ETHICS

-Need to look into the concept of society what constitutes society The main element of
society is the human being for whom Allah has provided different types of

-A study among others that cover the study of society

resources and indicated the appropriate way to manage them for their own welfare and
prohibited some with a view to avoiding failure and disgrace. So, there are many aspects
involved with regard to the human being: -Health (eating, drinking,

sleeping, bathing, etc)---Learning (ability, science, reproduction, moral values etc.---Working

(job- production, market-finance-etc.)-Ruling (government, election, parties etc.) ---Behaving
(feeling- choosing, belleving, acting, judicial, etc) --Each of the few aspects mentioned above
has become a field of study = medicine, education, employment, economics, politics,
psychology, legal studies etc. In all these fields the human being thinks, suggests, chooses,
decides, refuses, etc.

On what basis does the human being do so? What makes the human being feel, believe that
the decision taken is right or wrong?

THIS IS THE OBJECT OF ETHICS

The ethicists will look into a number of interrelated issues so as to understand the choice
between

'right' and 'wrong'. However, we have to be careful= We are supposed to read and discuss
the issues related to ethics basically in English. But we should be aware that we may
unconsciously reproduce Eurocentric approaches and explanations to what ethics involves
and ethicists have undertaken for understanding the process. -Ethicists raise very simple
questions such as:
1/ What is considered as right or wrong? (meta-ethics) (language)
-2/ What can be the source of knowledge with regard to right or
wrong?(duty-/deontological/normative ethics)
---3/ Are the understanding and sources of knowledge with respect to right and wrong
universal or relative? (universal-relative-plural)
--4/ Is the choice between both determined by specific purposes? (teleological ethics)/
(applied ethics)

_________________________________________________________________________
What is metaethics?

Meta- is a prefix to denote what is beyond or about, for example, meta-cognition is cognition
about cognition. It is a prefix meaning more comprehensive or transcending (Webster).

Ethics a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system
based on morals (Cambridge).
ETHICS

Metaethics concerns moral thought, talk and practice, more precisely to understand the
semantic, metaphysical, psychological presuppositions of what is considered as right or
wrong.

Semantic connected with the meaning of words.

Metaphysical connected the fundamental nature of reality, in other terms, to seek to answer
the following: what it is for something to exist, and what types of existence there are
Psychological related to the human mind and feelings.
Since its basic subject matter is about morality, metaethicists raise questions as follows: Is
morality the product of truth or personal taste?

What is the origin of moral facts?

How can we learn about moral facts?

What makes them set moral standards for human behavior? Are moral standards common
for all human beings and culturally relative?

How might these moral facts be related to other factors such as feelings, human motivations
and conventions?

How to justify our moral commitments?

TEXT:
On the intellectual side, many have worried that there is no good way to vindicate the
assumptions and commitments of morality. A careful and clear-eyed study of morality will
reveal, some argue, that morality is a myth; others argue that the various principles that are
presented as authoritative standards for all are actually merely expressions of emotion or
projections of the idiosyncratic attitudes of those advocating the principles; still others argue
that in some other way morality is not what it pretends to be and not what it needs to be if it
is to be legitimate. On the practical side, many have pressed the difficulty of getting people
to judge themselves and others impartially; others have worried that, while we have an
interest in convincing others to conform to morality, we ourselves rarely have any reason,
really, to conform; still others have thought that the sort of freedom morality assumes is not
available to humans as they actually are.
Of course these worries and arguments regularly find counterparts on the other side, with
people maintaining that, properly understood, morality is no myth, that its pretensions can be
vindicated, that we have all the reason we need to embrace morality and meet its demands,
and that people, at least some people under some circumstances, have whatever sort of
freedom it is that morality might require.

Idiosyncrasy= a strange or unusual habit, way of behaving or feature that someone or

something has

Impartially= not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument

Vindicate= to prove that what someone said or did was right or true, after other people
thought it was wrong
ETHICS

Normative Ethics:
Since ethics concerns the question of what is wrong and right with regard to human
behviour, choice, and decision, ethicists have tried to examine the issue from different
angles:
What is considered as right or wrong? This is the object of metaethics (see Course 2)
What is the source of knowledge with respect to right and wrong? This is known as
normative ethics.
Other angles that were referred to in Course 1 include applied ethics and
universal-plural-relative ethics, which will be discussed during the remaining sessions.

The question of morality which is the concern of normative ethicists, covers the ways in
which individuals conduct their private lives. It is unambiguously defined first by Our Creator
in the Holy Books and through His prophets' traditions (Sunna). This should be considered
as the first true source of knowledge with respect to normative ethics.

However, human beings' inability to understand properly Divine Rule concerning what is
morally obligatory, necessary, desirable, acceptable on one hand, and undesirable, not
allowed or prohibited/forbidden, on the other, as well as their subsequent misinterpretation or
deliberate distortion thereof may have led to discard it and look for other possible sources of
what is considered right and wrong. In fact, normative or behavioural codes have been
elaborated all along human history such as the Law, moral code, etiquette, religious code,
professional code of conduct, etc.

Law= a legal code that defines the minimum acceptable behavior of a particular group, who
can be sanctioned in case they do not abide thereby.

Moral code= a larger set of normative controls which allow for some tolerance of moral
violations without inflicting sanctions.
(Etiquette =a set of behavioural expectations in society.)

Very simply, the human being is endowed with instinctive feelings, mental and intellectual
capabilities which can generate knowledge for action-guiding, the justification of which stems
from moral intuitions and critical reasoning for some ethicists, duty, or self-interest, or even
from consequences of actions.

(Intuition= the ability to understand through instinctive feeling rather than conscious
reasoning).

As far as intuition is concerned, people naturally experience feelings of empathy towards

others (= the ability to feel or sense other people's feelings, emotions associated with the
ability to imagine or understand what others may be feeling or thinking). The feeling of
empathy generates moral sentiments. Tomasello, the co-director of the Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology, argues that:
"human beings are hardwired for cooperation, empathy, and social intensionality in a very
interesting recent book, Why we Cooperate. A great deal of his research has to do with
experiments and observations of human children (9-24 months) and of young non-human
primates. He finds, essentially, that infants and children display a range of behaviors that
ETHICS

seem to reveal a natural readiness for altruism, sharing, coordination, and eventually
following of norms. "I only propose that the kinds of collaborative activities in which young
children today engage are the natural cradle of social norms of the cooperative variety. This
is because they contain the seeds of the two key ingredients" (89-90). He presents a range
of experimental data supporting these ideas:
1. Human infants have a pre-cultural disposition to be helpful and empathetic (12-14
months)
2. Human toddlers adjust their cooperative and normative behavior to be more attentive
to the behavior of others: generous to the generous and not to the ungenerous.
3. Human infants and toddlers have a precultural disposition to absorb and enforce
norms.
4. The emotions of guilt and shame to be hardwired to conformance to norms.
5. Infants appear to take a "we" intentional stance without learning. They are able to
quickly figure out what another agent is trying to do. >>>

Naturally Inherent moral intuition (moral sentiment) is then processed into ethical reasoning
which will generate moral principles supported by valid reasons or arguments or in other
terms critical reasoning= this implies asking questions whenever reasons are advanced to
support an argument.

Tracer (2013) indicates that critical reasoning can result from:

1. analogy
2. deductive reasoning= using a principle to support the argument
3. inducive reasoning= to provide evidence to support argument
4. faith-based arguments= commanded by God.

Some other philosophers/ ethicists regard duty as a source of normative ethics because of
its positive nature. In his notion of 'categorical imperative' German philosopher E. Kant
(1724-1804), argued that 'people must do something, irrespective of their desires'. This
duty-based theory is not taken into consideration by others known as consequentialists
who base moral judgment on the outcomes (results) of a decision or action. In other terms,
in case, the result is beneficial, so it can be held morally right.

Those consequentialists believe that the 'self' should be the motivation of human actions,
arguing that human nature is self-centered, and acting for one's interest would lead to
improve welfare and efficiency among the members of society. The proponent of this
normative egoist Western philosophy is Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, (1723-1790) who
believed that 'self-interested behavior is right and can lead to morally acceptable end.' (This
constituted the basis of capitalistic philosophy).

A second trend of consequentialists comprise the philosophers of Utilitarianism, among

whom Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher (1748-1832), Stuart Mill, an English
economist (1806-1873), who advanced that 'the value of the consequences of an action is
assessed in terms of the amount of happiness or well-being caused to a number of people..’

Ethicists' approach to normative ethics is not confined only to the source of morality but is
extended to the testing of its validity through factual accuracy, which, according to David
Hume, a Scottish philosopher (1711-1776), 'ought to' should not derive from 'is'. The
ETHICS

second approach of testing is based on consistency that is, arguments should be

consistent= not containing logical contradictions.

Understanding the balance of power between feelings and reason as a source of knowledge
with regard right or wrong is important so as to understand the origin and predominance of
norms. In some societies, ethical ideas are expressed in terms of beliefs and attitudes and
customs, others have codified them in laws and regulations, which altogether can have an
impact on the moral sentiments and consciousness of family or tribal members and ethnic
groups.
_________________________________________________________________________

Deontological Ethics:

For some other ethicists, the feeling of empathy may have evolved into that of duty (=moral
or legal obligation). People feel, for example, that they have a duty towards old people,
visually-impaired individuals and other categories of handicapped people for providing them
with different forms of assistance. This is considered universally the right thing to do, which
makes deontological ethicists deduce that the notion of duty can but carry something
positive. On the other hand, the notion of duty cannot logically and inevitably be dissociated
from the existence of people's right to something'. For example, the right for education,
health facilities involves that others would have to provide them because this would secure
some kind of justice among the members in society.

For deontological ethicists, this theory of duty, elaborated by a German philosopher, E. Kant
(1724-1804), relied basically on human reason and was known as the categorical
imperatives, meaning that people 'must do' things like feeding old parents, assisting the
visually impaired people etc. These actions should not be seen as being performed as a
response to personal desires. It should be however underlined that Biblical scriptures and
Quranic verses had already explicitly stated and clarified the notion of duty towards others
long before Western philosophers brought about their conclusions.

Teleological Ethics:

Besides deontological ethicists, others regarded the purpose of the ethical action as being a
determinant factor for formulating moral judgments; these are known as teleological
ethicists, some of whom were rather inclined to look into the results of the action rather than
in its causes (=intention, motivation, purpose). They are known as consequentialist ethicists
(from consequence), who believed that moral judgments should be determined by the
outcomes of a decision or an action. In other terms, positive or beneficial outcomes will
categorize the action as being morally right; and conversely, negative or harmful results of
actions will classify the latter as being morally wrong. (Will as a modal verb is used to
indicate features of something or certainty).

These consequentialists believe that human actions are motivated by the 'self', or collective
welfare. The advocates of the former argue that human nature is self-centered, and that
acting for one's interest could generate two distinct situations:
ETHICS

First, people may appear acting in other's interest while they are truly motivated by their own
self-interest disguised (hidden) by pretentiously advanced arguments of philanthropy
(helping others). The proponent of this normative egoist Western philosophy is Adam Smith,
a Scottish economist, (1723-1790) who believed that 'self- interested behavior is right and
could lead to morally acceptable end.”

Second, self-interest can generate welfare for all, and consequently, pursuing one's
self-interest can but be morally right. The proponents of collective welfare are advocates of
19th century Utilitarianism, among whom were Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher
(1748-1832), and Stuart Mill, an English economist (1806-1873). Collective welfare is
assessed on the 'greatest happiness principle', meaning securing the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of people. The value of the consequence of an action is based
on the real amount of happiness caused.

Unlike deontological ethicists (duty-based) or consequentialists (result-based), some others

considered virtues as the driving force for morality, they are advocates of virtue ethics. They
underline that by helping old people, the visually-impaired, or any other one, they will display
the existence of virtues (Anaka alaa khouloen aadhim). (-behaviour that shows high moral
standard). These virtues comprise:
Faith-hope-love- Prudence-(being prudent-cautious)-Justice-Fortitude-(courage in pain or
difficulty)-Temperance (abstinence from)-Benevolence-charity

Understanding the balance of power between feelings and reason as a source of knowledge
with regard to right or wrong is important so as to understand the validity of moral judgments.
While ethical monism confines judgment of moral values to one right way, one single unified
moral framework, ethical relativism takes into account the diversity of societies and attributes
equal validity for different moral frameworks. The difficulty of reconciling these two
approaches to ethics resulted in the emergence of ethical pluralism. The latter's advocates
advance that it is possible to use more than one moral framework without considering them
equally valid as ethical relativists do.

Undoubtedly, human effort can be appreciated but ethicists should be reminded that
distinction between right and wrong is absolutely and clearly defined in Holy Books. Their
departure therefrom, distortion of universal moral values and their relativist-pluralist
approach with regard to ethics- has but created new reconsiderations of what is to be
regarded as right and wrong.

Historically, both monarch's and Church's monopoly and control over knowledge and
morality, while excluding or even persecuting any one refuting or protesting against their so
called absolutely valid and true (divine) values and action, led to a gradual reconsideration or
reassessment of the former's conceptions of moral standards.

The emerging liberal-based approach has provided a background to applied ethics covering
or concerned with a

number of professional fields: Legal-professional/Business-media/Medical-nursing-bioethics/

Food-animal/ engineering. This has involved the elaboration of a variety of laws, codes,
establishing thus definite relationship between the right to something and duty to accomplish
ETHICS

something. Subsequently, colonialist and fascist-Zionist policy-makers (while rationalizing

their ethical justification) could justify their actions as being duties against so called evil and
thus granting themselves the right to expropriate, steal and kill poor people in the name of
civilization and human welfare.

The liberal-based approach seems to know no limits to their reconsideration of ethics. In

some cases, it has generated a denial of true moral values and it has consequently
adopted/advocated devilish trends, especially in sexual relations. The call for 'Love for All'
claimed as a right by LGBT (composed of emotionally unbalanced and sexually vicious
lesbians, gays, transgender etc.) (Except those who suffer from physiological malformations)
and imposed as a duty for others to respect them and not to disregard or discriminate them
is a genuine example of such distortion of moral values.
_________________________________________________________________________

Ethics summary--- Nov 2023:

Ethics being part of moral philosophy

Philosophy studies the systematic and rational consideration of human systems of belief

Ethics is concerned with questions concerning how human beings ought to live their lives,
and about what is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Basically, human beings collect ideas about the world around them; ideas coming from
different sources scientific discoveries, personal experience, traditional beliefs. The ideas
are partly unexamined.

Meta-ethics= meaning of ethical terms---how ethical knowledge is obtained on what basis

people can know what is 'true' or 'wrong' (not what should I do?) -abstract or theoretical
study

Normative ethics= the study of ethical acts what is the right thing to do?

Applied ethics= how people can achieve moral outcomes in specific situations, involving
moral judgements

The study of ethics involves reasoning about feelings-making sense of intuitions or

rationalising intuition about what right or wrong.
People experience feeling of empathy towards others. To Traer (2013) empathy is related to
moral sentiments. And ethical reasoning about these sentiments gives moral principles.

Most people already have general ideas - or what philosophers call 'intuitions' or
'presumptions' - about what they think is 'right' or 'wrong'. Ethicists attempt to think critically
about the moral ideas that they hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing
arguments, and to be able to explain the reasons and assumptions on which those
arguments are based.
It is more important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to
allow for rational - and deeper - understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs, ideas
and attitudes.
ETHICS

Rationalisation involves using rational or credible motives to cover up true motives It is the
cognitive process of making sth seem consistent with or based on reason.

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives a reason to support an
argument. What kind of reasoning are they using?
If they are using a principle to support their argument (deductive reasoning), then what kind
of principle is it? Is the principle rational?
If they are providing evidence to support their argument (inductive reasoning) then is the
evidence reliable?
_________________________________________________________________________
Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism

Different approaches have been proposed to deciding what action is right or wrong. Which of
those approaches is right?

Some philosophers argue that it is possible to make objective decisions about our ethics and
that identifying one, valid ethical theory should be the main task of philosophers. This
position is called ethical monism.

For other philosophers, In contrast, believe that it is impossible to make such objective
ethical judgements and that any decision about which particular ethical approach is 'right' is
nothing more than a personal preference, and will depend on people's individual feelings,
their cultural and religious background, etc. This position is called ethical relativism

Monism simply asks us to choose one moral framework and to apply it to our ethical
decision- making. People often use a range of ethical frameworks to make their decisions.
So, should we argue then for ethical relativism, and say that all ethical frameworks have
some validity? If you accept the ethical relativist's argument, this leaves the study of ethics in
a difficult position. If we cannot say that our ethical frameworks amount to anything more
than personal preference, then we are not left in a very strong position to promote any one
ethical decision over another.

Ethical pluralism 'Pluralism is an alternative to monism and to relativism. Rejecting the

monist view that there is only one correct answer in ethics, pluralists also reject the relativist
claim that there can be no right answer. Instead, moral pluralists maintain that there is a
plurality of moral truths that cannot (perhaps unfortunately) be reconciled into a single
principle. According to monists, this posture is the same as relativism. Source: DesJardins
(2006) pp. 262-263

Ethical pluralism is the acceptance that there may be more than one correct moral
framework that we can use. However, it differs from relativism in that it does not accept that
all frameworks are equal morality, according to a pluralist, does not simply come down to
personal preference. It is possible to make rational judgements between various frameworks
and to judge some to be better than others. The debate over whether ethicists should be
searching for one single unified moral framework (as moral monists believe) or whether a
range of frameworks can be useful to us (as moral pluralists believe) has become quite
heated, and the argument is complicated by there being several different forms of moral
pluralism. Here, we make only a single distinction between two broad types of pluralism. The
ETHICS

first question that we will consider is whether one person can legitimately use different
ethical frameworks to make different decisions. This is called intrapersonal pluralism. Can
we use Kantian deontology to make one ethical decision and then use virtue ethics to make
another? The second question is whether it is acceptable for different people, or different
cultures, to use different systems of ethics. This is the question of interpersonal pluralism.

However, before we accept pluralism as a useful compromise, we should think very carefully
about the consequences. What would happen if different people followed different ethical
frameworks within a society?
_________________________________________________________________________
Approaches to Ethical Theory:
Intentions and consequences of acts—) theories of conscience
Intuitionists-moral sense theorists
Sentimentalists
Innate moral sense
Empiricists deny innate principles
Difference between absolute good and relative good
Theology versus rationalists
Hedonism -source of pleasure-utilitarianism

20th c instrumentalism (John Dewey), for which morality lies within the individual and is
relative to the individual's experience;
emotivism (Sir Alfred J. Ayer), wherein ethical considerations are merely expressions of the
subjective desires of the individual;
intuitionism (G. E. Moore), which postulates an immediate awareness of the morally good.
Agreeing with Moore that the morally good is directly apprehended through intuition,
deontological intuitionists (H. A. Prichard, W. D. Ross) went on to distinguish between
good and right and to argue that moral obligations are intrinsically compelling whether or not
their fulfillment results in some greater good.
prescriptivism of R. M. Hare, who has compared moral precepts to commands, a
crucial difference between them being that moral precepts can be universally applied.

In his arguments for virtue ethics, Alasdair C. MacIntyre has cautioned against unbridled
individualism and advocated correctives drawn from Aristotle's discussion of moral virtue as
the mean between extremes.