Chapter 4 in Ethics

CHAPTER 4 IN ETHICS
156. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong
b 100
ALT
FN
hg OM
and the potential - with a simple assu happiness, which and behavior con Aristotle define and deficiency.
moderation." H should avoid pa of them. By str
can find happi that Aristotle
excess and th
'Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) BA
Aristotle's perspective on ethics is based on the virtue of being human; in other words, virtue ethics.
There are two important distinctions between Aristotle's approach to ethics and the other predominant
perspectives at the time. First, Aristotle does not consider ethics as just a theoretical or philosophical
topic to study. To understand ethics, Aristotle argues, you actually have to observe how people behave.
This leads to the second distinction. Ethics is not about "what if" situations for Aristotle; instead, he
takes a very practical approach and many of his ideas on ethics are based on what someone did and how
their virtues impacted their actions.
Nicomachean Ethics is the name of a series of books that Aristotle wrote about ethics. In these writings,
he uses logic to determine a definition
For Aris disposit is descr is neith
Anger the co
is
feelin
holis
ALT
disposition is always one that gives rise to a
"middling" action. If
The Golden Mean ought not to be viewed as suggesting that a virtuous someone puts their life on the
line, when unarmed, in an attempt to stop a would-be terrorist attack, then their action may be rash
rather life-risking action may be courageously virtuous rather than rash. The than courageous. However,
if armed with a heavy, blunt instrument their
Golden Mean is not to be understood as suggesting that we
always act
somewhere between complete inaction and breathless exuberance, but as suggesting that we act
between the vices of excess and deficiency; such action may well involve extreme courage or
exceptional patience.
Aristotle emphasizes the importance of developing
way
excellence of character as the to achieve excellent conduct
Let's have a few more examples of how the Golden Mean is applied. Notice in the examples that too
much and too little are always wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the mean: with respect to
acting in the face of danger, courage is the mean between the excess of rashness and the deficiency of
cowardice; with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures, temperance is the mean between excess of
intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility; with respect to spending money, generosity is the
mean between the excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess.
Aristotle emphasizes the importance of developing excellence of character as the way to achieve what is
finally more important, excellent conduct. As Aristotle argues in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, the
man who possesses character excellence does the right thing, at the right
time, and in th bodily appetit bravely and a highest aims often transla virtuous cha ethicists, Ari of virtue.
For in the correc
Eudaimonia According aim for as i we must ou what Aris-
virtue ethi
Eudaimon translation
issues, euc translatio following
Naomi i
that sim opera "I On othe Chopin happy, perform both P pianist of grea
ALT
FN
CTRL
END
INS
24
gesting that a virtuous "middling" action. If ned, in an attempt to n may be rash rather lunt instrument
their ather than rash. The g that we
ss exuberance, but as always act nd deficiency; such nal patience.
e way uct
lean is applied. always wrong; ect to acting in ess of rashness enjoyment of mperance and ey, generosity
deficiency of
cellence of at, excellent Ethics, the at the right
4: Frameworks.
159
and in the right way. Bravery, and the correct regulation of one's
time, bodily appetites,
are examples of character excellence or virtue. So acting
bravely and acting temperately are examples of excellent activities. The aims are living well and attaining
eudaimonia, a Greek word highest happiness or flourishing. In the final analysis, often translated as
virtuous character is a pre-condition for happiness. Like many ethicists, Aristotle regards excellent
activity as pleasurable for the man of virtue. For example, Aristotle thinks that the man whose appetites
are in the correct order actually takes pleasure in acting moderately.
virtue ethics.
Eudaimonia is what we will experience if we fully achieve a good life. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia
is the state that all humans should aim for as it is the aim and end of human existence. To reach this
state, we must ourselves act in accordance with reason. Properly understanding what Aristotle means
by eudaimonia is crucial to understanding his 97ons or engem 6 25 13ven Eudaimonia has been
translated in many ways and no perfect translation has yet been identified. While all translations have
their own issues, eudaimonia understood as flourishing is perhaps the most helpful translation and
improves upon a simple translation of happiness. The following example may make this clearer.
Naomi is an extremely talented pianist. Some days, she plays music that simply makes her happy,
perhaps the tune from the television soap opera "Neighbours" or a rendition of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little
Star." On other days, she plays complex music such as the supremely difficult Chopin-Godowsky Études.
These performances may also make Naomi happy, but she seems to be flourishing as a pianist only with
the latter performances rather than the former. If we use the language of function, both performances
make Naomi happy but she fulfils her function as a pianist (and is a good pianist) only when she
flourishes with the works of greater complexity (Dimmock and Fisher, 2017).
DM
quo mo? 4: Frameworks. 157
and the potential impacts of ethics. He starts his presentation of ethics with a simple assumption:
humans think and behave in a way to achieve happiness, which Aristotle defines as the constant
consideration of truth
and behavior consistent with that truth.
Aristotle defines virtue as the average, or mean, between excess and deficiency. Basically, he says, the
idea of virtue is "all things in moderation." Humans should enjoy existence, but not be selfish. They
should avoid pain and displeasure, but not expect a life completely devoid of them. By striving to live
this virtuous life of moderation, human beings
can
find happiness and, therefore, be ethical. Golden Mean is the phrase that Aristotle uses to describe the
middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.
INS
T3 BUTAIVA
f being human; in inctions between nt perspectives at t a theoretical or totle argues, you
about "what if" al approach and e did and how
Aristotle wrote e a definition
For Aristotle, virtue is not a feeling itself but an appropriate psychological disposition in response to that
feeling
For Aristotle, virtue is not a feeling itself but an appropriate psychological disposition in response to that
feeling. The correct response to a feeling is described as acting on the basis of the Golden Mean, a
response that is neither excessive nor deficient.
Anger is a feeling and therefore is neither a virtue nor a vice. However, the correct response to anger
the Golden Mean between two extremes -is patience, rather than a lack of spirit or irascibility, Virtues
are not feelings, but characteristic dispositional responses that, when viewed holistically, define our
characters and who we are.
we mean
Flourishing in life may make us happy but happiness itself is not necessarily well aligned with acting in
accordance with our telos. Perhaps, if we prefer the term happiness as a translation for eudaimonia, v of
eudaimonia as flourishing when describing the state of acting in really or truly happy, but it may be
easier to stay with the understanding
accordance with our true function.
True happiness for Aristotle is very much part of ethical living. Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued,
since it is by its nature incomplete.
Eudaimonia is the highest good because it is the end all other ends.. pursue; it is pursued for itself, never
as a means to another end
in Weilurabi ad by a Loodlands
But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly
guided in life by our natural preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant
ones.
According to Sakellariouv (2015), eudaimonia is the highest good because it is the end all other ends
pursue; it is pursued for itself, never as a means to another end. Therefore, the highest good for humans
is a life of eudaimonia or, roughly, a life of happiness. Aristotle explained that the highest good is
reached when people perform human function well. Aristotle explained that it is the humans' ability to
reason or rationalize. This rational capacity allows people to grasp truths, and practical reason, by means
of which they are able to determine which ends to pursue how best to pursue them.
and
Function Argu is, Aristotle dev believed that ev Greek term tel true final funct Aristotle claim the 'good'
and claim is essen achieves its ow so every objec example, is to it supports t
says Aristotl successful ar artists, and f
Aristotle th whole. Inde component car itself, as not it is a g This teleo necessary just as a be have a telc
virtue by of a huma acting in
In worki separates what sep
INS
iness itself is not our telos. Perhaps, aimonia,
we mean
the understanding state of acting in
al living. Pleasure ature incomplete.
pod ends..
elf, end
own distinctive tural preference
sant ones.
e highest good for itself, never for humans is a e explained that function well. nor rationalize. practical
reason, s to pursue and
4: Frameworks. 161
Function Argument. To get a better understanding of what the best life believed that every object has
what he referred to as a final cause. The is, Aristotle developed what is known as the function argument.
He Greek term telos refers to what we might call a purpose, goal, end, or
true
final function of an
Aristotle
claim
object.
claims that "... for all things that have a function or activity,
the good and the 'well' is thought to reside in the function." Aristotle's is essentially that in achieving its
function, goal or end, an object achieves its own good. Every object has this type of a true function and
so every object has a way of achieving goodness. The telos of a bed, for example, is to provide a place to
sleep and a bed is a good bed when it supports the curvature and makes one feel comfortable. Equally, s
Aristotle, what makes good sculptors, artists, and flautists is the successful and appropriate performance
of their functions as sculptors,
says
artists, and flautists.
Aristotle thinks it far from unreasonable that we have a function as a whole. Indeed, this may be
plausible if we consider other objects. The component parts of a car, for example, have individual
functions but a car itself, as a whole, has its own function that determines whether or not it is a good
car.
This teleological- (function and purpose) based worldview is the necessary backdrop to understanding
Aristotle's ethical reasoning. For, just as a bed has a true function or end, so Aristotle believes human
beings have a telos. Aristotle identifies what the good for a human being is in virtue by working out what
the function of a human being is. The telos of a human being is to reason. The good for a human being
is, therefore, acting in accordance with reason.
In working out our true function, Aristotle looks to that feature that separates humans from other living
animals. According to Aristotle, separates humankind from the rest of the world is our ability not
What
a friend of
Ose control f the road.
I am not
od bow
y. Thus, if eknownst nsible for
istotle is Jam W
Seved
yhub
vino su
visade diw
29 lliw
nic
neds
levant
of the
any
Jeh A and
ause
tary
out
gowang gor4: Frameworks ⚫
165
During the deliberative process, individual actions are evaluated in light the choice among alternative
actions that the individual could perform. Under these conditions, Aristotle supposed, moral actions are
within our of the good, and the best among them is then chosen for implementation.
for them and their consequences. Just as with health of the body, virtue of the soul is a habit that can be
acquired (at least in part) as the result of our own choices. vel aeqmes win Ibs, imstad Svails. 6) insw
duty And Ab
o list of gabon
To summarize, if an action is voluntary, then it is completed free from force and ignorance and we can
hold the actor morally responsible. However, if the action is involuntary then the actor is not morally
responsible
as s/he acts on the basis of force or from ignorance.
CRITICISMS OF VIRTUE ETHICS

to no anong visad
Sakellariouv (2015), in citing Simon Keller, offers two objections against virtue ethics. First, virtue ethics
is self-effacing. A moral theory is self-effacing when "the considerations that it posits in telling that story
sometimes should not serve as motives for action, according to the theory itself." It does not allow for
harmony between motives and reasons. Moral theories facing this problem are self-effacing because
people would intuitively agree that the considerations they propose should not act as motives in every
situation.
Keller identifies two things wrong with self-effacing theories. First, they do not properly tell people what
should motivate them, "so they fail to perform a function that an ethical theory should perform."
Secondly, they do not allow for a "psychologically harmonious life" because they not allow the agent to
be motivated by what is important to them. Keller asserts that "if the virtue ethicist is to avoid self-
effacement then she must make the following claim: it is never undesirable for an agent to be moved to
action by the thought that her act is in accordance with
do
mbs
LT
to
one
be acting like the virtuous person, not acting out of the good of a virtue. person would." Virtue ethics
would have to allow one's motivations the virtues, or by the thought that she is acting as the fully
virtuous offers a thought-experiment to further explain. He details the story of Keller says that virtue
ethics cannot commit to such a statement. Keller three campers Arthur, Benjamin, and Christine, who
decide to invite a family who cannot set their own tent up to stay in their cabin stormy night. However,
all three campers have different motives for inviting the family to stay with them. Arthur wants to
relieve the family to do what the virtuous agent would do. Arthur seems to have the best of their
misery, Benjamin acts out of generosity, and Christine wamily motive of the three. Keller explains, "it is
clear that Arthur is the generous, and the one who most resembles the fully virtuous person... (because)
Benjamin and Christine each fail to have as a primary motive the truly generous one of using what one
has to relieve the suffering of others." Arthur acts truly out of generosity and is therefore most like the
virtuous agent. But, Christine does exactly what virtue ethics wants of her. She thinks about the virtuous
agent and acts accordingly. However,
she does not have the best motives.

say
121103
most
a virtuous agen
moral conflict.
Morris and M that virtue et rightly, that vi of the virtues or 'admirabili opportunity Another pro what the
"r have treated
The second and final objection that will be considered is virtue ethics' indeterminacy. This objection
simply states that virtue ethics fails to be action-guiding; it cannot tell what one should do. It fails to
resolve moral conflict. It seems that virtue ethics does not tell someone what to do; it says to think of
the virtuous agent and act as they would, but it is unclear how people would know how to do so. Some
virtue ethicists if one is in conflict, one should ask someone they consider a virtuous agent. But this
raises two problems. First, it is unclear how a virtuous agent can be identified. Perhaps it is someone
that is admired. However, the criteria of what makes someone admirable varies from person, and an
individual that may be admired may not actually be a virtuous agent. Secondly, there may not always be
an opportunity to ask someone else for advice. It seems inconvenient to have to seek out
person
to
but. One p of circu
set
Some adv virtues by begging. that happ truth (C
ST.TH
To und three-
Aquir
Virtu has.
three
on
ano
pow
EN
Im
CTRL
END
ng as the fully virtuous -w one's motivations to of the good of a virtue. ich a statement. Keller He details
the story of who decide to invite ay in their cabin one different motives for = to relieve the family and
Christine wants ems to have the best -Arthur is the most virtuous person... s a primary motive eve the
suffering of efore most like the e ethics wants of rdingly. However,
is virtue ethics' e ethics fails to t fails to resolve meone what to y would, but it virtue ethicists ider a
virtuous ow a virtuous red. However, om person to actually be a portunity to e to seek out
4: Frameworks
167
a virtuous agent - who may not even be virtuous - every time one is in I conflict. It is not plausible to do
this in every scenario.
moral
Morris and Morris (2016) have criticized virtue ethics on the grounds that virtue ethics is not sufficient
to explain why people should act rightly, that virtue ethics is not necessary to account for the intrinsic
value of the virtues, and that virtue ethics focuses on the agent's flourishing or 'admirability' when,
intuitively, our ethics should be motivated by the to improve the lives of others. opportunity
Another problem with virtue-based ethical systems is the question of what the "right" sort of character
is. Many, if not most, virtue theorists have treated the answer to this question as self-evident, but it is
anything but. One person's virtue may be another person's vice and a vice in one set of circumstances
may be a virtue in another.
Some advocates of virtue ethics suggest that we determine the right virtues by asking a virtuous person,
but that is just an exercise in question begging. Others might suggest asking a happy person, but that
assumes that happiness and virtue always coincide. This is by no means an obvious truth (Cline, 2018).
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

To understand Aquinas, the book to read is his Summa Theologiae, a three-volume handbook of
theological concepts. It is in this book that Aquinas discusses his treatise on virtue.
Virtue, Aquinas argues, is a habit which perfects a power that a thing has. Among these powers that
human beings have are the intellect and three appetitive powers: the will and two kinds of irrational
appetites one which accounts for our desires for various physical pleasures and another which accounts
for emotions such as anger and fear. These powers are capable of accomplishing anything - some are
good for us,
INS
CTVS
TAI
OMMA
SEX MEWNE LASANIA OFESTA
NS VIVS OVIE INS NORT NANDISS
DE
TYRIMAY HOKEN
PROVEDO CISTOINE
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
others are not. For instance, we can have desires for foods that are healthy, and desires for foods that
are unhealthy. Hence, we need good habits to dispose us to act in good ways. These good habits are the
virtues and many of them are necessary in order to attain perfect happiness, which for Aquinas is the
vision of God. Following St. Augustine, Aquinas defines 'virtue' as a habit "by which we live righteously,
of which no one can make bad use, which God works in us, without us.
There are three categories of virtues that Aquinas defines: intellectual, moral and theological.
Intellectual virtue refers to the intellectual powers of the person. The intellect has always as its object
the truth. For Aquinas, understanding, science, and wisdom are the three virtues that perfect the
intellect.
Aquinas distinguishes between wisdom and practical wisdom. For him practical wisdom is a habit which
cannot be misused. Unlike wisdom,
understanding, a activiti
practical
the means to as and the executic wisdom is conc products. Unl cannot be mis with the mora intellect in
its science of gec are derived fr its grasp of th But, accordi Aquinas's ac confer an a something that the
po carpenter mathemat Aquinas m sense. B. full sense
The seco moral vi example that con perfects
concern
perfect the in perfec intelle
CTRL
INS
30
t are healthy, good habits
virtues and iness, which ne, Aquinas hich no one
tellectual, intellectual truth. For irtues that
. For him e wisdom,
grow mo
4: Frameworks
169
understanding, and science, practical wisdom perfects the intellect in its practical activities. Practical
wisdom involves good deliberation about The means to a good end, a correct judgment about what is to
be done, and the execution of that good choice. Unlike the various arts, practical wisdom is concerned
with human conduct rather than the making of products. Unlike all of the other intellectual virtues,
practical wisdom cannot be misused for evil purposes because it is closely connected with the moral
virtues. Briefly, the virtue of understanding perfects the intellect in its grasp of true principles; the
different sciences (e.g., the science of geometry) perfect the intellect in its grasp of the truths which are
derived from those principles; and wisdom perfects the intellect in its grasp of the highest cause, which
is God.
по
But, according to Shane Drefeinski, there is less that separates us from Aquinas's account than we may
think. While these intellectual virtues confer an aptness in the intellect for grasping truth or for
producing something well-made, Aquinas recognizes that they do not guarantee that the possessor will
use them appropriately. For instance, a skilled carpenter may deliberately make a defective product and
a brilliant mathematician may deliberately make a mistake in a proof. As a result, Aquinas notes that the
intellectual virtues are virtues only in an extended sense. Because they can be misused, intellectual
virtues fall short of the full sense of virtue that is captured by Augustine's definition.
The second kind of virtue that Aquinas discusses is moral virtue. The moral virtues perfect the
'appetitive powers' of the soul. To cite three examples, the virtue of temperance (which concerns the
pleasures that come from the table and the bedroom) is one of the virtues that (which The virtue of
courage perfects the 'concupiscible appetite.' concerns the emotions of fear and confidence) is one of
the virtues that perfects the 'irascible appetite.' The virtue of justice (which concerns the interactions of
people with each other) is one of the virtues that perfects the will. Aquinas stresses that the moral
virtues are unlike the intellectual virtues mentioned above in at least two significant ways.
ALT
ALT
FN
I'm
15
172 ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong
gansuridad.yderar bris sh
fully
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARISTOTLE AND AQUINAS Although Aquinas initially took direction on his work
on virtue from Aristotle, the former differs from Aristotle on when character is developed. According to
Vogler (2017), character development for Aquinas is an ongoing process: our very nature is such that
even an adult human being with a full complement of acquired Y
virtue is
likely
things she
to err sometimes, and likely to have reason to regret some did or failed to do, said or failed to say, and
thought or failed to think. and never entirely completed, in an individual human lifetime. Finally, The
business of cultivating good character is, in Aquinas's view, ongoing Aquinas recognizes some God-given
virtues, and there is no reason t suppose that God will time His gifts to line up with stages of life familiar
from various literatures on moral development. In other ways besides
Jou 976 501tiv begin.
to
denisisCorN?
ing up at its nog v
Aquinas believes that we can slegs never achieve complete or
910m ad
aided bid que final happiness in this life boat or
....................................
ost noto, she vous ne om ono boston 15tion these, Aquinas paints on a broader canvas than Aristotle's.
The cast of variously morally exemplary figures available to Aquinas includes a great many saints who
were neither especially privileged nor especially intellectually inclined. In all of these respects, Aquinas's
understanding of virtue comes closer to some aspects of contemporary understandings of the challenge
of the ethical than does Aristotle's. reddi
id bad boys bas boog suruq 0345
Aristotle believes that an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from
our telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness or
flourishing, where "happiness" is understood in terms of completion, perfection, or well-
being. Achieving happin moral virtues that enabl us to seek it in
motivate
Aquinas
believes that w
this life. For him, final union with God. Suc natural human capaci the virtues, we also ne be suited to
participa that we inherited a pr our nature is not who
sin's stain, as evidence
Thus we need God's
bring us into confor

his grace which cor gifts. b
CARDINAL VIF Philosophy)
aomba nch There are essentia virtues." These vir They are the prin To put the matte type of rectitude of
prudence den matters whateve with respect to temperance com
any virtue that
sort. 101
CTRL
END
INS
his work
E AND AQUINAS yderoh bas gush to when character is fully on virtue from acter development for e is
such that even an cquired virtue is likely
regret some
things she
aght or failed to think quinas's view, ongoing man lifetime. Finally, Ethere is no reason to stages of life
familiar other ways besides anissi orist?
e canes of ba stom ad
e or an of ife batai od
ristotle's. The cast Aquinas includes a ged nor especially s's understanding y understandings
ng on whether it which all human ourishing, where fection, or well-
no mo:1
4: Frameworks.. 173:
being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to
understand the nature of happiness and
motivate
us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.
(agshtoo) is) aninge foar
Aquinas believes that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in this life. For him, final
happiness consists in beatitude or supernatural union with God. Such an end lies far beyond what we
through our natural human capacities can attain. For this reason, we not only need the virtues, we also
need God to transform our nature so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude.
Moreover, Aquinas believes that we inherited a propensity to sin from our first parent, Adam. While our
nature is not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless diminished by sin's stain, as evidenced by the
fact that our wills are at enmity with God's. Thus we need God's help in order to restore the good of our
nature and bring us into conformity with his will. To this end, God imbues us with his grace which comes
in the form of divinely instantiated virtues and gifts. be said the silt de deres son are onsbing sob o un
lenobre we to benimasher, at doily boog as do CARDINAL VIRTUES (From: International Encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
leom ob noitor to be adtau tot consulobing, esp There are essentially four virtues that Aquinas describes
as "cardinal virtues." These virtues are prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. They are the
principle habits on which the rest of the virtues hinge. each cardinal virtue refers to a general To another
the matter put way, type of rectitude that has various specifications. For example, the virtue of
prudence denotes a "certain rectitude of discretion in any actions or matters whatever." Any virtue the
point of which is to promote discretion with respect to action will be considered a part of prudence.
Similarly, temperance concerns the moderation of passion, and thus will include virtue that seeks to
restrain those desires of a more or less insatiable sort, se en 101 90ed low 70 bilion of radong more vin
any
Aquinas thinks the cardinal virtues provide general templates for the most salient forms of moral
activity: commanding action (prudence); giving to those what is due (justice); curbing the passions
(temperance);
and strengthening the passions against fear (courage).
how we should behave. This is precisely the sort of habit associated Prudence. In order to act well, we
need to make good judgments about affairs" or "right reason with respect to action." In order to make
good with prudence, which Aquinas defines as "wisdom concerning human the general moral principles
that guide actions and (2) the particular moral judgments, a twofold knowledge is required: one must
know (1)
circumstances in which a decision is required.
According to Aquinas, then, the virtue of prudence is a kind of intellectual aptitude that enables us to
make judgments that are consonant with (and indeed ordered to) our proper end. Note here that
prudence does not establish the end at which we aim. Our end is the human good, which is
predetermined by our rational nature. Nor does prudence desire that end; for whether we desire our
proper end depends on whether we have the right sorts of appetitive inclinations. According to Aquinas,
prudence illuminates for us the course of action deemed most appropriate for achieving our
antecedently established telos. It does this through three acts: (1) counsel, whereby we inquire about
the available means of achieving the end; (2) judgment, whereby we determine the proper means for
achieving the end; and finally (3) command, whereby we apply that judgment.
Temperance has a twofold meaning. In a general sense, the term denotes a kind of moderation common
to every moral virtue. In its more restricted sense, temperance concerns the moderation of physical
pleasures, especially those associated with eating, drinking, and sex. We display a common propensity
to sacrifice our well-being for the sake of these transient goods. Thus, we need some virtue that serves
to restrain
what Aquinas call desire what is plea
does not
Aquinas pleasure. Nor does pleasure less. Such innately deficient pleasure, he says, to Aquinas, the
bodily pleasures moderation with
coblada
nish's 6 fir
easily subordi
are not excess
be an integra bodily pleasu more enduri- and bodily g as instrumer
Like prude: subsidiary modify the sobriety an and food,
16
CTRL
Emplates for the
on (prudence); (temperance);
dgments about abit associated erning human to make good nust know (1) the particular
is a kind of nts that are ote here that ur end is the re. Nor does end depends s. According eemed most It
does this the available termine the nd, whereby
, the term rtue. In its
of physical We
and sex. the sake of to restrain
total migh
4: Frameworks. 175
what Aquinas calls "concupiscible passion" - the appetite whereby we desire what is pleasing and avoid
what is harmful.
dw.ot
shotami ada niatan periis vallimal
does not think that temperance eradicates our desire for bodily Aquinas Nor does he think that
temperance is a matter of desiring physical pleasure. I
pleasure less. Such a description suggests that physical gratification is an innately deficient type of
enjoyment. Yet Aquinas denies this. Physical pleasure, he says, is the result of the body's natural
operations. According to Aquinas, the purpose of temperance is to refine the way we enjoy bodily
pleasures. Specifically, it creates in the agent a proper sense of moderation with respect to what is
pleasurable. For a person can more.
Culliedua
alchis de
Humility aims to restrain the immoderate desire for what one cannot achieve
set do 29/
201401
easily subordinate herself or himself to reason when her or his passions are not excessive or deficient. In
this view, bodily enjoyment can in fact be an integral part of a rational life. For the moderated
enjoyment of bodily pleasure safeguards the good of reason and actually facilitates a more enduring
kind of satisfaction. Thus Aquinas insists that "sensible and bodily goods... are not in opposition to
reason, but are subject to it proper end." as instruments which reason employs in order to attain its
20
Like prudence, temperance is a cardinal virtue. There are a host of subsidiary virtues that fall under
temperance because they serve to modify y the most insatiable human passions. For example, chastity,
sobriety and abstinence - which denote a retrenchment of sex, drink, and food, respectively - are
(predictably) all parts of temperance. Yet
INS
the harmony displayed in a work of art.
bai
Hence the attractive aspect of virtue is often stressed by Aristotle and his modern imitators, at the
expense of
morality proper.
What was
missing were two dimensions of
morality that only the Christian religion brought into full light: that internal dispositions and their
consequent actions are virtuous not mainly because of an aesthetic harmony of be agent, conduct and
environment, but because they advance their possessor in the direction of his final destiny to eternal life
after death; and that virtue is more than a reasonable balance between behavioristic extremes, since it
postulates pa primal obligation to a divine Lawgiver, whose will is manifest in conscience and faith, and
to whom obedience iscom
due as man's Creator and Lord.
B. IMMANUEL KANT AND RIGHTS THEORISTS
GOOD WILL
tadirozabad-saleroo
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "goodwill" to mean a kindly feeling of approval and support,
benevolent interest, or concern. Goodwill can also be spelled as two separate words, "good will," but
either way, it joins "good" from the Old English word for "virtuous," god, and will, in Old English willa, or
"wish." So when a person wishes someone well, one has goodwill toward that person. Enough for now
of the etymological meaning of good will.
In this book, the meaning of good will is quite different although we can assume that doing good action
like helping a friend is an act of good will. But as Immanuel Kant would explain through his moral theory
known as the Categorical Imperative, having a good will does not automatically mean a person is acting
morally
What th
To expla "good":
This me
or poin the wo enjoy i
which
about
to wh
differ other
happ
essed by ense of sions of nto full
actions ony of
dvance at eternal
onable coo
ulates
vill is
nce is tom
4: Frameworks. 181
dieb
wonder of woll
MOSA
ONRY Intem ad:
a kindly
concern.
will," but irtuous," n wishes I now of
ugh we of good theory pes not
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Wiw boop 6993
What then is good will, according to Kant?
binw soltiisup
DO TENI
To explain what good will is, it is necessary to explain what Kant meant by "good" and what he meant by
"will.". "Good," first, is a practical concept. This means that it has a necessary relation to action. Think of
three stances, or points of view on the world. In one stance we are there to observe the world, in order
to understand it. In another stance we are there to enjoy its effect on us, or to appreciate its beauty. In
the remaining stance, which is practical, we view the world in order to act, in order to bring about
something, or to prevent something from occurring. "Will" refers to what is called the mental faculty
engaged in the practical stance. It differs from understanding and feeling, the faculties engaged for the
other stances. The will is our general ability for causing something to happen (or preventing something
from happening), intentionally. When
a friend of
Ose control f the road.
I am not
od bow
y. Thus, if eknownst nsible for
istotle is Jam W
Seved
yhub
vino su
visade diw
29 lliw
nic
neds
levant
of the
any
Jeh A and
ause
tary
out
gowang gor4: Frameworks ⚫
165
During the deliberative process, individual actions are evaluated in light the choice among alternative
actions that the individual could perform. Under these conditions, Aristotle supposed, moral actions are
within our of the good, and the best among them is then chosen for implementation.
for them and their consequences. Just as with health of the body, virtue of the soul is a habit that can be
acquired (at least in part) as the result of our own choices. vel aeqmes win Ibs, imstad Svails. 6) insw
duty And Ab
o list of gabon
To summarize, if an action is voluntary, then it is completed free from force and ignorance and we can
hold the actor morally responsible. However, if the action is involuntary then the actor is not morally
responsible
as s/he acts on the basis of force or from ignorance.
CRITICISMS OF VIRTUE ETHICS
to no anong visad
Sakellariouv (2015), in citing Simon Keller, offers two objections against virtue ethics. First, virtue ethics
is self-effacing. A moral theory is self-effacing when "the considerations that it posits in telling that story
sometimes should not serve as motives for action, according to the theory itself." It does not allow for
harmony between motives and reasons. Moral theories facing this problem are self-effacing because
people would intuitively agree that the considerations they propose should not act as motives in every
situation.
Keller identifies two things wrong with self-effacing theories. First, they do not properly tell people what
should motivate them, "so they fail to perform a function that an ethical theory should perform."
Secondly, they do not allow for a "psychologically harmonious life" because they not allow the agent to
be motivated by what is important to them. Keller asserts that "if the virtue ethicist is to avoid self-
effacement then she must make the following claim: it is never undesirable for an agent to be moved to
action by the thought that her act is in accordance with
do
mbs
we refer to this
ability as it is guided by our thought of the morality of what we are we think of "a good will," a will that
is morally good,
doing.
How do we know that what we are doing is morally right or
wrong? By
analyzing the concept of a good will, Kant develops a simple formula
that can tell us whether what we are
Categorical Imperative.
doing is right. He calls it the
the moral validity for a particular action: "Act only according to that According to Mintz (2017), the
categorical Imperative determines
"Nothing can possibly be conceived
in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will."
Immanuel Kant
reason
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The "maxim" of
our acts can be thought of as the behind our acts. This version of the Categorical Imperative establishes
that our reasons need to be universal. In other words, they need to be those we would want others to
have in similar situations for similar
reasons.
Kant's seminal work in The Metaphysics of Morals begins by saying: "Nothing can possibly be conceived
in the world, or even out of it, which for something to be good "without qualification," it must not be
merely can be called good without qualification, except a good will." In order
as a means to an e
"good" as
Kant's point is that to be must be good in every ins To act out of a "good wil or "duty." In obligation
motive is determined b- the desire for any expect
way
cause us to act the obligation to do duty or
For Kant the basis for will. Those acts are n rather than fo of duty
the consequences to s the good will. That duty to act in such a a similar manner in
Kant's theory is an it posits that the rig their consequences says, is the faculty we act, whether or often
beyond our c their outcom the action. That is another. The mor of the motivation
upon
muot
Goodness inclination
arise from da shopkeep
105
od, we refer to this ity of what we are
right or
a simple formula wrong? By t. He calls it the
ative determines ccording to that
eived
it,
nout ill."
al noch er[W
ild become a as the reason e establishes need to be for similar
by saying: of it, which "In order be merely
"good"
4: Frameworks. 183
as a means to an end but "bad as a means to some other end.
Kant's point is that to be universally and absolutely good, something must be good in every instance of
its occurrence.
To act out of a "good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral
obligation
or
"duty." In other words, we do our moral duty when our
motive is determined by a principle recognized by reason rather than the desire for any expected
consequence or emotional feeling which may cause us to act the way we do. Simply put, we act because
it is our moral
duty or
obligation
to do the action regardless of the consequences.
For Kant the basis for a "theory of the good" lies in the intention or the will. Those acts are morally
praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected,
particularly the consequences to self. The only thing good about the act is the will, the good will. That
will is to do our duty. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want
everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances toward all other people.
Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory because it posits that the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. The
will, Kant is the faculty of acting according to a conception of law. When says, we act, whether or not we
achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does
not depend their outcome. What we can control, however, is the will behind upon the action. That is,
we can will to act according to one law rather than another. The morality of an action, therefore, must
be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it.
4001
way. A
Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty.
It can only arise from conceiving of one's actions in a certain shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in
accord with duty
184. ETHICS Knowing Right From Wrong
person who
and not overcharge a child. Kant argues, "it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that
it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law." There is a clear moral difference
between the shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers
and the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty. Likewise, in another of Kant's
carefully studied examples, the kind act of the overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people
out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of the person who naturally takes
pleasure in spreading joy does not. A person's moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature
endowed them with accidentally. The selfishly the motivated shopkeeper and the naturally kind person
both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters to morality is that the actor thinks
about their actions in the right manner. (Sullivan and Pecorino 2002)
Kant further explains that the only thing good in itself is the "Good will." Therefore, doing something
because you think it is good doesn't make the act good. It all matters on the attitude you have towards
it. This brings up the issue Kant has with inclination. Let's take an example.
Let's say your professor asks you to buy him medicine during class. You
either:
TOON
A) Buy the medicine because it will make your teacher happy and you care about him. So you do it
without any complaints.
B) Buy the medicine because you love going out of the classroom during class.
15.
C) Reluctantly buy your teacher's medicine because it's the right atvind of ours which
thing to do.
Which one of these out of sheer good v If you said A, sorr- you're ask
I'm sure
inclination. It is a out of good will r do the right t
you doing an act out c reward, or pleas your good will. E There is no othe because it is my
CRITICISM
Is it true that a good will is g answered each on adequate
is
if a person doing somet
question is: I why Kant w goodness do ever claime than that e will. It is a is your du motive. E this mista
CTRL
END
INS
is not sufficient hat it conform the law. There opkeeper that ffending other
From duty and id her of Kant's
ch
e person who barb people out of
ame kind act
preading joy endent upon The selfishly son both act
hat matters tions in the
unlimi
lf is the "Good is good doesn't towards it. This an example. drody ring class. You
er happy and
nts.
he classroom
's the right
thing to do.
Frameworks. 185
Which one of these, according to Kant, are morally correct and are done
out of sheer good will?
If you said A, sorry
I'm sure
but
you are
wrong. B? I don't think so. C? You bet!
you're asking yourself, why? And the answer is because of your simple as that. According to Kant, doing
something inclination. It is as doing it strictly for the sake of duty. This means
out of good will means
you
reward,
or
do the right thing because it is your "job" to do so. As soon as you are doing an act out of the fact that
you are inclined to do so because of some pleasure that is involved then that act will not account for
your good will. Kantian ethics is straight to the point, it's duty inspired. There is no other emotion that
should be felt other than "I must do this
because
it is my duty."
VITAS34MI TAMODSTO
vrgnud said go of an ol
CRITICISM AND CONTROVERSYvisor is end.

Is it true that a good will is good without limitation? Is it true that only a good will is good without
limitation? Critics of Kantian ethics have answered each of these questions in the negative. The good will
depends on adequate guidance in order to bring about what is good. But what if a person is misguided
in acting? What if a person thinks he or she is doing something good but in fact one is doing something
wrong? The question is: Is it possible to do wrong with good will? There is no reason why Kant would
have to deny this possibility. He can say that a will's goodness does not depend on the rightness of the
action. Nothing s/he ever claimed implies that a good will always does what is right; any more one acts
with a good than that every time someone does what is right will. It is a common mistake to assume that
doing what is right, or what is your duty, requires acting with a good will, or acting with the right.
motive. Even philosophers who should know better sometimes make
this mistake.
is an ideal of perfect virtue? Do most of us have a good will or So who has a good will? Does no one have
a good will, simply because it
only a few?
questions; at least not with any clarity. The majority view is that a small Could it be that everyone has a
good will? Kant never answered these
percentage of us have good wills. Some people seem to care
deeply about
morality, and to be committed to doing what is right, even if it means sacrificing other things they care
about: these people seem to have good wills. But they are rare. The perfectionist view says, on the
contrary, that human beings can only approximate having a good will. The good will is here regarded as
a humanly unachievable ideal of moral perfection. But those holding the universalist view disagree,
insisting that everyone has a good will. This is because every human being is moved to some by the
thought of doing what is good or morally right to do.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
eats.
Kant
degree
euroad
If a person wants to stop being hungry, it is imperative that he or she says an imperative is categorical,
when it is true at all times and in all situations. The example of a hungry person Kant named the fw boop
alwboogsten Hypothetical Imperative.d
svalt also meine to gostil suori bo
An imperative is a command: "Close the door," "Go to sleep,” “Go play basketball." But these commands
are what Kant would describe as "hypothetical imperatives." These commands depend upon the goals to
be fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend upon personal situations, particular human goals and
desires and dispositions. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that apply only in particular
circumstances, for particular people who happen to have these desires and these goals at a particular
time. In these examples, "Close the door" could mean "close the door so that the bugs don't get in." Or
"Go to sleep" could mean "Go to sleep because you morning." Or "Go play basketball" could mean "Go
play basketball so have a piano lesson tomorrow that you can be a basketball star someday." In other
words, different
eim
individuals F sleep" or "pla
Compared situations, Universal b precisely t guided by
autonomy ambitions For Kant
various w you So if ever
can a
Ingmar
everyw expres its mo
to tre
as an
hom
bene
so b
pers
END
INS
11, simply because it
I will or only a few? ver answered these iew is that a small deeply about
300
care
-, even if it means
that
eem to have good the contrary, 1. The good will is l perfection. But hat everyone has A to some degree o
do.
ho na sastr
- that he or she que at all times ant named the
2 Ilie beog o sleep," "Go ould describe nd upon the depend upon dispositions. in particular these desires
ose the door" Go to sleep"
n tomorrow asketball so ds, different
sleep"
or
"play basketball."
4: Frameworks- 187
individuals have different answers for why they "close the door," "go to Compared to the hypothetical
imperative that depends on personal situations, Kant's categorical imperative is universal and impartial.
Universal because all people, in virtue of being rational, would act in precisely the same way, and
impartial because their actions are not guided by their own biases, but because they respect the dignity
and
autonomy
of every
human being and do not put their own personal
ambitions above the respect that others deserve.m

For
various ways or forms. 1. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law." So if everyone stops and feeds the homeless, would this result in
good
Inget arb no viap diag
natud ter vocab live faith in aq
bob Kant's principle of universal laws states that only a maxim that can be consistently universalized
dican qualify as a moral law
and
everywhere? Yes. This is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the
rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian formula: 2.
"So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as
only a means." So if I feel obliged to feed the homeless person and do so, I'm not thinking about the
consequences or benefits to myself. I treat the person as an end. If I feel inclined to do so because I'll
feel good about myself afterwards, I treat the homeless person as a means to an end, slil nabi yoqms
bus as of
erative is Kant's xim that can be ereas the golden
nt's approach is eople want but r or not a given at the act falls e universalized ency, then the nsistency,
then lized practice Consistency, so
rstood, is in anyone who n this moral ple, human dded in the tal that it
ns. In fact, y that are immoral
particular
good" if
one and
means
efit to
Joomag go 4: Frameworks. 189
actions. ab med sino si lo no Bhen woll 4. Formula of Autonomy: manipulating another person to go
against their moral right or "good" is wrong. All human beings are free rational agents bound by a will
that is logical. Bad human beings have bad wills.
5. Kingdom of Ends: imagine every maxim you employ and every action you take is forming a group of
set laws for all of humanity in an imaginary Kingdom of Ends. Perfect justice and perfect peace will
ensue.
Kant did not tell people what to do, but how to determine the right course of action. He said we all had
this unique ability to determine a "good" behavior using our a priori reasoning. Make a decision to act,
and not examine consequences later, to determine if we made a good decision. You could say Kant
believed in having a clear conscience.
PROBLEMS WITH KANT'S THEORY
noizzupaid bas noiteltЯ 101 1. The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-
humans or to humans who are not rational, e.g., humans with brain malfunction, illness, or persistent
vegetative coma.
230162
2. The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties: between two perfect duties and between a
perfect duty and an imperfect duty.
‫معالوي‬
A perfect duty is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time; for example, no killing, no physically
harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking of promises. fyse blow ones bigit 00226
Imperfect duties are those which we should do as often as possible but cannot be expected to do
always; for example; be charitable, be loving,
How would a person resolve a conflict between two perfect duties such as never tell a lie and avoid
harming someone? What if telling the truth were to harm someone?
INS
rfect duty, say to at a certain time, up your friend, in t stranger's life?
on the
ersalized in such qualifiers Could satisfy the e not consistent
s mate and not noral and anal hinks that the id not include
ரo
ноя
lopment
ve them
e value quences 1 ethics
1 for it d Kant uld be
LEGAL RIGHTS
of positive
4: Frameworks. 191
A right is described as an entitlement or justified claim to a certain kind r non-interference from others.
In other words, a right is something to which every individual in the community is morally permitted,
and for
and negative treatment from others, to support from others
or
anything
that stands in the way of even a single individual getting it. to individuals, and no organization has any
rights not Rights belong to
directly derived from those of its members as individuals; and, just as an individual's rights cannot
extend to where they will intrude on another individual's rights, similarly the rights of any organization
whatever
must
yield to those of a single individual, whether inside or outside the organization. Rights are those
important conditions of social life without which no person can generally realize his best self. These are
the essential conditions for health of both the individual and his society. It is only when people get and
enjoy rights that they can develop their personalities and contribute their best services to society.
Other moral theorists like Isaiah Berlin defines rights in terms of positive liberties and negative
freedoms. A positive right is an entitlement too. For example, the right to free expression entitles one to
voice opinions publicly. A negative right is a freedom from, For example, freedom of person is a right to
be free of bodily interference. Most rights are both positive and negative. Saidgings 1
MAIN FEATURES OF RIGHTS ad legal tono as to and avamisoperates oals bus alcobibai
1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living, 2. Rights are claims of the
individuals for their development in society.
dr ande
3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.
INS
4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on 5. Since rights are here only in society,
these cannot be exercised
their society.
against the society.
6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their development
in society by the p of social good. Rights can never be exercised against social good.
7. Rights are equally available to all the people.
promotion
8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of
time.
9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining public health,
security, order and
morality.
10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them "No Duties No
Rights. No Rights No Duties." "If I have rights it is my duty to respect the rights of others in society."
andmed
11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These are protected
and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the rights of the people.
Legal rights are those rights which are accepted and enforced by the state. Any defilement of any legal
right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced
against individuals and also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from moral
rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens follow legal rights without any can
go to the courts for getting their legal rights enforced. discrimination. They Legal rights are rights that
people have under some legal system, granted by a duly authorized legal authority or government. For
nutritional pro- legal right to b
THREE TY 1. Civil oppo fulfil

and
2. Poli
whi
the
inc
off
rig
3. E
DIFE
LEG
Man
inhe state
and
pr
FN
CTRL
END
INS
people make on
ot be exercised
development he promotion St social good.
e passage of
laubh Ons deemed order and
is a close No Rights e rights of
eally used e laws of ts of the
by the
courts
against
-hts are all the
. They
stem,
For
sand
to be educated.
4: Frameworks. 193
nutritional profile of packaged foods. Children in many countries have a
legal right
THREE TYPES OF LEGAL RIGHTS:
1.
Civil Rights
opportunity
Civil rights are those rights which provide to each person to lead a civilized social life. These
fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty
and equality
are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.
2. Political Rights Political rights are those rights by virtue of which the people get a share in the political
process. These allow them to take an active part in the political process. The rights include the right to
vote, right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticize and oppose the
-
government. Political
rights are really available to the people in a democratic state. 3. Economic Rights Economic rights are
those rights which provide economic security to the people. These empower all citizens to make proper
use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of every person are related to his food, clothing,
shelter, and medical treatment. Without the fulfilment of these no person can really enjoy his civil and
political rights. It is therefore essential that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate
wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical disability, and old
age.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATURAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS
Many researchers have faith in natural rights. They state that people inherit several rights from nature.
Before they came to live in society and state, they used to live in a state of nature. In it, they appreciated
certain
to
property.
theory
natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty, and right maintains that an individual enters into
society with certain basic rights Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason. Political
and that no government can deny these rights
In classical political philosophy, natural right denotes the objective of an action, or the excellence of a
regime. Aristotle states in Politics that rightness of the right things, whether the virtue of a soul, the
correctness
courage,
no one would call a person happy who is completely lacking in to restrain any impulse toward food or
drink, willing to ruin friends for temperance, justice, or wisdom. A person who is easily terrified, unable
a trifle, and generally senseless could not possibly lead a good life. Even though chance may occasionally
prevent good actions from having their normal consequences, so that sometimes cowards fare better
than brave men, courage is still objectively better than cowardice. The virtues and actions that
contribute to the good life, and the activities intrinsic to the good life, are naturally right.
The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law
are
such as the righ independent of t naturally free legitimate politi people in the st to the governm
enjoyment of t by the consent and promote t resisted and re
The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, but for
other scholars, the concept of natural rights is unreal. Rights are the products of social living. These can
be used only in a society. Rights have behind them the recognition of society as common claims for
development, and that is why the state protects these rights. John Locke (1632-1704), the most
influential political philosophers of the modern period, argues that people have rights,
There is som rights. Legal law. Legal rig as the law is legal legislati support ado notion of hu moral right
validity thro can appeal changes in moral righ
MORAL Moral rig the moral of goodne of goodn
If any p against h
not reco
நா
CTRL
END
INS
nd right to property. on. Political theory certain basic rights
otes the objective ul, the correctness tes in Politics that
cking in courage, terrified, unable ruin friends for a good life. Even om having their etter than brave The
virtues and intrinsic to the
hts
aw
nd medieval of natural can be used of society te protects al political
ve rights,
are
4: Frameworks - 195
such as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any
particular society. Locke claims that men naturally free and equal as part of the justification for
understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where in the state of
nature conditionally transfer some of their rights government in order to better ensure the stable,
comfortable t of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist
people
to
the
enjoyment
by
the consent
and promote
of the people in order to protect the rights of the people the public good, governments that fail to do so
can be
resisted and replaced with new governments.
There is some difference between moral or human rights and legal rights. Legal rights require for their
justification an existing system of law. Legal rights are roughly, what they law says they are, at least
insofar s the law is enforced. Legal rights gain their force first of all through or decree by a legally
authorized authority. Those who
as
legal legislation
support adoption of laws establishing legal rights often appeal to a. notion of human rights. Laws against
theft might appeal to notions of a moral right to own property. But human or moral rights must gain
their validity through some other source other than legal rights, since people can appeal to human or
moral rights to criticize the law or advocate changes in the laws (or legal rights), and people could not do
this if moral rights were based
MORAL RIGHTS
upon
the law.
Tony Jack lo
Moral rights are based on human consciousness. They are supported by the moral force of the human
mind. These are based on a human sense
of goodness and justice. These are not assisted by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public
opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights. If any person disrupts any moral right, no legal action can
be taken against him or her. The state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these
rights. Moral Rights include rules of good conduct,
END
INS
l perfection of the hts accorded under mere humanity ze they are humans, ples might be the I have a
right to ade my privacy. losopher Jeremy
Ss were nonsense nsense. Bentham rights.)
ded
CS
egal rights. For a legal right to argue that the ht it would t letting them
rmany, before Protection of vention is an
first accepted I rights in its
law
under
4: Frameworks - 197
Copyright Act. The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989, and incorporated a
version of moral rights under its copyright under the U.S. Copyright Act. These are the right of
attribution, also called the right of paternity and the right of integrity. As of February 2018, there are
176 states that are parties to the Berne Convention. This includes the 173 member states including the
Philippines plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See and Niue.
Title 17 of the U.S. Code. There are two major moral rights
Moral Rights which
were codified through the Berne Convention of 1886, created two important rights for creators:
1) The right to (or not to) receive attribution in connection with any use
of their work; and

2) The right to object to any uses of his or her work that the creator sees
as harmful to his or her name.
Among other things, this means that musicians always have a right to be credited for their contributions
to a song, even if they signed over control of the Copyright of the song itself. This can be very important,
especially for session musicians who are often not fairly compensated for the effect that their
contributions may have on a song. Moral Rights ensure that these musicians and composers receive the
credit they deserve, which helps them build their portfolios and develop a fully-documented resume of
their work.
The second right is equally significant, as it allows artists to object if their work is used in such a way that
they might deem offensive. Moral Rights entitle an artist to put a stop to any uses of his or her work that
may harm his reputation, or to prevent being associated with anyone he or she finds objectionable.
Although these rights can be extremely important to an artist's career, labels have producers and
collaborators waive these rights, because they do not want to create the possibility that they can be.
sued because of a
ALT
ALT
FN
political philosopher, assumed the basic goodness of human nature and argued that the greatest
happiness would follow from a radical alteration
of society in the direction of anarchistic Communism.
Classical economics received some of its most important statements from its theory of economic value is
framed primarily in terms of the cost utilitarian writers, especially Ricardo and John Stuart Mill.
Ironically, of labor in production rather than in terms of the use value, or of commodities. Later
developments more clearly reflect the utilitarian philosophy. William Jevons, one of the founders of the
marginal utility economics," while substituting comparative preferences for comparative school of
analysis, derives many of his ideas from Bentham; and "welfare policy, the early Utilitarians had tended
to oppose governmental utilities, reflects the basic spirit of the utilitarian philosophy. In economic
interference in trade and industry on the assumption that the economy would regulate itself for the
greatest welfare if left alone; later Utilitarians, however, lost confidence in the social efficiency of private
enterprise and were willing to see governmental power and administration used to
correct its abuses.

PROBLEMS WITH UTILITARIANISM
Like all normative theories of ethics, utilitarianism cannot address all of the ethical dilemmas we face.
Sometimes using utilitarian principles may be harmful to a group of people or to an individual. Some of
the major problems with utilitarian consequentialist ethics include the following:
Measuring happiness is difficult. Happiness is subjective and as a result is open to interpretation. Is

happiness in winning a million dollars more significant than the happiness a person experiences when
told by a doctor that s/he has a clean bill of health? Likewise, does the value of happiness increase with
time, or with importance? If someone won a million dollars, would this be measured as "the most
possible happy," as the million
news w
w dollars will he bill of health important ne good is caused by makes us the Utilitarian
no
our actions difficult to
bag because of police offic will creat However, outcome.
for exam
La intersecti the traffi
po not have
manner
deals may be
bus
the enc
as Act
what c orta consec that t and t unfor
10
logic: elem Des acti
con
mu
ALT
FN
CTRL
human nature and radical alteration
statements from Mill. Ironically, erms of the cost value, or
utility,
t the utilitarian marginal utility n; and "welfare or comparative . In economic governmental
the
economy Utilitarians, nterprise and ion used to
dress all of ciples may the major ollowing:
ctive and inning a a person n bill of th time, , would million
4: Frameworks 207
dollars will hopefully last for a long time? Conversely, a clean important news; however this person is
likely to forget this I news within days. So when we look at the happiness that is caused by these two
events, we need to ask ourselves, "what
good
makes us the most happy?"
our
Utilitarian ethics is concerned about the consequences of r actions, regardless of the action itself.
However, it can be difficult to know what the consequences of our actions will be because of the
variables that we do not control. For example, a officer may police
may
believe that writing tickets at an intersection
will create a safe intersection environment for everyone. However, it is difficult to determine for sure
that this will be the outcome. Unintended consequences may instead occur. Suppose, for example, that
while the officer is writing a ticket at the intersection, a fatal accident occurs due to the officer
disrupting the traffic. In this instance, the unintended consequences could not have been predicted,
especially if the officer acted in a safe manner while writing the ticket. The unintended consequences be
viewed as immoral by utilitarian standards because of the end result. People who maintain this logic are
referred to as Actual Consequentialists because actual consequences are what determine if the act was
right or wrong. However, some consequentialists would rightly take into consideration the fact that the
fatal accident could not have possibly been foreseen, and therefore the act itself was still moral in spite
of the unforeseen negative consequences. This appears to be a more logical approach to
consequentialism as it incorporates a mental element in determining if the act was moral.
• Desired ethical consequences that actually result from our actions do not always happen immediately.
If the desired consequences of our actions do not occur immediately, how long must we wait for those
good consequences to develop before
END
INS
For Reflection and Discussion
Imagine that the Philippine Police discovers a plot that a bomb would be set off in one of the malls in
Quezon City. The police
information about
captures a suspect who, they believe, has some where the bomb is hidden and when it will be
detonated.
1. Can the police officers torture the suspect
the bomb's whereabouts?
t so that he will reveal
2. Can the dignity or the rights of the suspect be violated in
order to save many potential victims?
When people diff
decisions have to
distributed amon inevitably arise. I would be no poi the conflicts of = scarce and peopl arise in our socia
reasonable ar (Velasquez, Anc
as
Just right of n from

D. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
The justice or fairness approach focuses on the fair and equitable distribution of good and harm, and/or
the social benefits and social costs, across the spectrum of society. In other words, it is giving a person
his or her due. It is premised on what Aristotle said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals
unequally." This is the principle of justice. Those who are unequal due to relevant differences should be
treated differently in a manner that is fair and proportionate to, or commensurate with, their difference.
A classic example would be the payment of a group of employees at different salary levels based on the
contribution their work effort makes to the corporation's profitability. If a man doing exactly the same
work as a woman is paid higher because he happens to be a man, then we have an injustice.
Here we asse those who a those who ar on a legitima where they m a discrimina bear a burde factors
that What is the which may
Since justice
justice often lity of ings. I pective
re are
people s give
they -ho is
think does
who
thers. who
ceive
sert, ntial
able
for
cial
ces.
ery
me
a
his
The
ce,
Fin
the
he
tries to
4: Frameworks. 213
Republic, he doesn't try to balance it because balance feels good, the system. If that which does the
most good, is that which brings the t balance, is that which causes the most happiness, and is that which
balance it because that balance is the most effective state for
most
is
the
most
fair, then the idea is justice is that which ensures all these
(DeMichele, 2016). drive
DIFFERENT KINDS OF JUSTICE
There are
different kinds of justice: retributive, compensatory, and
distributive justice. The focus of this book is on distributive justice. But e briefly explain retributive and
compensatory justice.
let me
Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments
are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of
the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be
barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death
penalty on a who by accident and without negligence injured another party. person Studies have
frequently shown that in the United States, when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to
receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies
suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.
Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by
those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is
precisely the kind of justice that is at stake in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines.
Some argue that mine owners should
EN
argue
compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others that workers voluntarily took on this risk
when they chose employment
in the mines.
Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens
are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. It assumes that there is a large
amount of fairness in the distribution of goods. Fair allocation typically takes into account the total
amount of goods to be distributed, the distributing procedure, and the pattern of distribution that
results. For example, equal work should provide individuals with an equal outcome in terms of goods
acquired or the ability to acquire goods.
Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens
are distributed among society's members
in ways that are fair and just.
When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong
presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery
in the pre- civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people
differently on the basis of race.
Since wealth and resources in society are limited, Maiese (2003) explains
various principle Equality, equity equality is regar goods will be d
wil
be offer
each person levels of need, every incoming might and parents w families that c school.) ge
Another pos distribute be those who r to receive r more valua is typically opportuni also be dis
Or, we r
outcome receive r states pr
sona
Some:
those w
of
equ
produ
Final what
CTRL
END
INS
. Others argue se employment
's institutions ong society's ere is a large tion typically tributed, the results. For ial outcome
doure
ns
re
ers bin?
dens in = should
he pre-
case of
plains
4: Frameworks. 215
various principles that might determine how goods are distributed. Equality, equity, and need are
among the most common criteria. If equality is regarded as the ultimate criterion determining who gets
what,
goods
will be distributed equally among all persons. (In other words
each person
will get the
same amount.) However, due to differences in
levels of need, this will not result in an equal outcome. (For example, every incoming freshman to a local
college with a grade point above 3.0 might be offered a P5000 scholarship. This is a nice reward for
students and parents who can afford the remaining tuition, but is of no help to families that cannot
afford the additional P30,000/year fee to attend the school.)
bluora ass
Another possibility is to proceed according to a principle of equity, and distribute benefits in proportion
to the individual's contribution. Thus, those who make a greater productive contribution to their group
deserve to receive more benefits. (Thus, in theory, people who work harder in more valuable jobs
should earn more money.) This sort of distribution is typically associated with an economic system
where there is equal opportunity to compete. In competitive systems, wealth or goods might also be
distributed according to effort or ability.
Or, we might distribute goods according to need, so that an equal outcome results. Those who need
more of a benefit or resource will receive more, as occurs when colleges offer needs-based scholarships,
or states provide welfare payments to the 100m svenor nenes quo
poor.
Some suggest a system of competition that includes safety nets for combines the principle This sort of
system those who cannot compete. of equity with that of need. It attempts to reward people for their
productivity at the same time that it ensures their basic needs are met. revo zadt aniclexes
argument
we might distribute resources according to social utility, or Finally, what is in the best interests of society
as a whole. This is the a
that is frequently made by high-paid executives, who not
only argue
to
their businesses; they also argue that they are the "job creators," thus that they deserve their high
salaries because of their contributions paying them highly benefits society as a whole. Others, however,
think taxing them highly and using the income to provide services to the less
fortunate would be of greater overall benefit to the society.
Forsyth (2006) defines five types of distributive norms. They are: 1. Equality. Regardless of their input, all
group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone
who contributes 20% of the group's resources should receive as much as someone who contributes
60%.
upon
their
input.
2. Equity. Members' outcomes should be based Therefore, an individual who has invested a large
amount of input (e.g., time, money, energy) should receive more from the group ou than someone who
has contributed very little. Members of large
groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity. 3. Power. Those with more authority,
status, or control over the group should receive more than those in lower level positions.
4. Need. Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs. These
individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their
input.
5. Responsibility. Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have
less.
IMPORTANCE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
The Legal Dictionary explains that every person's claim to resources is, or has been, affected by someone
who came before. The issue of what someone owns, or what s/he is entitled to, may be divided into two
camps: are bor resourc that ea

regard to inc regard
It has they cond at sc
of re
whe
betw to c
Th
in
ot
po
is
sl
ot only argue tributions to eators," thus owever, think es to the less
- are:
s should be pports that ces should
heir input. nt of input
the group rs of large on equity. over the Sitions.
resources
be given gardless
should
rces is, f what
co two
camps:
(1) the belief that
4: Frameworks. 217
t everyone begins life at a null point when they must earn their way through life, acquiring
are born, after which they resources through the use of their talents and effort; and (2) the belief
that each
person,
from birth, is entitled to what his parents possess,
regardless of their own efforts in life. The second camp may be expanded include people who believe
they are entitled to what others have, regardless of family relation.
to
It has been
they
believe that their condition or outcome is not in balance with the conditions of other people in similar
situations. The perception of being at some kind of unfair disadvantage, or of not receiving a "fair share"
of resources, often leads to feelings of despair. This is especially true when a person feels his or her
fundamental needs are not met. A gulf between the "haves" and "have nots" of society sometimes
drives people to challenge the system, pushing for change.
The issue of perceived imbalance in distribution has become apparent in certain regions of the world,
including the Middle East, Europe, and other regions, as more and more people take a stand, often
violently. Even in the United States, as the gulf between classes increases, civil and political unrest
escalate. Another important issue in distributive justice is society's belief that such things as race, color,
gender, and religion should have nothing to do with distribution. Many people's actual life experiences
lead them to feel at an unfair disadvantage, and left out of what should be fair distribution.
It's normal that when people do not receive their fair share or find themselves at an unfair
disadvantage, they will call for fairness. They may even challenge the system. The fundamental question
to ask is: Is equality possible?
According
to Thompson (2018), David Hume (1711-1776) answers

Political
socialism, Marxism,
philosophies
communism and Anarchism all some degree. Some
the principles of Egalitarianism to
as
support
argue
that modern representative democracy is a realization of political Egalitarianism, while others believe
that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than equally in the
hands of the people.
TYPES OF EGALITARIANISM
war ninkp
Economic Egalitarianism (or Material Egalitarianism) e is where the participants of a society are of equal
standing and have equal access to all the economic resources in terms of economic power, wealth and
contribution. It is a founding principle of various forms to of socialism.
Moral Egalitarianism is the position that equality is central to justice, that all individuals are entitled. to
equal respect, and that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.
Legal Egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no
individual or group or class having special legal privileges, and where the testimony of all persons is
counted with the same weight.
Political Egalitarianism is where the members of a society are of equal standing in terms of political
power or influence. It is a founding principle of most forms of democracy.
Luck Egalitarianism is a view about distributive
4: Frameworks. 223
as
support argue olitical power

in the
justice (what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in a society) espoused by a variety of
left-wing political philosophers, which seeks to distinguish between outcomes that are the result of
brute luck (e.g. misfortunes in genetic makeup, or being struck by a bolt of lightning) and those that are
the consequence of conscious options(e.g., career choices, or fair gambles).
Gender Egalitarianism is a form of society in which power is equally shared between men and women,
or a family structure where power is shared equally by both parents.
Racial Egalitarianism (or Racial Equality) is the absence of racial segregation (the separation of different
racial groups in daily life, whether mandated by law or through social norms).
Opportunity
Egalitarianism (or Asset-based Egalitarianism) is the idea that equality is possible by a redistribution of
resources, usually in the form of a capital grant provided at the age of maturity.
Christian Egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ, and specifically teaches
gender equality in Christian church leadership and in marriage. (The Basics of Philosophy)
Boomboid

Chapter 4 in Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chapter 4 in Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4 in Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4 IN ETHICS

156. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

can find happi that Aristotle

'Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) BA

For Aris disposit is descr is neith

158. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

disposition is always one that gives rise to a

Golden Mean is not to be understood as suggesting that we

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of developing

excellence of character as the to achieve excellent conduct

Eudaimonia According aim for as i we must ou what Aris-

ss exuberance, but as always act nd deficiency; such nal patience.

cellence of at, excellent Ethics, the at the right

time, bodily appetites,

are examples of character excellence or virtue. So acting

quo mo? 4: Frameworks. 157

and behavior consistent with that truth.

f being human; in inctions between nt perspectives at t a theoretical or totle argues, you

about "what if" al approach and e did and how

Aristotle wrote e a definition

160. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

accordance with our true function.

says Aristotl successful ar artists, and f

In worki separates what sep

iness itself is not our telos. Perhaps, aimonia,

the understanding state of acting in

al living. Pleasure ature incomplete.

own distinctive tural preference

artists, and flautists.

Ose control f the road.

y. Thus, if eknownst nsible for

gowang gor4: Frameworks ⚫

as s/he acts on the basis of force or from ignorance.

CRITICISMS OF VIRTUE ETHICS

166. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

she does not have the best motives.

but. One p of circu

Some adv virtues by begging. that happ truth (C

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

168. ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

SEX MEWNE LASANIA OFESTA

NS VIVS OVIE INS NORT NANDISS

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

The seco moral vi example that con perfects

perfect the in perfec intelle

t are healthy, good habits

virtues and iness, which ne, Aquinas hich no one

tellectual, intellectual truth. For irtues that

. For him e wisdom,

172 ETHICS: Knowing Right From Wrong

Jou 976 501tiv begin.

ing up at its nog v

Aquinas believes that we can slegs never achieve complete or

aided bid que final happiness in this life boat or

id bad boys bas boog suruq 0345

being. Achieving happin moral virtues that enabl us to seek it in

sin's stain, as evidence

Thus we need God's