Ethics

Ethics is the study of morality, and morality is about whether our

actions are good or bad (right or wrong). So essentially ethics is the
study of right and wrong.

It seems so simple. All you need to do is decide what is good and

what is bad, then avoid the bad things, do the good things and you
are a moral person!

A quick side note about language:

Moral act: An act that conforms to a particular moral code.

Immoral act: An act that does not conform to a particular

moral code.

Amoral act: An act performed by a person who has total

disregard or lack of awareness that a moral code
exists.

The difference between immoral and amoral is awareness. Immoral

people are aware that what they are doing is wrong, but they do it
anyway. Amoral people have no understanding of what is right and
wrong, and usually dont care.

Who is worse?

Three theories of ethics:

Religious ethics

As the name suggests religious ethics is the moral code provided by

a higher power. For this moral code, what is right and wrong is
dictated by the supernatural power. For example: the Ten
Commandments.

The question for religious ethics is this:

Are acts good because God said so, or does God say so because
they are good?

If it is the former, then if God said, Child Rape is good, then it is

good.

If it is the latter, then God is just highlighting the good things in our
world for us. In which case, good and bad are independent of God.
Duty Ethics

Again the name of this moral code is the clue to how it works. Duty
ethics maintains that following and fulfilling our duties make us
moral.

For example, as a teacher I have a duty to teach you, to care for you
and to help you. If I fulfill those duties, I am acting morally.

But who decides what our duties are?

Immanuel Kant (1724 1804), possibly the most influential

philosopher of the modern era thought that reason can be used to
determine our duties.

He had three main guiding principles:

* Universalizability: before you do something ask yourself this;

what would happen if every one took this
action? Then use your reason to determine if
you have a duty or not.

* Value vs Dignity: objects have value. They are less important

and can be replaced with other goods of
equal value. People (and maybe animals)
have dignity. Dignity cant be replaced and
so must be respected and preserved at all
times.

(Language aside: dignity means worthy of honour and respect)

* Intentions: why you are doing something matters.

Reason tells us that good intentions are
more important than the actual outcome.
Interestingly, this also means that people
that do things unintentionally are not
necessary moral. For example, people that
are naturally nice and caring are not acting
morally. They are just being themselves. But
someone who is naturally horrible and rude,
but uses reason to overcome these natural
tendencies and fulfill their duty to be nice, is
moral.

What does this mean?

Imagine that a person is drowning in a river. Should you dive in and

save them?
Kant would say yes. You have a duty to preserve human life and also
you would want someone to do the same for you. If you dive in, and
by doing so actually make the situation worse and then the person
dies that is OK. Your actions were still moral.

Consequentialism

The most common of ethical theory says that an action is

determined to be good or bad based on its outcome. Its all about
timing, I cant know if my action today is moral or not, I can only
determine that later. Which means, my status as being moral or
immoral with change and fluctuate over time.

For example, the actions of a Doctor that saved Adolf Hitler from a
fatal illness when Hitler was young, is moral in 1920 and immoral in
1945.

But how do we determine what is good and bad?

Many consequentialists conform to the idea that happiness and

suffering are the keys. If an action leads to the greatest amounts of
happiness for the greatest amount of people, then its good. If it
leads to mass suffering, then its bad.

Simple, huh?

Except of course we have to define happiness and suffering, we

have to invent scales to measure it, we have to decide on
timeframes

Consequentialism basically boils down to this principle:

The ends justify the means.

Now you know the basics of ethics. What moral code do you
conform to?