Ethical Theories Essay for Faith

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 1/28

Page 3

Page 4

CHAPTER 1

Ethics An Overview

The ultimate purpose in studying ethics is not as it is in other inquiries, the attainment of theoretical

knowledge; we are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become

good, else there would be no advantage in studying it.

—ARIST OT LE, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, Ch. 2

It's the beginning of a new semester. Tomorrow morning is your first ethics class. You signed up for the class

only because it was required. “What a waste of time,” you grumble as you climb into bed. “What's the point in

studying ethics? It doesn't have anything to do with real life. I wish there was no such thing as ethics or morality.”

The next morning you wake up and wearily grope your way to the bathroom. As you open the door, you find to your dismay that your roommate has left the bathroom in a total mess. Your roommate's clothes—are

soaking in cold slimy water in the sink and bathtub, and the toilet is caked with grime. Annoyed, you return to

your room and shake your roommate's shoulder: “Come on, get up. You promised to clean the bathroom

yesterday.”

“So what?” your roommate replies. “I don't have to keep my promises if I don't feel like it.” And with that,

your roommate rolls over and, looking quite peaceful, goes back to sleep.

You are now feeling very annoyed, but you manage to get ready for class, although not in time to have breakfast. You arrive at class right on time; however, the teacher hasn't turned up. You take a seat next to

another student who lives in your dormitory. But instead of returning your greeting, he grabs your book bag and

heads toward the door. “Stop!” you protest. “That's mine. You can't take that.”

He looks at you like you're nuts. “Why not?”

“Because it doesn't belong to you,” you reply indignantly. “It's stealing!”

At which he laughs, “You're not making any sense.”

“You have no right …,” you add.

The thief rolls his eyes: “Didn't you hear the latest news? Ethics, morality—they no longer exist. Isn't that

great news! Now we can do whatever we like! And no one can pass judgment on anything we do, including

you!”

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 2/28

Page 5

(CALVIN AND HOBBES © 1989 Watterson. Dist. by UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.)

You wait another twenty minutes for the teacher to show up; then you decide to head over to the cafeteria

to get some breakfast. However, the dining staff didn't bother to report to work either. The back door has been smashed open, and trays of donuts and fruit have been taken out onto the quad, where a group of administrators

and faculty members, including your ethics teacher, are squabbling over the booty. You step up onto a chair that has been tossed out on the curb, to get a better look, when someone comes rushing up from behind and knocks you down.

As you fall, you hear a sickening snap and feel a stabbing pain in your knee. You cry out in agony. Then you recognize the person who knocked you over. It's the dean of your college. You plead for her to call for help.

But she only pushes you out of her way and hurries on toward the skirmish on the quad. Off in the distance, you hear another cry for help as two men drag a terrified woman into the bushes. No one tries to stop them. A few

people stop and peer at you out of curiosity before moving on. Most just stare blankly at you as they walk past. No one offers to help. And why should they? Sympathy and compassion no longer exist. The duty not to cause

harm to others or to help those in need no longer exists. No one has any rights that we have to respect anymore. No more stupid obligations, such as sharing with others or keeping our commitments, to prevent us from doing

what we enjoy.

As you begin to lose consciousness, you start having second thoughts about the importance of ethics and morality in your life. At that moment, your alarm clock goes off. You get out of bed and wearily grope your way

to the bathroom.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 3/28

As you open the door, you realize that your roommate has left the bathroom in a total mess. Annoyed, you

return to your room and shake your roommate's shoulder: “Come on, get up. You promised to clean the bathroom yesterday.”

“Oh, no,” your roommate groans. “I'm sorry, I forgot all about it.” After a short pause, your roommate rolls out of bed, complaining under her breath, “I can't think of anything else I'd less rather do.” You breathe a sigh of

relief and go to the kitchenette to make yourself some breakfast while your roommate begrudgingly cleans the bathroom.

What Is Ethics?

Ethics is a lot like air: It is pretty much invisible. In fact, for many centuries, people did not realize that such a

substance as air even existed. So too we often fail to recognize the existence of ethics or morality until someone

fails to heed it.

The term ethics has several meanings. It is often used to refer to a set of standards of right and wrong

established by a particular group and imposed on members of that group as a means of regulating and setting limits on their behavior. This use of the word ethics reflects its etymology, which goes back to the Greek word

ethos, meaning “cultural custom or habit.” The word moral is derived from the Latin word moralis, which also

means “custom.” Although some philosophers distinguish between the terms ethical and moral, others,

including the author of this text, use the two terms interchangeably.

The identification of ethics and morality with cultural norms or customs reflects the fact that most adults tend

to identify morality with cultural customs.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 4/28

Page 6

Philosophical ethics, also known as moral philosophy, goes beyond this limited concept of right and wrong. Ethics, as a philosophical discipline, includes the study of the values and guidelines by which we live and the

justification for these values and guidelines. Rather than simply accepting the customs or guidelines used by one

particular group or culture, philosophical ethics analyzes and evaluates these guidelines in light of accepted universal principles and concerns.

More important, ethics is a way of life. In this sense, ethics involves active engagement in the pursuit of the

good life—a life consistent with a coherent set of moral values. According to Aristotle, one of the leading

Western moral philosophers, the pursuit of the good life is our most important activity as humans. Indeed, studies have found that even criminals believe morality is important—at least for others. Although criminals may

not always act on their moral beliefs, they still expect others to do so. Almost all criminals, when asked, state

that they do not want their children to engage in immoral behavior and would get angry if one of their children

committed a crime.1

Aristotle believed that “the moral activities are human par excellence.” 2 Because morality is the most fundamental expression of our human nature, it is through being moral that we are the happiest. According to

Aristotle, it is through the repeated performance of good actions that we become moral (and happier) people.

He referred to the repeated practice of moral actions as habituation. The idea that practicing good actions is

more important for ethics education than merely studying theory is also found in other philosophies, such as Buddhism.

[A] man becomes just by the performance of the just … actions; nor is there the smallest likelihood of a man's becoming good by any other course of conduct.

—ARIST OT LE, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, Ch. 4

At the age of seventeen, Aristotle became a student at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he remained until

Plato's death twenty years later. The Academy was founded by Plato in 388 B.C.E. and lasted over nine hundred

years; it is reputed to be Europe's first university.3 Plato's famous Academy was not like universities today, with

organized classes, degrees, and specialized faculty. Instead, it was more of a fellowship of intellectuals interested

in Athenian culture and the opportunity to listen to and exchange ideas with the great philosopher Plato.

Aristotle later opened his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens. The Lyceum contained a garden known as

“the walk,” where Aristotle supposedly had the habit of walking while teaching his students. In 323 B.C.E., Aristotle was accused of impiety for teaching his students to continually question the accepted ideas and norms

of the time. Several years earlier, in 399 B.C.E., the Athenians had sentenced Plato's teacher, Socrates, to death

on similar charges. Aristotle fled to Euboea rather than take a chance that “the Athenians should sin a second

time against philosophy.” He died in Babylon a year later.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 5/28

Page 7

Page 8

The philosopher Plato (c. 427–347 B.C.E.) with his disciple Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) at the Academy in Athens. The Academy is reputed to be Europe's first university.

Exercises

1. Complete the Self-Evaluation Questionnaire on page 5. Relate your answers to your ideas regarding the ultimate source of morality. Discuss how this influences what criteria you use in making moral decisions in your life. Use specific examples to illustrate your answer.

2. One way to define what we mean by “moral” is to look at the lives of those whom we regard to be good people, as Aristotle looked up to Plato. Do you have a hero? If so, who is your hero and why?

3. Do all actions have a moral dimension? If not, why do some actions involve moral judgments while others are morally neutral? Explain using specific examples.

4. Discuss ways in which participation in an academic community has encouraged you, as it did Aristotle, to critically analyze your ideas and assumptions about morality and moral issues.

5. Do you agree with Aristotle that practicing moral virtues and behavior is more important for ethics education than the study of moral theory? How might his approach be integrated into a college ethics course?

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 6/28

Page 9

Normative and Theoretical Ethics

… a complete moral philosophy would tell us how and why we should act and f eel toward others in relationships of

shif ting and varying power asymmetry and shif ting and varying intimacy.

—ANNET T E BAIER, Ethics (1986), p. 252

There are two traditional subdivisions of ethics: (1) theoretical ethics or metaethics and (2) normative ethics.

Theoretical ethics is concerned with appraising the logical foundations and internal consistencies of ethical systems. Theoretical ethics is also known as metaethics; the prefix meta comes from the Greek word meaning

“about” or “above.” Normative ethics, on the other hand, gives us guidelines or norms, such as “do not lie” or

“do no harm,” regarding which actions are right and which are wrong. In other words, theoretical ethics, or metaethics, studies why we should act and feel a certain way; normative ethics tells us how we should act in

particular situations.

Normative ethics affects our lives at all levels: personal, interpersonal, social (both locally and globally), and

environmental. Normative ethics gives us practical hands-on guidelines or norms that we can apply to real-life situations. Because of this, it is sometimes referred to as applied ethics. A professional code of ethics is an

example of a set of practical moral guidelines.

Moral guidelines are not simply a list of dos and don'ts that others impose upon us, however. As adults, it is

not enough just to do as we are told. We expect to be given good reasons for acting certain ways or taking

certain positions on moral issues.

Theoretical ethics operates at a more fundamental level than normative ethics. Theoretical ethics takes, as its

starting point, the most basic insights regarding morality. Moral norms and guidelines need to be grounded in

theoretical ethics; otherwise, morality becomes arbitrary. In this text, we will concern ourselves primarily with

the theoretical underpinnings of ethics.

Metaethical theories can be divided into cognitive and noncognitive theories. Noncognitive theories, such

as emotivism, claim that there are no moral truths and that moral statements are neither true nor false but simply

expressions or outbursts of feelings. If moral statements are neither true nor false, there is no such thing as

objective moral truths.

Cognitive theories, on the other hand, maintain that moral statements can be either true or false. Cognitive

theories can be further subdivided into relativist and universalist theories (Table 1.1). Relativist theories state

that morality is different for different people. In contrast, universalist theories maintain that objective moral truths exist that are true for all humans, regardless of their personal beliefs or cultural norms.

TABLE 1.1 Metaethi cal Theori es

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 7/28

Relativist Theories

Connections

What is the role of opinion in ethical subjectivism? See Chapter 4, pages 111–112.

According to the relativist theories, there are no independent moral values. Instead, morality is created by humans. Because morality is invented or created by humans, it can vary from time to time and from person to

person. Ethical subjectivism, the first type of relativist theory, maintains that moral right or wrong is relative to

the individual person and that moral truth is a matter of individual opinion or feeling. Unlike reason, opinion is

based only on feeling rather than analysis or facts. In ethical subjectivism, there can be as many systems of

morality as there are people in the world. Many college students—especially freshmen—maintain that morality is

relative to each individual. We'll be studying this theory in more depth in Chapter 4.

Moral values are not absolute but relative to the emotions they express.

—EDWARD WEST ERMARCK (sociologist)

Connections

How does acceptance of cultural relativism affect how we treat people who are different from us

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 8/28

Page 10

or are from other cultures? See Chapter 6, pages 176–182.

Cultural relativists, on the other hand, argue that morality is created collectively by groups of humans and that it differs from society to society. Each society has its own moral norms, which are binding on the people

who belong to that society. Each society also defines who is and who is not a member of the moral community.

With cultural relativism, each circle or moral system represents a different culture. The majority of Americans

believe that morality is culturally relative (see Chapters 3 and 6).

We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.

—RUT H BENEDICT (anthropologist)

A third type of relativist theory is divine command theory. According to this theory, what is moral is

relative to God. There are no universal moral principles that are binding on all people. Instead, morality is

dependent on God's will and may differ from person to person or from religion to religion. We'll be examining this theory in depth in Chapter 5.

Ethical subjectivism, cultural relativism, and divine command theory are mutually exclusive theories. When

theories are mutually exclusive, a person cannot consistently hold more than one of the theories to be true at the same time. For example, either morality is created by the individual and the opinion of the individual always

takes precedence over that of the collective, or else morality is relative to one's culture and the moral rule of the

culture always takes precedence over that of the individual.

Universalist Theories

Universalist theories, the second group of cognitive theories, maintain that there are universal moral values

that apply to all humans and, in some cases, extend beyond the human community. Morality is discovered,

rather than created by humans. The basic standards of right and wrong are derived from principles that exist

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 9/28

Page 11

independently of an individual's or a society's opinion.

Do not do to others as you would not wish done to yourself.

—CONFUCIUS (philosopher)

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.

—IMMANUEL KANT (philosopher)

Connections

How did a belief in ethical relativism contribute to the rise of Nazism and the internment of Jews? See Chapter 6, pages 188–190.

Unlike relativist theories, most universalist theories include all humans in their moral community rather than

only those living in their society, as often happens in cultural relativist theories. The moral community is

composed of all those beings that have moral worth or value in themselves. Because members of the moral

community have moral value, they deserve the protection of the community, and they deserve to be treated with

respect and dignity. Universalist theories can be represented by one circle that includes individuals from all

cultures.

Universalist ethics, also known as moral objectivism, is not the same as moral absolutism. Absolutists

believe that there are moral norms or principles that should always be obeyed. Some people—though not most

—who subscribe to universalist moral theories may be absolutists when it comes to certain moral principles.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 10/28

Page 12

There is a great deal of overlap between the different universalist theories. Instead of being mutually

exclusive, like ethical subjectivism, cultural relativism and divine command theory, universalist theories, for the

most part, emphasize one particular aspect of morality rather than providing a comprehensive picture. Almost all

ethicists include aspects of more than one of these theories in their moral philosophy. The different universalist

theories are covered in Chapters 7–12.

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, however, begins in wonder—not theory. Theories, by their very nature,

oversimplify. A theory is merely a convenient tool for expressing an idea. Some theories are better than others

for explaining certain phenomena and providing solutions to both old and new problems. When studying the

different moral philosophers, we must be careful not to pigeonhole their ideas into rigid theoretical boundaries.

Theories are like telescopes. They zoom in on certain key points rather than elucidate the total extent of

thinking about ethics. Because morality covers such a broad scope of issues, different philosophers tend to focus

on different aspects of morality. Problems arise when they claim that their insight is the complete picture—that

morality is merely consequences or merely duty or merely having good intentions. Morality is not a simple concept that can be captured in a nice tidy theory; it is a multifaceted phenomenon.

Exercises

1. * Choose a moral issue from your life as a college student. Discuss how this issue affects decisions in your life in terms of the norms you adopt to guide your behavior. If you are doing community service, relate your answer to your service learning.

2. Discuss which of the ethical theories you would most likely use in judging the morality of the different people —including the messy roommate, the thieving classmate, the tardy professor, and the uncaring dean—in this chapter's opening scenario. To what moral theories, universalist or relativist, did the subject of the scenario appeal?

3. Looking back at the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon on page 4, what ethical theory is Calvin (the boy) promoting? Discuss some of the problems with his approach to ethics. Use examples from your own experience to illustrate your answer.

Philosophy and the Search for Wisdom

To do philosophy is to explore one's own temperament, and yet at the same time to attempt to discover the truth.

—IRIS MURDOCH

In most North American and Western European universities, ethics is taught as a course in a philosophy

department. Although some aspects of the study of ethics extend beyond the purview of philosophy,

philosophical inquiry is at the heart of the ethical enterprise.

The word philosophy comes from the Greek words philos, meaning “lover,” and sophos, meaning

“wisdom.” To be a lover (philos) entails not only having a positive attitude toward the object of our affection

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 11/28

Page 13

(wisdom, in this case) but also taking action and actively pursuing that object. This interplay of attitude and action is reflected in the study of ethics. Ethics education also goes beyond theory by challenging us to live

consistently with our moral values.

Philosophy arises out of a natural sense of wonder and what many philosophers regard as a basic human need to find higher meaning and value in our lives. As small children, we wondered and asked countless

questions about the world around us. Indeed, child psychologists note that curiosity and ethical concerns about

justice and sharing emerge spontaneously in children sometime between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six

months, regardless of their culture and without prompting from adults.4

We all share a common humanity, but how we proceed in our quest for wisdom and the good life will vary

to some extent from person to person and from culture to culture because we all have different personalities and

different experiences. This does not imply, however, that wisdom is relative. Rather, it suggests that there are several paths to wisdom, just as there can be several paths to the top of a mountain.

Becoming Autonomous

In seeking answers to questions about the meaning of life and the nature of moral goodness, the philosopher

goes beyond conventional answers. Rather than relying on public opinion or what others say, it is up to each of us to critically examine and analyze our reasons for holding particular views. In this way, the study of philosophy

encourages us to become more autonomous.

The word autonomous comes from the Greek words auto (“self”) and nomos (“law”). In other words, an autonomous moral agent is an independent, self-governing thinker. A heteronomous moral agent, in

contrast, is a person who uncritically accepts answers and laws imposed by others. The prefix hetero- means

“other.”

Because philosophy encourages people to question the deeply held beliefs of their society, most people, as Socrates discovered, resist philosophical inquiry. Socrates, who is known as the Father of Western Philosophy,

was born in Athens, Greece, in 469 B.C.E. At that time, Athens was a flourishing city-state and a democracy.

Socrates never wrote any books or papers on philosophy. What we know of him comes primarily from the

writings of his student, Plato.

Like most of the early philosophers, Socrates was not a career philosopher; he most likely made his living as

a stonemason or artisan. His real love was philosophy, however. As Socrates got older, he began hanging out

more at the market and other places where people congregated, talking to the populace and questioning

conventional answers to issues regarding justice and virtue.

According to Socrates, wisdom is important for achieving happiness and inner harmony as well as the

intellectual and moral improvement of community. His approach to philosophy, known as the Socratic method, consists of a didactic dialogue using questions and answers. The Socratic method is one of the most popular and

productive methods used in philosophy.

The road to wisdom, Socrates believed, begins with the realization that we are ignorant. In his search for

wisdom, Socrates would stop people on the street to ask them questions about things they thought they already knew. In doing this, he hoped to show people that there was a difference between truth and what they felt to

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 12/28

Page 14

be true (their opinions). By exposing the ignorance of those who considered themselves wise, Socrates taught people to not simply accept the prevailing views but to question their own views and those of their society in a

never-ending search for truth and wisdom.

Not everyone appreciated having their views challenged by Socrates. People in positions of power were especially threatened and outraged by Socrates's habit of asking people to question existing laws and customs

and encouraging them to think in new ways. At the age of seventy, Socrates was arrested and charged with

blasphemy and corrupting the youth of Athens. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death by drinking poison hemlock.

“The Death of Socrates,” by Jacques-Louis David. Socrates (469–399 B.C.E.). Socrates remained true to his principles right up to the moment of his death.

Even as Socrates faced death, he did not cease being a philosopher. At his trial, Socrates is reputed to have

said the following in a speech in his own defense before the 501 members of the jury: 5

I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and elucidating the truth for everyone that I meet. I shall go on saying … Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?

And if any of you disputes this … I shall question him and examine him and test him … I shall do this

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 13/28

Page 15

to everyone that I meet.

Self-Realization

Some of the most important philosophical questions are those regarding the meaning and goals of our lives. What kind of person do I want to be? How do I achieve that goal? Many philosophers define their life goal in terms of self-realization—also known as self-actualization and enlightenment. Self-realization is closely

linked to the idea of moral virtue. According to psychologist Abraham Maslow, self-actualized people are autonomous: They do not depend on the opinions of others when deciding what to do and what to believe.

Philosophers such as Socrates and Buddha exemplified what Maslow meant by a self-realized person.6

Self-realization is an ongoing process. People who are self-actualized devote their lives to the search for ultimate values. People who are not honest with themselves will have a difficult time making good life choices.

Being honest involves the courage to be different and to work hard at being the best one can be at whatever one does. People who are lacking in authenticity or sincerity blame others for their own unhappiness, giving in to

what French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) called “the temptations of the easy way.” 7

Connections

Do we have a moral duty to engage in self- improvement? See Chapter 10, page 308.

People who are self-actualized, in contrast, are flexible and even welcome having their views challenged.

Like true philosophers, they are open to new ways of looking at the world. They are willing to analyze and, if necessary, change their views—even if this means taking an unpopular stand. This process involves actively

working to recognize and overcome barriers to new ways of thinking; chief among these is cultural conditioning.

Skepticism

Philosophers try to approach the world with an open mind. They question their own beliefs and those of other people, no matter how obviously true a particular belief may seem. Rather than accepting established belief

systems uncritically, philosophers first reflect on and analyze them. By refusing to accept beliefs until they can be justified, philosophers adopt an attitude of skepticism, or doubt, as their starting point.

Skepticism, unlike cynicism, is grounded in wonder. The skeptic is always curious and open-minded, with

an eye to the truth. Cynicism sometimes masquerades as philosophy; however, it is very different. Cynicism is closed-minded and mocks the possibility of truth, especially in ideas that go against the mainstream. Cynicism

denies rather than analyzes.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 14/28

Page 16

The first [rule for seeking truth] was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so: that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it.

—RENÉ DESCART ES, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seek ing Truth in the Sciences (1637)

Plato's “Allegory of the Cave”

Plato's “Allegory of the Cave” has been used to illustrate the nature of philosophical thought. In the reading from his Republic, Plato compared us to prisoners who have been chained and left in a cave since childhood. Our

heads are held fast in place, so we face the back wall. When people and animals pass by the entrance of the cave, we see them only as shadows on the back wall. We hear the sounds of the outside world only as echoes.

Now, suppose that one of the prisoners has been unchained and turns to face the entrance of the cave. At first, the prisoner is frightened and blinded by the light. At this point, most people will try to return to the comfort

of the cave. But if our prisoner is forced or cajoled out of the cave into the light, his eyes will begin to adjust. Once the prisoner is out in the light and freed of the shackles of everyday opinion, he begins to see and learn

about wonderful truths that he never before imagined.

After a period of study, he feels the urge to return to his fellow prisoners and share his knowledge with

them. Each step back into the cave, however, is painful. He is ridiculed for his beliefs. At this point, the budding philosopher has three options: (1) He can leave the cave again and return to the light. In this case, his newfound wisdom will become irrelevant to the world of human experience. (2) He can give up the wisdom he has

acquired and return to his old beliefs. By doing so, he gives in to public opinion rather than risk being unpopular. Or (3) he can remain in the cave and persist in his quest to share his wisdom with others. This last option,

according to Plato, is the path of the true philosopher.†

Plato believed that truth was embodied in changeless universal forms that could be discerned by the use of

reason. Other philosophers see truth, rather than being static and absolute, as dynamic and as constantly revealing itself to us. Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus (c. 535–475 B.C.E.) taught that an essential feature of

reality is that it is ceaselessly changing, like a flowing river. Just as you cannot step into the same river twice, permanence is an illusion. Everything is in flux. And Zen Buddhists speak of truth as being found in “the

continued or repeated unfolding of the one big mind.”

Some people believe that morality demands a sort of rigid, absolutist attitude and that a person should stick

to his or her principles no matter what. However, if we believe that truth is constantly revealing itself to us— whether through reason, experience, or intuition—we must always be open to dialogue with each other and with the world at large. If we think at some point that we have found truth and, therefore, close our minds, we have

ceased to think like a philosopher. We will lose our sense of wonder and become rigid and self-righteous.

For a philosopher to stop seeking truth is like a dancer freezing in one position because he thinks he has

found the ultimate dance step or an artist stopping painting because she thinks she has created the perfect work

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 15/28

Page 17

of art. Similarly, to cease wondering is to cease thinking like a philosopher. To cease thinking like a philosopher is to give up the quest for the good life.

Exercises

1. What is the difference between wisdom and knowledge? Which are you acquiring at college? How does one actively seek wisdom or live wisely? What is the connection between wisdom and morality?

2. Critically analyze whether Socrates did the right thing in sticking to his principles during his trial (see pages 13–14). Discuss a time when you did what you believed was right even though it ran counter to cultural norms. How did you justify your actions?.

3. According to Socrates, the first step on the path to wisdom is to “know thyself.” Discuss the following questions in light of this mandate.

a. What is my goal or plan of life? b. What sort of person do I want to be? c. How close am I to my goal? d. * For those who are doing community service, how does your service fit in with or assist you in

clarifying and achieving your life goals? 4. Do you agree that self-actualization is linked to virtue and to happiness? Explain. To what extent are you a

self-actualized person? What barriers are holding you back from achieving self-actualization? What can you do to remove some of those barriers?

5. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche asked us to imagine what sort of life we would create for ourselves if we knew that it would be repeated over and

over again for the rest of eternity. This is known as the theory of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche described it as follows:

What if, some day or night a demon were to … say to you: This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sign and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? … Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently

than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?8

How would you answer Nietzsche's questions? Are you satisfied with the life you are now creating for yourself? If not, what could you do to make it a better life, one that you would want to repeat over and over.

6. Discuss your own life in terms of Plato's “Allegory of the Cave.” Where are you now in your journey? Explain.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 16/28

Page 18

Metaphysics and the Study of Human Nature

In every writer on philosophy there is a concealed metaphysic, usually unconscious; even if his subject is

metaphysics, he is almost certain to have an uncritically believed system which underlies his specif ic arguments.

—BERT RAND RUSSELL, The Philosophy of John Dewey

Ethical theories do not stand on their own but are grounded in other philosophical presumptions about such matters as the role of humans in the universe, the existence of free will, and the nature of knowledge.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of reality, including what it means to be human.

Connections

What is the theory of psychological egoism and how does it differ from ethical egoism? See Chapter 7, pages 205–208.

Our concept of human nature influences our concept of how we ought to live. Are humans basically selfish? Or are we basically altruistic? What is the relationship between humans and the rest of nature? Do we have free

will? Or is all of our behavior subject to the laws of physics?

Metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality are not simply abstract theories; they can have a

profound effect on both ethical theory and normative ethics. Metaphysical assumptions play a pivotal role, for better or for worse, in structuring relations among humans and between humans and the rest of the world.

Metaphysical Dualism

According to metaphysical dualists, reality is made up of two distinct and separate substances: the material or physical body and the nonmaterial mind, which is also referred to as the soul or spirit. The body, being material,

is subject to causal laws. The mind, in contrast, has free will because it is nonmaterial and rational. Some philosophers believe that only humans have a mind, and hence, only humans have moral value. The belief that adult humans are the central or most significant reality of the universe is known as anthropocentrism.

According to most dualists, humans express their nature or essence through reason, which is the activity of

the nonmaterial mind. Only through reason can we understand moral truth and achieve the good life. Dualistic philosophies tend to support a hierarchical worldview and a morality based on the exclusion of some beings from the moral community—particularly nonhuman animals and humans who are regarded as not fully rational.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 17/28

Page 19

Aristotle writes:

For living is apparently shared with plants, but what we are looking f or is the special f unction of a human

being: hence we should set aside the lif e of nutrition and growth. The lif e next in order is some sort of lif e

of sense-perception; but this too is apparently shared, with horses, oxen and every animal. The remaining

possibility, then, is some sort of lif e of action on the part of the soul that has reason.

… the human f unction is the soul's activity that expresses reason…. The excellent man's f unction is to do

this f inely and well. Each f unction is completed well when its completion expresses the proper virtue.

Theref ore, the human good turns out to be the soul's proper f unction.

—ARIST OT LE, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, Ch. 1

Ecofeminist Karen Warren (b. 1947) argues that the domination of women and the domination of nature that

typify Western dualism are inexorably connected.9 Both, she claims, are based on a hierarchical and dualistic metaphysics and a “logic of domination” that assumes that certain beings (whether human or nonhuman) are

morally superior and that those who are superior have a right to dominate those who are subordinate.

Connections

Do we have a moral duty to respect the environment? See Chapter 5, page 150.

Hindu metaethics, like Western dualism, at one time supported a hierarchical view of reality.10 This hierarchy manifested itself primarily within the caste system that was believed to reflect the natural order of the universe. In India, the Hindu caste system and the hierarchical metaphysics upon which it was based were

challenged by Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948). He denounced the caste system as “evil” and “an ineffaceable

blot that Hinduism today carries with it.”11 Gandhi's demand for change was strongly influenced by the teachings of another Indian philosopher, Siddhartha Guatama (563–c. 483 B.C.E.), better known as Buddha or the

“Enlightened One.”

One of the main problems with dualism is coming up with an explanation of how two apparently completely

different substances—mind and body—are able to interact with each other, especially on a causal level.

Because of the mind-body problem, many philosophers have rejected dualism.12

Metaphysical Materialism

There are many variations of nondualistic or one-substance theories. One of the more popular is metaphysical materialism. In this worldview, physical matter is the only substance. While, materialists do not have to deal

with the mind-body problem, they have a difficult time explaining the phenomenon of consciousness and

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 18/28

Page 20

intention. Because metaphysical materialists reject, or consider irrelevant, abstract concepts such as mind or soul, morality must be explained in terms of physical matter.

Connections

Is war inevitable? See Chapter 7, pages 204–205.

Sociobiology is based on the assumption of metaphysical materialism. As a branch of biology, sociobiology applies evolutionary theory to the social sciences—including questions of moral behavior. Sociobiologist

Edward O. Wilson claims that morality is based on biological requirements and drives.13 Human behavior is

governed by the same innate epigenetic rules as other animals.

According to sociobiologists, human social behavior, like that of other social animals, is primarily oriented

toward the propagation of the species. This goal is achieved through inborn cooperative behavior that sociobiologists call biological altruism. Biological altruism accounts for the great sacrifices we are willing to

make to help those who share our genes. We will be looking more at the concept of biological altruism in Chapter 7 on ethical egoism.

One of the problems with basing ethics on metaphysical materialism is that it gives us no guidance in a situation where two epigenetic rules, such as egoism and altruism, are in conflict. For this and other reasons, the

majority of philosophers, although not denying that biology is important, reject biology as the basis for morality.

Buddhism and the Unity of All Reality

Buddha, like Socrates, did not leave behind any writings. What we know of his philosophy comes from the writings of his disciples. Leading a moral or right lifestyle is central to Buddha's philosophy. Buddha rejected

metaphysical dualism, emphasizing the unity of all reality rather than differences.

According to Buddha, the natural order is a dynamic web of interactions that condition or influence, instead

of determining, our actions. Mind and body are not separate substances but are a manifestation of one substance or the “One.” Because all reality is interconnected, Buddhism opposes the taking of life and encourages a simple lifestyle in harmony with and respectful of other humans and of nature in general.

Like Buddhists, the Lele, a Bantu-speaking tribe living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, believe that

the world is a single system of interrelationships among humans, animals, and spirits. Avoiding behavior such as

sorcery that disrupts this delicate balance of interrelationships is key to the moral life.14 Some Native American

philosophies also stress the interrelatedness of all beings; they do not divide the world into animate and inanimate

objects but rather see everything, including the earth itself, as having a self-conscious life.15 This metaphysical view of reality is reflected in a moral philosophy based on respect for all beings and on not taking more than one needs.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 19/28

Page 21

Key Concepts in Metaphysics

Metaphysics The study of the nature of reality.

Anthropocentrism The belief that humans are the most important reality in the universe.

Metaphysical Dualism The theory that reality is made up of two distinct substances—mind and

matter.

Metaphysical Materialism The theory that reality is made up of one substance—matter.

Determinism The theory that all events are governed by causal laws; there is no free will.

Determinism versus Free Will

Another question raised by metaphysics is whether humans have free will. The theory of determinism states

that all events are governed by causal laws: There is no free will. Humans are governed by causal laws as are all other physical objects and beings. According to strict determinism, if we had complete knowledge, we could

predict future events with 100 percent certainty. The emphasis in the West on the scientific method as the source

of truth has contributed to the trend in the West to describe human behavior in purely scientific terms.16

I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.

—ALBERT EINST EIN

Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) claimed that humans are governed by powerful unconscious forces and that even our most noble accomplishments are the result of prior events and instincts. Behaviorists

such as John Watson (1878–1958) and B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) also believed that human behavior is determined by past events in our lives. They argued that, rather than the unconscious controlling our actions, so- called mental states are really a function of the physical body. Rather than being free, autonomous

agents, we are the products of past conditioning and are elaborately programmed computers—an

assembled organic machine ready to run.

Existentialism goes to the opposite extreme. According to existentialists, we are defined only by our freedom. Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) argued that “there is no human nature, since there is no

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 20/28

God to conceive it…. Man [therefore] is condemned to be free.”17 As radically free beings, we each have the responsibility to create our own essence, including choosing the moral principles upon which we act. Because we are free and not restricted by a fixed essence, when we make a moral choice, we can be held completely

accountable for our actions and choices.

Buddhist philosophers also disagree with determinism, although they acknowledge that we are influenced by

outside circumstances beyond our control.18 This is reflected in the concept of karma in Eastern philosophy.

Karma is sometimes misinterpreted as determinism. However, karma is an ethical principle or universal force that holds each of us responsible for our actions and the consequences of our actions, not only in this lifetime but

in subsequent lifetimes. Rather than our being predetermined by our past karma, karma provides guidance toward liberation from our past harmful actions and illusions and toward moral perfection. In Chapters 11 and 12, we will learn about the influence of this metaphysical view on Buddhist ethics.

Determinism and Excuses

Connections

What are the implications of determinism for moral responsibility? See Chapter 3, page 80.

The determinism versus free will debate has important implications for ethics. In particular, it raises serious questions about to what extent we can hold people morally responsible for their actions. Making excuses for our actions is as old as humankind: Adam excused his behavior by blaming Eve for the apple incident. Eve in turn

blamed the serpent.

Connections

Can cultural relativism be used to excuse behavior that harms others? See Chapter 6, pages 162–163.

The trend toward seeing forces outside our control as responsible for our actions has contributed to

relabeling behaviors such as alcoholism and pedophilia as illnesses or disabilities rather than moral weaknesses. The belief that human behavior is determined has also influenced how we treat people who commit crimes. In his

book The Abuse Excuse, criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz examined dozens of excuses that lawyers

have used successfully in court to enable people to “get away with murder”19 and to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Excuses such as “battered woman syndrome,” “Super Bowl Sunday syndrome,” “adopted child syndrome,” “black rage syndrome,” “the Twinkies defense,” and “pornography made me do it syndrome”

have all been used in court cases. In 1978 former San Francisco supervisor Dan White entered City Hall

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 21/28

Page 22

carrying a loaded gun. He shot and killed Mayor George Moscone along with supervisor and gay rights activist

Harvey Milk. The claim at White's trial that his diet of junk food may have caused an imbalance in his brain

came to be known as the “Twinkie Defense.” Excuses may also be used by people who collude in covering up another's misdeeds or crimes, as happened in the case of former Penn State University football coach, Jerry Sandusky (See Analyzing Images, page 22).

Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State University football coach, 2011. In June 2012 Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse involving boys who were part of a charitable football program serving underprivileged and at-risk youth. During the trial it was revealed that college administrators and head coach Joe Paterno had known about the sexual abuse since 2001 but had chosen not to go public with the allegations. Their excuse for not reporting the abuse to authorities? They didn't want to damage the reputation of Penn State's football program.

Analyzing Images

1. Group loyalty can result in a person failing to report a crime or misdeed. For example, the majority of fraternity men who witness a rape by a brother refuse to disclose the information to authorities. Think of a time when you or a friend withheld information about an offense you witnessed. What was your excuse for

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 22/28

Page 23

not reporting the incident? Discuss the moral implications of your decision. 2. Should the colleges administrators who failed to publicly disclose the allegations against Sandusky be held

morally responsible for the ongoing sexual abuse and, if so, to what extent? For example, should they serve prison time like Sandusky, or simply be reprimanded? Discuss what you would do if you found yourself in a similar situation and why.

3. Should Sandusky be held responsible for his actions or are pedophiles simply a product of their biology and culture? Critically analyze how both an existentialist and a behaviorist would answer this question.

When, if ever, are we responsible for our actions? At one extreme, the existentialists claim that we are completely responsible and that there are no excuses. At the other extreme are those, such as the behaviorists, who say that free will is an illusion. Most philosophers accept a position somewhere in the middle, arguing that

although we are the products of our biology and our culture, we are also creators of our culture and our destiny.

Exercises

1. * Discuss how your concept of reality and human nature influences the way you think about morality. For example, are humans made of two distinct substances—mind and body? Or are we made of the same substance as the rest of reality as metaphysical materialists and Buddhists claim? Use specific examples to illustrate your answer. If you are doing community service work, relate your answer to your service.

2. Do you agree with Karen Warren's theory that sexism and naturalism are linked? What is the relationship of sexism and naturalism to anthropocentric metaphysics? How does this affect how you define your moral community? Discuss how Aristotle might have responded to Warren's theory.

3. Warren talks about the importance of using the first-person narrative to raise philosophical questions that more abstract methods of philosophy might overlook.

a. Find a comfortable spot outside or by a window. Putting on the mantle of a metaphysical dualist, look at others, including humans of a different ethnic background or gender, nonhuman animals, plants, and inanimate objects. After five minutes, or however long you need, write down your thoughts and feelings regarding the different beings you see and their moral worth.

b. Repeat this exercise, putting on the mantle of a nondualist, such as Buddha or Warren. c. Again, repeat the exercise, now looking at the world through the eyes of a metaphysical materialist

such as B. F. Skinner. When you have finished the exercise, compare and contrast your experiences. Discuss how adopting

the different metaphysical viewpoints affects how you see others and how you view your place in the world.

4. Alan Dershowitz argues that the current vogue of making excuses for violent actions threatens the democratic ideal of individual freedom. Do you agree with him? If we are merely products of our environment, Should we be held morally responsible for their actions? Discuss your answer in light of the determinism versus free will debate as well as your own personal experience.

5. Because medical resources are limited for such things as organ transplants, we must decide how they should be allocated. If a person knowingly engages in behavior that could jeopardize his or her health, should this be taken into consideration when allocating scarce resources? For example, baseball superstar Mickey Mantle

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 23/28

Page 24

received a liver transplant, even though the damage to his liver was mainly the result of his years of heavy drinking. Mantle died shortly

after receiving the transplant. Was it right to give him the liver? Or should someone else who needed a new liver because of an inherited liver disease have been given priority over Mantle? How does your position in the determinism versus free will debate influence your answers to these questions?

6. * Discuss how our current policies toward vulnerable populations such as the homeless, children, prisoners, and families living in poverty are influenced by a philosophical view of human behavior as free or determined. If you are doing community service work, illustrate your answer using examples from your service.

Moral Knowledge: Can Moral Beliefs Be True?

Opinion is that exercise of the human will which helps us to make a decision without inf ormation.

—JOHN ERSKINE, The Complete Lif e (1943)

In the movie Terminator 2, the “terminator,” an android played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is about to kill two unarmed men who are harassing his friend John Connor. Connor jumps in, just in the nick of time, and pushes the terminator's gun aside:

Connor: You were going to kill that guy!

Terminator: Of course. I'm a terminator.

Connor: Listen to me very carefully. You're not a terminator anymore. You just can't go around killing people.

Terminator: Why?

Connor: What do you mean “why”!? ’Cause you can't!

Terminator: Why?

Connor: Because you just can't.

Connections

Does the principle of non- maleficence apply universally under all circumstances? See Chapter 8, page 248 and

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 24/28

Page 25

Chapter 10, pages 321 and 325–326.

In this passage, John Connor is making two important points. First, morality transcends our nature. We cannot use the excuse “but it's my nature” to justify our hurtful actions. Morality, including the principle of nonmaleficence, or “do no harm,” is binding on everyone. The terminator is by nature a killer, but this does not

mean that he ought to kill. Morality creates in us obligations to refrain from carrying out certain harmful actions in a way that our nature or natural tendencies may not. Second, basic moral knowledge, according to Connor, is self-evident. We may need to justify our behavior, but we do not have to justify the general moral principles that inform our moral decisions.

Of course, not everyone would agree with John Connor that the principle of nonmaleficence entails that it is always morally wrong to kill unarmed people. Disagreement or uncertainty, however, does not negate the existence of moral knowledge. We also disagree about empirical facts, such as the age

of our planet, the cause of Alzheimer's disease, whether people in comas can feel pain, and whether it is going to rain on the weekend. When we disagree about an important moral issue, we don't generally shrug off the disagreement as a matter of personal opinion. Instead, we try to come up with good reasons for accepting a particular position or course of action. We also expect others to do the same. In other words, most people believe that moral knowledge is possible and that it can help us in making decisions about moral issues.

Even the most egoistic people generally accept a sort of moral minimalism. That is, they believe that there are certain minimal morality requirements that include, for example, refraining from torturing and murdering innocent, helpless people.

Epistemology and Sources of Knowledge

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of knowledge—including moral knowledge. As such, epistemology deals with questions about the nature and limits of knowledge and how knowledge can be validated. There are many ways of knowing: Intuition, reason, feeling, and experience are all potential sources of knowledge.

Many Western philosophers, like Plato, believe that reason is the primary source of moral knowledge. Reason can be defined as “the power of understanding the connection between the general and the particular.” 20 Rationalism is the epistemological theory that most human knowledge comes through reason rather than

through the physical senses.

Other Western philosophers, such as Bentham, Ross, and Hume, and many non-Western philosophers have challenged the dependence on reason that characterizes much of Western philosophy. They suggest that we discover moral truths primarily through intuition rather than reason. Intuition is immediate or self-evident

knowledge, as opposed to knowledge inferred from other truths. Intuitive truths do not need any proof. Utilitarians, for example, claim that we intuitively know that pain is a moral evil (see Chapter 8). Confucians maintain that we intuitively know that benevolence is good. Rights ethicists claim that we intuitively know that all

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 25/28

Page 26

people are created equal (see Chapter 10).

Cognitive-developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg believes that certain morally relevant concepts, such as altruism and cooperation, are built into us (or at least almost all of us). According to Kohlberg, these

intuitive notions are part of humans’ fundamental structure for interpreting the social world, and as such, they

may not be fully articulated.21 In other words, we may know what is right but not be able to explain why it is right.

Connections

What is Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development? See Chapter 3, pages 91–92.

The difficulty with using intuition as a source of moral knowledge is that these so-called intuitive truths are

not always self-evident to everyone. White supremacists, for example, do not agree that all people are created equal. On the other hand, the fact that some people do not accept certain moral intuitions

does not make these moral intuitions false or nonexistent any more than the deafness of some people means

that Beethoven's symphonies do not exist.

A similar problem exists with grounding moral knowledge in religious faith. Since knowledge gained by faith is not objectively verifiable, we have no criteria for judging the morality of the actions of someone who, for example, commits an act of terrorism in the name of their faith. Most religious ethicists, such as Thomas

Aquinas, overcome this problem by grounding morality not in faith but in objective and universally applicable moral principles based on reason.

Key Concepts in Epistemology

Epistemology The study of the nature and limits of knowledge.

Rationalism The theory that most human knowledge comes through reason.

Empiricism The theory that most human knowledge comes through experience or the five senses.

Intuition Immediate or self-evident knowledge.

Emotivism The position that moral judgments are simply expressions of individuals’ emotions.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 26/28

Page 27

The Role of Experience

Experience is also a source of moral knowledge. Aristotle emphasized reason as the most important source of moral knowledge, yet he also taught that ethics education needs an experiential component to lead to genuine knowledge. Some philosophers carry the experiential component of moral knowledge even further. Empiricism claims that all, or at least most, human knowledge comes through the five senses.

Positivism, which was popular in the first half of the twentieth century, represents an attempt to justify the study of philosophy by aligning it with science and empiricism. Positivists believe that moral judgments are simply expressions of individuals’ emotions; this is known as emotivism. Because statements of moral judgment don't seem to convey any information about the physical world, they are meaningless. Emotivists such as Alfred J. Ayer (1910–1989) concluded that these moral judgments are merely subjective expressions of feeling or

commands to arouse feelings and stimulate action and, as such, are devoid of any truth value.

He writes:

We begin by admitting that the fundamental ethical concepts are unanalysable … that they are mere pseudo-concepts. The presence of an ethical symbol in a proportion adds

nothing to its factual content.22

The statement “torturing children is wrong,” in the context of emotivism, is neither true nor false. It is nothing more than the expression of a negative emotion or feeling toward torturing children—much like saying “yuck” when tasting a food that disagrees with one's palate. Someone's preference for torturing young children and another person's preference for a particular flavor of ice cream are both morally neutral.

This alliance between ethics and science (as interpreted by the positivists) proved fatal to ethics. If science is the only source of knowledge, then moral statements such as “killing unarmed people is wrong” and “torturing children is wrong” are meaningless because they do not appear to correspond to anything in the physical world, as do statements such as “tigers have stripes” or “it was sunny at the beach yesterday.”

Emotivism was never widely accepted as a moral theory. The horrors of the Nazi Holocaust forced some

emotivists to reevaluate their moral theory and to commit themselves to the position that some actions such as genocide and torturing children, are immoral regardless of how one feels about it.

Philosopher Sandra Harding (b. 1935) also maintains that experience is an important component of knowledge; however, she disagrees with the emotivists that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral knowledge,

she claims, is radically interdependent with our interests, our cultural institutions, our relationships, and our life

experiences.23 To rely solely on abstract reasoning, she argues, ignores other ways of experiencing the world and moral values within the world. Instead, knowing cannot be separated from our gender and position in society. Moral knowledge and moral decision making lie within the tension between the universal and the

particular in our individual experiences. By emphasizing the importance of experience, feminist epistemology reminds us that we must listen to everyone's voice before forming an adequate moral theory—not just the voice

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 27/28

Page 28

of those, such as “privileged White males.”24 This concern with experience has led to an increased emphasis on

multiculturalism in contemporary college education.

Exercises

1. Referring to the different epistemological theories, discuss how you would respond to someone who thinks that torturing infants is either morally right or, in the case of the positivists, morally neutral.

2. Discuss Alfred Ayer's claim, in the selection from his essay “Emotivism,” that moral judgments are nothing more than expressions of feeling and have no validity. If morality is simply an expression of feeling, is there any such thing as moral responsibility? Are Gandhi and Hitler morally equivalent? Support your answer.

3. Sandra Harding suggests that there may be different ways of knowing moral truths for different groups. Do you agree with her? Are there certain basic moral truths that transcend our particular experiences?

Summary

1. Ethics is concerned with the study of right and wrong and how to live the good life. 2. The two main subdivisions of ethics are theoretical and normative ethics. Theoretical ethics, or

metaethics, is concerned with appraising the logical foundations of ethical systems. Normative ethics

gives us practical guidelines for deciding which actions are right or wrong. 3. There are two types of ethical theories. Noncognitive theories, such as emotivism, claim that moral

statements are neither true nor false. Cognitive theories claim that moral statements can be true or false. Cognitive theories can be further subdivided into relativist theories and universalist theories. Relativist theories maintain that right and wrong are creations of either individuals or groups of humans.

Universalist theories claim that there are universal moral values that apply to all humans. 4. Philosophy is, literally, the “love of wisdom.” 5. The Socratic method involves a dialogue in which a teacher questions people about things they thought

they already knew.

6. Wisdom begins in self-knowledge, which in turn leads to self-realization or self-actualization. 7. True philosophers approach the world with an open mind. They begin the process of inquiry by adopting

an initial position of skepticism or doubt. 8. Plato's “Allegory of the Cave” defines the task of the philosopher: moving out of our conventional mode of

thinking (the darkness of the cave) into the light of truth. This experience of truth should in turn be shared

with others who are still living in darkness. 9. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality, including human nature.

10. Metaphysical dualism claims that reality is made up of two distinct substances: physical matter and nonmaterial mind. Metaphysical materialism, in contrast, claims that physical matter is the only substance.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/16! /4/338/4@0:17.2 28/28

Page 29

11. Buddhist metaphysics maintains that reality is a unity and manifestation of one substance. 12. Sociobiologists claim that morality is genetically programmed into humans and other animals.

Behaviorists, on the other hand, claim that morality is shaped by our environment.

13. Determinism claims that all events, including human actions, are caused by previous events (predetermined) and that free will is an illusion. If there is no free will, then of course there is no such thing as moral responsibility.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Most traditional Western philosophies emphasize reason as the primary source of moral knowledge; most non-Western and feminist philosophies emphasize intuition or sentiment.

15. Emotivism is the theory that moral statements are meaningless because they do not correspond to anything in the physical world. Emotivism arose from an attempt by the positivists to scientifically

legitimate the study of philosophy.

*An asterisk indicates that the exercise is appropriate for students who are doing community service learning as part of the course.

† To read the complete text of Plato's “Allegory of the Cave,” go to http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/Republic.html

14.

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.