ETHICS

Prelims ETHN01A
—--—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION TO ARGUMENT
●When reasoning is put into words, we get an
ETHICS argument.
●It consists of a set of statements consisting of
premises and a conclusion.
ETHICS ●An argument is valid when a conclusion is
●serves as a critical approach that deals with logically derived from the premises
questions about what is right or wrong, and LOGICAL FALLACIES
how we ought to behave and determine our
actions in different situations. ● NOT ALL ARGUMENTS ARE VALID
●fallacies – this originates from the word
MORALITY
faller which means deception or false,
●refers to the set of values, principles, and hence are false reasoning
norms that guide our behavior and ●It does not mean that reasoning or
decision-making. It is a set of beliefs about arguments which are committed in fallacy
what is right or wrong, good or bad, and just or
is automatically false, however, fallacies
unjust.
are committed in the reasoning process
In other words, ethics is the study of morality, itself.
while morality is the set of principles and OTHER BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
values that guide ethical behavior. In the
context of philosophy, ethics is seen as a field of METAPHYSICS
study which focuses on morality. ●refers to the assumptions about the nature of
reality
PHILOSOPHY ●also refers to the nature of beings.
●What is the meaning of life?; What is the
●Refers to the love for wisdom relationship between mind and matter? What is
●It is considered as the mother of all sciences. the essence of existence?
●It allows us to provide natural answers to ●It explores abstract concepts that may not be
natural phenomenon directly observable.
●To do philosophy is to reason about the ○ Ontology: branch of metaphysics that
ultimate questions of life refers to the inquiries about the nature of
○ Is there a God? existence, its categories, and form It is
○ Are our actions free or determined?
concerned with defining categories of
○ How and what can we know?
existence and understanding the
LOGICAL REASONING nature of being.
●A form of reasoning in which premises are EPISTEMOLOGY
used to infer a conclusion. ●refers to the inquiry into the nature of
●Premises- assumptions knowledge
●To think/reason logically is to conclude AXIOLOGY
something from something else ●refers to the study of value and value systems
Premise 1: All humans are mortal – This is concerned about what is valuable,
Premise 2: Pedro is human what is good, and what is morally right or
Conclusion: Therefore, Pedro is mortal wrong.
○ Ethics: refers to the nature of morality, and
human values
○ Aesthetics: refers to the nature of beauty.

Prelims 1
 DEFINING “GOOD”
●The notion of happiness and pleasure
●The idea of “excellence”
●The idea of “harmony”
●The concept of “socially approved”
DEFINING TERMS
AMORAL
●means to have no moral sense or being
indifferent to right and wrong
●People who don’t seem to realize that they’ve
done anything wrong (ex: 2 yrs old, sociopath)
●These people tend to have no remorse or
regret for what they have done
NONMORAL
●means being out of the realm or morality
altogether
●Inanimate objects (guns, cars, tools)
●Objects may be used to harm or benefit people,
but the things themselves are ultimately
nonmoral.
IMMORAL
●means conscious rejection of typical moral
standards.
●It often has the connotation of evil or
wrongdoings
●An object that is nonmoral, for example, may
be used to commit immoral acts
APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF ETHICS
Descriptive Approach
●Gives emphasis to an empirical approach in
which data is observed and collected to draw
conclusions
●This approach, however, does not make value
judgements to what is morally right or wrong.
●It seeks to answer “what do people think is
right?”
●The goal of the descriptive approach to ethics
is to investigate people’s ethical ideals
●Answers “what do people think is right?”
Normative Ethics
●Gives emphasis on moral value judgements
rather than description of the facts
●It is concerned with evaluating moral standards
or principles
●Provides a framework for making moral
judgements and decisions to act in a variety of
situations
●Answers “What is the right thing to do?”
Prelims
Metaethics
●Concerned with the nature of ethical language,
concepts, and reasoning
●It seeks to answer questions about the
meaning and truth of moral statements, facts,
and the foundations of moral principles
●Answers “what does “right” mean?”
●Examines the underlying assumptions and
implications of moral theories and aims to
clarify and analyze the language and concepts
used in ethical discussions.
Applied Ethics
●It is concerned with the practical application of
moral principles to specific issues or situations
●It seeks to address real-world ethical problems
(ex. medicine, business, politics)
●Answers “How do we put moral knowledge into
practice”
Virtue Ethics
●An approach to normative ethics that focuses
on character traits or virtues that individuals
should cultivates in order to live a good life
●In virtue ethics, virtues are seen as habits or
dispositions that enable individuals to act in
ways that are morally good (ex. honesty,
courage, compassion, fairness, generosity)
●Deals with the question “how should I live?”
●According to virtue ethics, individuals should
strive to develop these virtues through practice
and habituation in order to become morally
excellent.
CULTURAL
RELATIVISM
●Cultural relativism holds that the norms of a
culture serves as the ethical and social
standards within the bounds of a culture
●“when in Rome, do as the Romans do”
ABSOLUTISM
●Posits that there are universal ethical principles
that are morally binding
●Absolute means to be “perfect and complete”/
“not to be doubted”/ “unconditional”
●Some moral codes are seen as unconditional
and absolute: “Do not kill” “Stealing is wrong”
“Helping is right”
2

RELATIVISM
●Posits that there are NO absolutes, and that
morality is relative to a specific culture, group
or individual
●It means that there are no values that are cut
for all cultures
●Some moral codes are seen as conditional:
“What might be right for me, might not be right
for you” “What might be right for Filipinos, may
not be right for Americans”
DEFINING CULTURAL RELATIVISM (CR)
●Posits that if (X) is socially approved, THEN (X)
is morally good.
●Different societies have different moral codes,
the standard of “right” and wrong, therefore is
culture bound.
Claims of Cultural Relativism
●Different societies have different moral
codes
○ It is true, though, some values are shared
by all cultures, such as the value of telling
the truth, caring for the young, and the
prohibition against murder
○When cultures do differ, the underlying
reasons will often have more to do with it
rather than the factual beliefs of the culture
than with their values
●The moral code of a society determines
what is right within that society
○Here, we must bear in mind what society
believes about morals, and what is really
true
○Cultural relativism holds that societies are
morally infallible, but when we see that
societies can endorse and do grave
injustices, we see that societies, like their
members can be in need of moral
improvement
●There is no objective standard that can be
used to judge one society’s code as better
than another’s
○It is difficult to identify ethical principles that
people should hold at all times, but in
instances where practices are inhumane, we
must then appeal to the principles that are
not tethered to traditions of any one society
○Consider: will a practice help or harm
others?
Prelims
●The moral code of our own society has no
special status it is but one among many
○It is true that the moral code of any one
society has no special status, but to imply
that “it is one among many” implies that all
codes are the same.
○In-fact it is more of an open question, if
whether the code of one’s society is “among
many”
●It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures,
we should always be tolerant of them
○There is much truth in this, but the point is
overstated. We are often considered
arrogant when we criticize other cultures,
and considered good when we tolerate them
○BUT, in the case of inhumane acts, should
they be tolerated? – NO!
The Argument for Cultural Relativism
●Cultural Relativists often make certain types of
arguments. They begin with facts about
cultures and wind up drawing a conclusion
about morality
Cultural Relativism’s Line of Thinking
●Different cultures have different moral codes
●Therefore, there is no objective truth in
morality. Right and wrong are matters of
opinion, and opinion varies from culture to
culture
COUNTER ARGUMENTS
What Follows from Cultural Relativism?
●We could no longer say that the customs of
other societies are morally inferior to our own.
BUT, this also suggests that we would also be
barred from criticizing other practices
embedded in the culture of other societies
which may be considered as inhumane
●We could no longer criticize the code of our
own society. This prevents us from criticizing
our own society’s code of cultural practices and
understanding. Thus, it prevents us from
seeing other cultures that are better than our
ways, and it does not enable use to improve
our understanding and practices
●The idea of moral progress are called into
doubt. Progress means replacing the old ways
with new and improved ways – both in practice
and understanding. (CR) is problematic for
blind conformity to status quo ideas and
practices found would disable many forms of
social reform
3
 (CR) Uses the Cultural Difference Argument
●Is there really a difference? In what way are
cultures different?
●We cannot simply conclude (with logical
necessity) that just because two societies differ
in their custom (belief system), it will follow that
they have different value systems
●The difference is in our belief systems, not in
our value systems.
Some Values are Shared by all Cultures
●There are some moral rules that all societies
must embrace, because those rules are
necessary for society to exist.
●Cultures may differ in what they regard as
legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this
disagreement exists against a broad
background of agreement.
●Therefore, we shouldn’t overestimate the
extent to which cultures differ. Not every moral
rule can vary from society to society.
What can we Learn from Cultural Relativism
●The dangers of assuming that all our practices
are based on absolute rational standards
●Keeping an open mind and a fuller perspective
on things. We can see that our feelings are not
necessarily perceptions of the truth – they may
be due to cultural conditioning and nothing
more
●It is an attractive theory because it is based on
a genuine insight – that many of the practices
and attitudes we find natural are byproducts of
culture. Moreover, keeping this thought in mind
is important if we want to avoid arrogance and
remain open to new ideas
ETHICS AND RELIGION
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
●Religion in various context believe that God
has instructed man to obey the rules of conduct
●God does not force these rules on man, as God
has created man to be free agents. If man lives
as he should, then the Divine Command
Theory posits that man must follow God’s laws.
●God decrees right and wrong – this means that
God serves as the basis of moral values.
●It is often assumed that what is right and wrong
are dependent on God’s will.
●In Christianity, the Ten Commandments serve
as basis of what is right and wrong
Prelims
COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAINST DCT
THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA
●The Euthyphro was a book written by Plato in
which the main speaker was Socrates
“Is conduct right because the gods
command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?”
●This then begs the question, “if it is
commanded, is it right?”
●If we base morality on command (esp. without
reason), then such notion of right and wrong
becomes arbitrary
DIFFICULTIES OF THE DIVINE
COMMAND THEORY
●The conception of morality is mysterious
○ What makes something right/ wrong? The
reason why?
●The conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary
○ “Because I said so”
○ rather than any reason, there is use of
authority
●The conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles
○ some ‘morally wrong’ actions can’t be
considered morally wrong if it’s not in
God’s command
THEORY OF NATURAL LAW
●The Theory of Natural Law is a variation of the
Divine Command Theory
●Both views are based on the idea that morality
is based on God, but vary in terms of how
God’s moral standard is expressed
●Posits that we should do from how the world
works (Ex. Natural vs Unnatural)
●Moral rules, in the perspective of the Natural
Law Theory, would be derived from the laws of
nature. Actions are now seen from the
perspective of natural being regarded morally
good, while unnatural is branded as morally
wrong
COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAINST DCT
●Not everything that is natural can be
considered good
○ sickness, diseases, earthquakes, death…
●“Is” does not determine “ought”
○ an object can be used in other ways than
what it is originally used for
○ eg. Pen: naturally for writing but can be
used for self-defense
4
●The theory of natural law is widely rejected by
modern science
○ The explanation of the natural world does
not make any reference to values or
purposes Instead, what happens, just
happens
○ Consider a plant benefiting from rain, it is
not because it is natural that’s why it
survives, but rather it has evolved to serve
functions.
●Reason is still required to determine natural law
○ Can we simply base morality on nature? -
NO Because, we still need to reason as to
what is right and what is wrong
○ Consider this… Salt water is natural – do
we simply drink it? Because we assume
that it is natural, therefore it is good? – NO,
we utilize reason to identify that it is not
good for us

SCRIPTURES AND MORALITY

●Another issue we often see when discussing
religion and morality, are the scriptures
●Many people perceive sacred texts such as the
Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Vedas, etc. as
the word of god, and therefore the standard of
morality
●On using scriptures as the basis of morality…
The Elements of Moral Philosophy cautions us
on accepting notions that scriptures are
sources of moral standards – as these can be
taken out of context.
●Consider the Pick and Choose mentality – if
that is the case, is it still “God’s will”, or does it
become “my own personal will”?
○people might choose a line from a scripture
that supports their belief, but ignore others

Should we Base Morality on Religion?

● The Element of Moral Philosophy cautions us,
as morality is not simply understood as God’s
right and wrong, but instead is a matter of
conscience and reason
●Consider one’s rightness and wrongness
through individual actions.

Prelims 5