+ The History of Ethics/ Our Morality “ I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of ones action has to be benefitting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others…People like me want to …satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me.”

+ How can we justify our moral judgement? Moral taste? moral reasoning (value judgments) Emotions and moral judgment. Is their such thing as moral knowledge? Based on assumptions?

+ Morality is as old as humanity, and there have been many different kinds of morality across the millennia. Both individually and in social interaction the human species evolves mature moral conscience and character. The concept of morality - Where did it come from?

+ There are three basic spheres or levels of Ethics; they are Applied, Normative and Meta-ethics. At its most practical, moral philosophy is about what we ought to do in any given situation. Is the government intervention in Aboriginal communities right? Is euthanasia morally wrong? Can we justify our treatment of farmed animals? Applied ethics - most ethical discussions in the media are at this level.

+ There are three basic spheres or levels of Ethics; they are Applied, Normative and Meta-ethics. Normative ethics is the rational inquiry into the standards of right and wrong, good and bad, in respect of character and conduct, which ought to be accepted by a class of individuals. This class could be mankind at large, but we can also think of medical ethics, business ethics, etc. as a body of standards that the professionals in question ought to accept and observe. Main aim is to formulate valid norms of conduct and of evaluation of character.

+ There are three basic spheres or levels of Ethics; they are Applied, Normative and Meta-ethics. Meta-ethics is so called because it treats ethical concepts, propositions and belief systems as objects of philosophical inquiry. Is is about the general nature and structure of ethics. It analyses concepts or right and wrong, good and bad, in respect of character and conduct, and related concepts, e.g. moral responsibility, virtue, rights. Deals with the status of moral claims in general. E.G when someone says it is wrong to kill any creature that has the capacity to decide its own future and has not chosen to be killed, what kind of claim are they making? True or false, or are they just expressing an opinion? Are they saying something which applies to everyone, or only to people from a particular culture or historical period? What is the basis of what they say? Is morality rooted in nature, human nature, God or do we create it ourselves?

+ What is morality based on? Is ethics based on pure reason, mutual agreement or emotion? Kant – Moral Absolutism Bentham - Utilitarianism Aristotle – Virtue Ethics Nietzsche – Ego ethics?? Sartre -

+ Immanuel Kant ( ) For Kant, the key issue is how to discover a rational basis for one’s sense of duty, and from that to devise a principle by which one could distinguish between right and wrong. Asserted that morality is based on pure reason, but begins with the recognition that we all understand what it is to have a sense of moral obligation. “...the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” This moral understanding is a priori, it is known without appeal to experience; it exists in the mind prior to, and independent of, experience.

+ Kant continued Kant places the ‘good will’ at the centre of ethics. We do something because we feel we have a duty to do so, not because we are compelled by others. Where do we get these imperatives from? Each of us is a rational agent and each of us is able to will (to desire and choose) freely and autonomously. Moral rules are derived when we use our rationality to guide our wills.

+ Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill ( ) and Jeremy Bentham ( ) Based on the principle of utility which is that, in any situation where there is a moral choice, one should do that which results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The assumption is that we all want to be happy and have a good life. (A logical assumption?) Consequentialist theory – that one must do that which has the best consequences.

+ Utilitarianism continued... This theory has a rational basis. We reason what the best outcome will be, we assess, deliberate and provide justification for the action or decision that will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Peter Singer, a contemporary Australian philosopher, is a prominent Utilitarian. As well as acknowledging that this approach is predominantly based on reason, he accepts that emotion is a part of the process. To be human, we cannot leave our emotions aside. Nevertheless, it is important to provide rational justification for ethical and moral decisions.

+ Aristotle ( BC ) Virtue ethics Eudaimonia – well being, happiness For Aristotle, happiness is about life going well, but also about one behaving well. This is not about pleasure. “Every craft and every investigation, and likewise every action and decision, seems to aim at some good; hence the good has been well described as that at which everything aims.” Nicomachean Ethics By ‘good’ here is meant a goal or purpose, something that is wanted for its own sake.

+ Nietzsche ( ) Had a religious upbringing so familiar with Christianity and the view that man is fallen. Rejected religious thinking and other philosophies; in fact distrusted systems of thought. Like some others of his time (and preceding), he did not see man as fixed but in a process of becoming. God is dead.

+ BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL Friedrich Nietzsche Anything great that we have achieved or become has been the result of a strict obedience in one particular direction over a long period of time. Nietzsche bemoaned the "slave revolt in morality," which considered the rich, violent, and sensual to be evil, while considering the poor holy. We have come to see everything healthy, dangerous, and passionate about ourselves as pathological. This morality of the "herd" claims in the name of "happiness" that we should avoid our darker instincts. Nietzsche despised moralizers precisely because they generalised on matters that depend greatly on the individual.

+ There have always been more people obeying than commanding, but as he said ‘simply because the majority is suited to submissiveness we should not conclude that this is a general principle that all should obey’. Nietzsche suggests that our moral valuations are based largely on fear. In a community that is safe from external threats, any aggressive members of that community come to seen as a threat. Thus, our morality condemns all that is lively, preferring the safety of a tamed, mediocre mass. This morality of the "herd" then proclaims itself as the only true morality (other moralities are "immoral") and as the savior of the herd.

+ Nietzsche sees all drives as resting ultimately on the will to power; My beating up my neighbour and my giving my neighbour a gift are both expressions of my will to power. But how is it that two totally opposite deeds can ultimately boil down to the same will? Nietzsche suggests that we learn to sublimate our will to power; we channel it and redirect it in order to give it a refined, more subtle, and higher expression. Beating up my neighbour is about as unsubtle an expression of power as there is. However, if I give my neighbour a gift, I will have sublimated my will to power. I.E Now I will feel my neighbour is in my debt and will have a greater, longer- lasting, and more sublime feeling of power than if I had just beaten him up.

+ If we contrast what Nietzsche considers worth pursuing with other moralities, we can understand why he so bitterly despises utilitarianism, democracy, and other "taming" forces. Tell the truth… Do not vandalize property … Have courage … Do not have sex before marriage … Keep your promises …Do not cheat. Treat others as you want to be treated …Be trustworthy …Respect others Keep your self control …Have respect for yourself …Be tolerant of differences Seek justice … Have humility … Serve mankind Nietzsche calls this "herd" morality because it speaks to our herd instincts. It assumes that we are all the same and should all follow the same rules.

+ Some of us were simply born to be mindless slaves, according to Nietzsche… What worries Nietzsche is that the minority that is potentially great has been seduced by the preaching of the herd and has attempted to follow the same rules as everyone else. These rules, Nietzsche claims, exist in large part precisely to keep these freer, more dangerous spirits in line. Democracy is just one more attempt to force us all to be equal.

+ Jean-Paul Sartre ( ) Existence precedes essence. Sartre took the view that human beings, in what they do and the choices they make, shape their own lives. There is no fixed ‘essence’ of me that I must discover and live up to. Rather, ‘I’ am something that will develop a particular character, an essence, as I go through life. The existential task is to develop and take in new experiences, shaping oneself all the time. Life is a challenge and a project. In practice, however, Sartre took the view that one should allow to everyone else the freedom that one wished for oneself, thus creating a basis of mutual respect between oneself and other people. This approach provides the framework within which the self is to be developed.

+ Sartre continued... For Sartre, the fact that God does not exist and that we are free to make our own choices does not provide mankind with an easy option. A person has to accept responsibility for his or her decisions, and the implication of such freedom is that it should allow the same freedom to others. Thus it would be inconsistent to reject conventions that other people might want to impose on me, but at the same time seek to impose them on others.