involves a process of consideration of all ethical entities involved followed by an ethical action-event. Something or someone cannot be ethical in its abstract forms – as an unexercised intention or intellectual theory. Something is fully ethical only in its concrete form – namely in its actual interaction in the world. As such, I want you to think of the philosophical ethical theories we will look at next as “strategies” for stimulating the consideration of ethical behavior. They are “strategies” for bringing our attention to the ways in which our ethical consideration may fall short.

Alright, that is an interesting way to look at this. I have always thought of the theory as the main component of ethics. If you asked me what ethics is before I would have responded with a principle like the “Golden Rule,” as if the principle or rule itself was ethics. But now I am starting to see that ethics is made up of many more elements, all founded upon considerate actions as they unfold in the world in an actual manner. This means that ethics is not merely a principle, or an idea. It is an actual interaction in the world exercised because it considers the interests and worth of all involved.

Excellent! Make no mistake, this realization alone is very important. With that we are ready to dive into several theory approaches toward ethical behavior. Let’s begin by identifying and describing two distinct categories of ethical theories – non-normative and normative.

“Normative” is a term that relates to a standard. “Normal” is at the root of “normative.” “Normal” here means that which adheres to or meets the norm. Having said that, you may find it helpful to think of the phrases, “what should” or “what ought to be” in association with the term “normative.” Accordingly, “non-normative” connotes a differing framework of reference. In “non-normative” ethical theory we are not describing a thing or event in terms of a standard or a norm. Instead we are merely describing it in factual, “what is X,” terms. So, while a normative theory of ethical behavior will establish a basis of how we should or ought to consider an action in ethical contexts, a non-normative theory of ethical behavior will merely describe the ethical values, actions and behaviors of a particular person or group.

Got it.

Okay then. There are two sub-fields of non-normative theory of ethical behavior we will encounter in the course. They are “descriptive ethics” and “meta-ethics.” “Descriptive ethics” does just what it says – it describes. This sub-field aims to describe the ethical terms, behaviors, norms, etc. of a particular culture or person. Descriptive ethics would say something like, “Slavery was or is ethically acceptable by this or that group.” It would not go further and say, “This

acceptance of slavery by this group was, or is not ethically correct.” Evaluative statements as such would fall within normative theory.

I am pretty sure that I was introduced descriptive ethical theory in my history, sociology, and religion classes in the past. In these classes, we talked about how a particular culture, like the ancient Greeks or Romans, approached issues like slavery. Or how a particular religious group approaches particular values and actions. For the most part, we did not talk about the wrongness or badness of these behaviors in these classes. We just described them.

Sure, those are good examples of descriptive ethical theories. The second sub-field of non-normative ethical theory is “metaethics.” Now, I am sure that this is a not familiar term to most of you, so let’s think through it together.

“Metaethics” is comprised of two root concepts – “meta” and “ethics” – both of which were discussed previously. “Meta” refers to that which is “before” or “beyond,” while “ethics” addresses the way we approach interpersonal actions and behaviors. Put them together and we have, that which exists before or beyond interpersonal actions and behaviors. While this may not draw the whole picture of metaethical inquiry, it provides a few clues into its subject. The subject of “metaethics” is the content of the terminology that commonly appears in ethical evaluations. Or to put in other words, “metaethics” is the study of the fundamental terms and concepts used in normative ethical theories.

So, while “descriptive ethics” merely describes the ethical views of a particular group or individual, “metaethics” aims to explore and explain the facts and terms that are often used in evaluating ethical actions. Is that right?

Metaethical Terminology That’s it. A few of the “metaethical” terms that will come up in this course are “justice,” “goodness,” “right,” “virtue,” “duty,” “respect,” and “compassion.” There are three on this list that are generally associated with a “good based approach” to ethical behavior – “goodness,” “virtue,” and “compassion” – and three which are associate with a “right based approach” to ethical behavior – “justice,” “duty,” and “respect.” Let’s take a few moments to look at each.

“Goodness” is a value concept that involves elements of both “form” and “function.” As we have discussed before, “form” refers to the fundamental or essential characteristics that make a thing what it is. “Form” includes the characteristics that relate to the general categorical form, as well as, the specific form of the thing in question. This means that the form of “Bessy” the cow includes characteristics associated with “cowness” and those that are unique to “Bessy” herself. Then there is “functionality,” the second element of “goodness.” “Functionality” here is associated with the telos of the object or person in question. Remembering that the telos itself is derived from the fundamental form of the thing in question, something or someone is said to be “good” to the extent that their actions are accurately beneficial. Thus, the “goodness” of an ethical action is based in its benefit regarding the form and functionality of the thing in question. A “good” movie, for example, is one that meets its goal, which in part falls from the general form of the movie itself. A good work of art is one that meets its goal, which arises in the characteristics that make art, art. And finally, a good ethical action is one that achieves its telos – namely the clear, fair, and adequate consideration of all ethical entities involved in the interactive exchange.

Wow, I have never thought about the word “good” like that. I hear it used, and I use it all the time, yet I have never considered it in that way.

Good! I am glad to see some deeper engagement with some important issues. The next metaethical term associated with the “good based theory approach” to ethical behavior is “virtue.”

Oh yes. I have heard of “virtue” before. Old people are always saying weird things about virtue. For example, my grandfather once told me, “patience is a virtue.” I really have no idea what he was talking about.

Ah, yes. I have had similar experiences. Funny though, I was never motivated to learn more about what this meant until I studied philosophy. Go figure.

For starters, a “virtue” is not an action. Nor is it a value concept as was the case with “goodness.” “Virtue” is a term that involves a specific category of character traits, attitudes and/or temperaments. This category involves traits that are desirable and beneficial in the framework of a goal. This means that something is said to be a virtue in so much as it is properly suited to the action, in regard to the action’s form and function. Accordingly, a virtue is a character trait that is suited to an action in reference to what the action is, and what it is intended to achieve.

Take nursing for example. If one were to have a goal of becoming a good nurse he would need to figure out how to go from being “not-a-nurse,” to being “a-nurse,” to being “a-good-nurse.” So, what will this transition require? Obviously, the goal itself must be present, and of course he will need some technical know-how. He will need to know how to properly carry out the care plan for the patient for example. But still, the question regarding technical know-how is, “what will be require do go from not knowing how to do so, to knowing how to do so?” The answer is, a virtue. The potential good nurse, that is the person with the desire to become the good nurse, will need the proper attitude with which he will approach his goal. He cannot quit with the first sign of failure or lazily pursue his development, for example. He must know when failure can be overcome with success, and how adamantly to pursue his skill development. And in so doing he will need patience and persistence. As becoming a good nurse is quite a developed task, he will need a variety of other virtues like courage, temperance, good judgment, fortitude, etc. Each one of these attitudes or temperaments is needed for him to effectively pursue his goal.

Right, that makes more sense to me now. My grandfather’s statement was on-point as it turns out. He was talking to me about successfully learning how to drive a car. I guess patience was important.

Yeah, learning how to drive a car takes patience no doubt. I guess you better thank him for the advice now that it has finally settled in. The third term that we will discuss within the “good-based theory approach” to ethical behavior is “compassion.” So, what is compassion?

“Compassion” is a term of interactive relationality – it involves the character of an action as it relates to both an actor and the recipient of the action. At its core, compassion involves the actor’s ability to connect with recipient in a profound way. This profound connection leads to a fundamental, not just surface based, understanding of the other. When we have a compassionate connection with another we not only have a logical or rational understanding of them and their interests and goals; we have also have a deep emotional connection to them and those elements. This understanding and connection is profound enough to enable us to co-experience their success and failure. We, like them, become upset and suffer when they suffer. Or inversely, we become excited with them in their success. However, note that their goals and interests are not our goals and interests. In compassion, our goal is to help them achieve their goals, not our goals for them. This points toward a key element involved in compassion – compassionate engagement relies on the reception of the other, in their feelings, interests, and goals. In having a compassionate understanding and connection I cannot “project” elements of myself into the other. I can neither project my feelings about them into them, nor can I project my interests and goals for them into them. Instead, I must receive their actual feelings, interests, and goals in an unadulterated manner. This means that to have a compassionate connection with another is to have a profound, unadulterated understanding of them in their feelings, interests, and goals.

Okay, I guess I have never thought of compassion that deeply either. I hear it often used in the framework of relationships, particularly in intimate relationships like a parent and child for example.

Sure. No doubt having a compassionate understanding of your child is critical to successfully helping them pursue their interests and goals. But the same could be said for others with whom we have a less intimate connection. Take a homeless person for example. In order to help them in a compassionate manner, I must begin by understanding who they are, what they want, and how they feel. I cannot simply assume these elements, and then act on such assumptions. I must receive and understand their actual interests and goals first, and then choose a beneficial action that considers them.

Yeah, I can see that.

Good. Then this brings us to the metaethical terms that are associated with a “right-based theory approach” to ethical behavior – “justice,” “duty,” and “respect.”

Like compassion “justice” is also a term of interactive relationality. As such, it is often associated with ethical exchanges. In fact, Plato, one of the first ethical philosophers of the western tradition, argued that “justice” is a term that is in very close relation with “ethics.” “Ethics” being the consideration of interests and worth of the entities involved in ethical exchanges, where “justice” deals with what is rightly owed or what is due in such exchanges. “Justice” in this sense involves acts of giving and taking what is due in an interactive exchange. So, the question that follows is, “How can we know what is rightly or fairly due to a particular entity involved in the exchange?” The answer, once again, is metaphysics. Metaphysical engagement can give us insight into the fundamental characteristics of a thing, event, or person in its general and specific forms.

That is interesting because I have only heard people speaking of justice in the context of criminality.

Yeah, that is probably the most common topic of justice in our culture. But make no mistake; justice applies to all interactive exchanges. This means that if two or more entities are involved in an interactive exchange, so is justice. It is for this reason that Plato placed it alongside ethics.

The next metaethical term associated with a “right-based theory approach” to ethical behavior is “duty.” Duty is the subset of obligations that arise in an interpersonal, interactive role. When we think of duty we often think of a soldier or a first responder like a firefighter. We would say that these roles, and their concurrent tasks, include a set of “duties” by their nature. We may say that a soldier’s duty is to carry out battle plans, while firefighter’s duty is to fights fires. Note that these obligations fall from the essence of the tasks of these roles. A “firefighter” is necessarily one who fights fires; and a “soldier” by nature is one who carries out battle plans. The actions are implied in the metaphysical form each; they do not arise from the opinion or inclination of the individual inhabiting the role.

Likewise, the obligations to fulfil these tasks do not arise from the individuals who inhabit these interpersonal, interactive roles, but from the roles themselves. That is to say, a particular individual fulfilling the role of soldier or firefighter does not create the obligation to complete the tasks assigned to her role; instead he or she only can choose fulfill the obligation associated with the completion of the task. It is for this reason that we say that if a soldier did do her duty, namely carry out a battle plan, then we could say her actions as a soldier were “wrong.” We would argue that they failed to conform to the set of obligations associated with the role of “soldier.”

But keep in mind that “duty” is not limited to soldiers and firefighters. The same could be said for all manner of interactive roles individuals inhabit. We could be said to have a subset of duties to fulfil certain actions when we act as a parent, a judge, a neighbor, a co-worker, or an automobile driver.

Okay that also makes sense to me.

Very good! But mind you that ethical duty is a complex issue. Later in the course you will encounter a theory called “Ethics of Prima Facie Duty.” This theory will outline the way duty moves us to behave ethically in a situation. In any given situation I, as the acting agent, will have several “duties,” many of which may be competing. Take parenting as an example. In acts of parenting, I as a father have a clear duty to treat my child in particular ways. As the role of father in terms of parenting is an interactive role, making it an ethical situation, I also have a duty to treat myself in a particular manner. So, as a father I have a concurrent ethical duty to my child and myself in acts of parenting. But, notice that parenting, and its duties, does not exist in an abstract or exclusive context. As a parent, my relationship and interaction with my son has an impact or implication with several larger, more inclusive entitles. These inclusive entities may include groups like family or community.

I can see that but what does this have to do with the theory of “Prima Facie Duty”?

Well, “pima-facie” is a Latin phrase that means “at first sight.” This phrase as it applies to “Prima Facie Duty” is pointing to the ethical duties, being interactive obligations, that we have “at first sight” in each ethical situation. When we

interact with others we have certain duties to consider. In such situations, we may try to act fairly while not causing harm to others or ourselves for example. Or we may attempt to act in a manner as to improve ourselves while helping others to do the same. In any given interpersonal interactive context, we may find that some of these obligations, like self-improvement and helping others, may compete. As moral agents part of our ethical obligation is to do our best to sort through the multiplicity of duties arising in any given situation in the most unbiased manner possible.

That sounds like a difficult task.

It is but it is one of the key elements of our human ethical condition. We must consider and choose what, when, how and why we owe ethical consideration to whom. It is in these elements where intentionality toward ethical behavior comes squarely into focus.

I can see that.

Great! So, this brings us to our final metaethical term associated with a “right-based theory approach” to ethical behavior – “respect”. When prompted to describe the term “ethical” many point to “respect.” But what is respect? What does it do, who does it do it to and how does it do it?

First, notice that respect, like duty, implies an interaction. To be respectful is to be respectful toward or with someone else. This means that in respect we are not merely engaged in an intention, we are engaged in an interaction. But this only reveals that we are doing something to someone, which places it into an ethical action. It does not reveal what we are doing to or with them. So, what are we doing when we are respectful to others? When we are respectful, we acting in a manner that considers all persons involved in the exchange. We are acting in regard to the interests and worth of all persons involved in our action. These persons include myself, the acting agent, others in the form of other individuals, as well as, the greater group of which we are both a part. The first equates with “self-respect,” the second with “respect- of-others,” and the third with “respect-for-the-greater-group.” When we act respectful, we act to consider the interests and worth of all three of these entities – “you,” “me,” and “us” – concurently.

Yeah, that also makes sense. But I have another question here. Is this where the ethics of prima facie duty and competing ethical obligations come into play – in the relationship between respect for self and respect for others and respect for the greater group?

Yes, that is correct. This is a good example of how there are competing obligations and duties involved in acts of respect.

Okay, well I can say one thing for sure – I have never thought about respect this deeply.

Great – this is what philosophy will do if you continue to practice it. It will push you to explore what is hidden beneath surface appearances. But mind you that this is just a bit deeper explanation of these metaethical terms. While it goes beyond the normal surface level explanation, there is much, much more to be explored here, and there are many, many other terms to explore. As this course predominantly focuses on applied ethical theory, our purpose here is merely to use these explanations to help us move in that direction. However, I hope this overview will inspire you to dig deeper into these and other metaethical terms.

Sure, but I am interested in what we are going to address next. You have mentioned these terms in the framework of two theory approaches to ethical behavior – a “good” and a “right” approach. Would you say a little more about these?

“Normative” ethical theory stands in juxtaposition to “non-normative” ethical theory in the sense that it goes deeper than a mere description. As we mentioned before, “normative” ethical theories attempt to describe how we should act, or how we ought to consider our actions in an ethical context. As was the case with non-normative ethical theory, there are two subfields of normative ethical theory – prescriptive ethical theory and applied ethical theory. The former, prescriptive ethical theory will be our focus for the rest of our discussion today. We will save applied ethical theory for our next session.

Prescriptive theory of ethical behavior contains the two theory approaches you asked about – a theory of the good and a theory of the right approaches. These approaches fall under the normative field as both attempt to explain how we should approach an ethical situation. However, it is important to note that these theories are not actions, instead they are behaviors. Thus, they involve general explanations of the standards that emerge in ethical behavior and its mindset of action consideration. The actions we choose as moral agents are ethical to the extent that they are in accord with ethical behavior – a point we will soon discuss further. Here our purpose is not to look at either of these theory approaches as the way to think ethically. Instead it is to notice that each approach brings our attention to another element or aspect that is necessarily involved in a mindset of ethical consideration.

Okay, that makes sense given what we discussed earlier. I will do my best to keep this in mind as we go.

Theory of the Good Approach First up is a theory of the good approach. There are three prescriptive ethical theories that will make up the theory of the good approach. They are “Virtue Ethics”, “Consequential Utilitarian Ethics” and the “Ethics of Care”. Each of these theories is included in the category of “good based theory approach” to ethical behavior as they commonly evaluate ethical actions in terms of their benefit of all ethical entities involved in the interactive exchange. And, as you may have already assumed, the benefit to which we are referring in this approach is toward a telos or ultimate goal.

So, I am assuming that a theory of the good approach will talk about the goodness of an ethical action? And that goodness will be assessed in terms of the good life of the thing in question?

You are correct. The telos, which is derived from the good life of the thing in question, will be the focal point of a good based theory approach to ethical behavior. The first good based prescriptive theory we will explore is “Virtue Ethics.”

Virtue Ethics theory largely originated in the works of Aristotle. Like other good based theory approaches, his theory focuses the way humans pursue certain types or sorts of lives. Its approach often addresses questions like: What sort-of- person would choose to pursue such and such a goal? In what way would that sort-of-person choose to pursue that goal? With questions like these at the backdrop, virtue ethical theory generally holds that the “good life” of a human being is one spent pursuing the highest goal of humanity – excellence and ultimate well-being. Generally speaking, Virtue Ethics theory holds that ultimate well-being is a state of complete satisfaction that results from effectively pursuing excellence in all my human endeavors. “Excellence” here means my best human self, as it exists in both individual and social or communal modes. To have achieved ultimate-well-being as a human individual means that I have successfully pursued and/or achieved my best, most excellent self in my life in all its times and realms. In regard to time, my life, like all human life, exists in moments like infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc. To achieve excellence means that I have done so in all times of my life. In regard to realms of my life, I live my life, as all humans do, in various realms of being. These realms of being include my physical being, my intellectual being, my spiritual being, my social relationships, and communal being. To achieve excellence means to do so in all these realms concurrently. It is in this sense that the telos of Virtue Ethics is ultimate-well-being achieved by effectively pursuing and achieving excellence in all times and realms of my life.

Wow, that is an insightful explanation of the human telos. I like that description of as the human purpose.

Yeah, it is an insightful argument, isn’t it? But its value isn’t only in its insight, in the spirit of philosophy, its value also comes by of its provocation. The next question of Virtue Ethics is, “How can we achieve this ultimate-well-being?” The answer according to Aristotle is by exercising the virtues.

As we disused in the metaethics section before, a virtue is a character trait or attitude that is beneficial and desirable for some goal. The goal here being human excellence pursued in part by developing proper temperaments and judgments. Virtues like patience, persistence, temperance, courage, good judgment, etc. will be key elements of our pursuit.

Sure, I can see that.

Good. Keep in mind that Virtue Ethics is a good based theory approach that brings our attention to character development and expression. As an ethical agent attempting to consider how my actions impact myself and others, I will need to develop the correct attitudes and temperaments. While engaging other ethically, I need to make sure that my character develops my ability to effectively consider the many elements involved in my ethical actions. It is in this sense that Virtue Ethics could be said to be a “character based” prescriptive theory of ethical behavior that stems from a “good based” ethical action evaluation approach.

Next up is “Consequential Utilitarian Ethics.” Here our attention will turn to the ethical theory of J. S. Mill to introduce this theory approach.

Consequential Utilitarian Ethics falls under the good based theory approach to ethical behavior, as it also is teleological in structure. However, the ultimate goal in this approach is explained differently than that of Virtue Ethics. The human telos, according to Mill’s version of Utilitarian Ethics, is “happiness.” The question that follows is, “What exactly is meant by a telos of ‘happiness’?” We are all quite familiar with the term itself, but we know little of its content. So, when we speak of “happiness,” are we talking about a mere feeling or is it something more?

Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics defines general “happiness” by states of pleasure. “Pleasure” here refers to a pleasant state of being, resulting in a feeling of contentment. From this perspective, one is said to be “happy” to the extent to which her collective experiences favor a pleasurable state of being, rather than one defined by suffering. But when Mill refers to pleasure, he is very careful to differentiate between pleasure in its “higher” and “lower” forms. “Higher” pleasures are defined by our highest human abilities. When we exercise these capabilities, we feel a strong and long-lasting sense of pleasure. “Lower” forms of pleasure result from sensual engagement with the world. While these pleasures are also desirable, they lead to a more surface and shorter-term state of contentment. In fact, his rather famous statement on the topic says that, as far as human pleasure goes, it is better to be a “Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied.” His point here is that while we share a pursuit of pleasure with all sensual animals, it is pleasure resulting from our intellectual and spiritual engagement and development that is most pleasing to humans.

Now, for a pursuit of pleasure to fall within the field of ethics, it cannot be merely tied to the pleasure of any individual. It must revolve around a more inclusive form of pleasure. With this in mind, Consequential Utilitarian Ethics focuses on pleasure at the group level. This means that, in accord with Consequential Utilitarian Ethics, an action is ethically correct to the extent to which it results more/higher pleasure, and less suffering, of the greater group. As such, notice that the “good based” beneficial approach has been taken to its logical conclusion in this theory. An action is good to the extent that it results in, not just pursues, a beneficial outcome for the greater group involved. This is where the “utility” and “consequential” elements of this theory approach come into play. “Utility” means that which is useful, and “consequence” refers to the result or outcome. Thus, a utility based standard of evaluating the benefit of an action is one which rates the action in accord with its outcome. Accordingly, in the Consequential Utilitarian Ethics approach actions are considered “good” to the extent to which they result in greater group pleasure. Notice that individual persons are valued in terms of their inclusion in a group. This means, in this approach the individual is not given special attention over or beyond the group. In fact, the scale of value is tipped in favor of the group. The value of the group absorbs the value of any individual. This means that in some situations an ethical action may be deemed ethically correct even when it uses an individual for the greater good – that being greater group pleasure.

There are several behavior principles that emerge from Mill’s Consequential Utilitarian Ethics approach. They are: the “Greatest Happiness Principle” or the “GHP,” the “No-Harm-Principle” or the “NHP,” and the “Principle of Equality” or the “POE.” The “GHP” is the core behavior principle of Mill’s Consequential Utilitarian Ethics theory. It is the principle that holds that an action is ethically correct to the extent to which it leads to greater group pleasure. As this principle tends to lessen the value of the individual, the “NHP” attempts to address the value of an individual involved in an interaction. The “NHP,” or No Harm Principle, holds that an ethical agent engaged in ethical behavior may correctly pursue their personal interests in an ethical context only to the extent to which their action: (a) coincides with the “GHP,” and (b) does not result in harm to another’s pursuit of pleasure. This means that while pursuing the “GHP” it is permissible to pursue my own sense of personal pleasure, I am free to do so only if I do not harm others in so doing. My personal interests cannot be correctly held over the interest of others in an ethical exchange. My interests are not more important than theirs in regard to ethical consideration.

I can see why the “GHP” and the “NHP” work together in Consequential Utilitarian theory. But what about this “POE”? What is its role?

The “POE,” or Principle of Equality, holds that when an ethical action occurs, to be correct the actor/evaluator must consider the resulting pleasure of all ethical entities involved. As pleasure is at the core of this approach, an entity is approached as ethical entity to the extent to which he or she can experience pleasure or suffering. If the entity has this ability, then they must be considered accordingly in the action. This is where equality fits in the theory. If the entity is capable of sensation, then they must be equally included in the process of consideration. But, having said that, note that this does not mean that all entities are considered equally; all will be considered in accord with their ability to experience pleasure. This means that if our action involves a human being and an oyster for example, we would not consider them equally in regard to capacity for pleasure. Instead, each will be rated and considered in accord with his/her capacity for experiencing pleasure and pain. Consequently, we may argue that the human being has a greater capacity for pleasure and pain when compared to the oyster, and therefore should be considered accordingly.

Sure, I can see that. Each entity with the capacity for pleasure and pain should be considered in accord with their ability to experience these states.

You’ve got it. So, let’s move on to the third and final “good based” prescriptive theory approach to ethical behavior we will look at today – Ethics of Care.

Before we address the theory itself, there is a socio-historic feature of Ethics of Care that is important to recognize. This prescriptive theory largely emerged in the Woman’s Rights movement of the twentieth century. During this period, philosophy saw an increased contribution from the “feminine voice.” One of the central themes of this voice is the role of compassion and care in ethical exchanges. From this “feminine” approach, ethical engagement is described in terms of relationships themselves, rather than abstract principles. The idea here is that ethical consideration must approach persons in terms of actual individuals, not merely abstract characteristics. The problem with assessing an ethical action in accord with abstract characteristics is that there are no actual abstract persons in the world. All “persons” are concrete, and actual, while abstractions are merely ideas. As such, any theory that approaches an individual or a group of individuals in accord with abstract characteristics is bound to incorrectly marginalize the individuals it is supposed to benefit. This is because when we think of other individuals involved in an ethical exchange as “others” or as “human beings,” rather than as actual, concrete existent individuals like “Bob,” “Sally,” “Joel,” etc., we often lose sight of the spirit, and truth of ethics. Ethical behavior involves choosing actions that benefit other individuals, not some abstract category or group of individuals. This approach would argue that any given action could not benefit “humanity” itself, as “humanity” is but an idea or a category of being. When we speak of benefit, we must speak of benefit of actual persons. And actions can only benefit actual, existent human persons, like “Bob” or “Sally.” Accordingly, when we overtly focus on abstract descriptions only, we risk losing not just the importance, but also the actuality of the individuals who our consideration is targeting. We risk losing sight of them as they become hidden in the abstractions themselves.

With this idea at the backdrop, we can see a similarity between Feminine Ethics of Care and Virtue Ethics. Both focus on elements of ethical behavior beyond action evaluation principles. In Virtue Ethics, the focus is an attitude, here the focus is relationships in the framework of compassionate-care. “Compassion” as you will remember from our work on metaethics, deals with the fundamental understanding of another, which arises in the context of a deep connection. This deep connection becomes problematic when we explain or approach others in abstract form. If we see “a homeless person,” chances are we will miss “Sally,” the specific person to whom we are referring. Of course, while Sally may be homeless, she is not her situation. In fact, there is no such actual person as “a homeless person.” “Homelessness” is a category – a thing – while a “homeless person,” Sally – is a person. So, there are only individuals who are homeless. While Sally, who is homeless, has interests, feelings, goals, etc., “a homeless person” is an abstraction that cannot possess these critical elements. Thus, in accord with a Feminine Ethics of Care approach, ethical actions are beneficial to the extent to which they recognize and benefit the actual individuals involved. When we come to understand and connect with the actual individuals we interact with in ethical exchanges, we put ourselves in a position not only to “care about” them in the sense of a feeling or desire for them, but to go forward and “care for” them in a manner that includes helpful actions. Consequently, a Feminine Ethics of Care approach holds that actions are “ethically good” to the

extent in which they help bring out the best of the individual who is being cared for. This means the central telos of Feminine Ethics of Care is similar to that of Virtue Ethics but the focus here is less on abstract “human excellence”, and more on excellence defined by the actual individual persons who are being considered in the action choice.

Having said that, we must note that in order to genuinely care about and/or care for the other, we must receive them in a sincere manner. We cannot project our ideas or perspectives into them. When we do so we not only fail to connect, but we turn them into an idea, rather than an actual person, with actual feelings, desires and needs in the world.

Wow, I like this theory. I can see where Feminine Ethics of Care addresses an aspect of ethical actions and behaviors that the previous two theories did not. It makes sense that we must not only see the principled abstract category, but the actual concrete individual as well. But my question is, who is our theorist here? You talked about Aristotle and Virtue Ethics and Mill and Consequential Utilitarian Ethics. Who is the theorist here?

That is a good question. While many have contributed to the Ethics of Care theory, there are a few that appear at the core of its philosophical development. Those are Milton Mayeroff, Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. Each played a significant role in contributing to this approach.

Theory of the Right Approach Okay. That rounds out the three prescriptive ethical theories that fall under “a theory of the good approach” to ethical behavior. Notice that each of these theories distinguish between the ends, or goal of the theory and the means used to pursue that ends. For Virtue Ethics, the human telos is explained as ultimate well-being and excellence, while the means of the pursuit are the virtues. For Consequential Utilitarian Ethics, the ultimate goal is happiness explained as pleasure, while the means are the GHP, NHP and POE. For Ethics of Care the telos is personal development of the individuals involved, while the means is compassionate care. I bring up this means/ends distinction because it is one of the chief differences between “a theory of the good approach” and “a theory of the right approach.”

In a “theory of the right approach” to ethical behavior the means and ends of an ethical action are not considered separately or distinctly. The means are the ends, and the ends are the means. An example here could be “justice.” When we choose a just action, we do not necessarily evaluate and choose the action because of its benefit. Instead we do so because of what it is – it is just. As a just action is “fair” to all involved, it is ethically right, regardless of result. As this example reveals, a theory of the right approach to ethical behavior will not introduce the idea of a human telos in order to evaluate the correctness a particular course of ethical action. Instead ethical correctness is assessed “internally” in accord with two key elements: (a) the general framework of ethical interactions themselves, and (b) the defining characteristics of the specific action in question. This general framework, you will remember, was outlined last session when we discussed the foundational elements of ethical behavior as it relates to ethical action evaluation.

Yeah, this was the one I had a bit of trouble with before. I am still not sure I get it. I mean the idea of a telos makes sense, but an internal, universally applied standard of evaluating an action is confusing to me.

I remember when it was first explained to me. I felt the same way. But once it was explained using specific examples it became clearer. So, let’s work in that direction.

The good news is that there is only one “right-based” prescriptive theory of ethical behavior we will look at in this course – the Deontological Ethics approach of Immanuel Kant. Kant was one of the more famous philosophical ethicists who attempted to discover an objective criterion for evaluating an ethical action. In so doing he explored ethics from a “mathematical” or deductive, rather than a “teleological” or inductive perspective. Rather than introducing a variety of contingent elements, his aim was to deduce an action evaluation standard using only the elements that were necessarily involved in the general contexts of ethical interactions. His argument goes something like this, as ethical situations involve two or more individuals, correct ethical actions must originate from: (a) a desire to be ethical – that choosing to follow ethical behavior – alongside (b) an obligation to consider all involved – accounting for the fundamental features of ethical behavior and its relationship to ethical action evaluation. Given these two features, a correct ethical action is one that not only equally considers, but equally applies to all involved. And this means that for an ethical action to be called “correct” it must be able to stand up to a test of universal inclusion and application included in the fundamental

principles of ethical engagement. The specific test he used in determining the ethical correctness of an action is called the “categorical imperative” principle.

Now, “categorical imperative” is a phrase that contains two words with which you may be familiar – “categorical” and “imperative.” Regarding “categorical,” Kant is referring to actions that fall in the category of ethics. This means he his theory is addressing interactions, not just actions. Furthermore, he is addressing interactions that are to be evaluated in accord with the tenants of ethical behavior we discussed last session (i.e. ethical intentionality toward equality of unbiased consideration of actions unfolding in an interpersonal interactive context). The second word of the phrase, “imperative,” means “that which necessarily must be done.” It is in “imperative” where we discover the sense of duty implied in Kant’s theory regarding ethical contexts. The argument here is that because ethical actions are interactions, when acting ethically an acting agent has an ethical duty to consider the situation and act in a principled way. This principled way, according to Kant, is characterized by universality. The categorical imperative argues that when facing an ethical situation, one has an ethical obligation to act only in a manner in which the acting agent could reasonably desire that everyone, everywhere, and all the time will act as she is acting. This implies that if an acting agent desires to be ethical, she has a duty choose and assess her action by a universally applied, inclusive framework.

I think I get that. Kant is saying that because ethical actions are interactions, to be ethically correct, one must act in accord with a universal standard of action?

Yes, that’s it. That is just what he is saying.

I see, but isn’t he saying something which amounts to “when acting ethically, one has a duty to act ethically”?

Yes, that is also right. But the implications of this “duty” element go deeper than it may seem on the surface. Kant’s argument is simply that when behaving ethically, actions should aim to be “right.” And to be “right” means that the action will meet a standard that equally recognizes the general essence ethical engagement, and the specific context we are facing as an ethical agent. As was the case with the soldier, when one acts as a soldier, she is obliged to carry out a subset of responsibilities and obligations. In so doing, she assumes a duty to act in a particular manner. And this particular manner applies to all persons acting in the role of soldier. In applying this framework to ethical exchanges, as ethical contexts include two or more persons, just as all interactive roles do, there is also a sense of duty present in ethical contexts. Accordingly, the standard by which an ethical action should be evaluated must recognize a universal standard of interaction. Just as all soldier have an obligation to fulfill the responsibilities of a soldier, all ethical agents have the duty to fulfill the responsibilities of ethical consideration and action. This universal standard that applies to all ethical exchanges, he argues, is embodied in the “categorical imperative” principle.

So, I am still not seeing what makes this theory so special.

Well, let’s look at it in a specific example to see how this “duty” framework operates to help clarify. Take theft – if we were to use the categorical imperative framework to test the ethical correctness of theft, all we would need to do is understand the relationality of three necessary elements involved – “theft,” “ethical behaviors,” and “ethical actions.” We would not need to turn to any other elements in order to assess ethical correctness. So, here we may ask questions like, “What is ‘theft’? What does it involve? Who does it involve? How does it involve them?” In answering these questions, we would invariably come to see that “theft,” by its very essence, involves taking of the private property of another against her will. Then, “ethical behavior” involves the mindset with which a moral agent evaluates and ethical action. And “ethical actions,” by their very essence, involve actions that apply interpersonally. This means that they are “ethical” because they apply equally or universally to all people involved in the exchange. Given these descriptions and their relationship, we can see that when we attempt to apply “theft” in an ethical framework, theft destroys itself. This is because, if one were to attempt to will a universal rule of theft, one could only do so in a world where private property itself is meaningless (i.e. anyone can take anything, anytime they want regardless of the desires of the person who the thing is taken from). And if private property has no meaning, then there could not be theft. This is because theft and private property are necessarily connected to each other, while equal recognition and evenhanded application are necessarily connected in the context of ethical behavior and action. So, when we attempt to put these elements

together – theft as an ethical principle – we immediately land in a contradiction. This leads us to see that theft, by its own nature, is ethically incorrect. Or to put it more appropriately in terms of the “right-based” theory approach – theft is simply a “wrong” act in so much as it cannot conform to the tenants of ethical behavior.

Yes, I think that makes sense. For theft to be possible there must be private property. But theft as a universal action destroys “private property.” And without “private property,” there could be no theft. This means that theft destroys itself when we attempt to apply it equally to all involved.

Exactly! That was well put. Notice the implication here – theft by its own nature is a wrong ethical action, regardless of benefit or perspective. While one may steal to benefit others, as in the case of Robin Hood’s stealing from the rich to give to the poor, but it is still ethically wrong to do so. This is because the acting agent, the thief, is attempting to operate by a principle that inherently shows bias toward one ethical entity or group of entities over another. As the action contains an internal bias, it naturally fails to meet the criteria ethics.

Sure, I can see that now. The internal bias of theft leads it to be ethically incorrect…that’s interesting.

Kant’s right based theory approach surely points out something that the teleological theory approach glosses over. Perhaps it is the sense of justice that Plato argued was at the core of ethical exchanges.

Now, the final element of Kant’s Deontological ethics we will discuss here regards the final principle derived from the categorical imperative approach. This principle is called “Respect for Persons.” While Mill’s theory allowed for persons to be used as a means in some rare contexts, in Kant’s theory, all ethical entities must always be treated as persons, not things. This is because the acting agent, being a person and not a thing, could not will a universal rule of treating persons as things. This because she herself is a person, like the others she is interacting with. If she were to attempt to will a universal rule of treating “persons” as “things,” her action would fail in regard to the categorical imperative framework much in the same manner that theft failed. Thus, “respect for persons” holds that all persons must be respected as an end in themselves. Accordingly, when choosing an ethical action, an acting agent has a duty to always treat a person as a person, never as an opportunity.

Alright, that also makes sense given what Kant argued.

Good! I hope the four prescriptive theories we have looked at today will help you to see the difference between a “good” and a “right” approach to ethical behavior. Just remember, a “good-based approach” attempts to evaluate an ethical action in terms of “goodness” and “badness,” while a “right-based approach” assesses an action in accord with ethical “rightness” and “wrongness.” Understanding these theory approaches individually and collectively will provide greater insight into the greater purpose of ethical engagement in the form of prescriptive theory.

Okay, let’s leave it there for today. Next time, in our fourth session, we will talk about prescriptive theory of ethical behavior as it applies to real-world ethical scenarios. This section will help us better understand how this theory applies to specific ethical situations.

Section 4: Applied philosophical ethical theory

Welcome back class. As we have spent our first three sessions looking at the foundations of philosophical theory, today our plan is to explore philosophical ethical theories as they apply to actual interactions, in the actual world. The purpose of this session is to help move from raw ethical theory toward genuine ethical action. Accordingly, we will look at how prescriptive ethical theory applies to real world ethical situations and scenarios. With that in mind, let’s take a few minutes to directly discuss the relationship between ethics as theory and ethics as action.

Good. We have been talking so much about ethical ideas, I was starting to wonder how all this will apply to the real world.

Well, I am glad to see that you are asking this question. The asking of the question alone shows that you realize that ethics is more than just an idea or a theory. And this is a very important realization. Moral Agency – Bringing Ethical Behavior to Life To begin our discussion today I would like to reiterate a key component of ethical behavior and its action evaluation – moral agency. “Moral agency,” you will remember, involves our ability to choose an appropriate course of action when choosing to behave ethically. As it points to the “choosing” and “acting” elements involved in all ethical exchanges, it is of inescapable importance in ethical engagement. As we discussed in our previous session, ethical engagement is seated in a mindset that pursues the truth of our action choices as they relate to the interpersonal interactive contexts in which they arise. But it is critical to keep in mind that this mindset is not based in unembodied abstraction, it is based in the embodied choice of the actor. Ethics is “brought to life” in the world through the actor’s choice to follow ethical behavior. Now, one may argue that ethical behavior is just a matter of opinion, and from the “popular ethics” approach this may make some sense. But as philosophers would not assume the truth of such a claim and move on. Instead we would need to understand more about the claim and its grounding reasons. This task would push us to ask questions like – “What is an ‘opinion’?” “Who and/or what do opinions involve and how do they involved them?” In exploring these questions, we would likely discover that opinions are not self-grounded, that is they are not about themselves. Instead they are grounded in the connection between the opinion holder and her relationship to the subject about which the opinion is formed. While a claim about the opinionated nature of ethics may point to the knowledge of the opinion holder, it does little to reveal the actual subject of knowledge – ethics and its identity. Therefore, the next question is, “If ethics is all about one’s personal opinion, then what is ‘ethics”, the subject about which the opinion has been formulated? What makes ‘ethics’ and ‘ethical engagement’ what it is and not something else?” And this question leads us back to the first principles or fundamental features of ethics and ethical engagement we have been exploring in this introduction. But even if we can identify the general form of “ethics” and “ethical engagement,” as we have attempted to do here, that does not mean that ethical behaviors or action occur in their mental form. We have worked hard to identify the first principles of several general principles of ethical behavior. We encountered the fundamental characteristics of principles like respect, compassionate-care, the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative, the GHP. But these principles of ethical behavior can only become fully expressed, and subsequently discovered, through the actions of the actor. That is to say, they do not come to life in the world in their abstract form; they do so only through the embodied choices of the acting agent. And these choices appear in the world in the framework of ethical behavior which includes both the mindset and the characteristics of the chosen actions. But ethical behavior, like its concurrent actions, does not arise in unembodied abstraction; it arises in the embodied approach of those who choose to engage interpersonal interactive situation ethically. And as philosophers it is our job to understand these principles and their role in our lives. And this explanation brings us to our final subject in this introduction section – ethics in the form of knowing, doing, and becoming. Ethical Knowing, Doing and Becoming As ethics is about embodied actions that are considerate of all involved, “being fully ethical,” a phrase that has appeared in several sections of this introduction, is not a benign idea. Its role is quite important and unique to philosophical ethics, especially as compared to the mainstream “popular ethics” approach. In “being fully ethical” we are pointing to the highest aim of the ethical philosopher – to become an active embodiment of ethical behavior. In this state, an ethical agent will personify the consideration principle of ethical behavior in thought, word, and deed. Anytime she faces an ethical situation she will move to consider all ethical entities involved, herself alongside all others. Now, with that goal at the backdrop, I would like to introduce to three phases of philosophical ethical engagement – ethical knowing, ethical doing and ethical becoming. It is in this last phase where “being fully ethical” will become clear. So, let’s start at the top.

The first phase of embodied ethical behavior and its choice to follow an ethically engaged mindset is “ethical knowing.” Ethical knowing addresses philosophical ethics in its most rudimentary state. This state is defined by “accurate” or “factual knowledge” in the form of having a fundamental or philosophical understanding of all the features involved in a particular ethical context or situation. It important to remember that to have “accurate knowledge” of a thing or event in philosophy, we need to understand a thing or event in terms of its facts and reasons. This means that to be in a state of “ethical knowledge,” in accord with philosophical ethics, one must clearly and accurately understand both the facts and the reasons behind the “who” and “what” elements involved in the situation. These “who” and “what” elements include concrete aspects like the entities involved in the situation, alongside the more abstract aspects like the terms, actions, principles, etcetera, which are used to describe and assess the situation.

So, I suppose that this fundamental understanding goes along with the “ethical intentionality” we talked about before.

Absolutely! Great job connecting the ideas we have been discussing. To fundamentally understand all the “what” and “who” elements involved in an ethical situation, one must necessarily be in two states – that of intentionality and that of actual curiosity. To understand in a way that includes facts and reasons, curiosity and ethical intentionality must be present in the acting/assessing agent. Once curiosity and intentionality are sincerely embodied, the agent is in a position to receive information from the situation, not projected ideology. In such a state, she can use the philosophical ethical method as a helpful tool. Okay, I can see all that, but why did you say that “ethical knowing” is “the lowest phase” of ethical action? This is because knowledge is not action, and ethics culminates in action. In philosophical ethics, “ethics” necessarily involves elements of intentionality, knowledge, and action. If any of the three are absent, the “ethics” is not. In other words, in philosophy, you cannot have an ethical action without clear and adequate intentionality and understanding. But “ethics” does not end there. To be ethical is to knowingly and willingly think and act in a very real manner in the interactive world.

Sure, I can see that. I could not be called “ethical” in a situation where I knew what was ethically correct, but did not act accordingly. All I could be called in such a situation is inactive, and therefore not-ethical.

Yes, very good. This is an important point as well. I see that you have a good grasp of intentionality, so let’s move forward to speak of another aspect of “ethical knowing” – “ethical-know-how.”

The first state of “ethical knowledge” we referred to as accurate knowledge of the “who” and “what” elements involved in the situation. Accordingly, we will call this initial state “ethical-know-what.” Building from “ethical-know-what,” the second state of “ethical knowledge” will be called “ethical-know-how.” “Ethical-know-how” involves the ability for an agent to conceptualize how the “who” and “what” elements will apply to a particular ethical action. This phase of ethical engagement is often called “technical know-how.” This “technical know-how” means that the agent not only accurately understands the abstract form of the individual elements involved in a particular ethical situation, but also knows “how” they relate to the interaction. So, what is the difference between “ethical-know-what” and “ethical know-how”? Well, first of all, they are related. This is because both “ethical-know-what” and “ethical-know-how” deal with abstract understanding. In “ethical-know-what” an agent assumed a conceptual understanding of the “who” and “what” elements involved in an ethical situation. In “ethical know-how” an acting agent goes a short step further in having a clear and accurate conceptual understanding of how a correct ethical action would apply to the situation. But note this understanding is still conceptual and not actual as it has not yet transpired. This means that at this phase we have not yet reached actual action. Instead we are still engaging the situation at the mental level in this phase. It is for this reason that “ethical-know-what” and “ethical know-how” fall under the greater ethical engagement category of “ethical knowing.”

Okay, I can see that. Knowing the fundamental makeup of the individual elements involved in an ethical situation is like step 2 of the philosophical method, while “know-how” is more geared toward step 3. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct. Once again, great connection of ideas. In step 2 of the philosophical method of engagement we describe and define the individual elements, as they exist in their individual abstract state. These “ethical-know-what” descriptions arise from a metaphysical, “what/who is X” description of all elements involved in the interactive exchange. In step 3 we look at the relationship between the elements. Here they are not seen as individual element, but as compositional elements. Accordingly, as “ethics” necessarily involves interaction, alongside intentionality and accurate knowledge, in step 3 we would have to conceptually understand how these elements come together in an interactive context. Thus, “ethical-know-how” could be thought of in terms of a nurse learning how to care for a patient in an educational lab setting. To actually care for an actual patient, in the actual world, a nurse must firstly know what a “patient”, a “nurse”, a “care treatment plan”, etc., are. Typically, a nursing student learns these terms before he comes into the lab setting. In the lab setting the aspiring nurse is taught about the interactive relationship between “patient,” a “nurse,” a “care treatment plan,” etc. This lesson is often taught in a simulated environment where the nursing student practices on a “dummy” patient in a staged manner. In this staged setting, the aspiring nurse is learning how “patient,” a “nurse,” and a “care treatment plan” come together in an actual action, in the actual world, even though she is not yet actually doing so. Now, in connecting this example back to our point, in the phase of “ethical-know-how” we are still dealing with ethics in its conceptual form. Just as the nurse, in a clinical lab setting, is not actually caring for a sick patient, in the “knowledge” phase of ethical engagement, we are not yet acting ethically. We merely conceptually understand how our intention and knowledge applies to the actual situation, in the actual world. Okay. I’ve got it. “Ethical knowing” is the conceptual state of ethical engagement. Yes, that’s right. Now, the second phase of choosing to embody ethical behavior falls in the realm of “ethical dong”. Ethical doing brings the evaluator of the ethical action forth to become the actor of the action. It is in this phase where the actor moves from the conceptual realm of the ethical mindset of considering others to the realm of doing something that actually includes or affects others. In returning to our nurse example, it is in the phase of “ethical doing” where the nurse actually interacts with an actual patient, in the actual world. She is no longer in a learning lab, but is in an actual clinic actually treating sick patients in the course of applying her nursing duties to real patient care.

Okay, I figured this to be the case. As ethics necessarily involves interactions, for a nurse to actually be a nurse, she must actually interact with a patient.

Yes, that is it. A nurse becomes a nurse by transforming her choice, understanding and ideas in actual actions, where she actually interacts with an actual patient in a particular way. Furthermore, a “good nurse”, not just a nurse, takes this “particular way” to the highest level of purpose driven patient care as it unfolds in the context of ethical engagement. “Ethical doing” presents a higher phase of philosophical ethics than “ethical knowing” as it integrates intentions and ideas with actions in the world. Here intention meets knowledge and know-how and actual action – or better yet, interaction. And it is important to note that all actions, ethical or not, originate in thought and understanding derived from experience. We see the world, then we think about it, then, in our understanding of it, we create contexts of goals which turn to actions. It is in this way that our thoughts become actual actions in the world.

So, let me see if I have this. “Ethical knowing”, the first phase of ethical behavior engagement, includes theoretical-know-what and technical-know-how. The “theoretical-knowing” aspect addresses knowing “what” and “who” is involved in an ethical situation, while “know-how” involves the “how” element. Both “knowing” and

“know-how,” in their “what,” “who,” and “how” elements, are conceptual and not actual as they have not yet transpired in the world. In the second phase of “ethical dong,” “ethical knowing” is a higher phase of ethics as it is the phase where intentions and ideas turns into actual actions. Accordingly, “ethical doing” centers on the “when” and “where” elements of an ethical action?

Yes. That is correct. But, mind you that phase two continues from, and therefore, contains phase one within it. This means that phase one – “ethical knowledge” comprised of “ethical-know-what” and “ethical-know-how” – remains present in phase two – “ethical doing.” Or to put it in another way, in “ethical doing” we have an acting agent who, in each ethical situation, has not only an ethical intention to follow the tenants of ethical behavior, but a clear and accurate grasp of the “what,” “who,” “how,” “when,” and “where” elements involved. When a nurse treats an actual patient, in the actual world, he is still exercising the “know-what” and “know-how” gained during his classroom and clinical lab studies.

Got it. But where is there to go from here? As ethics revolves around actions, it seems like this “doing” is the ultimate expression of ethical engagement.

We have obviously come to a high level or phase of ethical behavior and its concurrent actions, but not the highest. The highest level includes our third phase “ethical becoming.” “Ethical becoming” is the upmost phase of ethical behavior as it is in this level where we actually become an ethical agent. At this phase, we are no longer acting like an ethical agent. Instead we are an ethical agent. This means that at the phase of “ethical becoming” I am no longer merely acting like a good nurse, I have become a good nurse. I am the embodiment of a good nurse. I personify “good nurse” in my intentions, my knowledge and in my actions. But this “good nurseness” is not just something that I emulate. It is something I am. I am a good nurse in all I think, say, and do. But notice that one is a “good nurse” only to the extent that she continually thinks, understands, and acts in a particular way. It is in this sense that one cannot be a good nurse in abstract, but only by continually becoming a “good nurse” through her choices and actions. Okay, I think I get it. Could you give me another example? Sure. Think of a situation where you find a lost wallet on campus. Imagine you open the wallet and find $42 in cash, a credit card and a driver’s license. Imagine that your first inclination is to take the money and dump the wallet in the trash. After all, you need the money for a textbook, and you did not steal the wallet. You only found it. But then you remember ethics is not about self-interests or convenience, it’s about consideration of all involved. What do you do? Well, being in an ethical mood, you determine that you must consider your interests and worth alongside that of the owner of the wallet. With this intention at the backdrop, you determine that the ethical course of action would be to turn in the wallet to public safety and let them contact the owner. Now, on the way to the public safety office, you walk by a vending machine and suddenly a hunger craving hits you. You pull out your wallet to make a purchase only to learn that you have no cash. So, what now? You think to yourself, “Hmm, perhaps it will be okay if I take a dollar, just one dollar, from this wallet I found as a reward. Doing so wouldn’t necessarily be unethical because surely, I am owed a reward for returning it. After all, my interests in being rewarded must be considered too. But having said that, I know that ethics is not about making assumptions and them projecting them into other persons. I must receive them in an accurate manner. This means that I cannot just take this dollar based on an assumption; I must consider the owner’s interests alongside my own. Hmmm…thinking…considering…I’ve got it! What if I took the dollar and informed the owner of my action? Yeah, that’s what I will do. I will take the dollar as a reward and put a note in it letting the owner know what I did. In the note, I will include my contact info so that I can pay him back the dollar if he so desires. This gives him an opportunity to react to my action in a way that considers us both.” So, off you go to public safety, feeling good about yourself with the candy in one pocket and the wallet and note in the other.

Now, could we say that you “acted fully ethical” in the situation? Probably not. Yes, your action considered yourself and the owner in a real way. But the very fact that your initial inclination was take the money and dump the wallet shows an ethical discrepancy. In the end, you managed to discipline yourself to more or less ethical course of action, but surely you did not fully embody the spirit of ethics. Sure. I can see that. In “being fully ethical” one becomes an embodiment of ethical behavior as they live their life in real time. At this phase one does not merely act respectfully or compassionately, one embodies respect or compassion in their whole being. They intend, think, choose, act, and interact from respect, not from self-interests or any other state of being. They have become respectful as they personify respect in all they think, say, and do. I have never thought of ethics at this level. Yes, it is a very uncommon way of being in the world. Many, if not most, of us manage to act ethically most of the time, but few of us every “become fully ethical.” We act like a good nurse or parent or friend, but we often cannot maintain a state of being where we are those things. States of self-interest or complacency seep back into the foundations of our thoughts, words, and actions. In the wallet situation, your self-interest would have never crept in. As the situation naturally involved yourself and another, your consideration would have been inclusive right from the start.

Yes, I can see that. Even when I am ethically inclined, I often feel my one self-interests pulling at my intentions. In these situations, I feel good about myself when I manage to be disciplined enough to follow my ethical intentions, rather than my selfish ones. But I cannot deny that they are often there, involved in the equation.

In “being fully ethical” one is not in a disciplined state. It is not a state of denial. Instead, it is an affirmative state. It is a state where I am in a continual state of becoming a full expression of my human ability to personify my highest states of character. In these states, my sole inclination is to think, say and act only in a manner that expresses my best, highest self and potential. And this highest-self, of course, means nothing short of inclusive, clear, and accurate understanding and consideration of all who are involved in my interactions. Those involved may be immediately present, but they may not be, as was in the case of the wallet example. Either way, in “being fully ethical,” “I” become considerate action in all that “I” think, say and do. It is in this “becoming” phase where “I” transition from a phase of “intending,” to a phase of “knowing,” to a phase of “know-how,” to a phase of “doing” and “emulation,” to a final phase of “being” and “becoming.” In this final, most engaged, phase state, “I” am walking, talking, thinking, and acting consideration. Wow! That is a highly engaged ethical state. Yes, in this state one acts ethically in accord with all three phases of ethical behavior – “ethical knowing, “ethical dong” and “ethical becoming.” They not only have an ethical intention, they have a fundamental understanding in “who,” “what,” “how,” “where,” “were,” and “why.” And this understanding is not merely an abstract understanding; it is an actively engaged understanding. This “why” element does not only point to a fundamental understanding, but it revels the highest ethical intention. This “why” element not only contains all previous phases, but in this phase, we act ethically correct to become ethical. Our highest aim is not “acting ethically,” but “becoming ethical” in all we are. The other side of “being fully ethical” points to the fact that we only “become ethical” through continually exercising our intentions and our choices in our actions. The fact that “choice” and “intention” are necessarily involved in ethical action implies that I am the author and architect of my ethical character. I am the sole creator of my ethical being. I “become fully ethical” to the extent in which I, as the acting/evaluating agent, continually choose act at the correct times, for the correct reasons, in the correct way. And not only do I choose these things in abstract form, but in a fully engaged way that leads me to actually act upon them.

This Course – “PHI 110: Ethics” Now that we have discussed the three phases of ethical engagement, let’s talk about how these actions apply to our class – “PHI 110: Ethics”. Let’s being by talking about what our class will do. And then we will move on to discuss what it will not do. As “PHI 110: Ethics” is a survey course intended to introduce first time philosophy students to the discipline of philosophical ethics. As philosophical ethics deals with both ethics in theory and ethics in action, this course will introduce students to philosophical ethical theory in its general or abstract form, as well as, its specific or applied form. This introduction discussion presents philosophical ethical theory presented in its general form, while the remainder of the course will focus on presenting ethical theory in its applied forms. In accord with the overall goal of philosophical ethics, our purpose in this applied theory portion of the course is to move from abstract theory (“ethical-know-what”), to applied theory (“ethical-know-how”). In other words, to better follow the progression of ethical engagement, for the remainder of the course we will be applying the philosophical ethical approach, including our three philosophical tools and the “good” and “right” based ethical theory approaches, to several real-world ethical topics.

Okay, that makes sense. I was looking at our course text last night and I think what you are saying is that we will be applying the ethical theory we have been talking to the ethical issues outlined in the text?

That’s right. But it is critical to keep in mind that our purpose in this portion of the course is not merely to become more informed about the ethical issues involved in these topics. Our purpose is to learn how to think more philosophically about ethical issues. In other words, the theory application portion of the class uses several topics as examples of how we as philosophers approach real-world ethical issues using the philosophical ethical approach.

I see. You are saying that the understanding of the approach is at the core of what we will do for the remainder of the course.

Yes, you are right on point. Now, that we are clear as to what’s to come, let’s look at more detailed list of the ethical topics and issues to come:

Production, Exchange, and Distribution -Domestic: social justice/transfer payments, economic equality, and opportunity -International: world hunger and poverty, labor conditions and laborer rights

Farming and Food Production -Animal rights and ethical treatment, environmental ethics

Law, Human Rights, and International Relations -Domestic Defense: capital punishment and death penalty legislation, due process, rights and civil liberties, drug laws -International Defense: national security, war, terrorism, torture, human rights, and civil liberties

Science and Health Development -Health Care/Medicine – euthanasia, stem-cell research/cloning, drug addiction, health-care access

Wow – that is an extensive list! It is but keep in mind, we will not have time to talk about every one of these topics. We will focus our attention on a few of the ones that appear in our textbook. Also note that this list is but a small sample of ethical topics a community faces. Any given community is involved in a multiplicity of others like education, parenting and family relations, political representation and so forth. But remember, our intention in this course is not merely to gain a deeper factual understanding of these topics and issues. Our intention is to better understand how to apply a philosophical ethical approach to ethical situations such as these. As such, our real ethical work will not be limited to the classroom or the

study you will do at home. It will begin and end with the way in which we approach and act in these and other ethical situations in the course of our daily lives. As I said before, it sounds like a lot to keep up with, but I will do my best. Great! Now that you have been introduced to the framework of philosophical ethical study, we will be moving on to work from our course textbook “Disputed Moral Issues.” As you work through the text challenge yourself to engage with the issues and topics beyond the articles themselves. Do so by using the philosophical engagement steps we discussed before. Here is a list suggesting how to do so:

Step 1: Start off each chapter by identifying the topic in question. Attempt to discover several philosophical and ethical questions regarding the topic that need attention. Note that these should be “what is X?” type questions. Step 2: Then, before moving on to the introduction section or the articles, try to identify some of the central ethical issues that arise in the questions discovered in Step 1. Spend some time attempting to clarify what makes each issue or element what it is and not something else. (i.e. What makes X what it is?) Step 3: Then move on to explore how these elements relate to each other. Here you will look at the elements identified in Step 2 not in isolation but in-relation-to each other. (i.e. How do X and Y relate to each other?) Step 4: Then look at how these elements identified and explored in Steps 1 and 2 relate to the overall topic and to ethics in general. (i.e. How do X and Y relate to “ethics” and the overall topic?) Step 5: Then move on to read the assigned articles. As you work-through them pay attention to the “what” and “how” elements of each argument. This means you should pay attention to: (a) what the author is saying about the topic/issue; and (b) how she/he saying it. This will bring your attention to not only the facts of the argument, but also the reasons behind it, both being critical to the relationship between theory and the actual world. (i.e. How is author Z making her/his argument? What key concepts or ideas is she/he exploring?) Step 6: Then finally attempt to explore the topics and issues using a philosophical study group. To do so set up a philosophical study group made up of a few of your classmates who are familiar with the form and function of the philosophical ethical approach. If well organized and focused, this study group should allow you to look at the topic and issues from a variety of perspectives. However, given the purpose of the group the ideas and arguments that are shared should go beyond mere perspective or opinion. They should aim at pursuing truth by exploring and explaining both the facts and reasons behind any given position. Furthermore, as you interact with your group you will do well to collectively remember the purposes of this exchange – a continual pursuit of truth through an interactive dialogue.

Engaging the course text in this dynamic fashion will not only help awaken your understanding of the framework of ethical interactions, it will also help you to better engage and develop the multiplicity of ethical roles and situations you will encounter in your future. I think I can see how approaching the course in this manner will be helpful. Now that we have discussed what “PHI 110: Ethics” will do, let’s turn our attention to what it will not do. While we will do our best to study and explore the ethical issues involved in these topics, our studies alone will not take us to the ultimate level of ethical engagement – “ethical doing.” This means that while we will explore the great hardship and suffering occurring in the world in the context of topics like extreme poverty or animal ethics, our studies will not actually alleviate the actual suffering occurring the actual world. While our studies may bring our attention to the issues, or cause us to think about them in new ways, they will not change the world in any concrete way. Only our actions can do that.

And so, this brings us to our final point in this introduction. While this course is about studying philosophical ethics, and philosophical ethics is about a way of life where we actively engage ourselves and our world, this course will fall short of the full expression of our subject – ethics. As an academic course, all it can serve to do is to introduce us to the elements of philosophical ethics that can be communicated in written or spoken words. It is up to us to not only to see that philosophical ethics is much more than words, theories, and principles. In our studies, we must strive to see that the overlying spirit and purpose of philosophical ethics goes beyond words, theories, and principles into actions. And to the extent that we can see this, it then becomes up to us to see that it is only in these interactions that we and these theories make a real, beneficial difference in the world. And to the extent that we can state the ultimate purpose of philosophy and ethics in words, surely it is to enable us make the world a better place for all its inhabitants. With that, we conclude the unit one, the introduction section of our class. We will now move on to unit two where we will apply the philosophical ethical approach to the ethical topics outlined in the course syllabus.