ETHICS

Why do we need Ethics? Ethics? Why Euthanasia War Punishment Engineering Genetic Business Ethics Human Rights Abortion

Key Words Ethics = ethos ‘character’ Morality = moralis ‘customs’ or ‘manners’ Two parts of Ethics: ‘Ethical Theory’ = Methods for making moral decisions ‘Applied Ethics’ = Debates about specific dilemmas

3 Ways of ‘Doing’ Ethics Normative Descriptive Meta-ethics Asks whether actions are right or wrong Descriptive Describes and compares different ethical practices Meta-ethics Study of meaning of ethical language Normative is traditional form. Talks about how people ought to act. It talks about how choices should be made. Also known as prescriptive ethics because it is interested in setting up a value system that prescribe how people ought to behave. Descriptive is used in social sciences. Deals with human behaviour and conduct. However, the theory does not involve making value judgements as to what is morally right or wrong. Meta-ethics is also known as analytic ethics. Based on analyzing ethical language e.g. what do we mean by the word good? Theories include: definism, intuitionism and emotivism.

Normative Ethics Teleological ethics Deontological ethics Telos = end. Determine whether an action is right or wrong depending on the consequence or end result. Consequentialist. Examples: Utilitarianism; Situation Ethics Deontological ethics Actions are intrinsically right or wrong due to an absolute law. Outcome is not important, even if it is good. Examples: Kantian ethics; Natural Moral Law Use example of Hitler: if we knew what atrocities he would commit before coming to power, would it be right to kill him?

To Kill or not to Kill? During the 2nd World War, a man called Adolf Hitler is going to be the force behind the extermination of 9 million civilians If it were possible to go back in time, would it be right to kill Adolf Hitler before he committed the atrocities?

G.E. Moore You can give a definition of a horse because a horse has many different properties and qualities, all of which you can enumerate. But when you have enumerated them all, when you have reduced a horse to its simplest terms, then you can no longer define these terms… ‘Good’, then, if we mean by it that quality which we assert to belong to a thing… is incapable of definition… ‘good’ has no definition because it is simple and has no parts. It is one of those innumerable objects of thought which are themselves incapable of definition, because they are the ultimate terms of reference by which whatever is capable of definition must be defined… There is no intrinsic difficulty in the contention that ‘good’ denotes a simple and indefinable quality (Principia Ethica, p.7) What does Moore mean in this excerpt? When we add ‘good’ to a sentence it has an effect that’s different from that of the adjectives. When we talk about good actions, what do we actually mean? How do we define Good? GE Moore thought that there is a difference between good things and goodness itself. Not everything that is good is morally good. For example, eastenders: Ronnie and Roxy are considered to be good people by Peggy for helping her out with her money problems, but are they morally good? Consider how they got the money to help Peggy. The moral sense of good refers to actions, consequences, situations, people, characters, choices and lifestyles.

Absolutism and Relativism Absolutism = something that applies to everyone all of the time. Ethical absolute = moral command that is true for everyone, all the time in all situations. What is right or wrong cannot change. There are no special circumstances. Objective point of view, not from a personal viewpoint. UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Absolutism and Relativism Relativism = Subjective. There is no objective truth or if there is, it cannot be found. What is right in one situation might be considered wrong in another. Cultural Relativism = moral rules are expressions of culture. When in Rome, do as the Romans do! Changes in from the past to present What was considered acceptable 100 years ago is not necessarily acceptable today.

Some Problems Relativism Absolutism Different value systems, so there can’t be one moral truth. Which do we follow? Can’t condemn practices that are accepted by society. Absolutism Cannot take circumstances into account. Intolerant of cultural diversity. No room for manoeuvre. Problems with relativism: There is no right value system, so we cannot criticise others: Nazi’s. Also raises the problem for Muslims: do they follow Shari’ah law or Law of UK? Some practices in Shari’ah are outlawed in UK. Can add that, if all moral codes were supported universally, would that then not make the theory absolute? Absolutism does not think about buts. Can any law every be completely absolute? Thou shalt not murder… except… Many religions consider themselves to be absolute, but relativism is popular amongst society today.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Relativism and Absolutism + -

Absolute Deontological Theory Natural Moral Law Absolute Deontological Theory

Cicero Cicero in On the Republic describes natural law as follows: True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is applied universally and is unchanging and everlasting… there will be no different laws in Rome and in Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God…

Aristotle Laws may vary from place to place, but natural justice is independent and applies to everyone no matter where they are / where they live The natural is that which everywhere is equally valid, and depends not upon being or not being received… that which is natural is unchangeable, and has the same power everywhere, just as fire burns both here and in Persia Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Chapter 7, Natural Justice

Aquinas Natural law is the moral code which human beings are naturally inclined to This moral code exists within the purpose of nature, created by God: ‘Law is nothing else than an ordination of reason for the common good promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community.’ Community in this country could be the Government. We live by rules that are enforced upon us by the state, but these laws actually come from God.

Natural law exists to help humans act in such a way that they reach their eternal destiny which is with God The law covers both the outward eternal view of actions and the internal motivation for doing so The purpose of natural law is to help us reach our eternal aim, which is to be with God.

Natural Law Outward view / Exterior What you do Internal motivation / Interior Why you do it Natural law covers both the outward view of actions and the internal motivation for doing so. It evaluates both what I do and why I do it. It affects all aspects of human behaviour. Both Intention and act are important. Think about why you are all here today. The fact that you are here is the outward view, but what is your motivation? Think about it and discuss it with your partner for five minutes. Other example, helping an old lady across the road? Why would you do it? Worried or want to look good?

Task Does it mater if I do a good thing for a wrong reason, such as giving to charity for the admiration and praise that I’ll receive? Why might some say this isn’t the best way to act?

Reason and Human Purpose Eternal law of divine reason is perceived through revelation, in the form of the Word of God and through the use of human reason To live in according to and accordance with reason is to live a moral life To live at odds with reason is to live an immoral life Do good and avoid evil! We are taking this from a Christian perspective for the reason that Aquinas was Christian and so we can presume that by the Word of God, he means the Bible. By accordance, we mean agreement, so we agree to reason to be moral. If we disregard this reasoning then we will be immoral. Also, to disregard reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God. Do not forget this reason that Aquinas is talking about derives from God. Do good and avoid evil is the basic rule that we should all live by. All other rules are based on this.

Self-preservation – first rule that humans should live by God makes human beings with a certain nature and this nature enables human beings to use their reason and their expertise to understand what is right Self-preservation – first rule that humans should live by Primary precepts are required to ensure this goal of self-preservation and this will ultimately lead to fellowship with God We do not simply follow God’s commands, e.g. if God said adultery was right, we should use our powers of reason to think about it and decide if God was being irrational in saying this.

Primary and Secondary Precepts Do Good and avoid evil Self-preservation and the preservation of the innocent Continuation of the species through reproduction Educate children Live in society Worship God Red = ultimate law Purple = primary precepts with self-preservation at the top Primary precepts do not change. They are the same for everyone. Secondary precepts are rulings about things we should or shouldn’t do because they uphold or fail to uphold the primary precept. Example for self-preservation is not to commit suicide.

Task Consider the following and decide, with reference to the primary precepts why Aquinas would think them wrong: The use of contraception Murder Homosexual sex Rape Adultery Which, if any are unclear? Why?

Real and Apparent Goods Human nature is essentially good Natural law is innate Humans never knowingly pursue evil ‘ideal’ human nature which we all have potential to live up to When humans do bad ‘things’ or ‘acts’ they are pursuing apparent goods, falsely believing them to be really good It is in our nature to be good, and this is something that we are born with/innate. We don’t commit evil acts on purpose, because we have an ideal that we are trying to live up to. Instead, Aquinas attempts to get around the problem of ‘bad acts’ by saying that people do bad things believing them to be good things. Nobody seeks evil, these acts are committed because the person falsely believes them to be real. Therefore, the person committing the bad act has made an error of reason.

Hitler = apparent good Hitler did not seek to do evil He did what he thought was good He was mistaken It was an apparent good rather than a real good

Strengths Same as strengths of absolutism Enables people to establish common rules in order to structure communities Different cultures can be seen to have same basic principles Judges actions (torture, rape) irrespective of consequences Not just a set of rules, but a way of life Natural moral law is an absolutist theory and so the strengths will be the same. People of different cultures have the same principles of preserving life, continuing the species, education and building a society. Gives guidance on day-to-day questions of how to live and links them to fundamental questions of life.

Weaknesses Some philosophers have disputed the presence of a common natural law and whether humans have a single nature Humans may have different natures Aquinas could be wrong about his primary precepts Secondary precepts may change in some aspects Kai Neilson wrote a paper that said, from the point of view of science, there is no such thing as an essential human nature. He argued that the concept of human nature is a cultural concept, not scientific, which means we cannot prove humans have innate reasoning. He used the example of how, at one time, Eskimos killed members of their families that would not make it through the winter. They believed they were doing something good, and this is very different from our society, although it could be seen as a form of euthanasia. This challenges natural law because natural law states that different cultures have the same view of preserving human life. Homosexuality: homosexuality, according to natural law, is wrong because the acts cannot lead to a new life. But there is scientific evidence to show that there is a defective gene that makes somebody this way, so it is not their choice. Is it okay to say somebody isn’t really good for something that they have no control over? Also, does this mean that they have no purpose in life? They would certainly disagree. Human beings must preserve the species, sex is only for procreation. However, sexual acts could be justified on account of the benefits to a couple’s relationship. Psychologists have developed much more complex pictures of human nature than Aquinas’ simplistic view. Perhaps the genitals exist for reasons other than reproduction? Maybe the mouth has a purpose that includes both eating and kissing. Secondary precepts could change in a case in which special reasons make it impossible to observe them. This then becomes subjective. It is no longer absolute. When you have one exception to the rule, you can always get another and so on.

Principle of Utility Theory of Usefulness Utilitarianism Principle of Utility Theory of Usefulness Sophie's Choice

Developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utility = usefulness Teleological theory Consequentialist Very famous, used very widely Common sense approach Two main proponents of the theory: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The theory is called utilitarianism, which comes from the word utility meaning usefulness. Thus, it is the theory of usefulness. It is a teleological, consequentialist theory= Determine whether an action is right or wrong depending on the consequence or end result. The theory is often called the common sense theory. It is very popular because many people think that it makes decision making easier.

Humans motivated by pleasure and pain = Hedonistic ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.’ Hedone = Greek word for pleasure.

As humans, we seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain Pleasure and pain identifies what we should and shouldn’t do Pleasure is sole good, and pain the sole evil. Hedonistic utilitarianism Hedonistic Utilitariansim: we always ought to perform the act that leads to the greatest pleasure.

An action is right if it creates the greatest good for the greatest number. Good = greatest pleasure or happiness Least good = pain or sadness Greatest number = majority of people Good = maximisation of pleasure, minimisation of pain

Hedonic Calculus Its intensity Its duration Its certainty or uncertainty Its propinquity or remoteness Its fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind Its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by, sensations of the opposite kind Its extent; the number of persons to whom it extends It’s all very well talking about pleasure, but we have to have an understanding of how to measure that pleasure. The Hedonic Calculus was developed by Jeremy Bentham. Intensity: mild pleasure is less valuable than intense pleasure. I.e. what degree is the pleasure. Duration: how long the pleasure lasts. Longer = better. Certainty: how likely is it that the act will being about the anticipated pleasure? We can think that an act will cause pleasure, but if we are definite, than this is better than if we are 80% sure. Propinquity: How distant that anticipated acts are in time or space. So if we do something here, and the benefits are felt far away, that is less pleasurable than if the effects are here. Also, how distant in the future might the pleasure be felt? Fecundity: The act that causes happiness that in turn leads to more happiness is preferable than one that provides an isolated act of happiness. Similarly, an act that causes pain followed by more pain is worse than an act that causes one instance of pain. Purity: An act that only causes pleasure may be better than an act that causes the same amount of pleasure, but also some pain. Extent: How many people can enjoy the pleasure? The more the better. The final point was added by John Stuart Mill.

Imagine you are a doctor driving to one of your patients, a young mother about to give birth. She is in great pain and difficulty and it looks as though she will need a Caesarean section. It is late at night and you come across a car accident down a country road. Two cars are involved and both drivers are injured and unconscious. One of them is the pregnant woman’s husband. The other is an elderly man. Without medical help, them both may die. Who to help first? 1: Mother. Death of mother and child certainty if not acted upon now. The two men’s deaths are not certain. Intensity of her pain is greater. Greater purity in saving their lives. Duration of pleasure is possibly greater. 2: Young husband. If doctor had attended to him first, wife and child would have died. However, if he is still alive after mother saved, he will have pleasure of new family: intensity, duration, extent, richness, purity very clear possibilities. 3: Elderly man. Future pleasure and duration uncertain because of age. Value of his life is not as great as the young married couple.

Problems with Bentham Quantative pleasures Predictive value Rather than quality Predictive value We don’t actually know what is going to happen in the future. What counts as pleasure? Quantitative: It’s all about how much pleasure. Don’t talk about quality. Young mother may have more time ahead of her, but who’s to say she will enjoy her life? Whereas old man might have less time, but make the most of it, thus having a better quality of life. Example: essay. Predictive: the young mother’s baby might turn out to be a mass murderer. Do we seek to increase pleasure? Or simply to minimise pain? Some people might be prepared to suffer a great deal of pain in order to experience a small amount of pleasure. Example: Concentration camps: very little food. Stealing food for survival. Even though the penalties would be extremely severe.

John Stuart Mill Focus on Qualitative pleasures Higher and lower pleasure Higher = mind Lower = body Attempted to address problem of what counts as pleasure, Quantitative v qualitative. Higher pleasure preferable to lower pleasure. To pursue bodily pleasures not as high an objective as those that are intellectually demanding. There is a link. It is difficult to pursue intellectual demands whilst being hungry… But once the basic lower pleasures have been met, we can move on to the intellectual, higher pleasures = mental, spiritual, cultural. Eat enough to survive in order to pursue intellectual pleasure is better than eating lots of tasty food

How can we properly distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? How do we distinguish one higher pleasure from another? Cannot rely on one single factor equation: the greatest good for greatest number - Justice If all cultural and spiritual pursuits provide the same amount of pleasure, we can presume that it doesn’t matter which one we do. Also, different people experience different pleasures. To read Shakespeare can be immensely pleasurable to one person, but very painful for someone else. Bus on fire and you can only save one person. One is your son, other is doctor who has developed cure for aids. According to theory, you should save doctor, but your personal duty and instinct would lead you to save your son. Does not set out how pleasure is distributed. Nothing for minorities. Five bullies get pleasure from torturing a single boy. His pleasure is sacrificed for the benefit of theirs, as they are the majority. Could lead to justification of many horrendous acts… Holocaust could be considered good if the greater population thought it pleasurable.

Act Utilitariansim Jeremy Bentham Principle of utility applied to each individual situation Flexible = result of individual act Problem: can justify almost any act Impractical to measure every moral choice we make every time Can have extreme results Very relative. What is right in one situation might not always be right in another. Does not offer rules, so can be difficult when trying to assess what is the greater good.

Rule Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill General principles or rules Rules take priority Problems: Does not allow for flexibility Somewhat absolute Rules laid down according to utilitarian principle. Morally right to obey rules, morally wrong to disobey. We have to follow rules, even if they are not in our individual best interest, because they are of the best interest for society as a whole. Varies from different cultures. Difficult sometimes due to absolute nature. Rule set by utilitarian principle: wrong to lie for the majority of people, as lying causes unhappiness. However, in some instances, it may be okay to lie, but we cannot do so.

Deontological Ethics The Moral Law Categorical Imperative Kant Deontological Ethics The Moral Law Categorical Imperative

Deontological Ethics Actions not consequences Based on duty ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’ Summum bonum – supreme good Morality leads to God

The Moral Law Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me A priori – knowledge without reference to experience A posteriori – knowable through experience Analytic – statement true by definition Synthetic – true/false through experience Moral statements – a priori synthetic There is an objective moral law that we know through reason. A priori – statement that is knowable without any reference to any experience. 1+1=2. All bachelors are men. Bachelors can only be men because the word bachelor means an unmarried man. A posteriori – knowable after experience. John is a bachelor. We know that bachelors are men, but we can only know that John is a bachelor by asking him or someone else, and this is experience. Analytic – Predicate (part of the sentence) say something that is necessarily true about the subject. The square has four corners. If it didn’t have four equal corners. If it didn’t have this, then it would not be a square. A square has to necessarily have four 90. angles. Synthetic – Requires empirical tests. John is a bachelor… the name john doesn’t tell us anything about who he is. We can only know this is true through experience. We have to find out. Also, it could be that John isn’t a bachelor, but this is still synthetic. Moral statements are a priori synthetic… Moral knowledge is gained by pure reason, not sense experience. A priori statements are those that depend on reason. However, they may be right or wrong. Thus, they are synthetic.

Good Will and Duty Good will = highest form of good To have good will is to do your duty We don’t do duty for consequences, but for the duty itself Moral for duty, not love Moral person = rational being Act out of duty alone How do we know which actions are obligatory and which actions are forbidden? If we do something for the consequence it brings, this is to act in self-interest. This is not morally good. We should not do something because we feel it is in our interest to do so. We should do it because it is our duty. If I give money to a beggar because I feel sorry for him, this may make me feel good, but it is not virtuous. I should do it out of duty. We should not act out of emotion. Instead, we should use our duty and reason to guide our emotions. When we talked about moral law, we talked about how people know what is good as it is inside them. Kant believes we have the power to reason. His system of ethics is not based on intuition. Do duty because it’s right, and no other reason. To act out of duty is to perform actions that are morally obligatory.

Categorical Imperative You should do Y Absolute Non-conditional HI is conditional. If I want to lose weight then I need to exercise Not moral. No conditions attached to CI. I should exercise. I ought to do ….. I ought to tell the truth. This makes no reference to desires or needs

Categorical or Hypothetical? I ought not to murder I ought not to lie because it’s wrong I ought to help my parents I ought to give to charity because there are people starving in the world I ought to help the man cross the road I ought to study as it will get me into a better university

The Universal Law Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalised Something that is right for me has to be right for everyone If it’s wrong for one person, it’s wrong for everyone I should only do something if I am prepared for everyone else to act in the same way There are 3 parts of the CI. First is the universal law If I steal, I should be prepared for everybody else to steal.

Treat Humans as Ends in Themselves So act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end Cannot use humans as means to ends We are rational – highest point of creation. Demand unique treatment Cannot use individual for sake of many Promote happiness of others if it allows freedom of others Human beings are the most important factor in making a moral decision. A human being can not be allowed to be the means by which a goal or purpose is achieved. We cannot justify the suffering of an individual because it benefits the majority.

Act as if you Live in a Kingdom of Ends So act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of ends Kant argues that to preserve the moral integrity of each individual, every individual should behave as though every other individual was an “end” You don’t do what everyone else does. You do what you think is morally right You don’t do something just because others do it. You cannot say, I am lying because they are lying and therefore it must be right. Instead you should use reason to decide if it is the right thing to do to lie.

Freedom Humans free to make rational choices Ability to rationalise sets us apart from animals, who lack this ability Have to be free to do our duty Duty is to follow categorical imperative Every moral action must be possible If we’re not free, possibility of making choices would be denied Human reason means that we can freely make choices. Freedom of speech! We can freely make moral decisions. Something that is impossible cannot be a moral option. If you see your friend being beaten up, you ought to help, but if you are tied up, you obviously cannot help. Thus, your freedom has been taken away from you.

Right or wrong action? You are pushing a car up a hill with three other people and you think ‘I could just pretend to be pushing, only three people are needed for this job’, and so you stop pushing. You go to the supermarket to buy some washing powder and buy the own-brand budget powder, because it’s slightly cheaper than the environmentally-friendly powder You avoid paying fares on the train, because you know you can get away without paying them You want to listen to some good music, so you borrow a CD from a friend and tape it

Criticisms Cannot sacrifice few for many. War? No exceptions – restrictions on behaviour Many people carry out good acts out of love, not duty Conflict in duties: Abortion No flexibility If mother was pregnant but life was in danger to have baby, should she have abortion? Whose life has more value? Either one is murder. Not to do anything is in effect, killing the mother.

Question ‘An act is morally good if it’s done entirely from motives if duty.’ What does Kant mean by duty? Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the claim