Right

Wrong

WHAT IS ETHICS?

“THE PRIMARY AIM OF ETHICS IS TO DETERMINE HOW ONE OUGHT TO LIVE AND WHAT ACTIONS ONE OUGHT TO DO IN THE CONDUCT OF ONE’S LIFE.”

~JOHN DEIGH

Areas of EthicsDescriptive Ethics-Observe, describe and explain the actions and behaviors of individuals and groups, describing action

Meta Ethics- Looks at the nature of ethics (ie. What makes actions moral? Is morality objective? Why should one behave in accordance with an ethical theory?

Normative Ethics- Theories for determining what is right or wrong (ethical) without bias-Prescribing action

Applied Ethics- Using ethical theory to try to resolve a controversial issue (ie. abortion, gun control, death penalty)

Teleological Theory• “Telos”- Greek word for end or purpose• Actions are regarded as moral or immoral depending on whether

they help or hinder in the achievement of the chosen end• “The morality or immorality of an act is the function solely of the

consequences of that act and the tendency of those consequences to produce pleasure or pain, goodness or evil in some degree and in some way.” –Robert Almender

• aka. Consequentialism

Deontological Theory• “Deon”- Greek work for duty• The morality of an action is grounded by some form of authority

independent of the consequences that such actions generate

Normative Ethics

Teleological TheoryNatural Law/Eudaimonism• Something is right if it fulfills its true purposes, wrong if it goes against

these purposes• Something is right if it leads to “well-being”, wrong if it does not lead

to “well being”• Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics

Ethical Egoism• Something is right if it in one’s greatest self interest• Contrasts with Ethical Altruism• Epicurus, James Rachels and Ayn Rand

Utilitarianism• Something is right if that action provides the greatest

amount of happiness for the greatest number of people• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

Natural Law/Eudaimonists- Plato and Aristotle

• Compared to other animals, human beings have the distinct and uniquely human capacity is reason. Thus for human beings, Natural Law means living in agreement with our special, innate endowment—the ability to reason.

• Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.

• Plato- Four main virtues exist- temperance, wisdom, courage, and justice. When the first three are equally balanced then justice is the result

• Aristotle- The virtuous life, eudaimonia (well-being) is accomplished when people aim for a central goal or end that is complete unto itself aka “The Good”– Ex. You want money so you can buy things. Therefore money is not the

good, but only a good– Ex. You desire to live in a way that guarantees a kind of completeness or

well-being to a human life

Natural Law/Eudaimonists- The Stoics• The Stoics define our true purpose as “living in agreement with nature.”• Stoics believe the universe is a rationally organized and well-ordered system

corresponding with the will of god/God. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics’ see this cosmic nature is identical to fate. Thus “living in agreement with nature” means conforming one’s will with the sequence of events that are fated to occur in the rationally constituted universe

• Stoics believe to “live in agreement with nature” would include all natural human functions- taking in nutrition, growth, reproduction etc.

• Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they sought to transform them by a resolute practice that enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.

• Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is immoral or unjust, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason

Ethical Egoism• Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that

moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.

• Arguments put forward by James Rachels-– Each of us knows best what he/she wants. We don’t

really know what is best for others– To pursue actively the interests of others is to be

intrusive. We should mind our own business and allow others to mind theirs.

– To give charity to someone is to degrade him, implying one does not have the ability to look out for himself.

– All of our commonly accepted moral principles are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-interest

Ethical Egoism• Arguments put forward by Ayn Rand-

– Each of us only owns one thing, our lives. Your life is of supreme importance

– The ethics of Altruism requires us to sacrifice for the good of others. Thus, it does not take seriously the value of individuals

– There is a positive harmony of interests among free, rational humans. Other people are an enormous value to an individual's well-being (through education, trade and affection), but also that this value could be fully realized only under conditions of political and economic freedom.

• Common Misconceptions about Egoism– Immediate Gratification Egoism is not the doctrine that we should

always do whatever we want in the short run, without a care for what happens to us in the long run.

– No Altruism Egoism also does not imply that we should never act altruistically. Rather, it implies that we may act for the benefit of others so long as that act also maximizes our own well being.

Altruism• Altruism is the normative ethical position that

moral agents have the obligation to help others even at a cost to themselves.

• Altruism may be seen as similar to utilitarianism, altruism prescribes maximizing good consequences for everyone except the moral agent.

• Human beings need others and this requires compassion- helping others for their sake, not yours

• You may not know what is best, but making an effort (or even making it worse) is better than not helping because people gain courage/strength just knowing others care

Utilitarianism• Utilitarianism is the normative ethical position holding that the

proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering.

• Arguments put forward by Jeremy Bentham-– Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends – Actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness,

wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness– Happiness = Pleasure + the absence of pain– Unhappiness = Pain + the absence of pleasure

• Act Utilitarianism- Judge each individual act according to its good and bad effects. Bentham devised a mathematical equation based on assigning a numerical value to 14 pleasures and 12 pains- “Hedonic Calculus” – Problem: allow obviously immoral acts to take place (sadistic prison

guards take pleasure in beating one prisoner)

Utilitarianism• John Stuart Mill (student of Bentham) supported Rule

Utilitarianism- claimed that pleasures were qualitative rather than quantitative, therefore one can establish general rules of conduct instead of evaluating each individual act

• Mill identifies two levels (degrees) of pleasure– Lower: body (animal instinct) or sensational pleasure

• food, warmth, sex

– Higher: intellectual (rational) pleasure • mental pleasures, sensitivity to others, education

• Higher pleasures outweigh equal or greater amounts of the lower pleasures- “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”

Criticism of Mill’s Utilitarianism• It is difficult for utilitarianism to always account for

basic human rights (ex. The mob and the scapegoat)• Challenging to define happiness/pleasure (even with

Mill’s degrees) Some might define it as wealth, health, self-indulgence, self-sacrifice etc. (think about your varied definitions for your utilitarian high school)

• Mill’s theory seems overly demanding. Many of your moral decisions affect people whom you know nothing about. How do you take them into account? What about long-term consequences? How far down the road do you have to look?

Deontological Approach to Ethics• Deontos is Greek for “duty”• Act-oriented theory of ethics says that actions have

moral character apart from their consequences• Act-oriented ethics is sometimes easier to

understand and apply than results- oriented ethics. There is no consideration of consequences, short-or long-term results. Instead, you ask the question, “Is this an appropriate action for one person to take toward another?” and “Can I will it universally?”

• Basically, it is “the principle of the thing.”

Kant- Categorical Imperative• Immanuel Kant put for the deontological theory of the

categorical imperative• He believed that each act should have “Intrinsic Worth”; it

must be valuable in itself, not valuable for what it produces• He believed that we have a duty to perform such acts.• He defined “Good Will” as an act without an ulterior

motive, just doing the right thing because it is the right thing

• Categorical Imperative- a universal moral law– Categorical = holds true in every case without exception– Imperative = a command we must follow– “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own

person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (Golden Rule)