International University of Sarajevo (IUS) Fall Term 2008: SSPS 203 Law and Ethics

Instructor: Stephen J. Spielman

Class One (1) and Class Two (2) Morals, Ethics and Law: The different theories to use in resolving ethical dilemmas (Lenses through which to view ethics) Absolutism & Relativism I. Morals, ethics and the law: Is there a difference? Maybe but not so much
A. Morals is about our behaviour and our correct good or bad choices at the personal level; our intuitive behaviour B. Ethics are the guiding principlesa higher level of analysis. Often it means the putting to together of codes of behavior that people accept (most often voluntary but not always) C. Law is the codifying of the societys rules for behaviour attached to which are coercion-penalties for failure to behave in this way. Law may be written or unwritten and can be put in place by any power of the society, e.g. a democratic legislature; religious authorities; a dictator; a King/Queen. The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.

Morals compared to ethics: Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. Often the terms are used interchangeably Morality & Ethics are both different from Law: Law or a legal system is different from morality or a moral system by having explicit (often written) rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. There is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law. Laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law

II. Why study ethics/morals anyway: This is a good question with poor answers
A. To understand that finding guiding principles for behavior is a search from foreverongoing 1

B. To be able to analyze the behaviour from a number of different ways of looking at the problem (the lenses) C. To add clarity and lessen confusion when talking about proper behaviour D. To get away from the idea that its all a matter of opinion and so much chatter, chatter, chatter. III. Relationship of Law to ethics/morals: A. Are all laws moral/ethical? Germans Nazi laws: Afghan Taliban laws; US laws applied to those held at Guantanamo Bay: Slavery laws: Law of Lek blood law: Laws benefiting one group or allowing discrimination. Class discussion B. Do laws come from ethics/morals. Oftensometime but not always. As we saw, some laws are actually immoral. Often, laws are amoral. Some would say that laws are immoral/unethical that penalize people for victimless crimes such as smoking marijuana, being drug addicts, suicide, vagrancy. Laws may follow societys interests (which, of course, change) but this does not mean the laws are moral/ethical. Class Discussion of no-smoking laws (US: EU: Australia). Is this a law based on morals/ethicsor something else. C. So how does law fit in? Law is the societys judgment (more precisely the judgment of its leaders) as to what is to be enforced/coerced with rewards and penalties. It is not a moral equivalent, although some like to think it is. Most laws are morals/ethics free. For example, the age of consent for contracts or to vote: The level of punishment for crimes (this often reflects societys attitudes but not based in morals/ethics. (1) Class Discussion: Is Affirmative Action Laws (preference laws) a product of moral/ethical judgment; politics

IV. Where do ethics/morals come from: So many theories

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Religion: scriptural guidance in many forms ( historic: representatives today) Great thinkers/leaders like Confucius From the leader (Albania under Hoxha; Kim Jong Il-North Korea) Biology-nature Our conscience-psychological Cultural transmission through generations-nurture Some notion of intrinsic, inalienable natural rights Devine rights of kings

V. The ethical theories we will discuss over the next two weeks
A. B. C. D. E. F. Absolutism, universalism, the golden rule Cultural Relativism Consequentialism including utilitarianism Supernaturalism or Theocratism Subjectivism including emotivism Egoism/Hedonism:

VI. Universalism: Absolutism

A. Defined: Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Moral absolutists believe that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, natural law, the will or character of God or gods, or some other fundamental source. They regard actions as inherently moral or immoral.

Modern theories of human rights derived from natural law have their intellectual foundation in the belief that these human rights are inherent, intrinsic, inalienable in every person and therefore absolute. Others strongly disagree. Absolute moral standards are understood to be both universal and objective. They are universal in that they apply to all people at all times in all conditions. They are objective in that they do not depend on peoples beliefs emotions, or customs [Objective moral standards have an existence independent of peoples beliefs in them]. Partial source: McIerney & Rainbolt Ethics (1994). The search for absolute/universalist rules and guidelines have been reflected in Kants statement of categorical imperative and in The golden Rule

VII. Moral Relativism:

A. Defined: Moral Relativism and claims that different standards exist for different peoples, different cultures, different sub-groups,, different time periods. In one setting, an action may be moral but in another immoral. Moral Relativism rejects Absolutism. Some often cited common example of relativism: (1) In some societies where there is great scarcity (natural conditions: drought), when the elderly can no longer contribute to society, food and shelter are removed from the elderly or they are deserted. This is considered immoral in some societies but moral (as a necessity for survival) in others. (2) Is cannibalism immoral when a group is stranded in the Andes-totally out of touch with society, having no prospect of being saved, and all agree to pull straws to determine who is to be cannibalized ? B. More on Cultural Relativism: Cultural relativism (CR) says that good and bad are relative to culture. What is "good" is what is "socially approved" in a given culture. Our moral principles describe social conventions and must be based on the norms of our society. C. Cultural Relativism basics: Cultural relativism holds that "good" means what is "socially approved" by the majority in a given culture. Infanticide, for example, isn't good or bad objectively; rather it's good in a society that approves of it, but bad in one that disapproves of it. Cultural relativists see morality as a product of culture. They think that societies disagree widely about morality, and that we have no clear way to resolve the differences. They conclude that there are no objective values. Cultural relativists view themselves as tolerant; they see other cultures, not as "wrong," but as "different." D. Objections to cultural relativism: Despite its initial plausibility, CR has many problems. For example, Cultural Relativism (CR) makes it impossible to disagree with the values of our society. We all at times want to say that something is socially approved but not good. But this is self-contradictory if CR is true. In addition, CR entails that intolerance and racism would be good if society approved of them. And it leads us to accept the norms of our society in an uncritical way. Cultural relativism attacks the idea of objective values. 3

Many social scientists oppose Cultural Relativism. The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, for example, claimed that people of all cultures go through the same stages of moral thinking. Cultural Relativism represents a relatively low stage in which you simply conform to society. At more advanced stages, you reject Cultural Relativism; you become critical of accepted norms and think for yourself about moral issues. Read the Required Readings for more detail and criticism of both Absolutism and Relativism. Readings Required to be Completed Before Class. See Course Page for link to Reading 1. Wisegeek: What is the difference Between Morals and Ethics Full article at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm 2. Wikipedia (as modified by instructor) Moral Absolutism For entire article go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism 3. Relativism: Two articles (both heavily modified by instructor): Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Wikipdia Moral Relativism. Optional Readings (These readings are recommended but are not required) None