1.3.
Ethics and Morality entities that are indifferent to right and wrong are
What is Ethics?
Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline
concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally
right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or
theory of moral values or principles
How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at
knowledge, virtue , or the creation of beautiful objects? If we
choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all?
And what of the more particular questions that face us: is it
right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in
opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving?
Is going to war justified in cases where it is likely that
innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone (Links to
an external site.) a human being or to destroy human
embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if
any, to the generations of humans who will come after us
and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the
planet?
Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject
consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision
making, and its major concerns include the nature of
ultimate value and the standards by which human actions
can be judged right or wrong (Links to an external site.).
The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now
common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical
principles where it once would have been more accurate to
speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These
applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In
earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to
the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as
its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral
philosophy.
What Is Morality?
Morality is the prevailing standard of behavior that enable
people to live cooperatively in groups. Moral refers to what
societies sanction as right and acceptable.
Most people tend to act morally and follow societal
guidelines. Morality often requires that people sacrifice their
own short-term interests for the benefit of society. People or
considered amoral, while those who do evil acts are
considered immoral.
While some moral principles seem to transcend time and
culture, such as fairness, generally speaking, morality is not
fixed. Morality describes the particular values of a specific
group at a specific point in time. Historically, morality has
been closely connected to religious traditions, but today its
significance is equally important to the secular world. For
example, businesses and government agencies have codes of
ethics that employees are expected to follow.
Some philosophers make a distinction between morals and
ethics. But many people use the terms morals and ethics
interchangeably when talking about personal beliefs, actions,
or principles. For example, it’s common to say, “My morals
prevent me from cheating.” It’s also common to use ethics in
this sentence instead.
So, morals are the principles that guide individual conduct
within society. And, while morals may change over time,
they remain the standards of behavior that we use to judge
right and wrong.
Issues, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma
At the final point of clarification, it might be helpful to
distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be
called moral issue. Supposing, a person cannot afford to buy
a certain item and he resort to stealing. This is a matter of
ethics and not just law insofar as it involves a question of
respect to one's property. We should add that issue is also
often used to refer to those particular situation that are
often the source considerable and inconclusive debate, thus
we often hear topics like capital punishment and euthanasia
as moral issues.
When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the
choice of what act to perform, he is called to make a moral
decision. For instance, I chose not to take something I did
not pay for, When a person is an observer, who makes an
assessment of the action or behavior of someone, she is
making a moral judgment. If a friend of mine chooses to
steal from a store and I made an assessment that it is wrong.
Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over
wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more
complicated situation, wherein one is torn between the
lesser of two evil, this is referred to as moral dilemma. We
experience moral dilemma when an individual cam choose
one from a number of possible action and there are
compelling ethical reasons for various choices.
Conventional morality can differ from society to society. The
conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids women from
publicly contradicting their husbands or brothers, while
Denmark’s conventional morality allows this. People in the
United States would think it immoral to leave a restaurant
without tipping a good waiter or bartender, while such
behavior in many other societies is perfectly OK.

1.5. Conventional and Critical Morality What is Critical Morality?

How do human beings make moral judgments? When we talk about morality in this course, we will be
referring to moral standards that are not rooted in
This has been an ongoing and unresolved debate in
widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of
psychology, and with good reason. Moral judgments aren’t
conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate
just opinions. They are the decisions with which we condemn
its merits.
others to social exclusion, jail, and even violent retaliation.
Given their weight, moral judgments are often assumed to
be rational, though recent psychological research has
It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all there
suggested that they may be more like gut feelings. While
is. But this would be a very surprising discovery. Most of us
debates about whether moral judgments are deliberate,
assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a moral view is not
conscious attributions, or automatic intuitions have been
a guarantee of its truth. We could be wrong on this point,
fruitful both theoretically and practically, the next direction
but until we have a chance to consider the matter in detail, I
in moral research needs to take a pragmatic turn. Rather
think it best to assume that conventional morality can
than continue to ask whether morals are deliberate or
sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there may be some
affective, it’s time to ask when moral judgments are
independent, critical morality that
deliberate and when they are affective, and how these
different types of reasoning both inform judgment.

(1) does not have its origin in social agreements;

What is Conventional morality? (2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular
prejudices; and
It is the system of widely accepted rules and principles,
created by and for human beings, that members of a culture (3) can serve as the true standard for determining when
or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen
actions and the motivations of others. In essence, into error.
conventional morality is the system of widely accepted rules
and principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives That is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in
and to assess the actions and the motivations of others. this course.
Suppose you take a sociology or an anthropology course, and
you get to a unit on the morality of the cultures you’ve been
studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns of behavior to be
found in the cultures, their accepted ideas about right and
wrong, and the sorts of character traits that these cultures
find admirable. These are the elements of what we can call
conventional morality—the system of widely accepted rules
and principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives
and to assess the actions and the motivations of others.
 1.6. Normative and Descriptive Ethics
The main difference between normative ethics and
descriptive ethics is that normative ethics analyses how
people ought to act whereas descriptive ethics analyses
what people think is right.
What is Normative Ethics?
Basically, normative ethics is the study of ethical action
whereas descriptive ethics is the study of people’s views
about moral beliefs. Descriptive ethics, as its name implies,
describes the behaviour of people and what moral standards
they follow. In contrast, descriptive ethics is concerned with
what is morally right and wrong. The other two well-known
branches of ethics are metaethics (Links to an external site.)
and applied ethics.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. In simple
words, it analyses how people ought to act, in terms of
morality. It is also concerned with the criteria of what is
morally right and wrong. Moreover, the core concept of
normative ethics is how to arrive at basic moral standards
and how to justify basic moral standards. Teleological and
deontological theories are the tools that help to determine
this concept. In teleological ethics, the goodness or badness
of action is determined by examining the consequences of
that action, whereas, in deontological theories, the goodness
or badness of action is determined by examining the action
itself.
What is Descriptive Ethics?
Descriptive ethics or comparative ethics is the study of
people’s views about moral beliefs. In other words, it
analyses ‘what do people think is right?’ Thus, the study of
descriptive ethics involves describing people’s moral values
and standards as well as their behaviour.
Furthermore, descriptive ethics is a type of empirical study
that incorporates research from the fields of psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and history. Such empirical studies
observe that all cultures and societies have their own moral
standards that advocate or forbid certain types of actions.
Descriptive ethics also analyse the differences and
similarities between the moral practices of different
societies, and evaluate the development of the standards
behind these practices.
While normative ethics analyses how people ought to act
whereas descriptive ethics analyses people’s moral values,
standards and behaviour.
1.7. Branches of Moral Philosophy
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three
general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and
applied ethics.
Metaethics
investigates where our ethical principles come from, and
what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they
involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?
Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues
of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in
ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms
themselves. Metaethics talks about the nature of ethics and
moral reasoning. Discussions about whether ethics is relative
and whether we always act from self-interest are examples
of meta-ethical discussions. In fact, drawing the conceptual
distinction between Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and
Applied Ethics is itself a "metaethical analysis."
Normative ethics
takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral
standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may
involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire,
the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our
Normative ethics is interested in determining the content of
our moral behavior. Normative ethical theories seek to
provide action-guides; procedures for answering the
Practical Question ("What ought I to do?"). The moral
theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative
theories that seek to provide guidelines for determining a
specific course of moral action. Think of the Categorical
Imperative in the case of the former and the Principle of
Utility in the case of the latter behavior on others.
Applied ethics
involves examining specific controversial issues, such as
abortion, infanticide, animal, environmental, homosexuality,
capital punishment, or nuclear war. Applied Ethics attempts
to deal with specific realms of human action and to craft
criteria for discussing issues that might arise within those
realms. The contemporary field of Applied Ethics arouse in
the late 1960s and early 1970s.
1.8. Moral Starting Points
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to
begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that there are any
proper starting points for ethical reflection. They believe that
moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases
and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in
moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no
moral views are any better than others. While this sort of
skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the
default view of ethics. We should accept it only as a last
resort.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible ethical
assumptions, claims that can get us started in our moral
thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you up to the
idea that we are not just spinning our wheels when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us
when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them:
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism. The law does not have the final word on what is
right and wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that are
legal, or customary, are sometimes morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken
ethical views, and no human being is wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing.
Friendships add value to your life. You are better off when
there are people you care deeply about, and who care
deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can
demand only so much of us. Moral standards that are
impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect
our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral
responsibility assumes an ability on our part to understand
options, to make decisions in an informed way, and to let our
decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of these abilities you
have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm you might
cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory
that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is
important that we get what we deserve, and that we are
treated fairly.
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires justification.
The default position in ethics is this: do no harm. It is
sometimes morally acceptable to harm others, but there
must be an excellent reason for doing so or else the harmful
behavior is unjustified.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike
in all relevant respects should get similar treatment. When
this fails to happen—when racist or sexist policies are
enacted, for instance—then something has gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How
well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the only thing of
moral importance. Morality sometimes calls on us to set
aside our own interests for the sake of others.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is
bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to cause such extreme
suffering, but doing so requires a very powerful justification.
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away
with lots of things that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t
justify what they do. That a person can escape punishment is
one thing—whether his actions are morally acceptable is
another.
12. Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If,
with eyes wide open and no one twisting your arm, you ask
someone to do something for you, and she does it, then your
rights have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as a
result.
There are a number of points to make about these claims.
o First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It
could be made much longer.
 o Second, we are not claiming that the items on this
list are beyond criticism. We are only saying that
each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might
weaken our confidence in some cases. The point,
though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly
reasonable to begin our moral thinking with the
items on this list.
o Third, many of these claims require interpretation
in order to apply them in a satisfying way. When we
say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated
equally, we leave all of the interesting questions
open. (What makes people equals? Can we treat
people equally without treating them in precisely the
same way? And so on.)
A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery,
sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on how you look
at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any
morality worth the name will place some importance on
justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness.
1.9. Normative Systems
We can also better understand morality by contrasting its
principles with those of other normative systems. Each of
these represents a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.
There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus to
four of the most important of them: those that govern the
law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle
the question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval.
Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal.
And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are
not immoral. Certainly, many laws require what morality
requires and forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is
hardly perfect, and that shows that morality is something
different from the law. That a legislature passed a bill is not
enough to show that the bill is morally acceptable.
Etiquette
We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of
etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate,
but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right. Good manners
are not the same thing as morally good conduct. Morality
sometimes requires us not to be polite or gracious, as when
someone threatens your children or happily tells you a racist
joke. So the standards of etiquette can depart from those of
morality.
Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-
interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in
life by betraying others, lying about their past, breaking the
rules that others are following. It’s an unhappy thought, but
a very commonsensical one: you sometimes can improve
your lot in life by acting immorally. And those who behave
virtuously are sometimes punished, rather than rewarded,
for it. Whistle blowers who reveal a company’s or a
government official’s corruption are often attacked for their
efforts, sued to the point of bankruptcy, and targeted for
their courageous behavior. Though the relation between
self-interest and morality is contested, it is a plausible
starting point to assume that morality can sometimes
require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that we can
sometimes improve our lot in life by acting unethically.
Tradition
Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice
has been around a long time does not automatically make it
moral. Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as
it did when people called for the abolition of slavery or for
allowing women to vote. And some nontraditional, highly
innovative practices may be morally excellent. The longevity
of a practice is not a foolproof test of its morality.
1.10. Does Morality Depend on Religion?
The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable:
People commonly believe that morality can be understood
only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy are assumed
to be authorities on morality.
When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe
seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and
purpose.
The Divine Command Theory
The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong.
Actions that God commands are morally required; actions
that God forbids are morally wrong; and all other actions are
permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features.
o It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of
personal feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It
is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids
it.
o The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us
should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we just
look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation
of God’s commandments, then there is an easy
answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be
held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
o Atheists would not accept it, because they do not
believe that God exists.
o But there are difficulties even for believers. One can
be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the
gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right? This is a question whether God
makes the moral truths true or whether he merely
recognizes that they’re true.
First, we might say that right conduct is right because God
commands it. But this idea encounters several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s commands
arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles.
Second option has a different drawback.
In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of right
and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a
standard that is independent of God’s will. The rightness
exists prior to God’s command and is the reason for the
command.
2.4. The Minimum Conception of Morality
What is the Minimum Conception of Morality?
The minimum conception of morality states that morality is,
at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by
reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for
doing--while living equal weight to the interests of each
individual affected by one's decision.
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best
reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests
of each individual affected by one’s action.
This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious
moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is someone who
is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone
affected by what he or she does; who carefully sifts facts and
examines their implications; who accepts principles of
conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are
justified; who will “listen to reason” even when it means
revising prior convictions; and who, finally, is willing to act on
these deliberations.
As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this
“minimum.” This picture of the conscientious moral agent
has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that
reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral
theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or
another.
What support can be given for the minimum conception of
morality?
Rachels states that if we want to discover the truth about
some moral problem, that we must let our feelings be guided
by reason. This means that the "morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the arguments"
The other option is to let our moral judgments be guided by
feelings. However, our feelings may be irrational - "the
products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning".
By examining the arguments we can think about our initial
emotional reactions and whether they need to be modified.
Rachels states that moral theory must include the idea of
impartiality - the idea that "each individual's interests are
equally important; no one should get special treatment" This
requirement prevents us from treating people arbitrarily, if
we are going to treat people differently we must have a good
reason for doing so.
2.4.1. Baby Theresa
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public
as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa
had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders.
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies
without brains,” but that is not quite accurate. Important
parts of the brain— the cerebrum and cerebellum—are
missing, as is the top of the skull. The brain stem, however, is
still there, and so the baby can still breathe and possess a
heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly
are detected during pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually
aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn. About 350
are born alive each year, and they usually die within days.
Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents
made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would die
soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents
volunteered her organs for immediate transplant. They
thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go
to other children who could benefit from them. Her
physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants
each year, and there are never enough organs available. But
Theresa’s organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids
the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the time
Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late—her
organs had deteriorated too much to be harvested and
transplanted. Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated.
Should she have been killed so that her organs could have
been used to save other children? A number of professional
“ethicists”—people employed by universities, hospitals, and
law schools, who get paid to think about such things—were
asked by the press to comment. Most of them disagreed
with the parents and physicians. Instead, they appealed to
time-honored philosophical principles to oppose taking the
organs. “It just seems too horrifying to use people as means
to other people’s ends,” said one such expert. Another
explained: “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
And a third added: “What the parents are really asking for is,
Kill this dying baby so that its organs may be used for
someone else. Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”
2.4.2. Jodie and Mary
In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south
of Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins.
Knowing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were
inadequate to deal with such a birth, she and her husband
went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England. The
infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the lower
abdomen. Their spines were fused, and they had one heart
and one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the stronger one,
was providing blood for her sister.
No one knows how many sets of conjoined twins are born
each year, but the number has been estimated at 200. Most
die shortly after birth, but some do well. They grow to
adulthood and marry and have children themselves. But the
outlook for Mary and Jodie was grim. The doctors said that
without intervention the girls would die within six months.
The only hope was an operation to separate them. This
would save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately.
The parents, who were devout Catholics, refused permission
for the operation on the grounds that it would hasten Mary’s
death. “We believe that nature should take its course,” they
said. “If it’s God’s will that both our children should not
survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save Jodie,
petitioned the courts for permission to perform the
operation anyway. The courts agreed, and the operation was
performed. As expected, Jodie lived and Mary died.
In thinking about this case, we should distinguish the
question of who should make the decision from the question
of what the decision should be. You might think, for
example, that the decision should be left to the parents, and
so the courts should not have intruded. But there remains
the separate question of what would be the wisest choice for
the parents (or anyone else) to make.
2.4.3. Tracy Latimer
Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, was
killed by her father in 1993. Tracy lived with her family on a
prairie farm in Saskatchewan, Canada. One Sunday morning
while his wife and other children were at church, Robert
Latimer put Tracy in the cab of his pickup truck and piped in
exhaust fumes until she died. At the time of her death, Tracy
weighed less than 40 pounds, and she was described as
“functioning at the mental level of a three-month-old baby.”
Mrs. Latimer said that she was relieved to find Tracy dead
when she arrived home and added that she “didn’t have the
courage” to do it herself.
Robert Latimer was tried for murder, but the judge and jury
did not want to treat him harshly. The jury found him guilty
of only second-degree murder and recommended that the
judge ignore the mandatory 10-year sentence. The judge
agreed and sentenced him to one year in prison, followed by
a year of confinement to his farm. But the Supreme Court of
Canada stepped in and ruled that the mandatory sentence
must be imposed. Robert Latimer entered prison in 2001 and
was paroled in 2008.
Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that
some event must inevitably follow from another without any
argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In
most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between
one event and the one in question and no reason is given as
to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be
bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no
reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from
another without an argument for such a claim. This is
especially clear in cases in which there is a significant
number of steps or gradations between one event and
another.
Examples of Slippery Slope
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you
know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
2.5. Cultural Relativism
What is Cultural Relativism?
It is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices
should be understood based on that person's own culture,
rather than be judged against the criteria of another. To
avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are
different to yours, we can use the cultural relativism
approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture
to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or
normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural
practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For
example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ”
one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried
insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers
are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional
cuisine and have been eaten for thousands of years as a
healthy food source!
Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
o The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of
their dead fathers.
o The Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks
practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre
as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
o The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by
great distances, and their customs turned out to be
very different from ours. The men often had more
than one wife, and they would share their wives with
guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of
hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a
dominant male might demand—and get—regular
sexual access to other men’s wives. The women,
however, were free to break these arrangements
simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with
new partners—free, that is, so long as their former
husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in
all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile
practice that bore little resemblance to our custom.
The Cultural Differences Argument
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other
societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own
society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the
danger of assuming that all of our practices are based on
some absolute rational standard. They are not. Some of our
customs are merely conventional—merely peculiar to our
society—and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. Cultural
Relativism begins with the insight that many of our practices
are like this—they are only cultural products.
The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. As
we grow up, we develop strong feelings about things: We
learn to see some types of behavior as acceptable, and other
types as outrageous.
Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind of
dogmatism. Realizing this can help broaden our minds. We
can see that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of
the truth— they may be due to cultural conditioning and
nothing more.
Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are really
only cultural products.
Key points
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes.
Therefore, there are no universal moral truths, the customs
of different societies are all that exist.
The following claims have all been made by cultural
relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes; that a
certain action is right, then that action is right, at
least within that society.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to
judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
There are no moral truths that hold for all people at
all times.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right
within that society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says it is.
2.6. Altruism or Egoism?
The Fable of Abraham Lincoln and the Pigs
Once Lincoln was traveling in a mud-wagon coach along a
swampy, rural area. His fellow passenger was his good friend
and US Senator Edward Dickinson Baker, who later lost his
life in the Battle of Ball’s Bluff at the onset of the American
Civil War.
While they were conversing in the mud-wagon coach,
Lincoln remarked to Baker that in doing good and evil, all
people are motivated by selfishness. Just as Baker challenged
Lincoln’s assertion, their coach crossed a rickety bridge over
a slough (a large swampy marsh.)
Abruptly, Lincoln and Baker glimpsed a mother pig making a
terrible squeal because her piglets were stuck in the swamp,
couldn’t get out, and were in danger of drowning
As their coach started to head away, Lincoln yelled, “Driver,
can’t you stop just a moment?” The driver replied, “If the
other fellow don’t object.”
With Baker’s approval, Lincoln jumped out of the wagon, ran
to the slough, lifted the piglets one by one out of the swamp,
and carried them to the dry bank of the swamp.
When Lincoln returned to the coach, Baker remarked, “Now,
Abe, where does selfishness come in this little episode?”
Lincoln replied, “Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very
essence of selfishness. I would have had no peace of mind all
day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying
over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see?”
Altruism is when we act to promote someone else’s welfare,
even at a risk or cost to ourselves.
Being moved by the plight of others—even the suffering of
animals (or sentient beings to use Buddhist terminology) as
in the aforementioned legend of Lincoln and the piglets—is
considered a selfish deed per modern philosophy’s theory of
psychological egoism.
Egoism has its roots in the philosophy of the Greek
philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE,) who argued that the
human mind is driven by the need to maximize pleasure and
minimize pain. Egoism contends that deep down all our
actions are motivated by what we perceive to be in our own
self-interest.
For example, if Tom saves Mark from drowning in a river,
egoism contends that Tom’s seemingly altruistic behavior is
actually motivated by his own self-interest to avoid potential
social censure for not helping Mark or to be regarded a hero
within his social circle.
What is Altruism? o If a certain action would benefit (or harm) other
people, then that is a reason why we should (or
Altruism means acting in the best interest of others rather
should not) perform that action.
than in one’s own self-interest. Some people believe altruism
o The commonsense assumption is that other people’s
constitutes the essence of morality. Although we often act
interests count, from a moral point of view.
selfishly, we also seem to be wired to cooperate with others.
o Some people believe that we have no duties to
For example, studies show that when people look for mates,
others.
they tend to look for kindness more than any other quality.
o This view is known as Ethical Egoism.
o Each person ought to pursue his or her own self-
interest exclusively.
People’s moral judgments are often driven by emotion. And
o This is the morality of selfishness. It holds that our
empathy for others seems to encourage altruism. Another
only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other
emotion, called “elevation,” appears to inspire altruistic
people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
behavior, too. We feel elevation when we see another
person act virtuously, such as by helping someone in need. What is Ethical Egoism?

Ethical egoism claims that each person ought to pursue his

or her own self-interest exclusively. People ought to be self-
Altruism also builds social connections. For example, studies
interested and that our neighbors ought not to give to
show that people who are altruistic tend to be happier, to be
charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or
healthier, and to live longer. So, while altruism leads us to do
about the way things should be.
what’s best for others, it also makes us feel good in the
process.

What is Psychological Egoism?

Emmanuel Levinas & Ideal Altruism:
Core ideas:
o The other is always more important than oneself
o It is morally wrong to act to benefit oneself
o It is morally praiseworthy to sacrifice one’s own
interests to benefit others.
By contrast, asserts that each person does in fact pursue his
or her own self-interest exclusively. People are self-
interested and that our neighbors will not give to charity.
Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or
about the way things are.
What are the main differences between the two?

The main difference between psychological egoism and

2.7. Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism
Psychological Egoism- We do act on our own self-interest.
Ethical Egoism – We should act in our own self-interest.
Is there a Duty to Help the Starving?
ethical egoism is that psychological egoism emphasizes the
fact that people act primarily out of self-interest while
ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for
their self-interest.

o Every day, around 22,000 children under the age of
5 die, almost always from preventable causes.
o Poverty poses an acute problem for many of us who
are not poor.
o Why do we let people starve when we could save
them?
At initial thought, egoism refers to pride, selfishness and
having high self-worth. However, with regard to
psychological egoism and ethical egoism, these definitions
take on different facets.

Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?

o We have duties to others simply because they are

people who could be helped or harmed by what we
do.

2.7.1 Ayn Rand's Argument
Ayn Rand's Interpretation of Ethical Egoism
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was an American novelist and
philosopher, and the creator of Objectivism, which she
called “a philosophy for living on earth.” A Russian-
American writer and philosopher, she is known for her two
best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged,
and for developing a philosophical system she named
Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, she moved to the
United States in 1926.
Different interpretations have been offered for ethical
egoism. Ayn Rand believes that man should not sacrifice
himself for others, and should not sacrifice others for himself
either. According to this interpretation, the primary and
natural goal of any living creature is to protect itself. The
ethical value of each deed is also defined based on the same
goal. Of all living creatures, ethics only applies to man, since
he has the ability to choose among valuable and invaluable
goals.
When looking for a criterion to determine whether a given
action is ethical, it seems that the most prominent issue we
face is ethical egoism. Since in many cases, it is a difficult and
painstaking task to determine the boundaries between
ethical egoism and ethical altruism, it is crucially important
to study ethical egoism. Since Rand provides strong
arguments in favor of ethical egoism and presents most of
her philosophical viewpoints in the form of novels—a
psychologically influential and attractive medium—it is truly
essential to study her theory of egoism in the field of ethics.
Her arguments
o The perfection of one's abilities in a state of
happiness is the highest goal for humans.
o The ethics of altruism prescribes that we sacrifice
our interests and lives for the good of others.
o Therefore, the ethics of altruism is incompatible with
the goal of happiness.
o Ethical egoism prescribes that we seek our own
happiness exclusively, and as such it is consistent
with the happiness goal.
o Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral
theory.
It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose
between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is
deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our
own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed
unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects
both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new
concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that
rejects sacrifice in all its forms.
Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you
please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal
opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s
nature as a rational being, who must think and act
successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is
to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself.
These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity,
honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue,
rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and
self-esteem.