Essay

Héctor E. López-Sierra, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Humanistic Studies Faculty

Metropolitan Campus

Inter American University of Puerto Rico

1

Measuring Morality: What is

Right and Wrong?

2

Introduction

• One can say that every ethical value involves some standard of behavior, and every standard is defined in a prescriptive manner.

• Ethical standards are expressed in terms of "ought" and "should," or "ought not" and "should not." They transcend the language of description, speaking not only of "what is," but rather "what should be."

• Where do we find such standards? What kinds of sources are available to us upon which to build an ethical system? The options are as follows:

1. "Oughts" are derived from what "is."

• Definition:

– Mortimer Adler: An attempt "to get conclusions in the imperative mood from premises entirely in the indicative mood." This view presupposes the origination of value is found in the facts, the observation of nature.

– G. G. Simpson: What is ethically right is related in some way to what is materially true. A man runs a red light. He cannot draw a conclusion of whether or not to run the red light without having an earlier presupposition or standard in place concerning that ethical choice: "One shouldn't run red lights."

• Example:

– Behaviorism: All of our actions are the result of either our genetic make-up or our environment. This system presupposes that nothing exists beyond the material realm. What is called mind is reduced to physical and chemical reactions. We cannot act upon the world; rather, the world acts upon us.

• Critique:

– There can be no human responsibility for actions. Behaviorists themselves appeal to a standard of justice when wronged. Contrary to the contention of the behaviorists, there are both philosophical reasons and scientific evidence to support the belief that we do possess an immaterial substance.

Critique…

• To have true moral values, people must get them from somewhere other

than the actual world of description. This view destroys the very concepts of

good and evil, because "what is" contains both.

• To speak of good and evil becomes non-essential. Charles Manson said, "If

God is one, what is bad?" Baudelaire lamented, "If God exists, he is the

Devil."

• This view does not answer the question of predatorial/survival life in nature.

All that we call "human" would be destroyed if people practiced this natural

ethic consistently and universally. Not many hold this view seriously. T. H.

Huxley admitted that, although evolution is true, it leads to bad ethics. Even

evolutionists choose not to live in such a world. Instead, they philosophically

smuggle Christian ethics arbitrarily into their system and hold it romantically

upon their naturalistic base.

2. The Consensus Ethic (Majority Rule)

• Definition:

– Whatever a cultural group approves of is deemed right; whatever

the group disapproves of is wrong. In America, we find the most

popular expression of cultural relativism demonstrated in the

opinion poll.

• Example:

– Utilitarianism-This moral theory seeks to maximize, by your

actions, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The

emphasis is on the group, not the individual.

• Critique:

– Bentham and Mill could not agree on whether to evaluate on a

quantitative or qualitative basis. The questions we need to ask are:

What is good? or Good for whom? Justice, does it matter? Is it as

or more important than the good of the group?

Critique…

• Ethics by majority may actually have little to do with morality. For example, if 55% of the German people assented to the extermination of Jewry by Hitler and his henchmen, then their actions were "right," and other cultures should have withheld any criticism of German sovereignty in their own internal affairs.

• Cultural relativism is really "status-quoism," providing no strong motive for social change. It is also capricious over time. For example, in 1859, slavery in the United States was socially acceptable and abortion was illegal. Today, the reverse is true.

• Those who prefer this ethical foundation must face one very dangerous fact: If there is no standard by which society can be judged and held accountable, then society becomes the judge. When that happens, no one is safe--minorities, the unborn, the elderly, the handicapped, and perhaps even the blond-headed or the left handed!

3. The Arbitrary Ethic (Power)

• Definition:

– An individual or elitist group sets itself up as arbiter of values and uses the necessary force to maintain these values. As democratic consensus rules from below, arbitrary absolutists rule from above.

• Example: Marxism:

– The will of men (party) decides on the values based on subjective principles of dialectic materialism. Lenin would call any action useful to the party moral action; he would call it immoral if it is harmful to the party.

• Critique:

– The arbiter can be a dictator, a parliament, a supreme court, a political party, or any elite configuration which has the power to impose its will upon the populace.

Critique…

• What is enforced is based solely upon what the arbiter decides will be enforced. The Catholic Inquisitors summarily tortured and executed unrepentant heretics. Soviet Russia was ruthlessly governed by an all- powerful Central Committee.

• It is important to remember that such arbiters can make something legal but not moral. The 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion is the most pertinent contemporary example. The judges, choosing to ignore medical, legal, and religious precedents on the true humanity of the unborn, made an arbitrary, pragmatic decision. This ruling was legal, but not necessarily moral.

• The great flaw in this approach is that it presupposes great trust in those who govern. History has not confirmed the wisdom of placing such confidence in those who wield absolute power. The balancing of power in the U.S. Constitution between the various branches of government reflects the wariness of its framers in giving undue authority to any federal entity.

• Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. It leads to despotism, and tyranny.

4. The True Absolute (Transcendence)

• Definition:

– C. S. Lewis has here identified the "three parts of morality," the first two of which humans are well-acquainted with: internal moral deficiencies and conflict with others through ethical choices. It is the third part for which all humans long: namely, some objective standard to which all humans must adhere. Such a standard necessarily transcends the world of description. It presupposes that God exists and has spoken or revealed such standards.

• Example:

– The Ten Commandments provide the boundaries for the definition of humanness; any act contrary to this true absolute is a violation of our humanity. Further, these standards are not merely external principles, but rather the very essence of the nature and character of God.

• Critique:

– Some things are right; some are wrong, and objectively so. This ethical system is based on normative principles rather than subjective utilitarian ones. It also provides a basis for conviction: what was right yesterday will be right today. The individual is protected against the whole of society--wicked kings, pragmatic judges, corrupt politicians, decadent populace. There is also a true and legitimate motive for fighting evil, an objective basis for social change.

5. Natural Law and Divine Providence

• Definition:

– Thomas Aquinas plays in the natural law tradition. Every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.

– For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law:

1) God„ is the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence.

2) Human's role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory.

• Example:

– The Bible as the main resource for natural law.

• Critique:

– The Natural Law is primarily a Christian oriented discourse; which does not represent the views of other world religions, such as Hinduism.

Bibliography for Moral Actions

• Adams, R. M. (1988). Common projects and moral virtue. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 13, 297–307.

• Alston, W. P. (1967). Motives and motivation. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 5, pp. 399–409). New York: Macmillan.

• Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism, and morality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

• Brandt, R. B. (1988). The structure of virtue. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 13, 64– 82.

• Brandt, R. B. (1996). Facts, values, and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings. A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.

• John, O. P. & Gosling, S. D. (2000). Personality traits. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 140–144). Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.

• McInerny, R. (1997). Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

• Pervin, L. A. (2000). Personality. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 100–106). Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.

• Slote, M. (2001). Morals from motives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Smith, A. (1994). Theorie der ethischen Gefühle. Hamburg: Meiner. (Original erschienen 17906: The theory of moral sentiments)

• Wright, G. H. v. (1983). Practical reason. Philosophical papers (Vol. 1): Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bibliography for Natural Law and Ethics

• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae..

• Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

• Duns Scotus, John. 1997. Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. Ed. Allan Wolter. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

• Finnis, John. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Finnis, John. 1998. Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Hare, John E. 2001. God's Call. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

• Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. Elements of Law: Natural and Politic. Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cited as EL by chapter and section number.

• Irwin, Terence. 2000. “Ethics as an Inexact Science: Aristotle's Ambitions for Moral Theory.” In Brad Hooker and Margaret Little, eds. Moral Particularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Kaczor, Christopher. 2002. Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

• Lisska, Anthony. 1996. Aquinas's Theory of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Locke, John. 1988. Essays on the Law of Nature. Ed. W. von Leyden. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1999. Dependent Rational Animals. Chicago: Open Court.

• Moore, Michael. 1982. “Moral Reality.” Wisconsin Law Review [1982], pp. 1061-1156.

• Porter, Jean. 2005. Nature as Reason: A Thomistic Theory of the Natural Law. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

• Thompson, Michael. 2004. “Apprehending Human Form.” Modern Moral Philosophy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-74.