ETHICS

Week 3 and 4
DOMAINS OF ETHICAL
ASSESSMENT
▪ Ethics tries to analyze or evaluate acts. However, the card “the end doesn’t justify the means”
of ethics occurred in times of diverse circumstance. With this, there are more domains that
ethics falls into consideration.

▪ (1) action, (2) consequences, (3) character, and (4) motive

ACTION
▪ In evaluating an action, we may look for the right action.

▪ The term right has two meanings. Sometimes, it means “obligatory”

(as in “the right act”), but it also can mean “permissible” (as in “a
right act” or “It’s all right to do that”).

▪ A right act is an act that is permissible for you to do. It may be

either (a) obligatory or (b) optional (permissible).
 ACTION
▪Right act (permissible)
a. Obligatory act – IT is our duty to do it
b. Optional act - It is not your duty to do it, nor is it your duty
not to do it.
(1) Neutral act – Moral neutral (English or math)
(2) Supererogatory act – These acts are neither required
nor obligatory, but they exceed what morality requires,
going “beyond the call of duty.
NEUTRAL ACT What should I do?

Wash the dishes or Clean my room

 As obligation, you could shout.

OBLIGATORY Or as you can go beyond

shouting by going directly (more
than call of duty)
 It is an obligation to help people by
giving, but some circumstances
SUPEREROGATORY ACT
don’t require us to sacrifice a lot in
order to give something.
CONSEQUENCES
▪If the consequences are on balance positive,
then the action is right; if negative, then wrong.

▪If the action provides good result, it is right.

Wrong if the other end.
 The action is good if the
CONSEQUENCES consequence or result of an act
promotes goodness, if not, it is
wrong
CHARACTER/VIRTUE
▪Whereas some ethical theories emphasize the
nature of actions in themselves and some
emphasize principles involving the
consequences of actions, other theories
emphasize character, or virtue.
 If the nature of the act is
good, then it is right. Not if
it isn’t.
CHARACTER/VIRTUE (could be consider the
nature of the agent)
MOTIVE
▪ A full moral description of any act will
take motive into account as a relevant
factor
▪Finally, we can ethically assess situations
by examining the motive of the people
involved.
 Was the motive honest? Does the
motivation of the action was

MOTIVE pure? If it is, then good but if not,

evil (selfish intention)
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM
▪Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness
and wrongness of actions vary from society to society and
that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding
on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or
not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way
depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.
 SUBJECTIVE ETHICAL
RELATIVISM (SUBJECTIVISM)
▪Subjective ethical relativism (subjectivism): All moral
principles are justified by virtue of their acceptance by an
individual agent him- or herself.

▪Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. What is right for me

may not be right for you but its okay.
▪This is actually one of the trends in our time.
(normalization of various things)
SUBJECTIVE ETHICAL
RELATIVISM
CONVENTIONAL ETHICAL
RELATIVISM
▪Conventional ethical relativism (conventionalism): All
moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural
acceptance

▪There are no universally valid moral principles, but rather

all such principles are valid relative to culture or individual
choice.
▪Ethnocentrism = my culture is better than yours
CONVENTIONAL ETHICAL
RELATIVISM
LOGIC OF
SUBJECTIVE/CULTURAL
RELATIVISM BY NANCY
▪
SCHEPER-HUGHES
(1) If morality is relative to its culture, then there is no independent basis for
▪
criticizing the morality of any other culture but one’s own.
▪ (2) If there is no independent way of criticizing any other culture, then we
▪ ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures.
▪ (3) Morality is relative to its culture.
▪ (4) Therefore, we ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures.
CRITICI
 CONVENTIONAL ETHICAL
RELATIVISM UNDERMINES
IMPORTANT VALUES
▪If conventional ethical relativism is true, then
we
cannot legitimately criticize anyone who espouses
what we might regard as a heinous principle. If, as
seems to be the case, valid criticism supposes an
objective or impartial standard, then relativists
cannot morally criticize anyone outside their
USING THE LENS OF “S/C”
RELATIVISM, THE ACTS OF
THESE MEN ARE PERMISSABLE
CONVENTIONAL ETHICAL
RELATIVISM LEADS TO
SUBJECTIVISM
▪An even more basic problem with the
concept that morality depends on cultural
acceptance for its validity is that the notion
of a culture or society is notoriously
difficult to define.
 End up on
believing in what Cultural Relativism
Subjectivism
one wants

Conflict of beliefs on
multi Cultural belief
(abortion believed by
the state vs the
opposition of the
church)
 MORAL DIVERSITY IS
EXAGGERATED
▪Every moral concepts are
universal, meaning valid despite
of how disturbing it is in our
perspective.
▪Everything is justifiable
 The stand of we are valid
Taliban is valid
CONCLUSION
▪Ethical relativism—the thesis that moral
principles derive their validity from
dependence on society or individual
choice—seems plausible at first glance,
but on close scrutiny it presents some
major problems
Thank you!