Ethics

Chapter 1: Understanding Ethics, Rules, and Moral

Standards
In this chapter, you will learn about the nature, definition and scope of the Ethics as a course. You will be
able to understand why rules existed and why do we need to follow rules. Also, you will learn how to
differentiate between moral and non-moral standards.

Intended Learning Outcomes:

After the end of this chapter, the students are expected to:

1. Understand the definition of Ethics;

2. Recall rules they have to follow;
3. Explain why they have to follow rules; and
4. Differentiate between moral and non-moral standards.

What is Ethics?

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which originally means custom or character.
Broadly construed, ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human
action. In particular, this branch of philosophy is concerned with questions of how human persons ought
to act, and the search for a definition of a right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt
to seek the “good” through the aid of reason is the traditional goal of ethicists (Albert, Denise & Peterfreund
1984, p. 1-2).

It must be noted, however, that there is no single, absolute definition of ethics. This is because
ethics as a discipline is constantly evolving as a result of a change in socio-cultural and political context.
For example, in the Greek tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the “good life”. Thus,
the ethical inquiry during this time was directed toward discovering the nature of happiness. In fact,
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics does not only present a theory of happiness but also provides ways in which
happiness is attained.

Now, centuries later, a quite different orientation was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God and the love of God and neighbor, not the
happy or pleasant life, constitute the substance of ethics. Indeed, if we make an effort to reconcile these
views, we are faced with the difficult task of defining the relationship between “doing what is right” and
“being happy”.

Again, it is for this reason that we cannot have an absolute definition of ethics. The least that we
can do, in my opinion, is to describe the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a specific time and context.
 It is also important to note that ethics is not the same with morality, although many philosophers
believe that the two terms can be used interchangeably. This is because the former denotes the theory of
right action and the greater good, while the latter indicates practice, that is, the rightness or wrongness of
a human action. In other words, ethics undertakes the systematic study (that is, questioning and critical
examination) of the underlying principles of morality. Hence, it is interested primarily in the illustration of
a more general problem and the examination of underlying assumptions and the critical evaluation of
moral principles.

Morality, on the other hand, is more prescriptive in nature. It tells us what we ought to do and
exhorts us to follow the right way. According to Terrance McConnell (1994), “morality is characterized as
an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’ whose object is to equip people with a body of norms (rules and
values) that make for peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together
and interacting in a way that is productive for the realization of the general benefit”. For example, a
religious leader may ask her followers to be good at all times. In this way, a moralist may want to keep
alive the values she considers to be worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the community where
she belongs. Hence, morality, at the very least, aims to guide one’s action by reason and gives equal weight
to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really
means to be a morally upright person.

Based on the brief discussion above, we may conclude that ethics is the science of morals, while
morality is the practice of ethics.

Types of Ethics

During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a “certain theory in the methodology of
ethics has gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by British and American moral
philosophers”. According to this position, there are two ways of doing ethical inquiry, namely, normative
ethics and metaethics.

On the one hand, normative ethics is prescriptive in nature as it seeks to set norms or standards
that regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that
we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Hence,
normative ethics normally attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave.
For example, Immanuel Kant’s claim that an act is morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an
example of a normative ethics.

Metaethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According to Sumner (1967), “metaethics
is allegedly constituted, at least in part, by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and
functions of ethical utterances.” Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive,
metaethics is analytical and descriptive. Put simply, metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to
understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles. It asks questions about the nature and origin of
moral facts, as well as the way in which we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus, for example, if normative
ethics urges us to do good at all times, metaethics asks the question “What is good?”. For sure, if a moral
philosopher attempts to address the questions “What is good?”, “What is justice?”, “Why should I be
moral?”, then that moral philosopher is doing metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an answer to the
question “Why should I be moral”, Plato was doing metaethics―indeed, Plato raised a metaethical
question.
 In the course of the development of ethics, applied ethics became its third major type. As its name
suggests, applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of deciding
which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given situation. For this reason, casuists (that is, the
adherents of applied ethics) are concerned with individual moral problems, such as abortion or euthanasia,
and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues that surround these particular moral problems. Casuists may
also act on some occasions in an advisory capacity, such as guiding individuals in their choice of actions.
For example, they may attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of a mother suffering from ectopic
pregnancy who has no other option than to abort the fetus.

Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields. For example, we may talk about business
ethics, which deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world; biomedical and environmental ethics,
which deal with issues relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have towards people and our
environment; and social ethics, which deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate corporate
welfare within societies.

Finally, the difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the following
situation:

A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping mall.

The act of the police officer is morally wrong according to metaethics because it is always wrong
to kill. As is well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot
the terrorist, many innocent people will die or get injured. Though the police officer’s act may be wrong,
the adherents of normative ethics may say that it is the right thing to do in this particular situation because
not doing so will result in the death of so many people. Hence, the action might be morally correct. Finally,
the casuists may say that the police officer is just doing his best to fulfill his duty, that is, to protect as many
innocent lives as possible.

Resources:

Foundational Content

Albert, E., Denise, T., and Peterfreund, S. (1984). Great Traditions in Ethics. 5th ed. California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.

McConnell, T. (1994). Review: On the Nature and Scope of Morality. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, 54(2), pp. 421-425.

Sumner, L. W. (1967). Normative and Metaethics, 77(2), pp. 95-106.

Moral Standards versus Non-moral Standards

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are
deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral implications,
while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim
communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing
up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable.
However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women
barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body
and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the
Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter
of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of
moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know, violence
and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural challenge?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is, of
what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste)
comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the
difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral
standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will
be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that
particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit
of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the
unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards
are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such
standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others
to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to
steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to
be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally
bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well
as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms
of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other
words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules
about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfill our
promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand,
values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For
example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:

1) moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans,
animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder;
2) moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative
individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are
taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral
conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong;
3) moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest;
4) moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair
and just; and
5) moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and
vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong
in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge
manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and
standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality
with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also
does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says
“Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or
“Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.
Chapter 2- THE MORAL DILEMMA
In this chapter, you shall learn about moral dilemma and its three levels. You will be able to
recognize and recall a moral experience. And able to explain why only human beings can be ethical.

Intended Learning Outcomes:

After the end of this chapter, the students are expected to:

1. Understand the meaning of dilemmas;

2. Differentiate moral dilemmas from non-moral dilemmas;
3. Explain why only human beings can be ethical.

What are Moral Dilemmas?

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of moral
dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has choices to make
that will all have results one does not want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to
protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic
development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose
between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is that that
person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that
person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or
moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in
ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the
situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example:

Efreminda is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely
wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Efreminda is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well
known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly
in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus.
Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if
Efreminda continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According
to experts, the best way to save Efreminda’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing
the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Efreminda, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Efreminda is faced with two conflicting options, namely,
either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral integrity
or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Efreminda is faced with a
huge moral dilemma.
 According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be
considered moral dilemmas.

• First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about
which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and
act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Efreminda may opt to abort the
fetus as the best course of action.
• Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already
pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for
moral dilemmas to occur.
• And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always
compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the
problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas,
the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is
bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something
which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral
requirements, the person also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into the
following:

1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas,

2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas,
3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and
4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with
each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes
precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally
right or wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early, but on my way
home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We
cannot deny that there are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want
a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my getting home early? How
serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which option is morally right in
this situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the
situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand,
involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these
conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not know
which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that neither of the moral requirements is
stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral
requirements. For instance, a military doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the
middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag
of blood is available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure,
we could not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral than administering
a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, David is
running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised the indigenous
peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks
financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is faced with the
dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at the same time allows the mining
corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David created a situation in which it
is impossible for him to be discharged from both obligations. A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the
other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William
Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to choose which
of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand
von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not choose which one
should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the
gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s Camp.”

Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory, while
prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. The famous “Sartre’s
Student” is a classic example. It reads:

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of prohibition dilemmas.

Finally, in single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all things
considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act
on two or more equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both. For instance, a medical doctor
found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may experience tension between the legal
requirement to report the case and the desire to respect confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics
acknowledges our obligation to follow legal requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable. In
multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a
second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both
for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as
agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead
of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs
in situations that involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected
to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A family may be torn between choosing to
terminate or prolong the life of a family member. An organization may have to choose between complying
with the wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the
required minimum wage. The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also
entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to
do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be
defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization from
breaking apart”.
Resources:

Introductory Video

1. What Are Moral Dilemmas? - General Ethics - PHILO-notes Whiteboard Edition What Are
Moral Dilemmas? - General Ethics - PHILO-notes Whiteboard Edition (Links to an external site.)

https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/

For Discussion

2. 6 Hardest 'Would You Rather' Dilemmas Ever6 Hardest 'Would You Rather' Dilemmas

Ever (Links to an external site.) (for discussion or summative test)

Analysis and Summary

3. Verbeek, Peter-Paul (2011) Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of
Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=67be88fd-57b4-4459-b85b-

6e504c31a9ee%40pdc-vsessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=nlebk&AN=412504
How does freedom become the foundation of moral acts?
What is Freedom?

Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands
for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To most reasonable people, freedom means more than just ‘free to do whatever I want’. Taken
literally, that approach would produce anarchy—every man, woman, and child for himself or herself.
Fortunately, none of us has to live that way (unless you’re reading this in Somalia or a similar disaster
area).

Certainly freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or
not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to
infringe on another person’s freedom.

This still leaves a great deal of latitude. There is a long list of things that one can say, and say freely,
for example, that excludes shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

One way to think of this is the difference between “freedom of” (or “freedom to”) and “freedom
from”—a point eloquently made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union Address
delivered on January 6, 1941:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

1) The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

2) The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the
world.
3) The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—
everywhere in the world.
4) The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide
reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a
position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own
time and generation.

The Four Freedoms

Securing freedom from fear and freedom from want is very likely to entail some collective,
organized action. That kind of activity is often carried out most effectively and efficiently (although,
admittedly, not perfectly) by the government. If we want to live in a society where freedoms are protected
and where the opportunity to exercise freedom is assured, we have to rely on some form of governance. So
far, liberal representative democracy seems to do the best job of it.

Note also that Roosevelt spoke in “world terms.” He and his colleagues (including his wife,
Eleanor, one of the greatest women of the 20th century) operated according to a vision in which the United
States belonged to a family of nations. This family was interdependent, cooperative, and shared common
values. The U.S., in their eyes, would act as a member of that family—a leading member, to be sure, but
not a belligerent or domineering one.

In the same speech, Roosevelt said:

There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic
things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

• Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

• Jobs for those who can work.
• Security for those who need it.
• The ending of special privilege for the few.
• The preservation of civil liberties for all.
• The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard
of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable
complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political
systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.