Ethics:

What is theft? (When) is it wrong? Are the arguments about: Whether theft is wrong in principle? Or under what conditions it is wrong? How we know when it is theft or not? i.e: On what premises do we build our principles? Our own interpretations of what suits us? Or what benefits others? Or of society in general? Rational justifications? Or emotional decisions? These are some the knowledge issues in ethics

Moral reasoning Appealing to a moral principle – what is the principle?

Arguments about interpreting the principles or ‘laws’ of morality believers/ theists understand God’s laws through prayer, sacred text and authority figures atheists/ social scientists understand natural laws though study of socio-biological behaviour

Jane found $20 that doesn’t belong to her. in both cases arguments are usually about interpreting, defining or understanding agreed principles e.g. Jane found $20 that doesn’t belong to her. Anna doesn’t believe in sex before marriage John told a racist joke – it wasn’t funny. Parents of Amy aged 2 let her wander around a swimming pool whilst they sat inside. Ben picks on James every science lesson – he is a bully

Arguments about the premises or grounds of ethical decisions

We build ethical arguments and decisions around chosen principles Self Interest Theory Egoism or Altruism egoism- self interest first altruism – benefits others first, by sacrifice But can you be truly altruistic? Donald Trump makes money M Theresa helped the poor Contrast is great. Yet according to self interest theory ie. That humans are always selfish they are both doing what they want. They both like/liked what they do and would have hated the others job. Thus can we conclude that they are equally selfish?

Exception?.. Schindler 1908-74 ‘I don’t know what his motives were. But I don’t give a dam. What’s important is that he saved our lives.’ Survivor comment

Moral Relativism Values determined by the society to which you belong – thus no universal values.

Religious Ethics

Utilitarianism weighing up the costs and benefits to maximize overall utility or happiness. Problems : how do we value different benefits? calculations are mind-blowing… who makes the calculations? and then we run into universals that ‘trump’ all calculations. e.g. Sam v 5 patients = back to principles How to measure happiness?

Moral Duty Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Duties are not arbitrary and we can determine what they are by appealing to reason. Determining if something is your duty you need to reason whether you can generalize it – could it become universal law? Duty in ethics. In fulfilling your obligation there is an implicit corresponding right. People are more comfortable discussing their rights rather than duties. Rights and duties are two different sides of the same coin. Duty to not kill Right to life

WOK:The role of emotion in ethics Replace justice, duty, fairness, equality and action with compassion, love, empathy, character and value – is this a gender issue? Virtue ethics; moral life is about cultivating a virtuous character rather than rules of action; How can we empathize with 6 billion people? Does the idea of virtue and wisdom bring us back to religion?

WOK: The role of intuition in ethics Choice of premises for logic, and principles for reason, may be based in emotion or intuition. Complex web of social relations, experiences, influences, evidence makes rational calculation impossible. Therefore we intuit… Aristotle : ability to apply moral intelligence to process complex problems intuitively Aristotle 4th century BC Greek

WOK:The role of reason in ethics Facts and evidence, data and statistics, are used to support ethical decisions; but are they used to make them? Problems of social science e.g; correlation does not equal causation, ethics of experimenting… Problem of distinguishing principles from practice: i.e: evidence helps us apply moral positions, not determine the principles. Use (and misuse) of logic e.g: deduction and induction used to justify positions. Problems of premises and false logic. Is reason and logic the best way to make ethical decision anyway?

Or should we reason harder? Reason is and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. David Hume, 18th century Scottish philosopher, Or should we reason harder?

Any clearer about how to determine universal laws or principles??