WHAT IS ETHICS?

JS410 * DR. SLOAN

 WHAT IS ETHICS?

I. WHAT IS ETHICS?
 FORMAL STUDY OF RIGHT AND WRONG
CONDUCT
 A DESCRIPTIVE DISCIPLINE
 CONSIDERED A SUB-AREA OF PHILOSOPHY
 ETHICISTS COLLECT AND INTERPRET WHAT
PEOPLE FROM VARIOUS CULTURES BELIEVE
AND HOW THEY ACT ON THOSE BELIEFS
 WHAT IS “RIGHT” AND “WRONG” BEHAVIOR AC2ROSS
CULTURES?
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS

II. THE BRANCHES OF ETHICS

 METAETHICS
 INVESTIGATES THE FORMAL LOGIC AND
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS
CONCERNING RIGHT AND WRONG CONDUCT
 HIGHLY TECHNICAL IN ORIENTATION
 NORMATIVE ETHICS
 CONCERNED WITH THE STUDY OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES RIGHT/WRONG BEHAVIOR IN
SPECIFIC SITUATIONS
 NORMATIVE ETHICS

 NORMATIVE ETHICS (CONTD.):

 WHAT IS REASONABLE AND WHAT PEOPLE
SHOULD DO B/C DOING SO IS REASONABLE
 NORMATIVE = SETTING NORMS OR GUIDELINES FOR
BEHAVIOR
 NOT BASED IN RELIGION
 ETHICISTS ARE NOT LAWMAKERS
 SYSTEMS OF NORMATIVE ETHICS
 SETS OF COHERRENT IDEAS THAT RESULT FROM
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE CHOICES
PEOPLE MAKE IN VARIOUS MORAL SITUATIONS
 NORMATIVE ETHICS

 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS (CONTD.):

 CREATE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY
 A FRAMEWORK (PERSPECTIVE) FOR MAKING JUDGMENTS
ABOUT THE MORALITY OF BEHAVIOR
 SUGGEST WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLE
BEHAVIOR GIVEN A SPECIFIC SITUATION
 APPLIED ETHICS
 BRANCH OF NORMATIVE ETHICS
 DEVELOPS GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
 MEDICAL DOCTORS, LAWYERS, TEACHERS, POLICE
OFFICERS
 THE MORAL ARENA

III. ETHICS AND THE “MORAL

ARENA”
A. OVERVIEW
 WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ASK
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
ETHICS/MORALITY OF BEHAVIOR?
 IOWS: WHEN AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES DOES PARTICULAR
BEHAVIOR BECOME A QUESTION OF ETHICS?
 THE MORAL ARENA

 THE MORAL ARENA ESTABLISHES

BOUNDARIES FOR WHEN IT IS
REASONABLE TO MAKE MORAL
JUDGMENTS ABOUT BEHAVIOR
 IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

SURROUNDING THE BEHAVIOR

FALL OUTSIDE THE MORAL ARENA
THEN IS NO LONGER A QUESTION
OF ETHICS/MORALITY
 THE MORAL ARENA

B. COMPONENTS OF THE MORAL ARENA

 WHAT CIRUMSTANCES MUST BE PRESENT?
1. BEHAVIOR
 QUESTIONS OF ETHICS ALWAYS INVOLVE
BEHAVIOR
 IF NOT BEHAVIOR, THEN OUTSIDE THE ARENA
 FOR EXAMPLE: “PREJUDICE” (AS AN IDEA) DOES NOT
INVOLVE THE MORAL ARENA, UNLESS IT IS TRANSLATED
INTO ACTION (RACISM)
2. HUMAN BEHAVIOR
 NON-HUMAN BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE JUDGED
USING THE SAME STANDARD(S) AS THOSE USED
TO JUDGE HUMAN ACTION
 THE MORAL ARENA
3. BEHAVIOR THAT STEMS FROM FREE WILL
 THE PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS WE’RE ASSESSING
MUST BE AWARE OF THE WORLD AROUND HIM/HER
AND MUST BE RATIONAL
 EXCEPTIONS: YOUNG CHILDREN AND THE
MENTALLY/EMOTIONALLY INFIRM (INSANE)
4. BEHAVIOR MUST SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT
OTHERS
 THE BEHAVIOR MUST HAVE POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHERS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT
 INCLUDES NATURE
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS

IV. SYSTEMS OF NORMATIVE ETHICS

A. OVERVIEW
 SOURCES FOR OUR MORAL BELIEFS
 UNDERLYING PREMISES THAT FORM A
PATTERN FROM WHICH WE MAKE JUDGMENTS
 “BEYOND ARGUMENT”
 “FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS”
 ALSO KNOWN AS MORAL THEORY
 A SYSTEMATIC ORDERING OF MORAL
PRINCIPLES THAT ARE INTERNALLY
CONSISTENT AND LOGICAL
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 INVOLVED AT THREE LEVELS:
 MORAL STANDARDS
 HELP CREATE BASIC MORAL PRINCIPLES (E.G., ALL
HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED)
 MORAL RULES
 FROM STANDARDS COME INTERMEDIATE MORAL
PRINCIPLES (E.G., ABORTION IS WRONG B/C IT
DESTROYS A HUMAN LIFE)
 JUDGMENTS ABOUT MORALITY
 A STATEMENT THAT BEGINS THE DISCUSSION OF THE
MORALITY OF CERTAIN BEHAVIOR
 (E.G., IT WAS IMMORAL FOR THE 15 YEAR OLD RAPE
VICTIM TO HAVE AN ABORTION)
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
B. SHARED CHARACTERISTICS
 ALL MAJOR SYSTEMS OF ETHICS APPEAR TO
HAVE 4 SHARED CHARACTERISTICS
 THEY ARE PRESCRIPTIVE
 CERTAIN BEHAVIORS ARE DEMANDED OR PROHIBITED
 THEY ARE AUTHORITATIVE
 ORDINARILY, NOT OPEN TO DEBATE
 THEY ARE UNIVERSAL
 NO RELATIVISM
 THEY ARE NOT SELF-SERVING
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
C. TELEOLOGICAL VS. DEONTOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS DIFFER IN THEIR FOCUS:
 TELEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE
CONSEQUENCES OF AN ACT
 DIRECT/INDIRECT, SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM
 DEONTOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FOCUS PRIMARLY ON
TWO AREAS:
THE DUTY OWED TO OTHERS REGARDLESS OF CONSE-

QUENCES (ACTS DONE FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY)
 THE INTENT OF PEOPLE TO “DO RIGHT”

 EXAMPLE: STOPPING TO HELP SOMEONE CHANGE A TIRE

 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS

V. EXAMPLES
A. RELIGIOUS ETHICS
1. OVERVIEW
 RELIGION = AN INSTITUTIONALIZED
SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES
SHARED BY A GROUP
 GROUNDED IN FAITH
 WORSHIP OF A SUPREME BEING OR BEINGS
 REPRESENT PERFECT GOODNESS AND THE HIGHEST
VALUES
 MOST FREQUENT SOURCE OF INDIVIDUAL
ETHICS
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 SOURCE OF AUTHORITY IN RELIGIOUS
ETHICS = A WILLFUL AND RATIONAL GOD
 IF GOD’S CHARACTER IS PERFECTION, THEN
GOD’S WORD CANNOT BE QUESTIONED DUE TO
ITS PERFECTION
 GOD’S WORD BECOMES THE MEANS BY WHICH
PRINCIPLES OF RELGIOUS ETHICS ARE
DEVELOPED
 GOD’S WORD IS REVEALED TO HUMANS THROUGH
VARIOUS MEANS
 TEXTS, STORIES, PARABLES, ETC.
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
2. MAJOR ISSUE: DETERMINING GOD’S WILL
 COMPETING POSITIONS:
 LEGALISTS: ARGUE THAT ETHICAL POSITIONS ARE
UNCHANGING BECAUSE GOD IS UNCHANGING
 MOST COMMON AMONG MAINSTREAM THEOLOGIANS
 SITUATIONALISTS: ARGUE THAT ETHICAL PO-
SITIONS CHANGE B/C GOD’S WILL VARIES
ACCORDING TO TIME AND PLACE
 HOW CAN WE “KNOW” GOD’S WILL?
 BARRY (1985) SUGGESTS WE CAN “KNOW” GOD’S
WILL IN THREE WAYS
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE
 IF ONE “FEELS” THAT SOMETHING IS
WRONG, IT PROBABLY IS WRONG
 ONE’S CONSCIENCE IS “GOD’S VOICE”
SPEAKING IN OUR HEADS
 RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES
 LOOK TO THEIR INTERPRETATIONS TO
HELP US MAKE CORRECT CHOICES
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 GO DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE
 SACRED RELIGIOUS TEXTS
 IN CHRISTIANITY: THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS
 IN JUDAISM: THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE
TORAH
 IN ISLAM: THE KORAN

 “HOLDS THE ANSWERS” TO QUESTIONS

OF MORALITY
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
3. PROBLEMS WITH “KNOWING GOD’S WILL”
 ONE’S CONSCIENCE MAY BE NO MORE THAN
THE PRODUCT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED FACTORS
 WHAT IF ONE DOES NOT TAKE THE TIME TO
DEVELOP ONE’S CONSCIENCE?
 RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES ARE FALLIBLE
 THEY CAN “GET IT WRONG”
 INCONSISTENCIES AND VAGUENESS FOUND IN
SACRED TEXTS
 EXAMPLES: THE BIBLE, THE KORAN, THE TORAH
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
B. ETHICAL FORMALISM (KANTIAN ETHICS)
1. OVERVIEW
 BASED IN THE WRITINGS OF IMMANUAL KANT
(18TH CENTURY GERMAN PHILOSOPHER)
 REJECTS TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES
 FAIL TO CONSIDER DUTY AND THE INTENT TO DO
AN ACT FOR THE RIGHT REASON
 DISTINCTION B/T ACTIONS TAKEN MERELY IN
ACCORDANCE W/ DUTY AND THOSE TAKEN
FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY
 THE FORMER HAVE GREATER MORAL WORTH
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 KANTIAN ETHICS IS ABSOLUTIST
 IF SOMETHING IS WRONG, IT IS ALWAYS WRONG
2. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
 “AT ALL TIMES, ONE MUST ACT IN A MANNER
THAT ONE HOPES ALL WOULD FOLLOW”
 PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY
 WOULD THE BEHAVIOR BE ACCEPTABLE IF IT WERE A UNIVERSAL
LAW TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL?
 HUMANS ARE OF INTRINSIC VALUE
 NEVER TREAT PEOPLE AS THINGS TO BE USED
 A COMMAND (NOT A SUGGESTION)
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
3. THE HYPTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
 NOT A COMMAND
 LESSER PRINCIPLE IN KANTIAN ETHICS
 “IF” / “THEN” STATEMENTS
 DESIGNATE CERTAIN ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE
DESIRED ENDS
 “IF YOU WANT TO GO TO HARVARD, THEN

YOU MUST DO WELL IN HIGH SCHOOL”

 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
4. PROBLEMS
 MORALITY IS LIMITED TO DUTY
 DUTY CAN BE A BASELINE, BUT IS NOT THE
HIGHEST ASPIRATION
 EXAMPLE: SAVING A COMPANION DURING WAR
 ABSOLUTIST ORIENTATION
 CIRCUMSTANCES DO MATTER
 EXAMPLE: LYING TO THE BURGLAR
 NO GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH
CONFLICTING DUTIES
 EXAMPLE: BORROWING YOUR FRIEND’S GUN
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
C. UTILITARIAN ETHICS
1. OVERVIEW
 BASED ON THE WRITINGS OF THE 18TH AND
19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS BENTHAM,
BECCARIA , AND J. STUART MILL
 A TELEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
 PRIMARY FOCUS IS ON CONSEQUENCES
 A MORAL ACTION IS ONE THAT PRODUCES
SOMETHING “GOOD”; AN IMMORAL ACTION IS
ONE THAT PRODUCES SOMETHING “BAD”
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 MORAL ACTIONS ARE THOSE CONSISTENT
WITH HUMAN NATURE
 SEEK PLEASURE (UTILITY) AVOID PAIN (COSTS)
 PLEASURE IS IDENTIFIED WITH HAPPINESS
 INCLUDES “BASE” PLEASURES LIKE SEX, FOOD, AND
DRINK AS WELL AS “HIGHER ORDER” PLEASURES
INVOLVING ART AND INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS
 MORAL ACTIONS ARE THOSE PRODUCING
THE MOST PLEASURE (LEAST PAIN) TO THE
GREATEST NUMBER
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 RELEVANT FACTORS:
 THE INTENSITY OF THE PLEASURE (MINOR/MAJOR)
 THE DURATION OF THE PLEASURE (SHORT? LONG?)
 THE PROBABILITY THE ACTION WILL PRODUCE THE
INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
 ACT VS. RULE UTILITARIANISM
 ACT = FOCUS ON THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES
 RULE = FOCUS ON LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AND
THE PRECEDENT SET BY THE ACTION
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
2. PROBLEMS
 THE “TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY”
 “THE GOOD OF THE MANY OUTWEIGHS THE GOOD OF
THE ONE”
 EXAMPLE: EXECUTING INNOCENTS
 DIFFICULTY IN MEASURING “UTILITY”
 HOW DO WE MEASURE THE “HAPPINESS” OR
“PLEASURE” DERIVED FROM AN ACT?
 HAPPINESS IS SYNONOMOUS WITH PLEASURE
 PLEASURE MAY WELL BE DERIVED FROM OTHER
THINGS (E.G., DOING ONE’S DUTY; ALTRUISTIC
SACRIFICE)
 REVIEW

 THE FOCUS OF ETHICS IS THE STUDY OF

RIGHT/WRONG BEHAVIOR
 THE MORAL ARENA DEFINES WHEN AND
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A
QUESTION OF ETHICS/MORALITY ARISES
 COMPONENTS: BEHAVIOR, HUMAN BEHAVIOR,
BEHAVIOR STEMMING FROM FREE WILL,
BEHAVIOR SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS OTHERS
(INCLUDES NATURE)
 REVIEW
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS INCLUDE METAETHICS
AND NORMATIVE ETHICS
 NORMATIVE ETHICS DEVISES SYTEMS OF ETHICS
CONTAINING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE BEHAVIOR
 INCLUDES APPLIED ETHICS WHICH ESTABLISHES
CODES OF CONDUCT FOR THE PROFESSIONS
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
 CREATE PRINCIPLES GUIDING BEHAVIOR
 SUGGEST WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE IN SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS
 REVIEW
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS ARE MORAL THEORIES
CONSISTING OF:
 STANDARDS (BASIC PRINCIPLES)
 MORAL RULES (INTERMEDIATE PRINCIPLES)
 MORAL JUDGMENTS (STATEMENTS ASSESSING
THE MORALITY OF BEHAVIOR)
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS SHARE CERTAIN
CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDING: PRESCRIP-
TION, AUTHORITATIVENESS, UNVIERSALITY,
AND LACK OF SELF-SELFINGNESS
 REVIEW
 SYSTEMS OF ETHICS ARE EITHER
TELEOLOGICAL (CONSEQUENTIALIST) OR
DEONTOLOGICAL (FOCUS ON DUTY AND
INTENT)
 MAJOR SYSTEMS OF ETHICS INCLUDE
RELIGIOUS ETHICS , KANTIAN ETHICS (ETHICAL
FORMALISM), AND UTILITARIAN ETHICS
 RELIGIOUS AND KANTIAN ETHICS ARE
DEONTOLOGICAL; UTILITARIANISM IS
TELEOLOGICAL
 REVIEW
 RELIGIOUS ETHICS MOST COMMON SOURCE
OF INDIVIDUAL ETHICS; GOD’S WILL IS
SOURCE; DETERMINING GOD’S WILL IS
IMPORTANT AND CREATES POSSIBLE
PROBLEMS
 KANTIAN ETHICS EMPHASIZES DUTY AND
INTENT; BASIC PRINCIPLE IS CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE ; SECONDARY PRINCIPLE IS THE
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE ; ABSOLUTIST IN
ORIENTATION
 REVIEW
 PROBLEMS WITH KANTIAN ETHICS:
 ABSOLUTISM; CANNOT RECONCILE CONFLICTING
DUTIES; MORALITY IS LIMITED TO DUTY
 UTILITARIAN ETHICS FOCUS ON
CONSEQUENCES W/ MORALITY ASSESSED IN
TERMS OF THE GOOD ARISING FROM ACTIONS
 PLEASURE = HAPPINESS = MORALITY
 INTENSITY, DURATION, AND PROBABILITY OF
PLEASURE ARE CONSIDERATIONS
 ACT vs. RULE UTILITARIANS
 REVIEW
 PROBLEMS W/ UTILITARIANETHICS
 TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
 DIFFICULTY MEASURING “UTILITY”
 HAPPINESS IS SYNONOMOUS W/
PLEASURE
 NEXT:
ETHICS AND THE POLICE