Ethics – Module 1
1.1.2 Definition of Morality / Ethics
What Is Morality?
Before investing yourself in the study of an
academic subject, it would be useful to first
have some idea of what you are getting
yourself into. One way—sometimes the
best—to gain such an understanding is by
considering a definition. When you open
your trigonometry text or chemistry
handbook, you’ll likely be given, very early
on, a definition of the area you are about to
study. So, as your teacher, I would seem to
have a duty now to present you with a
definition of morality.
Even if we want to we just simply can’t.
There is no widely agreed-on definition of
morality. The absence of a definition does
not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
(After all, no one has yet been able to offer
informative definitions of literature, or life,
or art, and yet we know a great deal about
those things.) Indeed, we can get a good
sense of our subject matter by doing these
four things:
1. being clear about the difference
between conventional and critical
morality;
2. distinguishing the different branches of
moral philosophy and their central
questions;
3. identifying starting points for moral
thinking; and
4. contrasting morality with other
normative systems, including religious
ones.
1.1.3 Conventional and Critical Morality
Conventional Morality
Suppose you take 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.
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.
Critical Morality
When we talk about morality in this course,
we will be referring to moral standards that
are not rooted in widespread endorsement,
but rather are independent of conventional
morality and can be used to critically
evaluate its merits.
It’s possible, of course, that conventional
morality is all there is. But this would be a
very surprising discovery. Most of us
assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a
moral view is not a guarantee of its truth.
We could be wrong on this point, but until
we have a chance to consider the matter in
detail, I think it best to assume that
conventional morality can sometimes be
mistaken. If so, then there may be some
independent, critical morality that
(1) does not have its origin in social
agreements;
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs,
irrationality, or popular prejudices; and
(3) can serve as the true standard for
determining when conventional morality has
got it right and when it has fallen into error.
That is the morality whose nature we are
going to explore in this course.
1.1.4 The Branches of Moral Philosophy
We all know that there are lots of moral
questions. So it might help to impose some
organization on them. This will enable us to
see the basic contours of moral philosophy
and also to better appreciate the
fundamental questions in each part of the
field, you are about to study.
There are three core areas of moral
philosophy:
1. Value theory
• What is the good life?
• What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
• How do we improve our lot in life?
• What is happiness, and is it the very
same thing as well-being?
2. Normative ethics
• What are our fundamental moral duties?
• What makes right actions right?
• Which character traits count as virtues,
which as vices, and why?
• Who should our role models be?
• Do the ends always justify the means, or
are there certain types of action that
should never be done under any
circumstances?
3. Metaethics
• What is the status of moral claims and
advice?
• Can ethical theories, moral principles, or
specific moral verdicts be true? If so,
what makes them true?
• Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
• Do we always have a good reason to do
our moral duty?
1.1.5 Moral Starting Points (part 1)
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.
1.1.5 Moral Starting Points (part 2)
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.
• First, this short list isn’t meant to be
exhaustive. It could be made much
longer.
• 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.
• 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.
1.2.2 Other 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. Whistleblowers 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.
1.2.3 Morality and 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 non-religious
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Atheists would not accept it, because
they do not believe that God exists.
• 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 of
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.
The 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.
1.2.4 God and Morality (part 1)
Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the
relationship between morality and God.
Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there
no morality if there is no God?
Ultimately, Stephen will argue that
morality and God's commands are
distinct, even if there is a God and she
commands moral things. However, in
this first video, Steve considers why you
might like the view that morality just is
God's commands.
1.2.4 God and Morality (part 2)
Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the
relationship between morality and God.
Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there no
morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks
the answer to both these questions is 'no'.
He argues that, if you believe God exists and
that we should follow his commands *for
certain reasons*, then you should *not*
think that morality just is whatever God
commands.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 1
There is no widely agreed-on definition of
morality. The absence of a definition does
not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
What we can do is to get a good sense of
our subject matter by doing two things:
• 1.Being clear about the difference
between conventional and critical
morality
• 2.Distinguishing morality with other
normative systems.
Conventional Morality
• the system of widely accepted rules and
principles, that members of a culture or
society use to govern their own lives.
Critical Morality
• It refers to the moral standards that are
independent of conventional morality
and can be used to critically evaluate its
merits.
Three core areas of moral philosophy
Value theory
Normative ethics
Metaethics
Moral Starting Points
1.Neither the law nor tradition is immune
from moral criticism.
2.Everyone is morally fallible.
3.Friendship is valuable.
4.We are not obligated to do the impossible.
5.Children bear less moral responsibility
than adults.
6.Justice is a very important moral good.
7.Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification.
8.Equals ought to be treated equally.
9.Self-interest isn’t the only ethical
consideration.
10.Agony/suffering is bad.
11.Might does not make right.
12.Free and informed requests prevent
rights violations.
Other Normative Systems
• We can also better understand morality
by contrasting its principles with those
of other normative systems.
• Other normative systems also represent
a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we
should not break but are different from
morality.
• 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.
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.
Module 2 – Ethics
2.1.1 Moral Reasoning - Intended Learning
Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be
able to:
1. support your moral judgement with
sufficient reason, and
2. determine the minimum conception
of morality.
2.1.2 Moral Reasoning in Ethical Issues
Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good
reasons; and second, morality requires the
impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.
Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is
tempting to assume that we just know what
the truth is, without even having to consider
arguments on the other side. Unfortunately,
however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they may be. Our
feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the by-products of prejudice,
selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we
must let our feelings be guided as much as
possible by reason. This is the essence of
morality. The morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the
arguments. Of course, not every reason that
may be advanced is a good reason. There
are bad arguments as well as good ones, and
much of the skill of moral thinking consists
in discerning the difference.
The first thing is to get one’s facts straight.
The facts exist independently of our wishes,
and responsible moral thinking begins when
we try to see things as they are.
Next, we can bring moral principles into
play. In our three examples, a number of
principles were involved: that we should not
“use” people; that we should not kill one
person to save another; that we should do
what will benefit the people affected by our
actions; that every life is sacred; and that it
is wrong to discriminate against the
handicapped. Most moral arguments consist
of principles being applied to particular
cases, and so we must ask whether the
principles are justified and whether they are
being applied correctly.
The rote application of routine methods is
never a satisfactory substitute for critical
thinking, in any area. Morality is no
exception.
The Requirement of Impartiality
Almost every important moral theory
includes the idea of impartiality. This is the
idea that each individual’s interests are
equally important; no one should get special
treatment. At the same time, impartiality
requires that we do not treat the members
of particular groups as inferior, and thus it
condemns forms of discrimination like
sexism and racism.
2.1.3 The Minimum Conception of Morality
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum
conception: 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.
2.2.1 Skepticism in Morality - Intended
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be
able to:
1. identify the sources of skepticism or
doubt in morality; and
2. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the skeptical arguments of egoism
and relativism.
2.2.2 Two Types of Egoism - Pyschological
Egoism and Ethical Egoism
We respond differently when there is a
“crisis.”
We have duties to others simply because
they are people who could be helped or
harmed by what we do. If a certain action
would benefit (or harm) other people, then
that is a reason why we should (or should
not) perform that action. The common-
sense assumption is that other people’s
interests count, from a moral point of view.
Some people believe that we have no duties
to others. On their view, known as Ethical
Egoism, each person ought to pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. This is the
morality of selfishness. It holds that our only
duty is to do what is best for ourselves.
Other people matter only insofar as they can
benefit us.

Ethical Egoism claims that each person
ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively. People ought to be self-
interested and that our neighbors ought not
to give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a
claim about morality, or about the way
things should be.
Psychological Egoism, 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.
2.2.3 Ethical Egoism: Ayn Rand's Argument
In this video, you will learn about Ayn Rand
argument in support of Ethical Egoism.
2.2.4 Cultural Relativism
Different Cultures Have Different Moral
Codes
The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the
bodies of their dead fathers. 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. 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.
Cultural Relativism
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.
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.
2.2.5 Ethical Relativism
In this video, you will learn about Ethical
relativism or moral relativism. It is the view
that ethical or moral values and beliefs are
relative to the various individuals or
societies that hold them. Thus, according to
the ethical or moral relativists, there is no
objective right and wrong.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 2
Reason and Impartiality
• Moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons; and second, morality
requires the impartial consideration of
each individual’s interests.
Moral Reasoning
• If we want to discover the truth, we
must let our feelings be guided as much
as possible by reason.
• This is the essence of morality. The
morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.
The Requirement of Impartiality
• Almost every important moral theory
includes the idea of impartiality.
• This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one
should get special treatment.
• Impartiality requires that we not treat
the members of particular groups as
inferior, and thus it condemns forms of
discrimination like sexism and racism.
The Minimum Conception of Morality
• 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 decision.

Skepticism in Ethics

• Ethical Egoism claims that each

person ought to pursue his or her own
self-interest exclusively.
• Psychological Egoism, by contrast,
asserts that each person does in
fact pursue his or her own self- interest
exclusively.

Cultural Relativism

• Main Idea: “Different cultures have

different moral codes. Therefore, there
are no universal moral truths, the
customs of different societies are all that
exist.
Module 3 – Ethics
3.1.2 The Revolution in Ethics
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a powerful
argument for a novel conception of morality.
Morality, he urged, is not about pleasing God, nor is it
about being faithful to abstract rules; instead, it is
about making the world as happy as possible.
Bentham believed in one ultimate moral principle,
the “Principle of Utility.” That principle requires us, in
all circumstances, to “maximize happiness”—in other
words, to produce the greatest total balance of
happiness over unhappiness, or of pleasure over
suffering.
Bentham led a group of radicals who worked to
reform the laws and institutions of England along
utilitarian lines. One of his followers was James Mill,
the distinguished Scottish philosopher, historian, and
economist. James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873), would become the next leading advocate of
utilitarian ethics. The younger Mill’s advocacy was
even more elegant and persuasive than Bentham’s.
Mill’s short book Utilitarianism (1861) is still required
reading for serious students of moral philosophy.
To understand why the Principle of Utility was so
radical, consider what it leaves out of morality: It says
nothing about God, nor does it speak of abstract
rules “written in the heavens.” Morality is not viewed
as obedience to a list of ancient proclamations. Or as
the utilitarian Peter Singer (1946–) puts it, morality is
not “a system of nasty puritanical prohibitions . . .
designed to stop people [from] having fun.” Rather,
ethics is about the happiness of beings in this world,
and nothing more; and we are permitted—even
required—to do what is necessary to bring about the
most happiness. This was no quaint truism; this was a
revolutionary idea.
In this video, Julia Driver (Washington University in St.
Louis) introduces us to the ethical theory of
consequentialism.
3.1.3 Utilitarianism and real-world issues
The utilitarians wanted their doctrine to matter in
practice. So let’s see what Utilitarianism has to say
about three real-world issues: euthanasia, use of
marijuana, and the treatment of nonhuman animals.
This will give us a better sense of the theory.
• euthanasia
• treatment of nonhuman animals
• use of marijuana
3.1.3.1 First Example: Euthanasia
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the legendary Austrian
psychologist, was stricken with oral cancer after
decades of cigar smoking. During his final years,
Freud’s health went up and down, but in early 1939,
a large swelling formed in the back of his mouth, and
he would have no more good days. Freud’s cancer
was active, and he was also suffering from heart
failure. As his bones decayed, they cast off a foul
smell, driving away his favorite dog. Mosquito netting
was draped over his bed in order to keep flies away.
On September 21, at the age of 83, Freud took his
friend and personal physician, Max Schur, by the
hand and said, “My dear Schur, you certainly
remember our first talk. You promised me then not
to forsake me when my time comes. Now it’s nothing
but torture and makes no sense anymore.” Forty
years earlier Freud had written, “What has the
individual come to . . . if one no longer dares to
disclose that it is this or that man’s turn to die?” Dr.
Schur said he understood. He injected Freud with a
drug in order to end his life. “He soon felt relief,” Dr.
Schur wrote, “and fell into a peaceful sleep."
Did Max Schur do anything wrong?
To know more about how Utilitarianism would
approach this situation, please read.
3.1.3.2 Second Example: Marijuana
The War on Drugs.
In 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte
declared that drug abuse was “public enemy number
one” in the Philippines. “In order to fight and defeat
this enemy,” Duterte said, “it is necessary to wage a
new, all-out offensive.” Thus began the Philippines’
“War on Drugs.” Since then, billions of pesos on law
enforcement, prison construction, military action,
and public-opinion campaigns were spent, all
designed to reduce the use of illicit drugs. And every
local government joined in. Today, thousands of
people are prisoners of the Philippines' Drug War;
part of those of people incarcerated in the Philippines
are locked up primarily due to nonviolent drug
offenses.
Despite its name, the War on Drugs targets only
some drugs. Many drugs are perfectly legal. Anyone
can buy over-the-counter medications, which contain
such drugs as aspirin. Also legal are three substances
that millions of Filipinos are addicted to alcohol,
caffeine, and nicotine.
Drugs that the Drug War does target are stated
in THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002 or REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. Those drugs are
considered so dangerous that, not only are they
outlawed for personal use, but doctors cannot even
prescribe them to patients.
Among those villains is marijuana. The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act has always
classified marijuana as an outlawed. Thus, under law,
nobody in the Philippines may grow, possess, or
distribute cannabis, including doctors and
pharmacists. Marijuana, it seems, has been one of
the main enemies in the War on Drugs.
Growing Support for Marijuana Reform in other parts
of the world.
During the past fifty years, many Americans have
opposed the Drug War, at least in their private
behavior, from time to time: marijuana has always
been popular. A recent poll found that 52% of adults
have tried marijuana, and 22% are current users. For
such reasons, perhaps, the drug has many nicknames.
A federal-government website notes that marijuana
is sometimes called “pot,” “weed,” “bud,” “herb,”
“grass,” “ganja,” and “Mary Jane”—to which we may
add “reefer,” “chronic,” “cannabis,” “dope,”
“schwag,” “skunk,” “stinkweed,” “gangster,” “420,”
“THC,” and “the Devil’s lettuce.” Yet most
Americans—Democrats and Republicans alike—have
supported the War on Drugs, ever since Nixon in
1971 declared it.
In the last decade, however, many states have passed
pro-marijuana laws in defiance of the Controlled
Substances Act. By 2018, most states had legalized
marijuana for medical purposes (for example, for
treating nausea in cancer patients), while eight
states, including California, had legalized it outright.
Today, more than 20% of Americans live in states
with laws that let adults purchase pot in certain
places, just as adults might buy vodka at a package
store or liquor store.
What happens, in practice, when a state law conflicts
with federal law? Usually, the state law is deemed
null and void, because the U.S. Constitution says that
federal laws get priority. In this case, however, the
federal government has decided—so far—not to
enforce the Controlled Substances Act against people
who use weed in states that have legalized it.
Given the nature of politics, perhaps that’s
unsurprising; a recent poll of Americans found broad
support for the reform of marijuana laws, with 61%
supporting full legalization, 88% in favor of medical
marijuana, and 71% wanting the federal government
to let states do as they wish.
What do other people in other parts of the world say
about the pros and cons of using marijuana?
What does the utilitarian approach say about the
pros and cons of legalizing the use of marijuana?
To know more answers about this question please
read...
3.1.3.3 Third Example: Nonhuman Animals
The treatment of animals has traditionally been
regarded as a trivial matter. Christians believe that
man alone is made in God’s image and that animals
do not have souls. Thus, by the natural order of
things, we can treat animals in any way we like. Saint
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) summed up the
traditional view when he wrote,
Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is
sinful for a man to kill brute animals; for by the divine
providence they are intended for man’s use in the
natural order. Hence it is not wrong for a man to
make use of them, either by killing them or in any
other way whatever.
But isn’t it wrong to be cruel to animals? Aquinas
concedes that it is, but he says the reason has to do
with human welfare, not the welfare of the animals:
And if any passages of Holy Scripture seem to forbid
us to be cruel to brute animals, for instance, to kill a
bird with its young, this is either to remove man’s
thoughts from being cruel to other men, lest through
being cruel to animals one becomes cruel to human
beings; or because injury to an animal leads to the
temporal hurt of man, either of the doer of the deed
or of another.
Thus, according to the traditional view, people and
animals are in separate moral categories. Animals
have no moral standing of their own; we are free to
treat them in any way we please.
Put so bluntly, the traditional doctrine might make us
a little nervous: It seems extreme in its lack of
concern for nonhuman animals, many of which are,
after all, intelligent and sensitive creatures. Yet much
of our conduct is guided by this doctrine. We eat
animals; we use them as experimental subjects in our
laboratories; we use their skins for clothing and their
heads as wall ornaments; we make them the objects
of our amusement in circuses, rodeos, and bullfights;
and we track them down and kill them for sport. All
of these activities involve considerable animal pain.
If the theological “justification” of these practices
seems thin, Western philosophers have offered
plenty of secular ones. Philosophers have said that
animals are not rational, that they lack the ability to
speak, or that they are simply not human—and all
these are given as reasons why their interests lie
outside the sphere of moral concern.
How do you think should we treat non-human
animals?
How do you think the Utilitarian approach to ethics
would deal with the treatment of nonhuman
animals?
To know more answers please read...
3.2.2 The Classical Version of the Theory
Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three
propositions:
(a) The morality of an action depends solely on the
consequences of the action; nothing else matters.
(b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as
they involve the greater or lesser happiness of
individuals.
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each
individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration.”
An action is right if it produces the greatest overall
balance of happiness over unhappiness.
3.2.3 Is Pleasure All That Matters?
The question "What things are good?" is different
from the question "What actions are right?" and
Utilitarianism answers the second question by
reference to the first.
Right actions are the ones that produce the most
good. But what is good? The utilitarian reply is:
happiness.
But what is happiness? According to the classical
utilitarians, happiness is pleasure. Utilitarians
understand “pleasure” broadly, to include all mental
states that feel good.
The thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate good—
and pain the one ultimate evil—has been known
since antiquity as Hedonism.
We value things other than pleasure.
For example, we value artistic creativity and
friendship. These things make us happy, but that’s
not the only reason we value them.
G. E. Moore (1873–1958), have compiled short lists
of things to be regarded as valuable in themselves.
Moore suggested that there are three obvious
intrinsic goods—pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic
enjoyment— and so right actions are those actions
that increase the world’s supply of these things.
For details, please read
In this video, Julia Markovits (MIT) gives an
introduction to the moral theory of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is the view that the right moral action is
the one that maximizes happiness for all.
3.2.4 Are Consequences All That Matter?
To determine whether an action is right, utilitarians
believe that we should look at what will happen as a
result of doing it. This idea is central to the theory.
Here are three arguments that attack the theory at
just this point.
Justice. Utilitarianism is incompatible with the ideal of
justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly,
according to the merits of their particular situations.
(H. J. McCloskey)
Rights. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that
people have rights that may not be trampled on
merely because one anticipates good results. On
Utilitarianism, an individual’s rights may always be
trampled upon if enough people benefit from the
trampling.
Utilitarianism has thus been accused of supporting
the “tyranny of the majority”: if the majority of
people would take pleasure in someone’s rights being
abused, then those rights should be abused, because
the pleasure of the majority outweighs the suffering
of the one.
Backward-Looking Reasons. Utilitarianism makes the
past irrelevant, and so it seems flawed. The fact that
someone committed a crime is a reason to punish
him. The fact that someone did you a favor last week
is a reason for you to do her a favor next week. The
fact that you hurt someone yesterday is a reason to
make it up to him today. These are all facts about the
past that are relevant to determining our obligations.
For details, please read...
In this video, Julia Markovits (MIT) gives an
introduction to the moral theory of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is the view that the right moral action is
the one that maximizes happiness for all.
3.2.5 Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone?
We must treat each person’s happiness is equally
important. This has troubling implications. One
problem is that the requirement of “equal concern”
places too great a demand on us; another problem is
that it disrupts our personal relationships.
The Charge That Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding.
Faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard would
require you to give away your wealth until you’ve
made yourself as poor as the people you’re helping.
Utilitarianism seems unable to recognize the
“supererogatory” moral category.
The Charge That Utilitarianism Disrupts Our Personal
Relationships.
In practice, none of us is willing to treat everyone
equally, because that would require giving up our
special ties to friends and family. We are all deeply
partial where our family and friends are concerned.
When you are impartial, you miss out on intimacy,
love, affection, and friendship. At this point,
Utilitarianism seems to have lost all touch with
reality.
For details, please read
In this video, Julia Markovits (MIT) gives an
introduction to the moral theory of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is the view that the right moral action is
the one that maximizes happiness for all.
3.2.6 The Defense of Utilitarianism
Together, these objections appear to be decisive.
• Utilitarianism seems unconcerned with both
justice and individual rights.
• Moreover, it cannot account for backward-
looking reasons.
• If we lived by the theory, we would become
poor, and we would have to stop loving our
family and our friends.
Most philosophers have therefore abandoned
Utilitarianism.
Some philosophers, however, continue to defend it.
They do so in three different ways.
The First Defense: Contesting the Consequences.
Most of the arguments against Utilitarianism go like
this:
a situation is described; then it is said that some
particular (vile!) action would have the best
consequences under those circumstances; then
Utilitarianism is faulted for advocating that action.
These arguments, however, succeed only if the
actions they describe really would have the best
consequences. Would they? According to the first
defense, they would not.
Theories like Utilitarianism are supposed to apply
to all situations, including situations that are merely
hypothetical. Thus, showing that Utilitarianism has
unacceptable implications in made-up cases is a valid
way of critiquing it. The first defense, then, is weak.
The Second Defense: The Principle of Utility Is a
Guide for
Choosing Rules, Not Acts.
 The new version of Utilitarianism modifies the theory
so that individual actions are no longer judged by the
Principle of Utility.
Instead, we first ask what set of rules is optimal, from
a utilitarian viewpoint. In other words, what rules
should we follow in order to maximize happiness?
Individual acts are then assessed according to
whether they abide by these rules. This new version
of the theory is called “Rule- Utilitarianism,” to
distinguish it from the original theory, now commonly
called “Act-Utilitarianism.”
In shifting emphasis from the justification of acts to
the justification of rules, Utilitarianism has been
brought into line with our intuitive judgments.
However, a serious problem with Rule-Utilitarianism
arises when we ask whether the ideal rules
have exceptions. Must the rules be followed no
matter what? What if a “forbidden” act would greatly
increase the overall good?
The rule-utilitarian might give any one of three
answers.
First, if she says that in such cases we may violate the
rules, then it looks like she wants to assess actions on
a case-by-case basis.
Second, she might suggest that we formulate the
rules so that violating them never will increase
happiness.
Finally, the rule-utilitarian might stand her ground
and say that we should never break the rules, even to
promote happiness.
The Third Defense: “Common Sense” Is Wrong.
This defense is given by hard-nosed and
unapologetic utilitarians.
The First Response: All Values Have a Utilitarian Basis.
Utilitarianism is not incompatible with common
sense; on the contrary, Utilitarianism justifies the
commonsense values we have.
Apart from the utilitarian explanation, common sense
duties would seem inexplicable. What could be
stranger than saying that lying is wrong “in itself,”
apart from any harm it causes? And how could
people have a “right to privacy” unless respecting
that right brought them some benefit?
The Second Response: Our Gut Reactions Can’t Be
Trusted when Cases Are Exceptional.
Why do we immediately and instinctively believe it
to be wrong to bear false witness against an innocent
person? The reason, some say, is that throughout our
lives we have seen lies lead to misery and misfortune.
Thus, we instinctively condemn all lies.
However, when confronting unusual cases, such as
McCloskey’s (where lies that increase happiness),
perhaps we should trust the Principle of Utility more
than our gut instincts.
The Third Response: We Should Focus on All the
Consequences.
When we’re asked to consider a “despicable” action
that maximizes happiness, the action is often
presented in a way that encourages us to focus on its
bad effects, rather than its good effects.
If instead we focus on all the effects of the act,
Utilitarianism seems more plausible.
Concluding Thoughts
Our “common moral consciousness,” many
considerations other than utility seem morally
important. But Smart is right to warn us that
“common sense” cannot be trusted.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 3
The Utilitarian Approach
The Principle of Utility: the point of morality is the
happiness of beings in this world, and nothing more;
and we are permitted—even required—to do
whatever is necessary to promote that happiness.
The Classical Version of the Theory
(a) The morality of an action depends solely on the
consequences of the action; nothing else matters.
(b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as
they involve the greater or lesser happiness of
individuals.
(c) In the assessment of consequences, each
individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration.”
Criticism against Utilitarianism
• We value things other than pleasure. For
example, we value artistic creativity and
friendship.
• Utilitarianism is incompatible with the ideal of
justice. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea
that people have rights that may not be
trampled on merely because one anticipates
good results.

• The requirement of “equal concern” places too

great a demand on us; and it disrupts our
personal relationships.
Module 4 – Ethics
4.1.2 The Issue involving Harry Truman and Elizabeth
Anscombe
Harry S. Truman will always be remembered as the
man who made the decision to drop the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Using the atomic bomb on one or two Japanese cities
might bring the war to a speedy end.
Truman was at first reluctant to use the new weapon.
The problem was that each bomb would obliterate an
entire city—not just the military targets, but the
hospitals, schools, and homes. Women, children, old
people, and other non-combatants would be wiped
out along with the military personnel.
Elizabeth Anscombe, who died in 2001, was a 20-
year-old student at Oxford University when World
War II began.
“For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to
their ends,” she wrote, “is always murder.” To the
argument that the bombings saved more lives than
they took, she replied, “Come now: if you had to
choose between boiling one baby and letting some
frightful disaster befall a thousand people—or a
million people if a thousand is not enough—what
would you do?”
Anscombe’s point was that some things may not be
done, no matter what. It does not matter if we could
accomplish some great good by boiling a baby; it is
simply wrong.
4.1.3 Kant's Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Kant observed that the word ought is often used non
morally:
• If you want to become a better chess player,
you ought to study the games of Garry Kasparov.
• If you want to go to college, you ought to take
the SAT.
Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because
they tell us what to do provided that we have the
relevant desires.
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on
having particular desires. The form of a moral
obligation is not “If you want so-and-so, then you
ought to do such-and-such.” Instead, moral
requirements are categorical: They have the form
“You ought to do such-and-such, period.”
How can we be obligated to behave in a certain way
regardless of our goals?
Kant - Just as hypothetical “oughts” are possible
because we have desires, categorical “oughts” are
possible because we have reason
capacity. Categorical oughts, Kant says, are derived
from a principle that every rational person must
accept: the Categorical Imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can
at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
4.1.4 Kant’s Arguments on Lying
According to Kant, then, our behavior should be
guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that
hold true in all circumstances. Kant believed in many
such exceptionless rules.
Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someone’s
life. Should you do it?
Anscombe - Perhaps your maxim would be: “I will lie
when doing so would save someone’s life.”
Case of the Inquiring Murderer - Under these
circumstances, most of us think, you should lie. After
all, which is more important: telling the truth or
saving someone’s life?
Kant’s reply - This argument may be stated in a
general form: We are tempted to make exceptions to
the rule against lying because in some cases we think
the consequences of honesty will be bad and the
consequences of lying will be good. However, we can
never be certain about what the consequences will
be—we cannot know that good results will follow.
The results of lying might be unexpectedly bad.
Response to Kant - The argument depends on an
unreasonably pessimistic view of what we can know.
Sometimes we can be quite confident of what the
consequences of our actions will be, in which case we
need not hesitate because of uncertainty.
Aren’t white lies acceptable—or even required—
when they can be used to save someone’s life? This
points to the main difficulty for the belief in absolute
rules: shouldn’t a rule be broken when following it
would be disastrous?
4.1.5 Conflicts between Rules
Suppose it is held to be absolutely wrong to do X in
any circumstances and also wrong to do Y in any
circumstances. Then what about the case in which a
person must choose between doing X and doing Y?
This kind of conflict seems to show that moral rules
can’t be absolute.
Consider an example. Suppose we believe that it is
always wrong both to intentionally kill an innocent
person and to let people suffer horribly with no
compensating benefits. Now consider a situation
faced by health-care workers in New Orleans in 2005.
As Hurricane Katrina approached the city and people
fled, a skeletal crew of doctors and nurses stayed
behind at Memorial Medical Center in order to tend
to the patients who could not be evacuated. For a
day or so after the storm hit, the situation was
manageable. The city lost power, but the back-up
generators in the hospital came on, and the machines
kept humming. Badly needed help, however, did not
arrive. On day two, the generators failed, the hospital
lost power, and the air grew stifling hot. “Water
stopped flowing from the taps, toilets were backed
up, and the stench of sewage mixed with the odor of
hundreds of unwashed bodies,” one reporter later
wrote. On day three, the remaining doctors and
nurses labored under these conditions all day long,
with little to eat, and on little sleep.
At this point, the health-care workers faced a grave
dilemma: either euthanize the remaining critical-care
patients or let them suffer until they die. There was
no third option. Conditions in the hospital were
horrendous; evacuation was impossible, and many of
the patients had been close to death even before the
hurricane hit. So one of the “absolute” principles had
to be violated: either innocent people had to be
killed, or needless suffering had to occur. (In practice,
investigators later came to believe that more than
twenty patients had been euthanized. One doctor,
Anna Pou, was arrested on four counts of second-
degree murder, but eventually, all the charges were
dropped.)
Don’t such dilemmas prove that there are no
absolute moral rules? The argument is impressive but
limited. It can be levied only against a pair of rules;
two rules are needed to create the conflict. Yet there
might still be just one absolute rule. For example,
even given the experience in New Orleans, never
intentionally kill an innocent human being could still
be a rule that holds in all circumstances. So could,
never let people suffer horribly with no
compensating benefits. However, both rules could
not be absolute. A choice had to be made.
4.1.6 Kant’s Insight
Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on
rational agents simply because they are rational; in
other words, a person who rejected this principle
would be guilty not merely of being immoral but also
of being irrational.
Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—if
it is true that you ought (or ought not) to do such and
such, then there must be a reason why you should
(or should not) do it.
Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on
all people at all times. This is a requirement of
consistency, and Kant was right to think that no
rational person may deny it.
There are rational constraints on what we may do.
Rules, even within a Kantian framework, need not be
absolute. All that Kant’s basic idea requires is that
when we violate a rule, we do so for a reason that we
would be willing for anyone to accept.
4.2.2 Kant’s Core Ideas
These are the important points in this lesson:
1. For Immanuel Kant, human beings occupy a
special place in creation.
2. Human beings have “an intrinsic worth” or
“dignity” that makes them valuable “above all
price.”
3. Other animals, according to Kant, have value
only insofar as they serve human purposes.
Animals. . . are there merely as means to an end.
That end is the man. Human beings as ends
meant that people are irreplaceable.
Two facts about people, Kant believed, support the
above ideas.
• First, because people have desires, things that
satisfy those desires can have value for people.
• Second, People have “an intrinsic worth, i.e.,
dignity” because they are rational agents, that is,
free agents capable of making their own
decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding
their conduct by reason.
The only way that moral goodness can exist is for
rational creatures to act from goodwill —that is, to
apprehend what they should do and act from a sense
of duty.
Kant's Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of another, always as an end and
never as a means only."
Treat people “as an end” means, on the most
superficial level, treating them well.
4.2.3 Retribution and Utility in the Theory of
Punishment
The main ideas for this topic are:
1. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) said that “all
punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is
evil.” Bentham had a point. Punishment, by its
nature, always involves inflicting some harm on
the person punished.
2. Retributivism - is idea that punishment is
justified as a way of “paying back” the offender
for his wicked deed. Those who have committed
a crime deserve to be treated badly. It is a
matter of justice: If you harm other people,
justice requires that you be harmed, too.
3. Retributivism was, on Bentham’s view, a wholly
unsatisfactory idea, because it advocates the
infliction of suffering without any compensating
gain in happiness.
If someone breaks the law, then punishing that
person can have several benefits.
• First, punishment provides comfort and
gratification to victims and their families.
• Second, by locking up criminals, or by executing
them, we take them off the street.
• Third, punishment reduces crime by deterring
would-be criminals.
• Fourth, a well-designed system of punishment
might help to rehabilitate wrongdoers.
4.2.4 Kant’s Retributivism
Kant argues that punishment should be governed by
two principles.
• First, people should be punished simply because
they have committed crimes and for no other
reason.
• Second, punishment should be proportionate to
the seriousness of the crime.
Treating someone “as an end” means treating him as
a rational being, who is responsible for his behavior.
So now we may ask: What does it mean to be a
responsible being?
A rational being can freely decide what to do, based
on his own conception of what is best. Rational
beings are responsible for their behavior, and so they
are accountable for what they do.
In punishing people, we are holding them responsible
for their actions. We are responding to them as
people who have freely chosen their evil deeds.
At the end of the day, what we think of Kant’s theory
may depend on our view of criminal behavior. If we
see criminals as victims of circumstance, who do not
ultimately control their own actions, then the
utilitarian model will appeal to us. On the other hand,
if we see criminals as rational agents who freely
choose to do harm, then Kantian retributivism will
have great appeal for us.
The resolution of this great debate might thus turn
on whether we believe that human beings have free
will, or whether we believe that outside forces impact
human behavior so deeply that our freedom is an
illusion.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 4
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Kant observed that the word ought isoften used
nonmorally:
–If you want to become a better chess player,
you ought to study the games of Garry Kasparov.
–If you want to go to college, you ought to take the
SAT.
Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because
they tell us what to do provided that we have the
relevant desires.
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on
having particular desires. The form of a moral
obligation is not “If you want so-and-so, then you
ought to do such-and-such.”
Instead, moral requirements are categorical: They
have the form “You ought to do such-and-
such, period.”
The Categorical Imperative (First Formulation)
• “Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law.
Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on
rational agents simply because they are rational; in
other words, a person who rejected this principle
would be guilty not merely of being immoral but also
of being irrational.
Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—if
it is true that you ought (or ought not) to do such
hand- such, then there must be a reason why you
should (or should not) do it.
The Categorical Imperative (Second Formulation)
• “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in that of another, always as an
end and never as a means only.”
Utility in the Theory of Punishment
Retributivism was, on Bentham’s view, is a bad idea,
because it advocates the infliction of suffering
without any compensating gain in happiness.
If someone breaks the law, then punishing that
person can have several benefits.
• First, punishment provides comfort and
gratification to victims and their families.
• Second, by locking up criminals, we take them
off the street.
• Third, punishment reduces crime by deterring
would-be criminals.
• Fourth, a well-designed system of punishment
might help to rehabilitate wrongdoers.
Kant’s Retributivism
• For Kant, to punish people when they break the
moral law is to treat them with respect, it is a
sign of respect.
• Treating someone “as an end” means treating
him as a rational being, who is responsible for his
behavior.
• A rational being can freely decide what to do,
based on his own conception of what is best.
Rational beings are responsible for
their behavior, and so they are accountable for
what they do.
• In punishing people, we are holding them
accountable for their actions. We are responding
to them as people who have freely chosen their
evil deeds.

To treat people “as an end” means, on the most

superficial level, treating them well.

Retributivism and Utility in the Theory of Punishment

• Utilitarian Theory of Punishment. Jeremy

Bentham (1748–1832) said that “all punishment
in itself is evil.” Punishment, by its nature, always
involves inflicting some harm on the person
punished.
• Retributivism. Those who have committed a
crime deserve to be treated badly. It is a matter
of justice: If you harm other people, justice
requires that you be harmed, too.
Module 5 – Ethics
5.1.2 Natural Law Theory: the Main Idea
The Natural Law theory has three main parts.
1. The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular
view of the world. In this view, the world has a
rational order, with values and purposes built into its
very nature.
The Greeks believed that everything in nature has a
purpose.
Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) built this idea into his system
of thought when he said that, in order to understand
anything, four questions must be asked: What is it?
What is it made of? How did it come to be? And what
is it for?
The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system,
with each thing having its own proper place and
serving its own special purpose.
The Christian thinkers = the divine plan
2. A corollary to this way of thinking is that the “laws
of nature” describe not only how things are but also
how things ought to be. The world is in harmony
when things serve their natural purposes.
Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from the laws
of nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be
“natural” while others are said to be “unnatural”; and
“unnatural” acts are regarded as morally wrong.
We were created by God, with a specific “human”
nature, as part of his overall plan.
Natural-law theory has also been used, however, to
support more contentious moral views. Religious
thinkers often condemn “deviant” sexual practices,
and they usually justify this by appealing to the
Theory of Natural Law.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural
Law has few advocates today. It is generally rejected
for three reasons.
First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” seems
open to obvious counterexamples. Sometimes what’s
natural is bad.
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to confuse
“is” and “ought.” Facts are one thing; values are
another.
Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now widely
rejected because its view of the world conflicts with
modern science.
3. The third part of the theory addresses the question
of moral knowledge. How can we determine what is
right and what is wrong?
The “natural laws” that specify what we should do
are laws of reason, which we are able to grasp
because God has given us the power to understand
them. Therefore, the Theory of Natural Law endorses
the familiar idea that the right thing to do is whatever
action has the best reasons backing it up.
Moral judgments are “dictates of reason.”
God has given everyone the ability to listen to reason
and follow its directives.
This video shows how Thomas Aquinas’s version of
the Natural Law theory argues that we all seek out
what’s known as the basic goods and that instinct
and reason come together to point us to the natural
law.
5.1.3 Natural Law Theory: the Main Attraction
The natural law theory promises to solve some very
serious problems in ethics. Four of these are
especially important.
1. Natural law theory promises to explain how
morality could possibly be objective, that is, how
moral standards depend on
something other than human opinion.
According to this theory, human nature can serve as
the objective standard of morality. We do right when
our acts express human nature and do wrong when
they violate it. Since individuals and entire societies
can be mistaken about what our true nature is, they
can be badly off-target about what morality asks of
us.
2. Natural law theory easily explains why morality is
especially suited for human beings, and not for
anything else in the natural world.
Almost everyone agrees that a distinctive human
feature is our sophisticated reasoning abilities. A few
other animals may be able to reason in basic ways,
but no species on earth can approach our ability to
assess various ways of life, critically analyze the
merits of actions and policies, and then govern our
behavior on the basis of our reflections. This capacity
for rational thought also seems to be the cornerstone
of morality. Moral agents—those who bear
responsibility for their actions, and who are fit for
praise or blame—are those who can control their
behavior through reasoning. That’s why we don’t
hold animals (or trees or automobiles) morally
responsible for the harms they sometimes cause.
Only human beings have the sort of nature that
enables them to be moral agents. Natural law theory
can thus explain why moral duties apply only to
human beings (or, if there are any, to other life forms
who share our rational powers).
3. Natural law theory has a clear account of the
origins of morality.
The theory tells us that morality is only as old as
humanity itself, that morality dates to the earliest
days of humankind. But that isn’t because morality
depends on human opinion, as so many people
believe. Rather, it is because morality depends on
human nature. No humans, no human nature. No
human nature, no morality.
4. Natural law theory may solve one of the hardest
problems in ethics: how to gain moral knowledge.
According to natural law theory, moral knowledge
requires two things: we must know what our human
nature is, and know whether various actions fulfill it.
Knowledge of human nature may be quite difficult to
get—that depends on how we conceive of human
nature, which we will consider shortly. In principle,
though, we should be able to investigate the matter
and come up with some well-informed views.
Equipped with this knowledge, we can then look
carefully at individuals to see whether their actions
line up with human nature.
This video discusses further the main idea of Natural
Law Theory in Ethics.
5.1.4 Some Objections to the Natural Law Theory
Objections to Natural-Law Theory.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural
Law has few advocates today. It is generally rejected
for three reasons.
First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” seems
open to obvious counterexamples. Sometimes what’s
natural is bad. People naturally care much more
about themselves than about strangers, but this is
regrettable. The disease occurs naturally, but the
disease is bad. Children are naturally self-centered,
but parents don’t think this is a good thing.
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to confuse
“is” and “ought.” In the 18th century, David Hume
pointed out that what is the case and what ought to
be the case are logically different notions, and no
conclusion about one follows from the other. We can
say that people are naturally disposed to be
beneficent, but it does not follow that they ought to
be beneficent. Similarly, it may be true that sex
produces babies, but it does not follow that sex ought
or ought not to be engaged in only for that purpose.
Facts are one thing; values are another.
Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now widely
rejected because its view of the world conflicts with
modern science. The
world as described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin
has no need for “facts” about right and wrong. Their
explanations of nature make no reference to values
or purposes. What happens just happens, due to the
laws of cause and effect. If the rain benefits the
plants, this is because the plants have evolved by the
laws of natural selection in a rainy climate.
Thus, modern science gives us a picture of the world
as a realm of facts, where the only “natural laws” are
the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working
blindly and without purpose. Whatever values may
be, they are not part of the natural order. As for the
idea that “nature has made all things specifically for
the sake of man,” well, that was only vanity. To the
extent that one accepts the worldview of modern
science, one will reject the worldview of natural- law
theory. That theory was a product, not of modern
thought, but of the Middle Ages.
This video evaluates the strength and weaknesses of
the Natural Law Theory.
5.2.2 The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right
Action
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (ca. 325 b.c.), the
central questions are about character.
This video is an overview of Virtue Ethics. It also
shows the distinction of Virtue Ethics with other
Ethics of Right Action.
5.2.3 The Virtues (part 1)

Aristotle begins by asking “What is the good of man?” The Virtues

and his answer is “an activity of the soul in
conformity with virtue.” He then discusses such
virtues as courage, self-control, generosity, and
truthfulness. Most of the ancient thinkers came to
ethics by asking What traits of character make
someone a good person?
For the Greeks, the life of virtue was inseparable
from the life of reason.
A theory of virtue should have several components: a
statement of what a virtue is, a list of the virtues, an
account of what these virtues consist in, and an
explanation of why these qualities are good. In
addition, the theory should tell us whether the
virtues are the same for all people or whether they
differ from person to person or from culture to
culture.

The Christians, like the Jews, viewed God as a What Is a Virtue? Aristotle said that a virtue is a trait
lawgiver, and so they saw obedience to those laws as of character manifested in habitual action.
the key to righteous living. Thus, when medieval
philosophers discussed the virtues, it was in the A virtue is a commendable trait of character
context of Divine Law, and the “theological virtues” manifested in habitual action.
of faith, hope, charity, and obedience occupied the
Moral virtue as a trait of character, manifested in
spotlight.
habitual action, that it is good for anyone to have.
In the modern period, the Divine Law was replaced
What Are the Virtues? What, then, are the virtues?
by something called the “Moral Law.” The Moral Law,
Which traits of character should be fostered in
which was said to spring from human reason rather
human beings? There is no short answer, but the
than from God, was a system of rules specifying
following is a partial list:
which actions are right. Our duty as moral persons, it
was said, is to follow those rules. Thus, modern moral benevolence fairness p
philosophers approached their subject by asking a atience
question fundamentally different from the one asked
by the ancients. civility friendliness p
rudence
Instead of asking What traits of character make
someone a good person? they asked What is the right compassion generosity re
thing to do? This led them in a different direction. asonableness
They went on to develop theories, not of virtue, but
of rightness and obligation: conscientiousness honesty self
-discipline
• Ethical Egoism: Each person ought to do cooperativeness industriousness self-
whatever will best promote his or her own reliance
interests.
• The Social Contract Theory: The right thing to do courage justice
is to follow the rules that rational, self-interested tactfulness
people would agree to follow for their mutual
benefit. courteousness loyalty th
• Utilitarianism: One ought to do whatever will oughtfulness
lead to the most happiness. dependability moderation tol
• Kant’s theory: Our duty is to follow rules that we erance
could accept as universal laws—that is, rules that
we would be willing for everyone to follow in all
circumstances.
What Do These Virtues Consist In? Each of the virtues
has its own distinctive features and raises its own
distinctive problems.
Courage. According to Aristotle, virtues are midpoints
between extremes: A virtue is “the mean by
reference to two vices: the one of excess and the
other of deficiency.”
Generosity. Generosity is the willingness to give to
others. One can be generous with any of one’s
resources—with one’s time, for example, or one’s
money or one’s knowledge. Aristotle says that
generosity, like courage, is a mean between
extremes: It falls between stinginess and
extravagance.
Honesty. The honest person is someone who, first of
all, does not lie. Why is honesty good? Part of the
reason is large-scale: civilization depends on it. Our
ability to live together in communities depends on
our ability to communicate. We talk to one another,
read each other’s writing, exchange information and
opinions, express our desires to one another, make
promises, ask and answer questions, and much more.
Without these sorts of exchanges, social living would
be impossible. But people must be honest about such
exchanges to work.
On a smaller scale, when we take people at their
word, we make ourselves vulnerable to them. By
accepting what they say and modifying our behavior
accordingly, we place our wellbeing in their hands. If
they speak truthfully, all is well. But if they lie, then
we end up with false beliefs; and if we act on those
beliefs, then we do foolish things. We trusted them,
and they betrayed our trust. Dishonesty is
manipulative. By contrast, honest people treat others
with respect.
Loyalty to friends and family. Friendship is essential
to the good life. As Aristotle says, “No one would
choose to live without friends, even if he had all
other goods”
In this video, Chris Surprenant (University of New
Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being
and the good life presented by Aristotle in the
Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. He explains why
Aristotle believes that a human being lives well when
he acts rightly and possesses all virtues, both
intellectual and those relating to good character.
5.2.3 The Virtues (part 2)
Why Are the Virtues Important? We said that virtues
are traits of character that are good for people to
have. This raises the question of why the virtues are
good. Why should a person be courageous, generous,
honest, or loyal?
•
o Courage is good because we need it to cope
with danger.
o Generosity is desirable because there will
always be people who need help.
o Honesty is needed because without it
relations between people would go wrong
in all sorts of ways.
o Loyalty is essential to friendship; friends
stand by one another even when others
would turn away.
Virtues are important because the virtuous person will
fare better in life. The point is not that the virtuous
will always be richer; the point is that we need the
virtues in order to flourish.
We are social creatures who want the company of
others. So we live in communities among family,
friends, and fellow citizens. In this setting, such
qualities as loyalty, fairness, and honesty are needed
to interact successfully with others.
They are all qualities needed for successful living.
Are the Virtues the Same for Everyone?
There is, then, an obvious sense in which the virtues
may differ from person to person. Because people
lead different kinds of lives, have different sorts of
personalities, and occupy different social roles, the
qualities of character that help them flourish may
differ.
Certain virtues will be needed by all people at all
times.
Even in the most disparate societies, people face the
same basic problems and have the same basic needs.
Thus:
•
o Everyone needs courage because no one
(not even the scholar) can always avoid
 danger. Also, everyone needs the courage
to take the occasional risk.
o In every society, there will be some people
who are worse off than others; so,
generosity will always be prized.
o Honesty is always a virtue because no
society can exist without dependable
communication.
o Everyone needs friends, and to have friends
one must be a friend; so, everyone needs
loyalty.
To summarize, then, it may be true that in different
societies the virtues are given different
interpretations, and different actions may be counted
as satisfying them; and it may be true that the value
of a character trait will vary from person to person
and from society to society. But it cannot be right to
say that social customs determine whether any
particular character trait is a virtue. The major virtues
flow from our common human condition.
This video explores Aristotle’s virtue theory. It
explains the Golden Mean, and how it exists as the
midpoint between vices of excess and deficiency.
Also discussed are the moral exemplars and the
concept of “eudaimonia.”
5.2.4 Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics
Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is often said to have two selling points.
1. Moral motivation. Virtue Ethics is appealing
because it provides a natural and attractive
account of moral motivation.
2. Doubts about the “ideal” of impartiality. A
dominant theme in modern moral philosophy
has been impartiality—the idea that all persons
are morally equal, and that we should treat
everyone’s interests as equally important. A
moral theory that emphasizes the virtues,
however, can easily account for all this. Some
virtues are partial and some are not. Loyalty
involves partiality toward loved ones and friends;
beneficence involves equal regard for everyone.
Virtue and Conduct
As we have seen, theories that emphasize the right
action seem incomplete because they neglect the
question of character. Virtue Ethics remedies this
problem by making character its central concern. But
as a result, Virtue Ethics runs the risk of being
incomplete in the other direction. Moral problems
are frequently problems with what to do. What can a
theory of virtue tell us about the assessment, not of
character, but of action?
We could still assess actions based on the reasons
that can be given for or against them. However, the
reasons cited will all be reasons connected with the
virtues. Thus, the reasons for doing some particular
action might be that it is honest, or generous, or fair;
while the reasons against doing it might be that it is
dishonest, or stingy, or unfair. On this approach, the
right thing to do is whatever a virtuous person would
do.
This video shows the advantages of Virtue Ethics as a
theory of morality.
5.2.5 Difficulties of Virtue Ethics
The Problem of Incompleteness
The main objection to Radical Virtue Ethics is that it is
incomplete. It seems to be incomplete in three ways.
First, Radical Virtue Ethics cannot explain everything
it should explain. Consider a typical virtue, such as
dependability. Why should I be dependable?
Plainly, we need an answer that goes beyond the
simple observation that dependability is a virtue. We
want to know why it is a virtue; we want to know why
it is good. Possible explanations might be that being
dependable is to one’s own advantage, or that being
dependable promotes the general welfare, or that
dependability is needed by those who must live
together and rely on one another. The first
explanation looks suspiciously like Ethical Egoism; the
second is utilitarian, and the third recalls the Social
Contract Theory. But none of these explanations are
couched in terms of the virtues. Any explanation of
why a particular virtue is good, it seems, would have
to take us beyond the narrow confines
of Radical Virtue Ethics.
The second way in which the theory is incomplete is
that it cannot give a full interpretation of the virtues.
It cannot say exactly when they apply. Radical Virtue
Ethics doesn’t explain why something is a virtue, then
it won’t be able to tell us whether the virtues apply in
difficult cases.
Consider the virtue of being beneficent, or being
kind. Suppose I hear some news that would upset you
to know about it. Maybe I’ve learned that someone
you used to know died in a car accident. If I don’t tell
you this, you might never find out. Suppose, also,
that you’re the sort of person who would want to be
told. If I know all this, should I tell you the news?
What would be the kind thing to do? It’s a hard
question, because what you would prefer—being
told—conflicts with what would make you feel
good— not being told. Would a kind person care
more about what you want or more about what
makes you feel good? Radical Virtue Ethics cannot
answer this question.
Finally, Radical Virtue Ethics is incomplete because it
cannot help us deal with cases of moral conflict.
Suppose I just got a haircut— a mullet the likes of
which have not been seen in some time—and I put
you on the spot by asking you what you think. You
can either tell me the truth, or you can say that I look
just fine. Honesty and kindness are both virtues, and
so there are reasons both for and against each
alternative. But you must do one or the other— you
must either tell the truth and be unkind, or tell a lie
and be kind. Which should you do? If someone told
you, “You should act virtuously in this situation,” that
wouldn’t help you decide what to do; it would only
leave you wondering which virtue to abide by.
Clearly, we need guidance beyond the resources of
Radical Virtue Ethics.
This video shows the advantages and difficulties of
virtue ethics.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 5
The Natural Law Theory
• The things in nature have a nature. Perhaps we
can say the same thing about human beings.
• At its most basic, natural law theory tells us
that actions are right just because they are
natural, and wrong just because they are
unnatural. And people are good or bad to the
extent that they fulfill their true nature—the
more they fulfill their true nature, the better they
are.
Advantages
1. Natural law theory promises to explain how
morality could possibly be objective, that is, how
moral standards depend on something other
than human opinion.
2. Natural law theory easily explains why morality
is especially suited for human beings, and not for
anything else in the natural world.
3. Natural law theory has a clear account of
the origins of morality.
4. Natural law theory may solve one of the hardest
problems in ethics: how to gain moral knowledge.
Difficulties
1. It is difficult to try to glean recommendations for
how we ought to act from descriptions of how
nature actually operates.
2. Natural laws describe and predict how things will
behave. Moral laws are not meant to describe
how we actually behave, but rather to serve as
ideals that we ought to aim for.
3. Nature has, at best, only a limited role to play in
moral theory.
Virtue Theory in Ethics
A theory of virtue should have several components:
• a statement of what a virtue is,
• a list of the virtues,
• an account of what these virtues consist in, and
• an explanation of why these qualities are good.
In addition, the theory should tell us whether the
virtues are the same for all people or whether they
differ from person to person or from culture to
culture.
Important questions relevant to the theory:
• What Is a Virtue?
• What Are the Virtues?
• What Do These Virtues Consist In?
• Why Are the Virtues Important?
• Are the Virtues the Same for Everyone?

Advantages of Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is often said to have two selling points.

1. Moral motivation. Virtue Ethics is appealing

because it provides a natural and attractive
account of moral motivation.
2. Doubts about the “ideal” of impartiality. Some
virtues are partial and some are not. Loyalty
involves partiality toward loved ones and friends;
beneficence involves equal regard for everyone.

Difficulties of Virtue Ethics

The main objection to Radical Virtue Ethics is that it is

incomplete. It seems to be incomplete in three ways.

• First, Radical Virtue Ethics cannot explain

everything it should explain. Consider a typical
virtue, such as dependability. Why should I be
dependable?
• The second way in which the theory is
incomplete is that it cannot give a full
interpretation of the virtues. It cannot say
exactly when they apply.
• Finally, Radical Virtue Ethics is incomplete
because it cannot help us deal with cases of
moral conflict.

6.1.1 Feminism and the Ethics of Care - Intended
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. describe the basic idea of feminism and the
ethics of care;
2. determine the implication of the ethics of care
when applied to the issues involving family and
friends, other people in need, and nonhuman
animals; and
3. determine the relation of ethics of care with
other moral theories.
6.1.2 Do Women and Men Think Differently about
Ethics?
The idea that women and men think differently has
traditionally been used to justify discrimination
against women.
Aristotle said that women are less rational than men,
and so men naturally rule them. Immanuel Kant
agreed, adding that women “lack civil personality”
and should have no voice in public life. Jean-Jacques
Rousseau tried to put a good face on this by
emphasizing that women and men merely possess
different virtues; but, of course, it turns out that
men’s virtues fit them for leadership, whereas
women’s virtues fit them for home and hearth.
Against this background, it is not surprising that the
women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s denied
that women and men differ psychologically. The
conception of men as rational and women as
emotional was dismissed as a mere stereotype.
Nature makes no mental or moral distinction
between the sexes, it was said; and when there seem
to be differences, it is only because women have
been conditioned by an oppressive system to behave
in “feminine” ways.
These days, however, most feminists believe that
women do think differently than men. But, they add,
women’s ways of thinking are not inferior to
men’s. Female ways of thinking yield insights that
have been missed in male-dominated areas.
Thus, by attending to the distinctive approach of
women, we can make progress in subjects that seem
stalled. Ethics is said to be a leading candidate for this
treatment.
This video explores the differences between men and
women. Women are different from men in many
aspects and some of these differences are even
advantages.
6.1.3 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Consider the following dilemma, devised by the
educational psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–
1987).
Heinz’s wife is near death, and her only hope is a
drug that was discovered by a pharmacist who is now
selling it for an outrageously high price. The drug
costs $200 to make, and the pharmacist is selling it
for $2,000. Heinz can raise
$1,000, but the pharmacist told him that half wasn’t
enough. When Heinz promised to pay the rest later,
the pharmacist still refused. In desperation, Heinz
considers stealing the drug. Would that be wrong?
This problem, known as “Heinz’s Dilemma,” was used
by Kohlberg in studying the moral development of
children. Kohlberg interviewed children of various
ages, presenting them with a series of dilemmas and
asking them questions designed to reveal their
thinking. Analyzing their responses, Kohlberg
concluded that there are six stages of moral
development. In these stages, the individual
conceives of “right” in terms of
(stage 1) obeying authority and avoiding punishment;
(stage 2) satisfying one’s own desires and letting
others do the same, through fair exchanges;
(stage 3) cultivating one’s relationships and
performing the duties of one’s social roles;
(stage 4) obeying the law and maintaining the welfare
of the group;
(stage 5) upholding the basic rights and values of
one’s society;
(stage 6) abiding by abstract, universal moral
principles.
So, if all goes well, we begin life with a self-centered
desire to avoid punishment, and we end life with a
set of abstract moral principles. Kohlberg, however,
believed that only a small minority of adults make it
to stage 5.
In terms of Kohlberg’s stages, men seems to have
advanced beyond women. women’s responses are
typical of people operating in stage 3, where personal
relationships are paramount. Men, on the other
hand, appeals to impersonal principles. Men seem to
be operating at one of the later stages.
Do you agree with Kohlberg's conclusion?
This video shows Carol Gilligan's Theory of Moral
Development.
6.1.4 Implications for Moral Judgment: Family and
Friends, Children with HIV, Animals
Implications for Moral Judgment
Does an ethic of care have different implications than
a “male” approach to ethics?
Here are three examples.
Family and Friends.
When we try to construe “being a loving parent” as a
duty, we encounter problems. A loving parent is
motivated by love, not by duty. If parents care for
their children only because they feel it is their duty,
the children will sense it and realize they are unloved.
The ideas of equality and impartiality that pervade
theories of obligation seem deeply antagonistic to
the values of love and friendship.
Children with HIV
Around the world, about 2.5 million children under
the age of 15 have HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS.
Right now only one-fourth of those children get
decent medical care, while only half of pregnant
women who have HIV are taking steps to protect
their unborn children from the virus.
Almost all of us spend money on luxuries. Luxuries
are not as important as protecting children from
AIDS. Should we give at least some of our money to
UNICEF?
Animals
Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals?
Should we, for example, refrain from eating them?
An ethic of principle says that how we raise animals
for food causes them great suffering, and so we
should nourish ourselves without the cruelty.
The Ethics of Care appeals to intuition and feeling
rather than to principle. Noddings observes that our
emotional responses to humans are different from
our responses to animals.
This video shows that the ethics of care is based on
human relationships and needs. Ethics of care is the
ethical system that defines good as meeting the
needs of others and preserving and enriching
relationships.
6.1.5 Implications for Ethical Theory
Implications for Ethical Theory
Men’s theories emphasize: impersonal duty,
contracts, the balancing of competing interests, and
the calculation of costs and benefits.
Feminists accuse moral philosophy of having a male
bias. The concerns of private life are almost wholly
absent, and the “different voice” of which Carol
Gilligan speaks is silent.
The contrast between “being a certain kind of
person” and “doing your duty” lies at the heart of a
larger conflict between two kinds of ethical theory.
Virtue Ethics sees being a moral person as having
certain traits of character: being kind, generous,
courageous, just, prudent, and so on.
Theories of obligation, on the other hand, emphasize
impartial duty: They portray the moral agent as
someone who listens to reason, figures out the right
thing to do, and does it.
The ethics of care, therefore, may be best
understood as one part of the ethics of virtue.
6.2.2 The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical
Situations
One of the tools for analyzing ethical situations is to
follow the Seven Step Method for deciding what
action to take in a situation. The method involves
answering seven “what” questions:
1. The Facts
2. The Ethical Issues
3. The Alternatives
4. The Stakeholders
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
6. The Practical Constraints
7. Actions to Take
One reason for using the seven step method is to
provide a mental checklist to insure completeness in
making the ethical analysis.
The method also provides a framework for locating
difficulties and disagreements. By separating facts
from ethical issues, for example, the framework
allows us to determine whether a disagreement is
over the facts or over the ethical issues
Ethical decision making is a dialectical process. The
fact that the seven steps are listed in numerical order
does not indicate a strict logical or chronological
order. The presence of certain facts will alert us to
the need to consider certain ethical issues, but
without some prior acquaintance of the ethical
issues, these facts would not have any ethical
significance. Determining what the alternatives are,
who the stakeholders are, or what the practical
constraints are may send us in search of additional
facts.
Considering who the stakeholders are may generate
new alternatives. The insight generating capacity of
the ethical principles used to determine the ethics of
the alternatives may raise new ethical issues or point
us toward additional stakeholders. Thus each step
should be taken in progressive numerical order but
each step remains open to revision by subsequent
steps. The steps are related in a dialectical way in
that the completion of one leads us to see
inadequacies in previous steps that need revision.
The requirement to decide on a real time response to
the situation sets a limit on how much of this
dialectical thinking we can engage in.
SOURCE: From Class Notes by J. Brooke Hamilton III
Ph.D., Management Department, University of
Louisiana at Lafayette, based on material developed
by Patricia Werhane, Norman Bowie, John Boatright,
Manuel Velasquez, and others for Arthur Anderson
and Company, The Pace Program. St. Charles, Illinois
(1990).
6.2.3 A Description of the Seven Steps
1. The Facts
What facts make this an ethical situation?
What are the significant features of the particular
situation which make it an ethical situation? Is there
some actual or potential harm involved for an
individual or group? Does the situation relate to
some basic human goods which are being created,
distributed, denied or threatened? Does the situation
affect human welfare in some significant way? Does it
involve considerations of justice or rights?
What facts are relevant to making an ethical decision?
What facts should we know in order to decide how to
act in this situation? Steps 1 and 2 are closely related.
What facts are relevant will depend on what the
ethical issues are and the ethical issues will be
determined by the presence of certain facts. Thus the
initial assessment of facts will have to be augmented
once the ethical issues have been determined.
2. The Ethical Issues
What level of ethical issues are we dealing with?
Systemic, corporate, or individual? Knowing the level
of the problem will help us to decide who will be
affected by the decision and will therefore qualify as
stakeholders and who will be required to make the
decision--the society as a whole, decision makers
within the corporation, or myself as an individual.
What specific ethical issues does this situation raise?
Is it a question of how to maximize benefits and
minimize harms? Is it a question of whether an action
can be universalized? Of whether individuals are
being treated as ends and not merely as means? Of
whether all rational persons would agree that a
particular action is right or good? Is it a question of a
possible violation of rights or a conflict between
rights? Is it a question of the fair distribution of
benefits and burdens? Is it a question of how or
whether to apply some specific ethical principle?
What level of generality is required?
The ethical issues need to be stated at a level of
generality which will allow the issue to be discussed
in as broad a terms as possible, so as to see all the
possible ramifications, while yet being specific
enough to lead to alternative actions in the case at
hand.
3. The Alternatives
Given the facts and the ethical issues, what
alternative actions are possible in this situation?
Initially we should state as many alternatives as
possible without making judgments as to their
plausibility. Having generated as many as possible,
the most plausible should be chosen for further
examination.
4. The Stakeholders
Who will be affected by the alternatives and to what
degree?
We must determine who will be affected to a degree
significant enough to include them among the
primary stakeholders worthy of consideration. For
systemic issues, which individuals, groups,
institutions, and aspects of the physical, economic
and social environment will be affected? For
corporate issues, who and what inside and outside
the corporation will be affected: stockholders,
government, society, the environment, suppliers,
customers, local community, employees, managers
and so on. For individual issues, who will be affected
by the decision, both inside the company such as
peers, superiors, other departments, and outside the
company such as customers and suppliers?
How to rank stakeholder claims?
Part of the decision making process will be to
establish how much weight each stakeholder's claim
deserves. This weighing of claims is often done
intuitively. For purposes of justifying why the decision
is the right one, however, the process for weighing
the competing claims should be spelled out as much
as possible.
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
Use ethical principles to decide on the best
alternative.
The ethics of each of the most plausible alternatives
is assessed using ethical principles or rules. For each
alternative, for example, we could ask the questions
associated with the utilitarian, rights and justice
principles to determine how the alternative is rated
by each theory. When the alternatives have all been
rated as right or wrong, good or bad, the object is to
select the best alternative. In the ideal situation, all
the ethical principles will point to the same
alternative as the best one.
How to decide when the theories point to different
alternatives.
There are situations in which different ethical
principles will recommend different alternatives. In a
case where the principles provide a mixed
recommendation, we must choose which
recommendation to follow and be prepared to justify
that choice as best we can. Justification can be
provided by showing why the theory (ies) indicates
that alternative as the best and how this fits better
into our conception of what the good life is than the
alternatives suggested by the other theories. It may
come down to the simple fact that, after inspecting
all the alternatives with rationality and respect, I just
do value one alternative, or one theoretical
approach, or one point of view as highlighted by one
theoretical approach, or one state of affairs provided
by that alternative, or one value embodied by one
alternative more than the others. I may not be able
to say why I prefer that alternative except in terms of
the way I choose to live my life and what my
experience has shown me. Does the fact that I do not
have another definite standard to appeal to, if two
ethical theories should disagree mean that my
decision is irrational or unjustified? The decision is
rational in that I have made it on the basis of the
careful consideration required by the seven step
method and it is justified by showing why it is the
best alternative according to at least one ethical
theory. To say that I am willing to live by the decision
is the only remaining justification.
6. The Practical Constraints
Can the best alternative be put into effect?
Having decided on one alternative, we need to see
whether there are any practical constraints which
might prevent that alternative from being acted
upon. When practical constraints rule out an
alternative, we must return to Step 5 to select the
next best alternative and subject it to the practical
constraints test.
Distinguish ethical from practical constraints.
Ethical decision making involves ruling out
alternatives on ethical grounds in Step 5 and on
practical grounds in Step 6. In actual practice we
often do not bother to distinguish the two different
kinds of reasons for rejecting an alternative. It is be
helpful to keep them distinct as far as possible in
order to be clear as to what kind of reason we are
giving. The difference between practical constraints
and ethical considerations can best be illustrated by
example.
7. Actions to Take
Implementing the best alternative.
Having selected the best alternative which is not
ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide
on the steps necessary to carry it out.
A summary of the justification. We should also be
prepared, at the close of this decision process, to
provide a justification of why this course of action is
the right or good one in this situation. Going through
the seven steps justifies the decision in the fullest
sense. We should be prepared, however, to respond
in some briefer form to the legitimate requests of
others--our superiors, our peers, the agents of
society--for an explanation of why this alternative is
the best approach to this situation. This summary
based on the seven steps will also provide us with a
briefer account to apply to similar situations in the
future. The worst punishment would be to face the
full seven step process for each and every ethical
decision we make in our lives. We would have no
time for living.
SOURCE: From Class Notes by J. Brooke Hamilton III
Ph.D., Management Department, University of
Louisiana at Lafayette, based on material developed
by Patricia Werhane, Norman Bowie, John Boatright,
Manuel Velasquez, and others for Arthur Anderson
and Company, The Pace Program. St. Charles, Illinois
(1990).
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 6
Women and Men Think Differently about Ethics
• The idea that women and men think differently
has traditionally been used to justify
discrimination against women.
• The women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s
denied that women and men differ
psychologically.
• These days, however, most feminists believe
that women do think differently than men. But,
they add, women’s ways of thinking are not
inferior to men’s.
• Female ways of thinking yield insights that have
been missed in male-dominated areas
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
• (stage 1) - obeying authority and avoiding
punishment;
• (stage 2) - satisfying one’s own desires and
letting others do the same, through fair
exchanges;
• (stage 3) - cultivating one’s relationships and
performing the duties of one’s social roles;
• (stage 4) - obeying the law and maintaining the
welfare of the group;
• (stage 5) - upholding the basic rights and values
of one’s society;
• (stage 6) - abiding by abstract, universal moral
principles.
So, if all goes well, we begin life with a self-centered
desire to avoid punishment, and we end life with a
set of abstract moral principles. Kohlberg, however,
believed that only a small minority of adults make it
to stage 5.
Gilligan’s Objection
• In 1982, Carol Gilligan wrote a book called In a
Different Voice, in which she objects to what
Kohlberg says about Jake and Amy. The two
children think differently, she says, but Amy’s
way of thinking is not inferior.
• The “male way of thinking”—the appeal to
impersonal principles— abstracts away the
details that give each situation its special flavor.
• Gilligan suggests that women’s basic moral
orientation is one of caring: “taking care” of
others in a personal way, not just being
concerned for humanity in general.
Implications for Moral Judgment
Family and Friends.
• The ideas of equality and impartiality that
pervade theories of obligation seem deeply
antagonistic to the values of love and friendship.
• The ethics of care affirms the priority that we
naturally give to our family and friends, and so it
seems more plausible than an ethic of principle.
People in need that we don’t interact with i.e.,
Children with HIV
• An ethic of care focuses on small-scale, personal
relationships. If there is no such relationship,
“caring” cannot take place.
• Nel Noddings (1929–) explains that the caring
relation can exist only if the “cared-for” can
interact with the “one-caring.” Thus, Noddings
concludes that we have no obligation to help
“the needy in the far regions of the earth.”
Other Animals
• Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals?
Should we, for example, refrain from eating
them? An ethic of principle says that how we
raise animals for food causes them great
suffering, and so we should nourish ourselves
without the cruelty.
• The “basic notion on which an ethic of caring
rests” is the primacy of personal relationships.
These relationships, as we have noted, always
involve the cared-for interacting with the one-
caring.
Implications for Ethical Theory
• Theories of obligation emphasize impartial duty:
They portray the moral agent as someone who
listens to reason, figures out the right thing to
do, and does it.
• Virtue Ethics, on the other hand, sees being a
moral person as having certain traits of
character: being kind, generous, courageous,
just, prudent, and so on.
• The ethics of care, therefore, may be best
understood as one part of the ethics of virtue.
Synthesis: The Seven-Step Method for Analyzing
Ethical Situations
1. The Facts
o What facts make this an ethical situation?
o What facts are relevant to making an ethical
decision?
2. The Ethical Issues
o What level of ethical issues are we dealing
with?
o What specific ethical issues does this
situation raise?
3. The Alternatives?
o Given the facts and the ethical issues, what
alternative actions are possible in this
situation?
4. The Stakeholders?
o Who will be affected by the alternatives and
to what degree?
o How to rank stakeholder claims?
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
o Use ethical principles to decide on the best
alternative.
o How do you decide when the theories point
to different alternatives?
6. The Practical Constraints
o Can the best alternative be put into effect?
o Distinguish ethical from practical
constraints.
7. The actions to take
o Implement the best alternative.
o Having selected the best alternative which is
not ruled out by practical constraints, we
need to decide on the steps necessary to
carry it out.
A summary of the justification. We should also be
prepared to provide a justification of why this course
of action is the right or good one in this situation.
Going through the seven steps justifies the decision
in the fullest sense.