Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 1:
ETHICS: WHAT IS IT? GENERAL
DESCRIPTION AND BASIC
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University

Key Terms
Ethics
Grammar of ethics
Ethical competence
Ethical performance
Family resemblance
Proposition
Argument
Claim
Warrant
 Aims
In completing this module, you will be able to understand and explain
the following:
MODULE 1

1. General definition and relevant conceptual terminology of ethics.

UFND50

2. You will be able to make an ethical analysis similar to the one made
in this module.

Introduction
The term ethics is used in three different but related ways, signifying (1) a general
way or way of life, (2) a set of rules of conduct or moral code, and (3) inquiry about
ways of life and rules of conduct. In the first sense we speak of Buddhist ethics or
Christian ethics; in the second, we speak of applied ethics or unethical behavior. In
the third sense ethics is a branch of philosophy that is frequently given the name
of meta-ethics. Here in this third sense, the subject matter of ethics is the central
question of what do we or should we mean by good or bad, ethically being good
or bad. In this book we will deal with all these senses of the term ethics.
Ethics is in its simplest terms is defined as the knowledge of morality. Ethical
behavior therefore means behaving ethically; that is the right and proper way of
conduct. All this means in turn, the knowledge of and ability to act according to the
criteria and rules of right behavior. Each and every one of our daily activities has a
specific purpose, and we as rational humans, act rationally to achieve these. We also
do these daily and planned activities in order to foster and ameliorate our intended
aims in life. But we can achieve none of these without some valid criteria. We may be
looking for a job, trying to buy a car, a house, raise our children, or buy tomatoes in a
bazaar; without a criterion, a rule, we cannot do any of these things.
At a different level, our ethical conducts also require such criteria and rules. Without
such rules we are unable to distinguish between the right and the wrong. Imagine a
driver trapped in the hectic Istanbul traffic, on a busy weekend. This driver has two
options: he may obey all the rules and regulations dictated by the traffic department
or he may think that he has all the freedom to drive as he wishes and so has the
right to violate all the rules. In this case, he either gets himself killed or injured or
causes others harm. Similarly, in every real life situation, we need a criterion or rule in
order to do our jobs or deeds in a proper and accepted manner.
. Sometimes however, even if we think we followed the rules and criteria, we may fail.
In such cases there is either inadequate knowledge of these rules of conduct on our
part, (we may have taken the wrong drug), or, even if the criteria and the rules are
correct, we may have failed in the right application of these rules (we may have taken
the right drug, in a wrong way). So, in order to be successful, in addition to knowledge
of these rules, we must also be well trained in their proper techniques of application.
Applied to our example of the taxi driver, we can say that he may well know all the
traffic rules, but unable to internalize them. This is a lesson Aristotle teaches us from
2500 years back in the ancient Greek town of Athens: medicine called ethics can only
benefit those who know how to use the right prescription.
Ethics is related to all other fields of knowledge from biology to psychology, from law
to medicine, as we will be seeing in the following sections of this book. It is related
to economics since it is the allocation of goods and services in just and fair way. It is
related to law since ethics constitutes the foundation of written laws. It is related to
psychology since the moral development of chldren runs parallel to the process of
their psychological maturation.

2
The term ethics entered into the semantic field of Turkish public sphere in early
1980s, and by 2000s it has become commonplace. The rapid changes in media and
communication technology, modernization and industrialization, made the ethical
problems in all these field felt themselves, forcing universities to initiate programs

MODULE 1
in applied ethics such media ethics, deontology, bio-ethics, etc. Moreover
globalization and high industrialization caused serious problems of ecological

UFND50
pollution, created urgent need for establishing ethical rules and regulations at
national and international levels, to protect the environment. Should we destroy
nature and jeopardize the lives of the future generations, or should we give up the
high profit and rapid industrialization? This is an ethical dilemma which the process
of globalization forces us to face. Such ethical dilemmas are similarly faced in almost
all fields. As a result, many fields of applied ethics are created by adding words such
as bio, political, medical, professional, etc. in front of the word ethics.
The most important task of the universities, in face of all these developments, is to
pioneer in this field end establish programs, curriculum, centers relevant to ethics
and applied ethics. This book itself too may be considered part of some such task,
taken up by Yaar University.

Flag!
The arguments developed throughout this book rest on logic of trivet. The first leg
of the trivet is the claim, which is the thesis which is has be shown to be valid, true,
etc. We will see many different theories of ethics in this book, each of which contains
a claim; without a claim, there is no theory. The second leg of trivet is data. This is all
the good reason given by the argument to support the claim. The third element in
argument is the warrant, is (are) the totality of general principles and axioms which
links the claim with backing, thus guaranteeing the validity of an argument.

What is Ethics
Theatre of eternal recurrence called ethics
Why should I read a book of ethics; why trouble myself with problems of ethical
deeds which have agitated many people? Ask such a simple and nave question and
an answer is suggested. Why should I read a book of plays? Why go to the theatre
to see how some author resolves some humanly difficult situations? Combine these
questions and the answer is given. The individual mind is a little theatre in which the
present repeats the past, in which the individual recapitulates the experience of the
human race. Take the infancy of man; then fear, and wonder, and confusion fill the
mind; and childish notions as to ghosts and spirits and mysterious powers disturb
the imagination. This was the age of primitive man; the age of silly nonsense as
the Greeks called it. Next came the age of free inquiry and rational thought, when
bold philosophers and doubting Sophists questioned the validity of tribal mores and
customs and when Socrates was murdered for impiety. Plato and Aristotle followed
with rational solutions to problems of morality and life.
Meanwhile the scene shifts from West to East, from Greece to India, where
Buddhism advised resignation to the evils of life and preached a kind of pessimism.
This pessimist and grey outlook was later reflected in the system of the 19th
century thinker Schopenhauer, who read the sacred books of the East. Then China:
Confucianism is both cheerful and is based upon the solidarity of the family.
The scene shifts again and we return to the West. In Greece hard times had come, first
from Macedon, and then from Rome, the land of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, felt the

3
 iron heel of the oppressor. New philosophers arose to meet the situation, Diogenes
of Sinop withdrew into his tub, and Epicurus into his garden; the former an angry
cynic, the latter a happy seeker of moderate pleasures. But greater than these two
schools, were the Stoics, who wandered about in their cloaks in market place and
MODULE 1

preached to whoever cared to listen.

UFND50

The scene shifts to the Roman Empire and Christianity. The early Christian
philosopher St. Augustine wrote the City of God, promising hope and salvation to
the pious. Here there is hope for those who suffered; they are soon to be rewarded;
theirs is the assurance of a happy future, for God has divided mankind into two cities
according to two moralities. There is a fundamental conflict between good and evil,
between Deity and Devil, but those who have abandoned the pagan gods, and
followed the one only true God, are safe. Later on Thomas Aquinas took over the
defender of faith, defending the idea that the privileges of salvation were for the
elect.
The scene shifts from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, where an entire
change of plot happens. Middle Ages had offered a series of mystery and miracle
plays based for example, on the mystery of mans fall and miracle of infused grace.
These mysteries were no different, in essence from the pagan mythologies of the
ancient Greeks Heroic Age. But now, in Renaissance, men become more interested
in humanity than heaven; life is no longer a weary pilgrimage, a vale of tears, but
an exciting adventure, a place of joy. As a man of early Renaissance, Francis Bacon
declares: Lands, seas, and stars have been immensely revealed in our times.
Renaissance. That which is an old story to us was a new story to the man of
Renaissance. There was the long and glorious roll of explorers --Colombus, Magellan,
Vasco da Gama, and many others. To these lists must be added the list of explorers
of the heavens-- Copernicus and Galileo. To this the newly discovered manuscripts of
classical antiquity long hidden in the city walls of Constantinople, before the fall of
the city to the Turks, are added. These manuscripts were taken by Arab scholars and
translated into Arabic, and later they were translated into Latin thus contributing
the idea of Renaissance. One of the scholars thus affected by these writings was
the Italian Machiavelli. So like the Sophist Thrasymachos and the Roman rulers,
Machiavelli advocated a form of morals which claims that might is right, and that
end justifies all means.
The scene shifts from Renaissance to Enlightenment and then to anti-
Enlightenment. There was Rene Descartes of France who established Rationalism
and John Locke from England who established Empiricism and the following ethical
views are shaped in these two directions of thought. Kant was the first great rationalist
theorist of ethics. In spite of Kants notion that he had surpassed all previous systems
of ethics, his was a mere revival of the ancient Stoic doctrine which in hard times put
iron into the hearts of men. Reaction to Kant was Schopenhauers relentless Eastern
inspired idea of the will: the will means the world will, relentless, implacable, caring
nothing for man; and the idea mere illusion, vanity of vanities, the web of Maya. Man
is not the master, as the Enlightenment philosophers such as Descartes and Kant
professed, but the product; not the creative first cause, but the latest manifestation
of vast cosmic processes.
Then the last blow to the Enlightenment idea (of both rationalist and empiricist)
of ethics: Nietzsche. Nietzsche revolted against everything of the past. An ardent
follower of Schopenhauer, he pursued the formers principle of the world will, and
turned it into a principle of the will to power, and boasted of being the first immoralist.
The universe is evil, he declared, cruel like a dissonance of notes in musical scales,
and the soul of man, dissonant like the universe, suffering from itself, would detach
itself from life.

4
The scene shifts back to Enlightenment once again: The return to utility. From
this fevered interval of the theater (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), a return to cool and
practical minds is in order. In contrast to master morality and privileged over-man,
the English utilitarian philosophers, whose motto was the greatest happiness to the

MODULE 1
greatest number, had meanwhile been constructing morals based on democracy
and aiming to equal rights of all. All this was a part of the new capitalist-liberal

UFND50
semantic language. All this has been criticized as too capitalist and mercantile, as
the old saying. The utilitarian philosophers such as Bentham and Mill were attacking
the elbow-chair moralists who while talking about the sense of duty (a la Kant), miss
the real motives at work in industrial capitalist advancements of mankind.
Ethics Today

Ethics or ethics culture is a concept of family resemblance developed throughout

the history of it as we have summarized above. Ethics and its kin concept such as
morality, justice, virtue, etc. form an extended family in the sense that although not
identical with one another, they still form a family resemblance just like members
of great extended family. For example, the concept of justice we use in the 21st
century is not identical with the one developed by Plato or Aristotle 2500 years ago,
but it certainly shows some resemblance to them, for they are the member of the
same family called justice. And the concept of justice developed by Plato, although
not identical to the concept of justice we see in the Book of the Dead of the ancient
Egypt of 5000 years ago, is certainly has some resemblance to it. Similarly all other
concepts in ethics are like this, such as courage, temperance, fairness, etc. This is
the historical-diachronic dimension of the concept ethics.
There is also a synchronic dimension. Take for example, the 20th century development
of the so called applied ethics. In the global level new fields of applied ethics such as
bio-ethics, media ethics, technology ethics, business ethics, use the term ethics not
in an identical sense, but nevertheless in a manner of family resemblance. Within this
context, all the ethics in these different fields form a family with a common form
or grammar but different styles or content. This common grammar of ethics is the
global glue which holds all these different ethics as part of the same family. The more
this common grammar of ethics is refined and cultivated, the more each of these
different ethics will have a chance to develop and foster.
In conclusion, the term ethics has been one of the most important concepts of our
global world. We are able to discuss and question whether our politicians, scientists,
lawyers, judges are ethical or not. At the center of our public sphere discussions over
nation, religion, civil society, lie the concepts related to the family of ethics. Such a
search for global ethics is certainly one of the revolutions of our time.
The fundamental question of the 21st century revival of ethics is the following Kantian
dictum: What should I do, how should I live? This question was put by Socrates
as: Unexamined life is not worth living. However put, this question is beginning
to be discussed in many forms by many different segments of societies and especially
at a global level in our present day world.
The first three modules of this book will search the answer (s) to this fundamental
question in the writings of philosophers of the past 2500 years. The second half of
this book will search for the answer to this question in the fields of applied ethics
such as law, politics, medicine, biology, literature, economy, etc. Last module is about
the ethics of global responsibility, meaning that the same question is also relevant
globally and universally.

5
 The Good Life
The fundamental question of ethics, as we have already mentioned is what is
desirable, good or worthwhile in life? What is the good life as distinct from the
MODULE 1

morally good life? What values should we pursue?

UFND50

Non-moral evaluations of value judgments may be particular like That is a good car,
Wasnt that a good concert, or It was good to see you, or general like Knowledge
is good, A particular value judgment however is always implicitly general; when one
says that X is good, one must be prepared to say that anything just like it must be
good and good in the same degree. Also we must be prepared to give reasons why it
is good, and this can only be done in the light of more general value judgment about
what is good or at least prima facie good. For example, if one is asked why that was
a good concert, one must say something like Because it was profoundly moving,
which implies that being profoundly moving is a good-making characteristic, at
least from an aesthetic point of view. In fact , all evaluations in ethical reasoning are
at least implicitly made by reference to some standard or to some set of principles
about what is good-making . We will see the examples of such ethical reasoning in
the fourth module of this book under the heading of Ethical Reasoning. Here let us
merely list the senses of the good which is relevant to ethics.
Good and its various senses
In this introductory module, it will be convenient to conduct our discussion on ethics
with the question of what is good, letting it be understood that corresponding
things may be said about what is bad, desirable, undesirable and so on. Even the
term good has somewhat different uses which must not be confused. It occurs as
a substantive in sentences like the good is pleasure and Withhold not good from
them to whom it is due, but it also has two adjectival uses illustrated by a good
concert and knowledge is good. We must be careful not to confuse the good or
the things that are good with goodness or the property of being good. The terms
value and values are troublesome partly because, as often used they cover up this
distinction, as well as the distinction between being good and being thought good.
However, since the good is equivalent to that which the adjective good applies,
we may take the adjective as central for our discussion of good. The Oxford English
Dictionary says, among other things that good are:
The most general adjective of commendation, implying the existence in
a high, or at least satisfactory, degree of characteristic qualities which are either
admirable in themselves or useful for some purpose.

This elucidation points out that saying something is good is not quite prescribing
that we do it or saying that ought to bring it into existence, but rather commending it,
with the implication that one is doing so on certain grounds, that is because of certain
facts about it. If the thing is a person, motive, intention, deed, or trait of character,
one may commend it on moral grounds; then, one is using good in the moral sense.
One may also commend something on non-moral grounds, and then one may apply
the term good to all sorts of things, or just to persons and their acts or dispositions.
These non-moral grounds are moreover are themselves various, yielding a number of
different senses or uses of good, the main ones of which we must now distinguish.
Perhaps one should call these different uses after Wittgenstein, rather than senses
of good, since presumably good always has the same meaning roughly given by
the Oxford English Dictionary and is only being applied on different contexts or
from different points of view. Here are some senses or uses of good:

6
 One may say, pointing to a stick, that would make a good lever. Then, one is
saying it is good simply on the ground of its usefulness for the purpose at hand,
whether this purpose is a good one or not.
One may also say that something is good on the ground that it is a means,

MODULE 1
necessary, sufficient, or both to a good end, as one says, It is a good dea to go to

UFND50
the dentist twice a year. Then it is good as a means. Money and material goods
(not counting works of art or thing of natural beauty) are good only in this sense.
In this sense the good is not inherent but extrinsic.
Works of art and things of natural beauty may also be said to be good on the
ground that one who contemplates them has a good or rewarding experience.
Then we may say that they have inherent goodness.
However, not all goodness is extrinsic or even inherent in these ways. We also
sometimes say that the things are good, desirable, or worthwhile in themselves,
as ends, intrinsically. When someone asks, What is ..good for?, the answer
may be given by trying to exhibit its usefulness, extrinsic value, or inherent
goodness; but one may also try to show (and here the final appeal must be Try
it and see) that it is enjoyable or otherwise good in itself. Hence money, cars and
other material possessions even paintings, can have goodness or value since the
experiences with them are enjoyable or good in themselves.
Certain experiences may be called good because they contribute to the good
life, or because if they are included in ones life they make it intrinsically better. As
we will see later the utilitarian think so: Mill says that knowledge and money are
both originally sought as means to happiness but may be sought for their own
sakes, as in the case miser or scientist, ehen they become parts of happiness.
The following table will summarize this account of the uses of good.
I. Moral values=things that are good on moral grounds.
II. Non-moral values
A. Utility values=things that are good because of their usefulness for some
purpose.
B. Extrinsic values=things that are good because they are means to what is good.
C. Inherent values=things that are good because the experience of contemplating
them is good or rewarding in itself.
D. Intrinsic values=things that are good in themselves because of their own
intrinsic properties.
E. Contributory values=things that are good because they contribute to the
intrinsically good life.
F. Final values=things that are good on the whole (to be explained in a moment).
It should be noted that the same thing can be good in more than one sense as is
knowledge. In fact John Dewey sought to break down the distinction between what
is good as a means and what is good as and, partly because he realized that most of
the things we do or live through are both good or bad in themselves and good or
bad in their results. But in fact this distinction is valid since we must constantly look
for both kinds of values in our activities, instead of thinking that some are good only
as means and others only as ends. We must also notice that the same thing can be
good in one sense and bad in another. Going to a dentist is good as a means but bad
in itself.
It follows that we must be careful when someone says X is good or asks Is X good?

7
 We know of course that he is commending X or asking if it should be commended or
favored; but before we can agree or answer, we must try to ascertain on what ground
he is saying X is good or from what point of view he is asking if it is good. Of course
he may be saying that it is good on the whole or from all points of view, or he may be
MODULE 1

asking if it is good in this sense. But we must find this out. We find out of course, by
discovering what reasons he gives or is willing to listen to for his judgment. In fact, if
UFND50

someone uses the word good in this unqualified way, as we usually do (i.e., we do
not usually put in qualifiers like morally, extrinsically, etc.), we probably must first
take it to mean good on the whole, unless the context makes it clear that it does not
mean this. We must then wait for the discussion to reveal any error on our part. We
tend to use the word in a global, inclusive way, and to pin our grounds down only if
we have to.
In sum, in order to come to a judgment about whether something is good on the
whole or good in any of the other senses, we must first determine what the intrinsic
value is, what the intrinsic value of its consequences or of the experiences of
contemplating it is, or how much it contributes to the intrinsically good life. Our task,
therefore, is to determine the criteria or standards of intrinsic goodness and badness.
What are the grounds on which things, or rather activities, experiences, and lives may
correctly be said to be good, desirable, or worthwhile as ends or in themselves?
This question will be answered by many philosophers throughout this book. Each
theory of ethics answers the above question somehow differently.
Flag!
Please notice while reading the theories of ethics, the way each theory answers the
above question about the good.

Ethics Education
Education in the most general sense is a process of life-long learning and training.
Ethic on the other hand is defined as a systematic answer to the question of What
should I do, how should I live? Socrates expressed the necessary connection between
education and ethics as Know thyself, meaning that we should learn our own
prejudices and misperceptions and try to remedy them accordingly. Aristotle also
emphasizes the practical aspect of ethical knowledge and training with his concept
of Phronesis that is practical wisdom. Ethical practical wisdom is not something
which we innately have as potential; but that it has to be actualized by learning and
by practice of virtues. To put this idea in different words, we can say that to be just
one must learn how to act justly, to be virtuous to act virtuously.
From a narrower perspective, let us ask the question why ethics should be a part of
the university curricula in general. The most obvious answer to such a question is the
fact that a student, whatever his-her field of study may be, in his professional life will
have to make ethical decisions almost daily be it as an employee or as an employer.
Not only in her-his professional life, but also in personal, social or family life, we all
have make ethical decisions; Am I doing right in punishing my child, employee?
Was I unjust to my friend? Did I do wrong in behaving this or that way? By the
time you start asking these questions, you are in the field of ethics. Therefore, to
be a successful businessman, a good employee, a good father, a good wife, a good
husband we must know the rules of the game. Moreover, any unethical decision we
make not only affects you and the person concerned, but also many others, especially
if you have a higher position and responsibility in society.
The second reason why knowledge and consciousness of ethics is necessary is the
rapid industrialization high technology and globalization. Industrialization on a global
scale also brought environmental pollution on a global level. The ethical dilemma

8
here is the following: should we should choose high industrialization therefore a
polluted and destroyed nature, or unpolluted environment and slow development.
High technological development creates an ethical problem of transference of
technological know-how from information-rich countries to information-poor

MODULE 1
ones. Globalization on all fields also creates ethical problems such as democratization,
fair competition, developmental ethics, etc. In sum, knowledge and education of

UFND50
ethics is an inseparable part of our modern, contemporary and global world.

Semantic Environment of Ethics: Ethical

Grammar and Ethical Performance
Each and every systematic view of morality or ethics whether be it a great religion like
Islam, Christianity or great ethical theory like that of Aristotle or Kant, has a semantic
environment. This semantic environment or language has three components: (1)
lexicon and propositions or ethical concepts and their usage in sentential forms; (2)
grammar, or rules of ethical competence; (3) ethical performance or techniques of
application of these rules within certain contexts. The idea of semantic environment
of ethical theories implies that these ethical ideas are not some whimsical and
accidental inventions of those philosophers or prophets, but rather reflect deep
and innate potentialities and tendencies man as a rational animal has possessed
and developed over millennia. Semantic environment of ethics therefore is a term
covering the lexical-propositional content, ethical competence that is the totality of
ethical rules or grammar and ethical performance or the techniques of application of
these ethical rules within certain real-life contexts. Let us look these three components
closer.
Ethical lexicon (concepts) and propositions. Ethical concepts are like word-
meanings in a dictionary of a particular language. Just as there cannot be a language
without words, there cannot be an ethical theory without the ethical lexicon. The
concepts of an ethical theory form a family resemblance. Let us explore: each
language has word which have corresponding meanings. For example the word
game refers to some activities performed by following certain rules; a game is a
rule governed activity. So is any ethical concept such as justice or virtue. If we take
a category of game which is played by ball we can say that all the games played in
this category form a family resemblance. To this family belong members of games
such as games played by hands, games played by footgames played by oval balls,
games played by small round balls etc. All these games resemble the others just
as members of a certain family resemble one another. But if you ask the question Is
there one single essence which belongs to all the members, we cannot say anything
except that they belong to the family of games played by ball. Ethical concepts too
are like that; what is it that makes all the concepts of justices justice? We cannot say
anything other than that they all belong to the family called justice. There is not one
single essence which cuts through all the concepts of justices put forth by different
philosophers in the past 2500 years. Platos concept of justice resembles that of
Aristotles but it may also resemble Kants, Socrates concept of justice may resemble
Platos but is not identical with it. All other ethical concepts are like this; it is a futile
effort to search for the essence of things.
Ethical theories. By each philosopher, these concepts are combined according
certain rules of ethics, into ethically meaningful sentences or propositions. These
ethically meaning full sentences are put together by some religious or rational
geniuses (prophets or philosophers) into some general ethical and or moral religious
systems of thoughts.
Ethical competence, grammar or rules. Views concerning rules in relation to ethics
go back to Aristotle and more recently to Kant. But the most systematic explorations

9
 of the subject are done by the late 19th and early 20th century American philosophers
G. Herbert Mead and Kenneth Burke. Burke makes a crucial distinction between the
concepts action and motion. Action for him and for that matter for Mead is unique
to humans, and by definition implies and ethical choice. Any action is by definition
MODULE 1

an ethical choice. Action is distinguished from motion which is common both to

animals and humans. Motions are ethically irrelevant movements such as raising
UFND50

my hand or lighting my pipe, but the same motions when made by someone in a
situation of ethical semantic environment such as my smoking my pipe near a child,
for example in my daughters bedroom, becomes an action with ethical implications.
The rule is needed at this point: People should avoid actions which will harm others.
I can make this rule into a universal maxim of ethics: Do not do anything which you
do not want to be done to you. Now we reached a Kantian categorical imperative
under which all the other ethical rules fall. This maxim will cover more complex actions
such as promising, swearing, singing, insulting, persuading, lying, cheating, etc.
These actions are uniquely human and are part of our ethical semantic environments.
On the other hand, the objects, animals and humans have the common ability to
move and make motions. These are either instinctive or induced by external force
or conditioning, but however incited, they are not actions, unless they are linked to
a sign or symbol which is commonly agreed by a linguistic community, and if this
happens, then this motion becomes an ethical action.
In addition to this motion-action distinction, we must add that a rule of community
makes a motion an ethically significant action. For example, I may be smoking, alone,
at the top of a hill. This is simply a motion which has no ethical significance other than
that of my self-destructive behavior. But if I do the same motion of smoking pipe in
a crowded coffee house, it immediately becomes an unethical action affecting the
health of many people in a negative way.
Ethical performance. This is the practical or pragmatic element of the semantic
environment of ethics and the most important one. Imagine that you memorized all
the lexicon and grammatical rules of a foreign language. You still cannot speak that
language. Being ethical is being able to perform ethical deeds, and not only learning
ethical concepts and theories. Even if you memorize this book, or a hundred other
ethics books, that will not make you ethical just as memorizing a French dictionary
and grammar will not make you speak French. So, ethical performance is the ability
of usage of these ethical rules and concepts; it is the know-how of the technique
of application of ethical rules. Here the distinction between know-that and know-
how is of crucial importance. Know-that is learning the theoretical knowledge of a
field, know-how is the practical knowledge of theoretical knowledge in concrete real
life situations. Imagine that you know-that of all the details of a car engine, driving
instructions, etc. So now can you drive a car? Of course no, because you did not
practice, you do not know the know-how of it. There the rule is this: practice makes
perfect; without practicing (doing) virtuous acts, one cannot be virtuous.
We have said that ethical concepts form among themselves a family of resemblance.
Now let us apply this metaphor to the present book. During the course of this book
we will see many ethical theories and concepts. Imagine that each and every theory
of ethics we will see is different language, and the ethical concepts of that theory
are the words of that language. So now we can say that each ethical concept (say
justice) in each theory will resemble (family members) the same ethical concept in
other theories (justice in other theories) but never be identical (not have the same
essence). For example, the concept of justice of the ancient Egyptian Book of the
Dead, (5000B.C.) will resemble Platos (300 B.C.) concept of justice, or a 20th century
concept of justice, but never one to one identical with it.

10
Overall aims of this book
To equip the student with ethical lexicon: Language called ethics has enormous
volume of ethical lexicon that is ethical concept. The aim here is not to give this bulk
of ethical lexicon, but rather the most basic ones, within the confines of the basic

MODULE 1
ethical tendencies humans brings with them at birth. We act as different from animals

UFND50
by conferring meaning to words. And the words in ethical discourse are called ethical
concepts such as justice, virtue, fairness, courage, etc.
To equip the student with ethical competence: here ethical rules of conducts are
underlined. If we humans are thinking animals as Aristotle would say, we would
as different from animals think, after each and everything we do, did I do right or
wrong? and this brings the next question: According to which criteria or rule, did I
do right or wrong?. Here we have the domain of ethical competence: learning these
rules and theories of ethics.
To equip the student with ethical performance. This book or any other book cannot
make you an ethical person, but can teach you the techniques of ethical reasoning,
so that by using these techniques you can practice to be ethical.
To sum up the above three general aims we can say that both humans and animals
may behave in a selfish or unselfish manner, but humans as different from animals
can reflect (reflex) back and say Is this behavior, or action is right or wrong? And if
they think it is right, they try to persuade the other that he is right or if not, he is
persuaded by the other that he is wrong.

An Ethical Analysis of Ancient Egyptian The

Book of the Dead
Let us present what we have said above in some theoretical jargon in some concrete
format in the form of an analysis of a text called The Book of the Dead, Let us first
state clearly and distinctly, our four aims for this ethical-moral text (it could be any
text related to ethics, but we chose this simple one):
What is the lexicon of this text (language) called The Book of the Dead? Here we
must explore concepts such as good-bad, right-wrong, just-unjust, and clarify the
cultural context in which they are used. Here the metaphor of family resemblance
will be utilized as a technique of analysis.
What is the ethical competence in the book called The Book of the Dead? What were
the innate ethical tendencies of the Egyptian women-man of 5000 years ago?
What are the indices of their ethical performance? Are there any indications of their
remorse, guilt and or sorrow concerning their unethical deeds?
Can we extract some general ethical rules from what these people wrote and buried
in their graves?
The first written moral rules registered in the history of mankind are those in ancient
Egyptian civilization dating back to 5000-4000 B. C. Ancient Egyptians strongly
believed life after death. They prepared the person who died by mummifying and
sticking in this process some papyrus papers in between the clothing wrapped around
the mummified corpse. The things written in those papyruses were later taken out of
these mummies and published as The Book of the Dead. Each of these papyruses
contains some magical signs and symbols for the aftermath of the deceased, together
with his honest confessions of the deeds ethical or unethical which he-she did in this
world. That is these are the honest expressions of some confessions of their sins in
this world. They had to be honest, since whatever they did was already known by

11
 gods beforehand.
The book of the Dead lists the active deeds and the passive (avoidance) deeds of the
deceased while in this life. Some examples to the passive acts of avoidance are:
I did not wish to possess other peoples goods.
MODULE 1
UFND50

I did not steal

I did not kill a man or woman
Some examples of the active moral deeds are:
I fed the hungry.
I gave water to the thirsty.
I gave clothing to the naked.
Let us consider each of the two groups of ethical actions as two family of
resemblances. Now let us consider what is common in each group of deeds, and
what are the differences between these two groups of deeds? The first group of
actions which starts with the words I did not. are of passive type of behavior; that
is abstaining from doing something unethical. These are things which I dont want
anyone do to me type of actions; if so, I too do not do these to others.
The second group of ethical deeds is active type of behavior: the things that I want
others do to me: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.
Second step of the analysis is to express these ethical deeds as part of innate ethical
competence of human beings. For the first group of deeds we can make the following
generalization: deeds of this kind are reflection of our innate potential for not harming
others as we do not want to be harmed by others. Certainly animals do not have
such an ethical competence. For the second group of actions we can make a similar
generalization as follows: deeds of this kind are reflection of our innate potential for
the feeling of helping others as we want to help by others if needed.
Thirdly, we are ready to formulate the above two groups of actions in the form of
ethical rules to be followed:
People should avoid in harming others.
People should help others.
Fourthly, we must ask the question under which conditions these two rules of conduct
is operative. In other words are there any exceptions to these rules. For example, in
the Book of the Dead, there are sentences like I did not kill any woman or man,
I did not steal. So are there any situations where killing or stealing could stop
being unethical? To put it differently, can the same deed be good or bad depending
upon the context in which this deed is performed? Let us revise then our two rules
as follows:
People should avoid harming others except done in self-defense.
People should help others except those who do not deserve.
Flag!
Note on the structure of the book. Module 4 is on ethical reasoning techniques. The
rest of the book is divided into two groups of topics: (1) history of ethical theories; (2)
applied ethics such as technology, law, politics, literature, economics, communication,
etc. The concluding module is on the ethics of globalization and responsibility.

12
Flag!
Free thinking, what is free thinking, when and where is thought free? Apply this
question to ethics.

MODULE 1
When and if you think you made an ethical decision or choice, freely and voluntarily,
and if you think you really made the right decision, stand behind it even if you think

UFND50
it will harm you or your beloved ones, financially or otherwise, be assured that it will
benefit you and your beloved ones in the long run.

Summary
Aim 1
General definitions, aims, general terminology of ethics
The term ethics is used in three different but related ways signifying (1) a general
pattern or way of life, (2) a set of rules of conduct or moral code and (3) inquiry
about ways of life and rules of conduct. In the first sense we speak of Buddhist or
Islamic ethics; in the second we speak of applied ethics (about half of this book)
and of unethical behavior. In the third sense ethics is a branch of philosophy which
inquires the standards of good or bad in value judgments.
The metaphor family resemblance is used to bring all different conceptions of
ethics together. Family resemblance is taken in two dimensions, diachronic-historical,
and synchronic- ahistorical. In diachronic-historical sense main concepts of ethics,
such as virtue, justice, and others, may be viewed as part of a family resemblance in
the sense that the conception of justice revealed 5000 years ago in the Egyptian The
Book of the Dead, may be similar but not identical to that of Aristotles conception of
justice, hence the term family resemblances.
Synchronic family resemblance is the sense we can make of the ethical concepts
and rules of applied ethics such ad bio-ethics, medical ethics, media ethics, etc. We
call this group of ethical terns and concepts family resemblance of applied ethics.
Education is a process of self-knowledge, from birth to death. As Socrates has said:
unexamined life is not worth living. Ethics is the name of this process of life-time
examining and questioning ones prejudices. The importance of ethics is especially
important in ones personal and social life, since we all have to deal with ethical
dilemmas in our daily work and personal affairs. Techniques of ethical reasoning play
the most crucial role in social life situations since we spent a good deal percentage of
our daily discourses as one of the parties of ethical arguments.
Four elements of ethical semantic environment. Every systematic ethical theory has
a lexicon, a view of ethical competence, ethical rules, and ethical performance. Many
different theories of ethics both diachronically and synchronically form a family
resemblance.
Aim 2
To conduct an ethical analysis of a particular ethical text
In this module an ethical analysis of the ancient Egypts The Book of the Dead is
performed within the above framework as follows:
What is the lexicon or the ethical concepts of the language of The Book of the Dead?
What is the ethical competence implied in the text?
What are the ethical rules of the text?

13
 Do we have any clues of the ethical performance in the text?

Self-test
MODULE 1

1. Which of the following is not a part of the family of ethics culture?

UFND50

a. Media ethics
b. Deontology
c. Tradition and customs
d. Business ethics

2. Which of the following is not a part of ethics education?

a. Ethical reasoning
b. Ethical consciousness
c. Ethical theories
d. Etiquette

3. Which of the following is not one of the elements of ethical semantic environment?
a. Ethical rules
b. Ethical code
c. Ethical competence
d. Customs

4. Which of the following is not a part of this book?

a. Ethical competences
b. Ethical theories
c. Ethical concepts
d. Traditions of cultures

5. Which of the following is not included in the Book of the Dead?

a. I did not steal.
b. Ethical rules
c. I did not promise.
d. I did not kill.

6. Which of the following propositions is true?

a. Globalization reduces the ethical problems.
b. Technological developments reduce the ethical problems.
c. Rich nations have less ethical problems than poor nations.
d. Ethics is the knowledge of tradition and custom.

7. Which of the following is not part of ethics?

a. What should I do, how should I live?

14
 b. Have I done right or wrong?
c. Know thyself.
d. You must prey.

MODULE 1
8. Which of the following is not an ethical deed?

UFND50
a. Smoking.
b. Promising
c. Not insulting
d. Having virtues

9. Which of the following is a motion?

a. Persuading
b. Attacking (physically)
c. Singing
d. Deciding

10. Which of the following is a passive ethical behavior?

a. I fed the hungry
b. I gave water to the thirsty
c. I did not steal
d. I gave clothe to the naked

Key to Self-test
1.c ; 2.d ; 3.d ;4.d ; 5.c ; 6.d ; 7.d ; 8.a. ; 9.b. ; 10.c

Bibliography
Riley, W., Man and Morals: The Story of Ethics, Ungar Publishing Co. New-York, 1960

15
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 2:
HISTORY OF ETHICS 1:
FROM ANCIENT GREECE TO
MODERNITY
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
 Ethics in Ancient Greece
History of philosophy attests to the fact that the birthplace of ethics is 5th century
B.C. Athens and its father Socrates. Greek city-states, starting around 7th and 6th
MODULE 2

century B.C., were rapidly transforming themselves from age old agricultural
kingdoms (as described in Homers epic poems Iliad and Odyssey) into commerce
UFND50

and manufacture based democracies. Newly emerging rich commercial class was
critical traditional cultural values of the old heroic age, together with their irrational
system of mythological Gods. New market economy requires that all citizens, as
buyers and sellers should be treated as equals, rendering the old system based on
the hierarchy of nobility obsolete and even obstacle. Money replaced nobility, and
richness became a new source of power.
Athenian Empire and Golden Age of Pericles
Following the Persian invasion of Greece (490 B.C.), Greek city states defeated the
Persians and formed Delian League (first kernel of European Union) around 477
B.C. Many Anatolian city-states joined in a confederacy (whose Parliament was in
Patara, Fethiye), under the Athenian leadership, for defense against Persia. During
these developments, Athens transferred the treasury of Delian League to Athens;
thus all members of the league in Anatolia lost their freedom and become a colony
of the Athenian Empire. Wealth of Athenian government from the tribute of colonies
exacted from cities of Empire, and from heavy taxation of rich; money used to
beautify the city (building of Acropolis, especially Parthenon), and to extend Athenian
democracy. Athens meanwhile became the commercial center of the ancient world.
Athenian democracy and ethics
Within this glamour, around 400 B.C., of the so called Golden Age of Athenian
democracy, Pericles is elected chief general numerous times, as leader of Popular
Assembly, unofficial ruler of democratic Athens.

Sophists of Athens: First Relativist Ethics

Before Socrates, the first philosophers called Sophists had some ideas on the subject
called morals. Some of the famous sophists were Protogaras, Gorgias, Hippias
Thrasymachus. Within the aforementioned Athenian Golden Age of democracy,
Sophists were the so called walking universities teaching people wisdom, citizenry,
rhetoric, civic life of democracy, individualism, advocacy, art appreciation, and many
. other things. During this time the teachings of the Sophists were in great demand
because of need for civic life in democratic Athens (speaking in Assembly, law courts).
Among this many other things these travelling teachers of wisdom is also the
subject called ethics. They considered man as the center universe and society with
the main emphasis on teaching training for success (political-financial) in social life
through public speaking clever methods of argumentation, without regard for moral
virtues of truth, justice or honesty.
They opposed to traditional morality and religion (of the heroic age of mythology).
The Sophists destroyed the faith the Athenian youths had once had in the gods and
goddesses of Olympus, and in the moral code that had taken its sanction from the
fear men had for these innumerable deities; apparently there was no reason now
why a man should not do as he pleased, so long as he remained within the law.
They also are opposed to absolute standards of conduct; all knowledge for them
is subjective, and all values are relativistic. Man is the measure of all things, as the
Sophist Protagoras declares. Some of the well-known statements of famous sophists
are:
Pratogoras: Man is the measure of all things; with regard to the gods it is impossible

2
to determine whether they exist or what they are like.
Gorgias: Nothing exists; if it exists it cannot be known by man; if it can be known it
cannot be expressed.
Hippias: Religion is a man-made device for enforcing morality through fear; Laws

MODULE 2
are the conventions of an older generation.

UFND50
Ethics of Socrates
Socrates life (469-399 B. C.)
Life of Socrates is itself an example of his ethics, put differently, ethics is a form of life,
and to be ethical is to live ethically. Here are some highlights of his life story which
have become commonplace to this date as they are repeated in philosophical circles:
Socrates was born in Athens, his father was a sculptor, and his mother was a
midwife. In his early life he also was a sculptor like his father. He left Athens only on
military service several times. He was ugly and had a grotesque appearance. A bald
head, a great round face, deep set staring eyes. But he was a very strong man and had
several heroic fights where he saved the lives of his fellow soldiers in the battlefields.
Socratic problem. Socrates wrote nothing. His thinking is known largely from the
works of his disciples Plato and Xenephon. In most of Platos dialogues Socrates
is the mouthpiece through which Plato expounds his own philosophy. How then,
can Socratess views be distinguished from those of Plato? Is the Socrates of Platos
dialogues the historical Socrates, or is he the idealized product of Platos artistry and
imagination? What is the pure essence of Socrates teaching as distinguished from
that of his pupils? To this Socratic problem we cannot give a definitive answer, but
the general consensus is that while the early dialogues reflect the true historical
Socrates, the later dialogues do not. This solution is enough for us to reach the main
points of differences between the ethical views of these two philosophers.
Socrates is the Father of Ethics. Turning his back on the Ionian philosophers
of nature and physical science, Socrates transformed philosophy from the study of
the external universe to the study of the inner life of man and his relations to other
human beings. Abandoning scientific truth, he concentrated on ethical truth, seeking
to establish absolute, universal, unchangeable standards of conduct.
Happiness (Eudomonia) does not consist in material rewards or bodily pleasures,
but perfection of soul, which is all-important: Virtue is its own reward.
True virtue is not enforced or conventional conduct, or derived from sense-
perception, but self-directed morality based on reason and understanding.
Socratic paradox: Virtue is knowledge: no man intentionally does wrong; improper
conduct is the result of ignorance of true knowledge of the definitions of virtues.
One who knows the real definition of what a virtue is, automatically virtuous. Virtue
is thus teachable and can be learned by reason.
As such ethical knowledge, valid for all, can be derived rationally by the formation
of general concepts of precise definitions. This is achieved by inductive reasoning,
through observation of particular instances of behavior and pruning away unessential
and temporary qualities in order to arrive at the permanent essence of all virtues.
Dialectic Method: question and answer method of learning and teaching is
applied to all ethical arguments for reaching precise definitions of virtues. Socrates
used a method of dialectics as mauetic (birth in Greek) or dialectics. As the first
step of the argument, he pretended ignorance; he constantly professed personal
ignorance, at the outset of anything. This is called the Socratic irony. By this way, he

3
 sought through the give and take of conversation to expose ignorance, and to test
all presuppositions through elimination of error, testing of theories to perfect and
purify them through reason; he constantly stressed the need for critical examination
(know thyself; the unexamined life is not worth living).
MODULE 2

Socratic Method: an example of ethical thinking

UFND50

Socrates first lays down some points about the method to be taken in ethical
reasoning. (1) We must not let our decision be affected by our emotions, but must
examine the question and follow the best reasoning. We must try to get our facts
straight and to keep our minds clear. Questions like this can and should be settled by
reason. (2) We cannot answer such questions by appealing to what people generally
think. They may be wrong. We must try to find an answer we ourselves can regard as
correct. We must think for ourselves. (3) We ought never to do what is morally wrong.
The only question we need answer is whether what is proposed is right or wrong, not
what will happen to us, what will people think of us, or how we feel about what has
happened.
Having said this, Socrates goes on to give, in effect, a threefold argument to show that
he ought to break the laws by escaping. (1) We ought never harm anyone. Socrates
escaping would harm the state since it would violate and show disregard for the
states laws. (2) That we ought to keep our promises, and (3) that we ought to obey or
respect our parents and teachers. In each case he also uses another premise which
involves a statement of fact and applies the rule or principle to the case in hand: (1)
if I escape I will do injury to society, (2) if I escape I will be breaking a promise, and (3)
f I escape, I will be disobeying my parent and teacher. Then he draws a conclusion
about what he should do in his particular situation.
Socrates is represented in Platos dialogue Apology as saying that if the state spares
his life on condition that he no longer teach as he has been doing he will not obey,
because (4) he has been assigned the duty of teaching by the god Apollo, and (5) his
teaching is necessary for the true good of the state. He would then be involved in a
conflict of duties. His duty to obey the state applies, but so do two other duties, (4)
and (5), and these he judges to take precedence over his duty to obey the commands
of the state.
To return to Crito, Socrates completes his argument by answering his friends
arguments in favor of escaping by contending that he will not really be doing himself,
his friends, or even his family any good by becoming an outlaw and going into exile;
he also asserts that death is not an evil to an old man who has done his best, whether
there is a hereafter or not. In other words, he maintains that there are no good moral
grounds on the other side and no good prudential ones which would count only if
moral considerations were not decisive either.
Analysis of Socrates ethical argument
The argument given by Socrates is an example of typical moral reasoning. It illustrates
two kinds of moral problems and how one reflective and serious moral agent went
about solving them. It also shows us Socrates working ethics: principles (1) to (5) plus
the second-order principle that (4) and (5) take precedence over the duty to obey the
state. This duty to obey the state, by the way, is for him a derivative rule which rests
on (1), (2), and (3), which are more basic. One can find out ones own working ethics
by seeing how one would answer these two problems oneself, or others like them.
This is a good exercise. Suppose that in doing this you disagree with Socrates answer
to the Crito problem. You might then challenge his principles, which Crito did not do.
You might ask Socrates to justify his regarding (1), (2), and (3) as valid, and Socrates
would have to try to answer you, since he believes in reason and argument in ethics,
and wants knowledge, not just true opinion.

4
At this point Socrates might argue that (2) for example, is valid because it follows
from a still more basic principle, say, (4) or (5). That is, he might maintain that we
should keep promises because it is commanded by gods or because it is necessary
for the general welfare. But of course, you might question his more basic principle, if

MODULE 2
you have any good reason for doing so (if you question without reason, you are not
really entering into the dialogue, you are out). At some point you or he will almost

UFND50
inevitably raise the question of how ethical principles, especially the most basic ones,
are to be justified anyway; and this is likely to lead to the further question of what is
meant by saying that something is right, good, virtuous, just, and the like, a question
which Socrates in fact often raises in many other dialogues of Plato.
An excursion: how Socrates dies
We have given above Socrates coldblooded rational argument of why he must refuse
Critos offer to escape from prison and must die. Now the heartbreaking story of his
drinking the hemlock is in order. Please be prepared emotionally, as I am now even
after a hundred so of reading this passage, in the past fifty years or so. This is the story
all the world knows, for Plato wrote it down in prose more beautiful than poetry.
We are privileged to read for ourselves that simple and courageous, and legendary
apology, or defense, in which the first martyr of philosophy proclaimed the rights
and necessity of free thought, upheld his value to the state, and refused to beg for
mercy from the crowd whom he had always contemned. The judges had the power
to pardon him, and they said so, should Socrates appealed. He disdained to make the
appeal. It was a singular confirmation of his ethics that the judges should wish to let
him go, while the angry crowd voted for his death. Had he not denied the Olympic
gods? Woe to him who teaches youth how to be themselves, think freely that is.
So the crowd decreed that he should drink the hemlock. His friends came to his prison
and Crito offered to him an easy escape. We know the answer given above. He was
seventy years old now (399 B. C.), perhaps he thought it was time for him to die, and
that he could never die so usefully. Be of good cheer, he told his sorrowing friends,
and say that you are burying my body only. When he had spoken these words, says
Plato, in one of the great passages of the worlds literature;
He rose and went into the bath-chamber with Crito, who bade us wait, and we
waited talking and thinking of the greatness of our sorrow; he was like a father of
whom we were bereaved, and we were about to pass the rest of our lives as orphans
Now the hour of sunset was near, for a good deal of time had passed while he was
within. When he came out, he sat down with us again, but not much was said.
Soon the jailer entered and stood by him, saying: To you Socrates, whom I know
to be the noblest and gentlest and best of all who ever came to this place, I will not
impute the angry feelings of other men, who rage and swear me when, in obedience
to the authorities, I bid them drink the poison indeed I am sure that you will not
be angry at me; for others, as you are aware, and not I, are the guilty cause. And so
fare you well, and try to bear lightly what must needs be; you know my errand. Then
bursting in tears he turned away and went out.
Socrates looked at him and said: I return your good wishes, and will do as you bid.
Then turning to us, he said, How charming the man is; since I have been in prison he
has always been coming to see me and now see how generously he sorrows for
me. But we must do as he says, Crito; let the cup be brought, if the poison is prepared;
if not, let the attendant prepare some.
Yet, said Crito, the sun is still upon the hill-tops, and many a one has taken the
draught late; and after the announcement has been made to him he has eaten and
drunk, and indulged in sensual delights; do not hasten then, there is still time.
Socrates said: Yes Crito, and they of whom you speak are right in doing thus, for they

5
 think they will gain by the delay; but I am right in not doing thus, for I do not think
that I should gain anything by drinking the poison a little later; I should be sparing
and saving a life which is already gone; I could only laugh at myself for this. Please
then to do as I say, and not to refuse me.
MODULE 2

Crito, when he heard this, made a sign to the servant; and the servant went in, and
UFND50

remained for some time, and returned with the jailer carrying the cup of poison.
Socrates said: You, my good friend, who are experienced in these matters, shall give
me directions how I am to proceed. The man answered: You have only to walk about
until your legs are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act. At the same
time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the easiest and gentlest manner, without
the least fear or change of color or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes, as his
manners was, took the cup and said: What do you say about making a libation out
of this cup to any god? May I or not? The man answered: We only prepare, Socrates,
just so much as we deem enough.I understand, he said; yet I may and must pray to
the gods to prosper my journey from this to that other world may this then, which
is my prayer, be granted to me. Then holding the cup to his lips, quite readily and
cheerfully he drank the poison.
And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we
saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could no longer
forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast; so that I covered my
face and wept over myself; for certainly, I was not weeping over him, but at the
thought of my own calamity in having lost such a companion. Nor was I the first,
for Crito, when he found himself unable to restrain his tears, had got up and moved
away, and I followed; and at that moment
Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time, broke out into a loud which made
cowards of us all. Socrates alone retained his calmness: What is this strange outcry?
he said. I sent away the women in order that they may not offend in this way, for I
have heard that a man should die in piece. Be quite then, and have patience. When
we heard that, we were ashamed, and restrained our tears; and he walked about
until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the
directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet
and legs, and after a while he pressed his foot hard and asked him if he could feel;
and he said no; and then his leg, and so upwards, and showed us that he was cold
and stiff.
And then Socrates felt them himself, and said, When the poison reaches the heart,
that will be the end. He was beginning to be cold about the groin, when he uncovered
his face (for he had covered himself up) and said, --they were his last words, --Crito,
I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt? The debt shall be
paid, said Crito; is there anything else? There was no answer to this question; but in
a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendant uncovered him; his eyes
were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.
Such was the end of our friend, whom I may truly call the wisest, the justest, and best
of all the man whom I have ever known.

Ethics of Plato (482-347 B. C.)

Platos life
Plato was borne into a wealthy aristocratic family. His fathers ancestors were
among the first kings of Athens, while his mothers great grandfather was Solon, the
famous law-maker of the Golden Age of Athenian democracy. In his youth he was a
champion in athletics, and he was such a handsome man that instead of his real name
Aristokles, he was called Plato, meaning the broad connoting his broad shoulders,

6
in Greek. He was active in political life of Athens in youth. But he was disillusioned
with democracy and oligarchy after excesses the Thirty Tyrants. He left politics and
traveled for ten years to Greece, Egypt and Italy. Returning to Athens he became a
student of Socrates for about ten years. After the execution of Socrates in 399 B. C. he

MODULE 2
established Academia, first university in world. Academia was the name of his home;
here Plato taught and wrote his philosophical works. The most notorious student and

UFND50
later teacher in Academia was Aristotle.
Plato did not write directly on ethics. Therefore we must infer his ethics from his
writings on metaphysics and politics, and from the Republic, his dialogue on justice.
Dialogue form and style
All the works of Plato, except the Letters and Apology are philosophical dialogues.
Platonic dialogue is an argumentative conversation dramatic in form. The number of
persons in the dialogue varies from two to nine. The principal speaker in most of the
dialogues is Socrates, who serves as the alter ego of Plato.
Basic thought of Plato
Theory of Ideas or Forms
Philosophic dualism: Plato is a philosophic dualist. He makes a sharp distinction
between the material word, perceived and known through the senses, and a super-
sensory world apprehended only by reason. The material world and the world of
ideas create the following conceptual binary oppositions: (the first term in binary
opposition belongs to material world the second belongs to world of ideas): Matter/
mind; body/soul; sense-perception/reason; many/one; opinion/truth; particulars/
universals; becoming/being.
True knowledge comes from reason. As the grandfather of Rationalism (the
father being that of Descartes) Plato rejects the concrete material world as a source
of true knowledge, because it yields relative truth (doxa-opinion) obtained through
sense-perception. Concrete particulars contain opposites (e.g. an object will be
heavy to one person, light to another; opinion will vary about a womans beauty).
Such truth is, therefore subjective, temporary, changing.
Forms or Ideas. True reality is the super-sensory world of abstract ideas, apprehended
only by reason, objective, eternal, unchanging truth. Forms or Ideas (universals,
absolutes) have an independent and a-temporal character. E.g. Good, Beauty, Justice,
Heaviness, Smallness, Courage. Concrete particulars exist only in so far as the Forms
or Ideas participate in them; they are copies of Ideas. All particulars, even all human
beings, might cease to exist, bur the world of Forms or Ideas would continue to exist.
Hierarchy of Ideas. As all particulars are subordinated to and derive their existence
from the Ideas, so all Ideas, forming a pyramid, are subordinated to the highest Idea of
the Good, which stands at the apex. This supreme concept, the one absolute reality,
self-sufficient and perfectly harmonious, is the creative cause of the universe. It is the
end of all, pure reason, absolute virtue, from which flow all other Ideas and through
them the imperfect material world.
Soul and Human nature
As the body is physical and mortal, it should be subordinated to soul which is
divine and immortal.
The human soul contains three elements: reason, good emotions and bad emotions.
The souls of all persons at birth are equal, having varying compositions of these three
elements.

7
 Just man. Since man is a composite of conflicting elements body vs. soul, emotion
vs. reason, the good and just man is developed through a harmony of these opposites.
This is achieved through the dominance of soul and reason, and the disciplining of
and subordination of the body and emotions to the soul and reason.
MODULE 2

Theory of recollection. Since true knowledge cannot be acquired through the

UFND50

senses, all learning and knowledge is recollection by the immortal soul of knowledge
which it possesses before it entered the body.
Ethics
As we have mentioned above, Plato does not have a distinct theory of ethics. His
ethical views are the same as his teacher Socrates, with the addition of Platos theory
of Ideas or Forms. The highest Idea, as we have seen above is the Form of the Good.
The form of the Good is the source of ethics, as follows:
The aim of ethics is Eudomonia or happiness as the form of the Good commands.
Happiness is the possession of all the virtues (Arete) dictated by reason, e.g., by the
Idea of the Good. Virtue is knowledge, just as it is in Socrates. The highest pleasure is
intellectual, knowledge of absolute truth, which is goodness. Virtue is its own reward,
just as it is for Socrates. In this sense, evil has two sources: ignorance and folly.
Happiness is not pleasure, or material success through wealth and power, for this is
subjective, temporary, and relative, and caters to the body and emotions.

Ethics of Aristotle (384-322 B. C.)

Aristotles life
Aristotle was born in Northern Greece, at Stagira in the Chalcidice (Macedon); hence
he is often called in Athens the Stagirite. His father Nichamachos was the personal
physician to King of Macedon, Phillip the Second. He joined Platos Academia first as
a student and later as a teacher (for ca. 20 years). He left Athens after Platos death
and lived in Anatolia (Asia Minor-Assos, near anakkale of the present day), and the
island of Lesbos. He became a tutor of Alexander the Great ca. 3 years (343-340 B. C.).
He went back to Athens and founded the second university in world called Lykeion
or Lyceum (335 B. C.). His school is also called the Peripatetic School because Aristotle
was in the habit of walking around the courtyard of the school while he lectured. And
then suddenly (323 B. C.) Alexander died. With the starting military conflict between
the Macedon and Athens, Athens went wild with patriotic joy; a chief priest brought
in an indictment against Aristotle, charging him with having taught that prayer
and sacrifice were of no avail. Aristotle saw himself fated to be tried by juries and
crowds incomparably more hostile than those that had murdered Socrates. These
anti-Macedonian feelings in Athens very wisely forced him to leave Athens so that
the Athenians might not sin twice against philosophy. (The first being the death of
Socrates). There was no cowardice in this; an accused person at Athens had always
the option of preferring exile. Arrived at Chalsis, Aristotle fell ill; Diogenes Laertius
tells us that the old philosopher in utter disappointment with the turn of all things
against him, committed suicide by drinking hemlock. However induced, his illness
proved fatal, and a few months after leaving Athens (322 B. C.) the lonely Aristotle
died.
In the same year, and at the same age, sixty-two, Demosthenes, greatest of
Alexanders enemys drunk hemlock. Within one year Greece had lost her greatest
ruler, her greatest orator, and her greatest philosopher. The glory that had been
Greece faded now in the dawn of the Roman sun; and the grandeur that was Rome
was the pomp of power rather than the light of thought. Then that grandeur too

8
decayed, that little light went almost out. The next thousand years of darkness fell
on Europe. The entire world awaited the resurrection of Plato and Aristotle, and the
other Greek philosophers.
Dante saluted the Master Aristotle centuries later in his epic poem in the first circles

MODULE 2
of Hell with these words:

UFND50
I saw the Master there of those who know,
Amid the philosophic family,
By all admired, and by all reverenced;
There Plato too I saw, and Socrates,
Who stood beside him closer than the rest.
Here, the Master of those who know is Aristotle. And let us end these sections with
two stories of Aristotle following his death, by which he was to be re-gained, and re-
integrated into the history of ideas by pure accidents of chance.
The first story. Aristotle, several hundred years after his death was completely
forgotten and his works lost at the end of the Roman Republic and at the outset of
the Roman Empire (ca. 40-50 B. C). A Roman senator, who is a friend of Cicero, the
famous Roman politician and philosopher, goes for a trip in Asia Minor and visits the
city of Assos near Dardanelles (anakkale of today). They take him to a house whose
bottom floor is full, from floor to ceiling with some Greek papyruses hand-written.
The Roman senator not knowing who these writings belong to, thinking that they
may be of some significance, takes them back to Rome with him and gives them to
his friend Cicero. Cicero seeing that they belong to a philosopher named Aristotle,
and sensing their importance, translates them into Latin, adding his own comments
on them. He even sees no harm in adopting these writings of Aristotle as if he has
written them. This is how the works of Aristotle (only one fourth of what he wrote)
was recovered. The second story, which also happens in Turkey centuries after this
first story, is even more whimsical than this one. Aristotles name and his writings
had once again disappeared from the surface of earth with the destruction of Roman
Empire by barbarian Germans around the 4th and 5th centuries. Here is how they
are re-discovered and/or re-covered once more in Turkey.
The second story. Before the final demise of the central Roman Empire, the
Eastern Roman Empire was established (395-1204). From the dynasty of Herakleios,
Konstantinos the 4th was the Emperor around late 7th century. His son Justinianos
became the Emperor in 685. At these times Christianity was a fanatical power
preventing and suppressing all free thinking and tolerance. These times were
considered as the darkest pre-Middle Ages periods of the West. Accordingly, within
the direction of the instruction of the Church in Rome, all books coming from the
ancient Greece and Rome were ordered to be burnt. But an enlightened friend of
Emperor Constantinos took all of these hand written books of Aristotle, Plato and
many other ancient philosophers and hid them inside the caves nearby the present
day Anatolian Forts. After some years the Arabs who invaded the Arabic peninsula
asked from the Emperor these books. The Emperor gave them these useless books.
From the caves of Istanbul these books were transferred to the Arab world, they were
translated into Arabic, and centuries later were re-translated back to Latin, passing
into Spain via the Arabic invasion, and finally creating what is called the Renaissance
of the West.
Style
As we have already mentioned, after such an ordeal, only about one fourth of
Aristotles prolific writings has survived. Practically nothing of his popular (exoteric)

9
 works exists the extant writings are his scientific (esoteric) treatises, in the form
of lecture notes. The style of the latter works is dry, precise, formal, objective, and
impersonal filled with technical terminology.
Aristotle vs. Plato
MODULE 2

Aristotle is Platos pupil, and later associate in the Academia. His debt to his teacher is
UFND50

far greater than his disagreement with it. This is commonplace knowledge. But a very
serious point of his disagreement with Plate is on the Theory of Ideas. He opposed to
the static universe of the hierarchy of Forms, and instead offered a changing empirical
dynamic universe. As his teacher Plato is the grandfather of Rationalism, he is the
grandfather of Empiricism which relies on observation through sense-experience.
He is more practical, common-sensical and this-worldly.
Ethics of Aristotle
His main ideas on ethics is put together in his book Nicomachean Ethics; as we
already know that Nicomakhos is his sons and fathers name. Here are the main
points of his ethics as expounded in this book:
1. Happiness (Eudaimonia) is the aim of life just as it is in other Greek philosophers.
2. The nature of ethics. All human knowledge and activity aim at different goods,
which are their ends (Telos). Some goods are superior to others; achieved purposes
are better than activities.
3. Ethics is a branch of political science. Most ends leads to further activity, but
there must be a supreme good (Summum bonum) which is desired for its own sake,
not as a means to new ends, and to which all other desires are subordinated. This
knowledge is of great importance as the good to aim at in all human activities. This is
the all-embracing master art political science, the end of all other human sciences
and the regulator of all human life, the supreme good of man. Ethics is thus a branch
of political science.
4. Ethics can never be an exact science. Because of varieties of opinion, we can
in this field only approximate the truth; probability is as far as we can go. The basis
of ethics is relative knowledge, not absolute truth. A prior good moral training is
essential in ethical reasoning.
5. There are three types of living: sensual; political; contemplative. The masses of
the common people see happiness in sensual pleasures and enjoyment; this reveals
slavish and bestial taste. Superior people identify happiness with honor, or political
life. But honor and political power can be taken away, so its end does not belong to
man, but lies elsewhere. Such a life cannot be a happy one. The contemplative life,
which is true happiness, will be treated below. Money-making is not end in itself, and
therefore not happiness.
6. Criticism of Platos ethics. Platos Idea or Form of absolute, universal, immutable
Good is mistaken: there are various types of goods, not one universal Idea of the
Good. The goods are all relative, e.g. to time, place, person. Thus there is not one
science of the Good, but many sciences of the good in various fields, e.g. medicine,
war, art. The Idea of the Good and particular goods are not separately existing entities.
The practical and attainable (not the ideal) good varies with different activities and
arts, e.g. weaving, carpentry, medicine, military strategy.
7. Virtue ethics. The proper function of man (Ergon) is an activity of soul in accordance
with reason, or virtue (Arete). So Aristotles ethics is the ethics of virtue. Virtue is the
proper function of the rational animal. It is the final and sufficient good. Man has
a function called vegetative and sensory, but these are not the proper functions
of man, for he shares them with other animals. The sole proper function of man is

10
desired for the sake of itself, which is virtue.
8. Happiness is a sort of good living. Happiness in this sense is an activity (Praxis) in
accordance with virtue, not merely a moral state of inactivity, for good results must
be produced, and this implies activity. Such virtuous activity brings pleasure in itself

MODULE 2
to lowers of virtue. For pleasure is derived from noble actions not merely noble states

UFND50
of being (as implied in Platos ethics).
9. Types of virtue (Arete). If happiness is activity of soul in accordance with perfect
virtue, knowledge of the nature of virtue is one of the keys to happiness, both in
ethics and politics. The soul has two faculties: rational and irrational. The irrational
faculty itself has two parts: the vegetative (involving nutrition and growth), which is
not exclusively human and therefore not involved in human virtue; and the emotional
and desiring element, which resists the rational faculty, but is also capable of
obedience to it as its superior. There are therefore two kinds of virtue (or excellences):
intellectual virtues (e.g., wisdom) and moral virtues (attained when the emotional
element obeys reason; e.g., temperance, generosity).
10. Moral virtue in general. Intellectual virtue (excellence) is perfected by teaching.
Moral virtue (excellence) is created as the result of habit, by training the emotional
element to subordinate itself to the rational faculty. Therefore, moral virtues are
not innate; they are not embedded into our brains at birth (as different from both
Socrates and Plato). People are born neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. If this
were not so, habit and environment would have no effect at all on moral excellence.
Humans are born with a capacity for acquiring and perfecting good character by
habit and practice. This differs from mans sensory faculties, for here he is born with
the potentiality (note the different uses of capacity and potentiality) and later
exhibits the activity (as in seeing and hearing). Virtues are like arts (e.g. like learning
to play an instrument, such as lyre of the time or todays piano) in that we acquire
skills by practicing them. Similarly, in the state, we are made good by forming good
habits of conduct. So also in the case of virtues we become just or unjust, brave or
cowardly, temperate or self-indulgent by doing the corresponding acts. States of
character arise from corresponding praxis of these virtues by acts of habits. Hence
the supreme importance of forming the right habits from early youth.
11. Theory of the golden mean. Since ethics is not a pure, theoretical science (Theoria-
Episteme), but a practical science (Phronesis), we must examine the nature of right
and wrong actions, not expecting scientific accuracy in this field. Each concrete case
must be examined on its own merits. But, there is a general rule to follow: the golden
mean. According to this rule excess and deficiency in all things are destructive while
the intermediate preserves. So in the moral virtue, as, e.g. temperance, courage, the
mean (moderation) preserves them.
12. Definition of moral virtue. What is virtue? The soul consists of three elements:
emotions; faculties; states of character. Virtue must be one of these three. It cannot be
emotion, when considered abstractly, is neither good nor bad, and it does not involve
deliberate choice, but is uncontrolled impulse. For the same and other reasons virtue
cannot be a faculty (abstract capacity for feeling emotion). So therefore virtues are
states of character involving conscious choice of the mean of a given emotional state
in a given situation.
13. Character. What is the nature of a state of character? Every excellence enables
the object which possesses it to perform its function well (Ergon). So in man moral
excellence (Eudomania) or virtue (Arete) will be the state of character that enables a
good man to perform his proper function (Ergon). It is true that the intermediate or
mean stands between the extremes of excess or deficiency. But in ethics there is no
absolute mean in a particular act which can be set down as a fixed rule for all (e.g.,
not everyone will eat exactly the same amount of food). The mean is to be regarded

11
 relatively to the individual concerned. What is temperance for one person will be a
vice for another. Every art is properly practiced when it follows the mean, avoiding
excess and deficiency. So in moral acts, excess and deficiency are vices, the mean is
virtue. Excess or deficiency constitutes failure, the mean success. Hence it is easy to
fail, for evil is varied and infinite, and difficult to succeed, for virtue is limited to the
MODULE 2

mean state. The characteristics of virtue ( Arete) then are:

UFND50

14.
State of character involving deliberate moral choice
The choice of the mean relative to the individual
The mean as determined by reason, in accordance with the reason of a man of
practical wisdom (Phronesis). The rule of the mean does not apply to every action and
emotion. Some do not involve excess and deficiency, but only excess or deficiency,
e.g. malice, theft, murder, adultery. Therefore they must be avoided entirely, not
practiced in moderation.

15. Particular virtues: here are the mean of some virtues:

Excess Deficiency Mean

rash confidence courage cowardly fear
self-indulgence temperance insensibility
prodigality liberality miserliness
vulgarity magnificence niggardliness
vanity proper pride undue humility
ambition proper ambition lack of ambition
irascibility good temper lack of irascibility
boastfulness truthfulness self-depreciation
buffoonery wittiness boorishness
obsequiousness-flattery friendliness quarrelsomeness
bashfulness modesty shamelessness
envy righteous indignation maliciousness

Here, all three states are opposed to each other, the extremes being more opposed
to each other than to the mean. The extremes are not equally opposed to each
other than to the mean. The extremes are not equally opposed to the mean states
in all cases. Sometimes the deficiency, sometimes the excess is more opposed to the
mean. E.g., cowardice is more contrary to courage than rashness. For we tend more
naturally to one extreme than to the other, e.g. towards self-indulgence rather than
to its opposite.
Hence, it is difficult to act virtuously, since it is difficult to find the mean relative to
us to do the right thing, with reference to the right person, to the right extent, on
the proper occasion, from correct motives and in the proper fashion. Therefore, since
it is a difficult matter to hit the target (the mean), the simplest of practical rules is to
avoid the lesser of two evils, the extreme which is most contrary to the mean, namely

12
the course that tends to give us pleasure in a particular situation, is therefore most
tempting. Sometimes then we will move toward the excess, sometimes toward the
deficiency.
16. Happiness (Eudemonia). What is the nature of happiness which is the end (Telos)

MODULE 2
of human life? Happiness is self-sufficient activity desirable only for its own sake and

UFND50
not as a means for another end. Such are virtuous activities which are performed for
their own sake. Therefore amusements involving bodily pleasures do not constitute
happiness, however common this notion is. These are not an ethical man would value,
for they are not activities in accordance with virtue. Moreover, amusement would be
a silly and childish end for the supreme good of man, and finally amusement is not
and in itself, but relaxation for the sake of a future activity. Serious things are superior
to the lighter things that take place in amusement. Slaves can amuse themselves, but
they cannot be happy, for they are not free, and do not have the leisure necessary for
virtuous activities.
Hence, happiness is activity in accordance with the highest virtue of man, reason,
which is the highest element in man. It is therefore the contemplative activity of
philosophical wisdom. Life according to reason is the highest end of human existence,
the pleasantest, the best, and happiest.
A comparison: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
It is important at this point, to see the differences amongst these three consecutive
miracles of all times: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. As we already know, Socrates is the
undisputed father of ethics and Plato is his student and Aristotle is the student and
later associate of Plato.
Socrates was the first to recognize the importance of analyzing the meaning of
good, right, just and virtuous, and of articulating the standards for ascribing these
properties.
Plato charted a spiritualistic direction for finding the answers in the realms of ideals,
Ideas or Forms.
Aristotle on the other hand, located the answers in the scientific study of biology,
psychology and politics.
Good for Plato means resemblance to the pure Form or Idea, or universal model of
Goodness, which serves as the standard for all value judgments. Actions are right,
laws are just, and people are virtuous to the degree to which they conform to the
ideal model.
For Aristotle, good means the achievements of the goals at which human beings
naturally aim, the balanced and rational satisfaction of desires to which he gives the
name happiness. Right action, just laws, and virtuous character are the means of
achieving individual and social well-being.
All three philosophers agree in identifying individual good with social good and in
defining moral concepts such as justice and virtue in terms of achievement of good.

Hellenistic Society Following the Death of

Alexander the Great
Following the death of Alexander the Great his great empire disintegrated, various
parts falling into the hands of his generals. Few large monarchies (Macedonia, Syria,
Egypt, Pergamum (zmir) and federation of cities replaces the numerous independent,
now politically decadent, city-states of the Hellenic world; political freedom and
the citizen-soldier ideal came to an end; with loss of interest in public affairs there

13
 developed extreme individualism, greater emphasis on personal and economic and
social concerns, and the concept of a world society (Cosmopolis) to replace devotion
to the city-state (Polis) of Greek society.
Alexanders conquests and policies had brought into being a new culture, called
MODULE 2

Hellenistic, shared by the upper classes of Greece and the Oriental world, involving a
UFND50

fusion of Greeks and non-Greeks, of Greek culture and Oriental culture. New cultural
centers sprang up outside of Hellas, especially Alexandria, Pergamum (zmir), Antioch
(Antakya), Rhodes.
Endless warfare and struggle for power among the great Hellenistic powers followed
by intense class struggles and revolutions.
Hellenistic ethics: Stoicism and Epicureanism
This political and economic instability led to intellectual confusion, uncertainty of
the future, fear, moral decay, depopulation; Greek culture lost its creativeness. Rome
intervened and conquered the rest of the Hellenistic world (200-30 B. C.)
Following these developments ethics was divorced from politics; ethics was a part
of politics as we know from Plato and Aristotle. Now, for the first time in history,
ethics became a practical problem solving on personal and subjective level; it was a
narrow, individualistic, subjective, personal device to escape from the evils hovering
all around. Two examples of such ethics are Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Stoicism
Stoicism was by far the most impressive intellectual achievement of Hellenistic
and Roman culture prior to Christianity, providing an ethical framework within
which metaphysical speculation, natural science, psychology, and social thought
are combined. With the over lordship of Macedon and Rome, Greece lost its liberty.
The Athenians were no longer free men who could vary their political activities with
philosophical speculations. Hence the philosophical schools changed their character
and became a mental refuge. Such a mental refuge was the Stoa, that public porch
or colonnade of Athens which gave the school its name. Here another change took
place. Serious men might turn to philosophy, but philosophy itself was turned to
ethics rather than metaphysics to practical happiness rather than to speculation as
an end in itself. The result was remarkable: the Stoics were valued both privately and
publicly. They were sometimes called in professionally to minister to those in sorrow;
at other times to negotiate with foreign powers as when a trio of representative
philosophers were sent to Rome to obtain better terms from the conqueror.
In general the Stoic was a creature of practical morality and came to be a familiar
figure throughout the Roman Empire, known outwardly by his cloak and staff,
inwardly by his insistency on the majesty of duty, the splendor of devotion, the
dignity of self-denial. The Stoics were the best known of the later Greek moralists;
in fact their influence was so strong as to justify the ancient paradox that captive
Greece led Rome itself into captivity. In the terrible times of the civil wars and the
nightmare of Nero the Stoics were especially effective. They consoled those who
needed the consolation of philosophy, teaching that the accidents and misfortunes
of life are nothing to him who has a serene belief in providence. This is Stoicism in
its simplicity. Its rise and development however were complicated. Stoicism evolved
through many stages and thus comprehends a great variety of ideas. We will here
merely focus on their ethical ideas.
Founded by Zeno (ca. 330-260 B. C.); school at Athens. The Stoic school developed
and modified over a period of five centuries, so that its original materialism was
eventually abandoned for Platonic idealism.

14
 Aim: to teach personal happiness, to produce wise man who can be happy, and
maintain inner peace and contentment, in a world full of troubles.
Determinism. The entire world is a single cosmic interconnected machine;
everything happens through rigid determinism and predestination; there is no

MODULE 2
chance.

UFND50
The Good is the entire universe (pantheism), synonymous with Providence, Reason,
Virtue, Nature; the human soul is immortal and derived from the Good; reason and
virtue are the proper nature of man.
There is purpose, design, harmony, beauty in the universe; there is no evil in the
universe, but incorrect thinking makes it so.
The purpose of life is not pleasure and material things but reason and virtue.
Happiness and freedom in a world in which everything is predestined and perfect
consist of: living in harmony with nature; making oneself self-sufficient and tranquil
by complete suppression of all emotion and by freedom from external circumstances
and material things; by using ones will-power to accept whatever happens,
interpreting everything as good, accepting and enduring pain; by subordinating
oneself voluntarily to the world order, and accepting ones assigned place in society;
doing ones duty thoroughly in the place in society allotted to one; by not altering
external circumstances by adapting and resigning oneself to them.
Concept of brotherhood of men, and natural innate rights of man.

Epicureanism
Epicureanism flourished in an era between the death of Aristotle and Christianity.
They were the rivals of the Stoics who sought a state of undisturbed-ness, and
were so opposed to the strenuous life that they held that happiness consisted in
the avoidance of all excitements and disturbances. The garden of Epicurus, with its
freedom from perturbations, was for many a place of perpetual vacation, far from
the madding crowd, a place where it was bad form to discuss public questions, and
where disagreeably earnest people were not wanted. This at least was the school as
it was portrayed by its critics. But Epicurus himself was no sterile dilettante and his
doctrine was not one of mere self-indulgence. Still, many an Epicurean look forward
to the garden as a means of escape from the cares and troubles of this world, just as
a weary man of affairs dreams of ending his days on the Riviera. Here we will merely
concentrate on their ethical ideas.
Founded by Epicurus (342-270 B.C.); school at Athens, the Garden.
Aim: to teach personal happiness, mental calm and tranquility, through escape from
the evils of the world, banishment of superstition and fear of gods and death.
It is necessary to reach science to end such fears of superstition and fear of gods and
death.
Knowledge of sciences ends all fears.
Anaxagoras. Atomism. Matter is indestructible and change is recombination of
infinite elements called atoms. Uncompromising materialistic philosophy; natural
law; all change is through the fortuitous combinations of atoms in constant motion.
Causative agent of motion is Nous (Mind, Reason, and God).
Sharp distinction between soul and body (mind and matter).
Theory of evolution of man and society is a fact.

15
 Sense perception is the infallible source of knowledge. So Epicureans are the first
materialist empiricists.
Religious views. The gods have no power, there is no divine creation, no divine
providence, no design, no fate; the gods exist outside the universe, live calmly and in
MODULE 2

perfect happinest, and are contemplated and adored as serene ideals.

UFND50

Hedonism: ethics revisited. The highest good is pleasure, negatively defined as the
absence of pain and fear. One needs to use only ones free will to avoid all activities
which disturb pleasure; the highest pleasure is mental calm and tranquility, achieved
through reason and knowledge of nature. Physical pleasures should be simple and
enjoyed in moderation. One should avoid marriage, family ties, politics, ambition
for wealth and power. Friendship is the best social pleasure; virtue and justice are
practiced, not for their own sakes, but to maintain tranquility and avoid punishment.
Epicureanism offered a way of life that was open only to the leisure class. Stoicism
appealed to highly reflective men of all classes, as evidenced by the fact that the two
great figures of late Stoicism were the educated slave Epictetus and the emperor
Marcus Aurelius. However, both philosophical views could interest only those of a
sufficiently high level of education and thoughtful temperament to place intellectual
values above all others.
What Epicurus really taught was the art of life for those who found life difficult, firs by
removing false notions gained in youth and then, if needs be, by withdrawing from
society according to the maxim Live concealed, retire into yourself chiefly at that
time when you compelled to be in a crowd. To his he adds the maxim: The wise man
will be fond of living in the country. This is also a counsel of perfection, hence for the
city-dweller some substitute must be offered. This substitute is mental freedom and
its corollaries. The whole matter is summed up in this remarkable saying: The most
precious fruit of independence and plain living is freedom.

Cynics
This school was founded by Diogenes of Sinop (c.400-325 B.C.), known kyon
(dog) on account of his shamelessness. Cynics were the rivals of both Stoics and
Epicureans. Diogenes growled from his tub that the only favor he wanted from the
great Alexander was that the latter should keep up out of his light. Some main ideas
of cynic morals are as follows:
Diogenes was a primitivist: happiness is living according to Nature, that is, satisfying
ones simplest natural wants in the simplest manner. Desire for anything beyond
the bodily satisfactions should be condemned as unnatural.
Any convention that inhibits the satisfaction of the basic human requirement are
deemed as unnatural hence bad.
The reduction of ones wants to a natural minimum demands self-discipline, but
leads to self-sufficiency and freedom.
The true nature of man is not Aristotles political animal but rather a secluded,
isolated and lonely life.
The three evils of man are desire, addiction and lack of knowledge.
Cynics reject the idea of systematic philosophy and defend conveying their ideas
by bon-mots and drastic action (by masturbating in public to show how simply ones
sexual desires can be satisfied).
Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics Reconsidered: from Polis to Cosmo-
polis.

16
Each of these three forms of ethical school constitutes a different reaction to the
new world of Cosmo-polis. With the destruction of the community-like life style
of the world of Greek Polis (citystate), Hellenistic and Roman world of Cosmo-
polis brought a complex and alienating life. Those who prefer the Epicureans have

MODULE 2
portrayed them as social reformers and panacea for the pains of the suppressed and
alienated. Such a portrayal may have been exaggeration. The Stoic had much sense

UFND50
and moderation and was above all practical. Zeno, the founder, arrived in Athens as
a stranger from Cyprus and according to the story, first came into contact with Crates
the Cynic. From the latter and his followers he learned the principle of self-sufficiency,
but did not follow them in their churlish disregard for the social amenities. As the
saying is, he accepted Diogenes without the tub.
The Cynic on the other hand was wont to withdraw into his shell, to avoid public
affairs, and to disdain the current beliefs in patriotism and religion. But the Stoic,
though meditative, did not identify the inner life with isolation; he advised his
disciples to mix in affairs to attain the larger patriotism of the citizen of the world,
and to see that in all religions there was a common element, the providential care of
all the gods for man.
Cynicism was one thing civilization another. After the fall of the Greek world of
city-state (polis), first the Hellenistic Empire and then the Roman Empire created a
complex world of cosmo-polis. Overwhelmed with the complexities of such a society
the Cynic took the easy role of oversimplification disregard for dress, contempt for
society, and a general attitude that whatever is is wrong. They called this state of
nature and actually taught that animals and savaged were better off than men.
Stoicism too is a reaction to the world of new cosmo-polis but they were not anti-
social like Cynics; they did not confuse a return to nature with a return to bestiality,
nor did they follow the other extreme of Aristotle, who taught that mans highest
aim is a life of leisure, spent in meditation, thinking upon thought. The Stoic role
was different; it was to be a man among men, whether in the common round, the
daily task, or in the vexatious affairs of statecraft. Here then, we find a wide-range of
representatives, from Epictetus, the slave, to Marcus Aureilus Antoninus, the emperor,
the one standing for Stoicism in the cottage, the other for Stoicism on the throne.
Stoics defended a conception of the world as cosmos of orderly universe. And from
such a conception of universe they inferred the goodness of gods, moral government
of the world, and providence and along with these they faced the problem of evil
with an attitude of resignation and acquiescence in the course of events. Here the
forerunners of Socrates were utilized by the earliest Stoics. They went back to the
philosophers of Ionia (around zmir); to Heraclitus, who taught that this one order of
things was created by none of the gods, nor yet by any of mankind, but it ever was,
and is, and shall be, eternal fire ignited by measure, and extinguished by measure.
This order, in turn, is guaranteed by Logos, reason, which is everlasting although
men are unable to comprehend it before they have heard it or even after they have
heard it for the first time. This primordial fire is divine and eternal, hence Zeno argues
that man partakes of it, since human is the spark of the celestial flame. This doctrine
naturally led to further inferences. The divine fire being the primitive substance from
which all things derive, then those that possess it, especially man in his rational soul,
and privileged by nature to hold communion with God. And so concluded Marcus
Aurelius, being united to Him in intercourse through reason, why may not a man call
himself a citizen of the world, why not a son of God?

17
 Ancient Far Eastern Morality
China
MODULE 2

To know the Ancient Chinas ethical life is very important to 21st century students
of all professions since today, China is one of the three big global economic powers,
UFND50

and is expected to become the most powerful power of the world in the next several
decades. Todays China takes its principles of discipline ethics from the Ancient ethical
principles of Confucius, Mencius and Taoism. Let us see them.
Confucius Morality
Life Story of Confucius
Even the life story of Confucius gives us some hint about the discipline ethics of that
culture which sheds some life upon the present day Chinese culture and society.
Confucius (557-479 B.C.) was born of a poor and common family. His father died soon
after his birth. When he grew up he was put in charge of cattle and sheep, and public
works in his native state. Later he became Grand Secretary of Justice and then Chief
Minister. He regained some territory lost to a neighboring state purely by his moral
force, executed a minister who created disorder, and brought peace to land to the
extent that things lost on the highways were not stolen.
In 469 B.C., he began 14 years of travelling from state to state, offering his moral
services. He was politely consulted by princes and dukes, but no one would put
his moral doctrines into practice. When in difficulty of being expelled from several
states he exclaimed, Heaven has endowed with moral destiny, what can Huan (who
threatened him with death penalty) do to me? Eventually he retired to Lu to teach
and write.
He lived in a similar social and political climate similar to what Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle lived in Athens: it was a time when moral and cultural traditions were in
rapid decline. Attempting to uphold these traditional values he taught poetry,
history, ceremonies and music to 3000 pupils, becoming the first Chinese educator
to offer education to any who cared to come with or without tuition. He taught
literature, human conduct, being ones true self and honesty in social relationships.
He wrote the chronicles called, Spring and Autumn. His tacit judgments on social
and political events were such that unruly ministers and villainous sons were afraid
to repeat their evil deeds.
He severely disciplined himself and practiced what he taught. He loved poetry,
ceremonies and music. He was serious, honest, polite filially pious towards his mother,
stern towards his son, and friendly to his pupils.
The time Confucius lived were very harsh and stern times of political and social
upheavals. During these times China was constantly in struggle with the invasions
of Turkish trbes and nomads (the Great Wall was thus built against these barbarian
Turks). Government was corrupt and Confucius was just like Socrates and Plato in
Athens was pondering over the question of making his society and people happier
and less miserable. He, like Plato, developed ideas on this direction. In this direction,
some of the main ideas he developed on morality are as follows:
Confucius underlies formality in human relations. Human beings should treat one
another cordially and respectfully: be respectful and cordial to others. Here there is
a provision that tis rule is applied according to the hierarchical pyramid of social and
economic order.
The apex of the pyramid in this rule of respect is ones own family members. An

18
individuals own needs and wants come way after these familial duties.
The pyramid of duty is described as five nexus of relationships. According to this
nexus, first comes the father and mother, next comes the boss, after that comes
views, elderly and friends. Obeying laws comes after all these relationships.

MODULE 2
Ren which means humanly behavior is a kind of humanist behavior towards the

UFND50
other. This attitude includes all kinds of behaviors fostering and promoting mutual
trust and communality among people.
Society in accordance with nature. This accordance means that a father should be a
father, a prince should be a Prince, a son should be a son! Here nature is assumed to
assign everyone in a society the proper place it should stay and act like required by
this place. Does not this sound like what Platos Republic called justice?
Equality. Humans are not equal; some are born with more knowledge and wisdom
than the others; in other words some are more equal than others. Does this idea
remind you the idea of equality in the Republic of Plato?
Mencius Morality
The second big wise man as he was commonly called, after Confucius is the thinker
educated by the grandson of Confucius, is Mencius (475-400 B.C.) Mencius lived
in the most bloody and confused era of the Chinese history. His ethical principles
include the following:
Mencius ethics stipulates that all men are innately good. This idea also existed in the
Greek ethics and is a very recurrent theme that appears after the Greeks throughout
the Western thought as we will see later in this book. Mencius says that no human
being can be insensitive in the face of human suffering!
Confucius has emphasized the absolute authority of the sovereign Rulers. Mencius
argues against this idea of absolutism of the supreme Rulers. According to him, if a
King misbehaves and mistreats his subjects, he may be ousted and dethroned by
the people. Accordingly, the cardinal element of a state is not the sovereign but the
people. This a very radical idea which will appear in the Western thought only in the
17th century with John Locke, as we will see in the next module of this book.
Mencius ethics also emphasized the crucial difference between tradition based
morality and the universal principles of ethics. This idea too appeared, as we have seen
in the Western thought only in 400 B.C. between the Sophistic-Socratic controversy
over the origin of ethics, i.e., whether it originates in tradition or in innate human
reason.
As we can see from the above discussion, social, political and ethical principles
emerge in the ancient far Eastern cultures such as China and the Western Greece
almost simultaneously.
Taoism: The Way Tao
Confucius and Mencius morality requires active, harsh social and moral standards,
Taoism, to the contrary involves mystical passive personal morality. The word tao
doesnt have an identically equal meaning in any other language in the world. The
closest reference of it in the West could be unity with the sacred. In the mystic Islamic
tradition the closest concept is union-with-God (vahdet-i-vcud). Tao means The
Way, which is the law of opening up to the cosmic universe. Here Tao is the sacred
virtue which unites ones soul with the nature.
Lao Tzu is the father of Taoism, but not much is known about his life story. He left
some written aphorisms and fragments explaining the Way, such as the following:

19
 It (Tao) produced the One; the One produced the two; the two produced the three;
and the three produced all things.
Tao has reality and evidence but no action nor form. It may be transmitted, but
cannot be received. It may be attained but cannot be seen. It is its own essence, and
MODULE 2

its own root.

UFND50

Some of the basic ideas of Taoism are:

The universe is governed by the law of the Grand Unity. This law is known as Yin-
Yang. Yin-Yang involves passive and active principles, respectively, of the universe,
or the female, negative force and the male, positive force, always contrasting but
complimentary. Yang and Yin are expressed in heaven and earth, man and woman,
father and son, shine and rain, hardness and softness, good and evil, white and
black, upper and lower, great and small, odd number and even number, joy and
sorrow, reward and punishment, agreement and opposition, life and death, advance
and retreat, love and hate, and all conceivable objects, qualities, situations, and
relationships.
Human beings must resist his own instincts which are against Tao, and choose to
live in accordance with the principle of Grand Unity.
Ancient Indian Morality: Buddhism
Buddhism is an originally Indian religion, founded in the 5th century B.C. by
Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha (enlightened one). In the beginnings its teachings
were restricted to ethics and meditational exercises, and it separated from Hinduism
on purely religious grounds (rejection of Hindu scriptures, ritual and social system).
However later Buddhist thinkers by consistently maintaining the belief in the
ineffability of the ultimate (Nirvana), which only meditational trance could realize,
and in the transience and lack of essence of all empirical phenomena, a typical
Buddhist form of thought developed.
The main idea of Buddhist ethics is to attain happiness. But this happiness is
not the same as the ancient Greek idea of Eudomonia. Greek idea of happiness is
individualistic whereas Buddhist happiness requires responsibility towards the entire
universe (Bios). We can only attain such a state of happiness by moral discipline and
by obeying the rules and prohibitions of Buddhism. Once this is done the highest
level of happiness is attained: that of Nirvana.
Nirvana is the liberation of a human being from the cycle of death and rebirth. It
is generally conceived negatively as freedom from ignorance, suffering and self-
interest. Positively it is defined as the achieving of disinterested wisdom and
compassion. It is attained by the famous eightfold path of morality: right views, right
intention, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
right concentration.
The Doctrine of Six Universes
Buddhists believe that universe has a six-level of existence which the dead will
circulate and go if he cannot attain Nirvana in between these circulations. These
levels of existence are as follows:
Hells. This level is a place of torture and painful experiences. Those men and women
who go there after death (and borne back to earth after torture) are human beings
that are slaves of their negative feelings such as anger, hatred, and evil thoughts.
Universe of humans. Humans living here are depicted as creatures who desire
their wishes at all costs and price.

20
 Universe of animals. Animals are stupid. Stupidity means limited choice of freedom
(or un-freedom). The reason for their stupidity is their acting for the sole aim of self-
survival. In real life there are humans in the form of animals who behave as if they are
the slaves of their survival instinct.

MODULE 2
Universe of Titans. Titans have a relatively comfortable existence, but they too are

UFND50
slaves of their feelings of competitiveness and achievement. They want to reach the
upper level of existences.
Pre-Heavens. Existence before the true Heavens. Here Gods live a luxurious life in
their palaces. Their fundamental instinct is bodily desire and pleasure.
True Heavens. Gods here at this level live peacefully and quietly. They are beyond
pleasure and pain as well as beyond time and space.
Eternal recurrence exists among these worlds. If a human being is unable to reach
Nirvana when he is alive, he is doomed to circulate among these worlds forever.
Once he achieves Nirvana, he goes to Heaven and does not come back to Earth any
more. Once he gets out of this eternal recurrence, he awakens and is free, and has
his Nirvana.
Modern Buddhist thinkers, at least some of them, interpret these six levels of existence
as six stages of development in ones life span, as a journey towards ethical maturity,
or perfectness.
The Doctrines of Five Intuitions and Salvation
Five Intuitions are:
Thy shall not kill.
Thy shall not steal.
Thy shall not conduct un-proper sex.
Thy shall not lie.
Thy shall not be drunken.
Those who follow these five intuitions can break the chain of eternal recurrence and
re-turn to Earth and live a decent life.
Comparison of Greek, Chinese and Indian Ethics
As different from Greek ethics both Eastern ethics of China and India pursue not
personal or individual happiness.
Chinese morality however as different from the Indian morality emphasizes social
responsibility, while Indian ethics embrace universal responsibility for life as whole
(Bios).
Confucius ethics acted as a glue of social cohesion and consensus for individuals,
whereas Buddhism defends a life of isolation and meditation.
Confucius ethics is this worldly, whereas Buddhism is out worldly.

Ethics in the Middle Ages, Renaissance,

Reformation
Middle Ages
The rise of Christian philosophy, out of a fusion of Greco-Roman thought with Judaism

21
 and elements of other Middle Eastern religions, produced a new era in the history
of ethics, although one that was prepared for by Stoicism. The Stoic concern with
justice and self-mastery, and the Neo-platonic search for reunion with the source
of all being, were combined in early Christian philosophy with the Judaic belief in
MODULE 2

personal God, whose commandments are the primal source of morality.

UFND50

From the second to the fourth century, Christianity spread through the Roman
Empire, offering the poor and the oppressed a hope for other-worldly happiness
in compensation for their earthly sufferings, and thus a way of life with which the
more pessimistic and intellectualist schools of philosophy could not compete. By the
fourth century, Christianity dominated Western civilization and had absorbed the
main ideas and values of the secular schools of thought, as well as rival religions
such as Manichaeism, and Judaism. Having converted the masses, it was time to win
over the intelligentsia, and doing this required the hammering out of an explicit and
plausible system of ethical principles. This task was performed by the Church Fathers,
among them the most prominent ones, Augustine and Aquinas.
Medieval Climate of Opinion: Scholastic Thought
In the Middle Ages the world was regarded simply as a portion of the Kingdom of God.
All phenomena were believed to have been caused by Gods will, sometimes acting by
obvious and sometimes by inscrutable means. It was not deemed necessary or wise
to investigate further into the causes of natural phenomena. Interest in nature lay
primarily in its meaning in terms of Gods purpose. Omniscient and omnipotent God
had created the world in six days. Man himself had been created by God in perfect
form, but because of his disobedience in the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve stole
the forbidden fruit), he had fallen from grace and had been condemned to eternal
damnation. Man had been redeemed by the sacrifice of Gods only son, Jesus Christ.
Life on earth was merely a temporary test for the human being. Eventually the earth
would be destroyed by a great catastrophe. At this time, a final separation would take
place between good and evil men, the latter being destined for eternal punishment
and the former being transported to the Heavenly City, where they would dwell
forever in happiness. This was the drama of human history. In the medieval climate
of opinion, man was expected to recognize his role in this great drama, and above all,
to make no unnecessary attempt to alter it.

Ethics of St. Augustine

His life story
one that was prepared for by Stoicism. The Stoic concern with justice and self-
mastery, and the Neo-platonic search for reunion with the source of all being, were
combined in early Christian philosophy with the Judaic belief in personal God, whose
commandments are the primal source of morality.
From the second to the fourth century, Christianity spread through the Roman
Empire, offering the poor and the oppressed a hope for other-worldly happiness
in compensation for their earthly sufferings, and thus a way of life with which the
more pessimistic and intellectualist schools of philosophy could not compete. By the
fourth century, Christianity dominated Western civilization and had absorbed the
main ideas and values of the secular schools of thought, as well as rival religions
such as Manichaeism, and Judaism. Having converted the masses, it was time to win
over the intelligentsia, and doing this required the hammering out of an explicit and
plausible system of ethical principles. This task was performed by the Church Fathers,
among them the most prominent ones, Augustine and Aquinas.
Medieval Climate of Opinion: Scholastic Thought

22
In the Middle Ages the world was regarded simply as a portion of the Kingdom of God.
All phenomena were believed to have been caused by Gods will, sometimes acting by
obvious and sometimes by inscrutable means. It was not deemed necessary or wise
to investigate further into the causes of natural phenomena. Interest in nature lay

MODULE 2
primarily in its meaning in terms of Gods purpose. Omniscient and omnipotent God
had created the world in six days. Man himself had been created by God in perfect

UFND50
form, but because of his disobedience in the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve stole
the forbidden fruit), he had fallen from grace and had been condemned to eternal
damnation. Man had been redeemed by the sacrifice of Gods only son, Jesus Christ.
Life on earth was merely a temporary test for the human being. Eventually the earth
would be destroyed by a great catastrophe. At this time, a final separation would take
place between good and evil men, the latter being destined for eternal punishment
and the former being transported to the Heavenly City, where they would dwell
forever in happiness. This was the drama of human history. In the medieval climate
of opinion, man was expected to recognize his role in this great drama, and above all,
to make no unnecessary attempt to alter it.

Ethics of St. Augustine

His life story
Augustine (354-430), born near Carthage, the son of a pagan father and a Christian
mother, was first a Manichean and later became converted to Christianity. He rose in
the church to become bishop of Hippo (in Africa) and helped to settle the doctrinal
strife among the many Christian sects by constructing a system of theology , ethics
and theory of knowledge that soon became the authoritative framework of Christian
thought, modified but not supplanted by subsequent church philosophers.
Augustines major works, Confessions, The City of God, wove together threads of Stoic
ethics and the Judea-Christian doctrine of revelation and redemption into a many
colored fabric of theology. With Augustine, theology became the bridge between
philosophy and revealed religion, the one end anchored in reason and the other in
faith, and ethics became a blend of the pursuit of earthly well-being with preparation
of the soul for eternal salvation.
Major of ideas of Augustines ethics:
Augustine rejected almost entirely the claims of bodily pleasures and community
life.
That happiness is impossible in this world, which serves only as a testing ground for
reward and punishment in the afterlife.
Virtue is the purgation of the soul of all dependence on material comforts in
preparation for reunion with God.
Against the Stoic and Aristotelian reliance on reason as the source of virtue, Augustine
maintained that such apparently admirable traits as prudence, justice, wisdom and
fortitude the four cardinal virtues identified by Plato and stressed by Stoics and
Christian philosophers, are of no moral worth when not inspired by Christian faith.
Life on earth is a punishment for Adams original sin, For what flood eloquence
can suffice to detail the miseries of this life? he laments in The City of God. This view
was already apparent in the Stoic and Epicurean modes of withdrawal from social
responsibilities, and most likely was intensifies by Augustines personal sense of guilt
and worthlessness.
Nature. The tension between natural and supernatural values in Augustines ethical
thought shows itself most clearly in his ambivalent attitude toward nature. Nature,

23
 as Gods creation, must be unqualifiedly good. Natural evils are only apparently evil,
and in the long run they contribute to the fulfillment of divine purpose. Natural
evil is simply imperfection that makes variety possible and thus, when viewed on
a cosmic scale, does not exist at all. On the other hand, since man must be held
MODULE 2

morally responsible for his sins, human sin cannot be so easily explained away as
incompleteness that promotes the cosmic good. Moreover, it is mans bodily desires
UFND50

that tempt him to sin. Without the aid of divine grace, the promptings of human
nature, whether rational or impulsive, lead only to vice and damnation. Augustine
resolves this paradoxical view of human nature by holding that man, unlike other
natural species, was endowed by his Creator with free will and thus with the capacity
to choose between good and evil. Through the original sin of Adam he has chosen
the evil, and it is for this reason, rather than because of any flaw in his original
construction, that he is irresistibly inclined to further sin.
Free will responsibility and the problem of evil. If Augustines dual conception
of nature is explained by his concept of free will, the latter contains new difficulties.
The problem of free will is critical in Christian ethics, which emphasizes responsibility
and punishment. The Greek ideal of practical reason ensuring physical and mental
well-being was supplanted by the ideal of purification of the soul through suffering,
renunciation, and humble obedience to divine will.
Where the practice of virtue produces well-being as its natural consequence, as in
the Greek view, virtue carries with it its own reward in accordance with the causal
processes of nature, so that causal necessity and moral desert are not merely
compatible; they normally coincide. But in the Christian view, causal necessity
and moral responsibility seem incompatible, for the choice between good and
evil is made by the soul, independently of natural processes, and its reward and
punishment is independent of the natural effects of human actions. Man is punished
or rewarded to the degree to which he voluntarily obeys or disobeys the commands
of God. In the Greek view, man suffers from the natural consequences of his mistakes,
but in Augustine no matter what the natural consequences of his actions, he is held
to account for the state of his soul. It is his motives and not his actions that count in
assessment of his moral responsibility, and the primary motive is his desire for, or his
turning away from, God.
Responsibility is thus transferred from the consequences of a persons actions to the
state of his soul. Yet if the soul is created by God, and not subject to its temporary
owners control, then in what sense can man be said to have freedom of choice
between good and evil? Augustine describes the soul that chooses evil as defective,
but if so, is not the creator of the defective soul responsible for its deficiency? In
absolution of God, Augustine argues that a defect is not a positive entity, thus not
a created thing and not attributable to a creator e terminological escape that is
vulnerable to the objection that, on such grounds, a man who stabs another produces
in his victim a deficiency rather than a positive state and therefore is not responsible
for his nonexistent product.
Rejection of Fatalism. Augustine rejects determinism or what the theologians
called predestination (in Arabic or Turkish Kismet.) For Augustine God knows what
man will choose to do and makes it possible for man to act on his free choices but
does not compel him to any course of action. To the obvious question of how God
can know in advance what has not been destined or causally necessitated, Augustine
replies by means of his subtle analysis of time. God has knowledge, not of what we
are compelled to do but of what we freely choose to do, because his knowledge is
not the kind of advance knowledge that is based on causal processes but is due to
the fact that , in the mind of God, we have already made our decisions. All of the past
and future time is spread out in the specious present of the divine mind, so that what,
from our limited standpoint, would be prediction of the future is, for God, simply

24
direct awareness of contemporaneous events.
Distinctions among ethical concepts. While Augustines ethical writings are mainly
concerned with the substantive problem of how to achieve redemption, rather than
with the clarification of ethical concepts, much of his writing is philosophical in

MODULE 2
the strict sense of the term, in that it suggests solutions to conceptual problems of

UFND50
meaning and method. Augustine opposed to the classical tendency to define the
moral concepts good, rightness, virtue, justice, etc. in terms of individual and social
well-being and interpreted moral viryes as obedience to divine authority.
The concept of good. Hence the concept of good is split into a moral and practical
sense. Good as fulfillment of natural tendencies is subordinated to eternal good
and beatitude, the fulfillment of the aspirations of the virtuous soul. Freedom and
responsibility are interpreted as internal states of the soul and as excluding, rather
than (as for Aristotle) presupposing causal necessity.

Ethics of Aquinas
His life story
In contrast to Augustine, greatest of the Church fathers, Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274), greatest of Scholastics, was one of the most sane and strong-minded of men.
In spite of his familys opposition to his becoming a monk (his father was a Count and
his mother was a Countess) he joined the Dominicans, who sent him to study at their
school in Cologne, presided by Albertus, called the great because of his scholarship.
Here Aquinas, because of his plodding silence, received the nickname of Dumb Ox; at
this his master is said to have prophesied that this ox would one day fill the world with
his bellowing. This may be a legendary afterthought, still the fact remains that the
fame of Aquinas did fill the mediaeval world. As an ambitious systematizing person
his task was to do for the thought of his day what the Holy Roman Empire did for
the body politic, and the Holy Catholic Church for the souls of men. Aquinas by birth
was related to emperors, by intellect he made himself head of an empire of thought.
His final aim was to embrace in one science all the knowledge of his time and of
previous times. He attempted that in his Summa Theologica ( Summary of Theology),
for theology, according to the conception of the Middle Ages, was counted as the
science of sciences.
Aristotle revived. Aquinas philosophical aim was to reconcile Aristotelian science
and philosophy with Augustinian theology. The way to this achievement had already
been prepared by the revival in western Europe of interest in Aristotle, whose thought
had been preserved and elaborated by Muslim scholars such as Avicenna (bni Sina),
Averroes (bni Rusd) and the Turkish philosopher Farabi. It remained for Aquinas
to prove the compatibility of Aristotelian naturalism with Christian dogma and to
construct a unified view of nature, man and God. This he undertook with remarkable
success in his Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles.
Aquinas union of Aristotelianism with Christianity. Aquinas union of Aristo
with Christianity consisted in (1) arguing for the truth of both, (2) and in refuting
arguments of his predecessors that purported to show their incompatibility. Aristotles
ethics was relativistic, rational, and prudential (Phronesis); Augustinian ethics was
absolutist, grounded on faith, and independent of consequences. Now one of these
views is totally misguided, or else there must be room for two different systems of
ethical concepts and principles. Aquinas adopted the latter alternative and divided
the meaning of ethical concepts into two domains: (1) natural virtues; (2) theological
virtues. Natural virtues , adequately accounted by Aristotle, can be attained by proper
training and the exercise of practical reason, while theological virtues faith, hope,
and love require faith and divine grace. Similarly he distinguished two highest

25
 good, or paramount goals of life worldly happiness and eternal beatitude (which has
precedence); the former is achieved through natural virtue and the latter is achieved
through the church and its sacraments. Aquinas thus expressed a considerably more
optimistic attitude than did Augustine towards the possibility of improving mans lot
MODULE 2

on earth through knowledge of nature and intelligent action. This helped to prepare
the climate for the rebirth of natural science, whose first stirrings were felt in the
UFND50

13thcentury.
Natural law. At the center of Thomistic (the name of Aquinas philosophy) ethics
was the concept of natural law. The medieval doctrine of natural law, stemming
from Aristotles teleological conception of nature and from the Stoic identification of
human reason with Logos, was fusion of naturalistic Greek ethics with monotheistic
theology. On this view, the promptings of informed reason and moral conscience
represent an inherent tendency in the nature of man. And conformity to this nature
fulfills both the cosmic plan of the Creator and the direct commands of God revealed
in the Scriptures. Natural law is the divine law discovered by reason, and therefore the
precepts of Bible, and scientific knowledge of the universal needs and tendencies of
man, provide complementary rather than competing standards of ethical judgment.
Where conflicts between science and religious authority arise, they must be due
to inadequate understanding of science, since church authority and dogma are
infallible.
Free will. Aquinass account of freedom and moral responsibility was, in general
form, similar to that of Augustine, maintaining the compatibility of free will with
predestination or divine foreknowledge. Aquinas also maintained the compatibility
of free will with causal determinism, thus dealing with the problem on the level of
prudential ethics (Aristotle) as well on as the theological grace and salvation. Aquinas
solution makes effective use of Aristotles analysis of choice and voluntary action in
terms of internal causality and deliberation, and identifies free will with rational self-
determination rather than with the absence of causal influences. On the other hand
Aquinas concept of freedom is, as a result, more relativistic than Augustines. In this
sense Aquinas concept of freedom, while it explains the conditions under which
an agent may be held responsible for his actions namely, the conditions of desire,
knowledge, deliberation it doesnt meet the further issue of whether these faculties
that determine action are within the control of the agent, that is whether a person
can freely choose the habits and desires that determine his actions. The interpreters
of Aquinas think that he stressed free will while Augustine stressed predestination.

Islamic Morality in the Middle Ages

The two philosopher chosen for this section on the Islamic morality in the Middle
Ages are Farabi and Mevlana. Moral views of Farabi is a combination of Plato and
Aristotle put into Islamic framework. As we have seen, in Augustine and Aquinas,
this way of formulation of moral philosophy Plato and Aristotle put into the garb of
religion is very common in both Christian and Muslim theology.
The preliminary ideas over Islamic morality started with the ideas of fate (kismet,
kader), obligation (vecibe), and justice (of the caliphs). Starting around the 9thcentury,
theology based on ancient Greek thought (Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics) was quite
fashionable in the Muslim scholastic circles.
This section takes one example from this tradition: the notorious Turkish philosopher
and theologian Farabi. In fact he is the only Turkish originated philosopher of the
Muslim tradition. Secondly, Mevlana, a Sufi Islam scholar and poet is chosen from
the Islamc tradition of mystic morality.

26
Farabis Moral Views
Farabis Life Story
Great Turkish thinker Farabi (870-950) was born in Ohrar, Turkistan, lived in Baghdad,

MODULE 2
and died in todays Damascus (Syria). Farabi was educated in the tradition of Sufi,

UFND50
and later he learned Greek philosophy in Baghdad. He is said to speak 60-70 different
languages. He was an expert in theory of music, philosophy, physics, mathematics,
biology and many other subjects. He wrote more than 100 books on these subjects.
He also translated Platos and Aristotles books into Arabic, therefore saving these
books from the destruction of the dark middle ages of the West. Farabi was known in
Baghdad as the Second Master, the First Master being of course Aristotle.
What did Farabi Take From Plato and Aristotle?
First and foremost, Farabi took from Plato and Aristotle, the idea of happiness (Saadet)
as the end (Telos) of life. According to Plato, as we already know, the way to happiness
(Eudomonia) goes through virtues (Arete). And these virtues are determined in
accordance of the three competencies of soul: reason, appetite and spirit. The
proper virtue of reason is knowledge; the proper virtue of appetite is moderation,
and the proper virtue of spirit is courage. The harmony of these three virtues among
themselves creates the fourth and higher virtue of justice. So in the end happiness is
justice. Happiness comes out of righteousness and justice, and unhappiness comes
from malice and injustice.
Farabi is also deeply influenced by Aristotles ethics, and even more than he is
influenced by that of Platos. As we already know, for Aristotle man is a political
animal, and at the core of politics of the Polis, centers his ethics as practical wisdom
(Phronesis). This means that practical wisdom is in essence both political and
social; actions of the citizen are one and the same time both ethical and political;
implication being that one cannot be a good politician or social player of any roles
he assumes say, without being, at the same time, a good father, a good neighbor, a
good husband, etc.
The Main Points of Farabis Moral Philosophy
For Farabi, as it is for Aristotle, happiness is the highest good whose end (Telos) is in
itself and not in anything other than that. This simply means that we do good things
not for any hidden purpose such as achieving fame, interest show-off etc. The good
deed has its end in the good deed itself; it is not a means for any purpose other than
itself.
Some delude themselves thinking that happiness lies in material and or immaterial
richness of this-worldly possessions. Here Farabi diverges from both Plato and
Aristotle.
Most supreme happiness (contra both Plato and Aristotle) lies not in the happiness of
this world, but in that of the other, heavenly world. At this point, like his counterparts
in the Christian world of the Middle ages Augustine and Aquinas, Farabi puts both
Plato and Aristotle into the garbs of Islamic canons of morality. For Farabi, even if we
choose a this worldly purpose and construct all of our actions and deeds around this
worldly goal, we will be eventually fall in despair and unhappiness in pursuing this
aim. All the aims of this worldliness prepare man to self-destruction and the resulting
misery.
Evil and good. Every deed and action which takes us to Heavens are good, and the
reverse ones are evil.
Virtues. Whatever we call virtues are but the forces that drive us towards committing

27
 these actions. If these forces drive us in the right directions, we become ill-natured
unethical creatures, and on the contrary, when these forces push us in the right
directions, we become ethical, moral human beings.
About these forces. The creative forces that make us act wisely or unwisely and
MODULE 2

are feelings, imagination, passions and reason. Here Farabi repeats the Argument of
UFND50

Plato that reason must reign over the other powers of the soul in order to be happy.
Imagination. This idea of imagination is an original contribution of Farabi to the
ethical argument. The idea of imagination does not exist either in Plato or Aristotle.
For Farabi, the faculty of imagination has a special place in mans happiness. It enables
us to see and perceive the beauties which le beyond the realm of empirical world.
But Farabi confines this supreme faculty to only those few privileged humans; not
everybody is equipped with the power of imagination. The zenith of imagination is
tied to the idea of soothsaying, as in the case of Greek idea of foreseeing the future
by Gods! Certainly, as a devout believer in a single God, Farabi doesnt go that far!

Mevlanas Moral Views

Mevlanas Life Story
UNESCO declared the year 2007, on the 800th birthday of Mevlana, as The Year of
Mevlana. which, obviously is a sign of his global confirmation as one of the universal
member of intellectual world.
Mevlana, Celaleddin-i-Rumi (1207-1273) was born in Behl city of Horasan. His mother
was a princes who is the descendant of Herzemshahs Empire in Far East. His father
was a well-known scholar in the city of Behl.
The 13th century which Mevlana lived, the Islamic civilization was in its declining
years; Mongol invasion of all Asia destroyed whatever that was left in the high Islamic
civilizations. Massive migrations escaping from Mongolian invasions followed the
suit. So Mevlanas family took its due share from this devastation and his family
moved to the safer land of Anatolia, Konya, under the protection of Turkish state of
Selcuks. At that time, the hearth of Anatolia was called Rumi, meaning the land
of Rums (Greeks), where at least three languages were used; Greek, Turkish and
Farsi. Common people used Greek and Turkish, whereas hgh culture used Farsi as
the language of literature and philosophy. So Celaleddin in Konya was labeled as
Celaleedin Rumi. But today, he is known universally simply as Mevlana.

Mevlanas Main Ideas

The Dialectic of Good and Evil
Mevlana dictated to his disciples over many years, his famous work called Mesnevi,
in which he developed his moral philosophy. In Mesnevi, Mevlana defines humans
as beings in between physical and metaphysical realms. Human beings have in their
existence polar opposite qualities such as mortality and immortality, human and
divine, good and evil. Human being in this sense is a uniting medium (vasat-I camia)
of polar opposites. Human body and soul are two distinct substance where the
former is mortal, the latter is immortal. It is this finite-infiniteness that the morality of
Mevlana is developed from. It is within the tension of this paradoxical medium that
the humans must develop their own ethical character.
The Origin of Good and Evil
The source of evil is body and soul dualism. There is evil or good in the absolute
senses of the terms; evil is the name we give to the inner conflicts which the body has
with the soul. Similarly good is the overcoming of this inner conflict. Evil and good

28
are therefore relative, context-bound terms.
Possessing values and goodness means maturity of mans soul. To have ethical
values requires mental discipline and character training. By restraining our bodily
desires we can achieve maturity of soul and tranquility.

MODULE 2
Man is innately neither evil nor good. But in general we can say that potentially man

UFND50
is prone to goodness rather than badness.
The creator of good and bad values is God, but we humans are responsible for the
evil to be actualized. Man is free to choose good or bad; God gives humans such a
free will to do whatever he wants to do.
Religion helps people to choose good rather than bad.
Morality and ethics only help humans to be truly humans. Humanism in this sense
is one of the most important idea of Mevlana.
Tolerance is most important value which must be cultivated.

Renaissance Ethics
Renaissance Climate of Opinion
Machiavelli; Politics without Ethics
His life story
Niccolo Machiavellis (1469-1527) life story falls into three periods. His youth was
spent under the sway of Prince Lorenzo de Medici, whose title, The Magnificent,
reflected the greatness of Florence. Here he admired the nostalgic Roman ideals of
conquest through force. In his second period, that of diplomacy Machiavelli gained
that practical experience which he was later to embellish by references to Latin
historians. Thus from his mission to France, which sought to obtain terms from Louis
XII for keeping up the war of Florence against Pisa, he was able to point out that this
monarch was guilty of five mistakes in statecraft later summarized in his chief book
The Prince. In the third period, his resignation and writing books of philosophy and
politics.
Politics without ethics: The Prince
The mediaeval ethics had many adherents who tried to practice its virtues and avoid
its vices. It had also one great opponent: Machiavelli. In his famous book The Prince,
he defended the following ideas in relations to morality and ethics:
Both religion and morality are means and not ends. The age of Machiavelli,
adviser of the prince Medici, has been considered a moral interregnum where might
was right and every mans hand was against his neighbor. (We know this view from
Platos dialogue The Republic, as the view of Sophist Thrasymakhos). When the
cloak of religion will serve him he uses it to catch his opponents trusts; when the
ancient morality is applicable he draws from it as from an armory of weapons. Of
the old Roman virtues he rejects honesty and justice, but selects gravity, fortitude
and prudence. The ancient Romans self-control, the iron will cold, calculating, cruel
these appeal to him. He speaks even of the enemies of Rome with admiration
Hannibal, who crossed the frosty Alps and preserved discipline in his motley horde
by means of inhuman cruelty. The Spartans also, are to be admired; like the Romans
they stood armed and free. Can you see in all these the cruel world of The U.S. in the
views of the 1990s George W. Bush and his associates?
End justifies all means. Force must be combined with astuteness. The Romans in

29
 the countries which they annexed kept down the greater powers and did not allow
any strong foreign princes to gain authority, while they sent colonies and maintained
friendly relations with the minor powers. In other words, although in politics there
were no perfectly safe courses, prudence consist in choosing the least dangerous
MODULE 2

ones. Here the wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great man, and
to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs,
UFND50

at least it will be the savior of it.

Principle of ethical plasticity. In this description Machiavelli shows that his ethical
principles are plastic; if morality will not serve try militarism of the right kind. But in
advocating variant means of to attain ones aim Machiavelli does not lose sight of his
own great aim. That aim was the purpose of a patriot of Italian union; Italy must be
redeemed by its own soldiers. Italy has been ruled many years by mercenaries and
the church.
Morals are weaker than arms. Here the author directs his Prince to consider the
way to govern cities or principalities which lived under their own laws before they
were annexed. The courses are opened: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside
in them in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a
tribute, and establishing within each an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you.
Of these three courses, the first would be morally the worst, but the means must be
judged by the result, for nothing succeeds like success. Consider the ancients. The
Spartans held Athens and Thebes by establishing there an oligarchy; nevertheless
they lost it. The Romans wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free
and permitting its laws, and did not succeed.
Prince not a moralist but as a moral duelist. The Prince should balance motives
in his mind as a swordsman balances the proffered weapon in his hand. The choice
of arms is important. The way to govern cities may be either ruin or residence. It may
be also force or fraud; anything goes.
The famous chapter of The Prince: Concerning Those Who Have Obtained a
Principality by Wickedness. In this is presented for imitation the ancient example
of one who by nefarious ways ascended to the principality. Agathocles, the Sicilian,
became king of Syracuse in the following way: one morning he assembled the
people and senate of Syracuse, as if he had to discuss with them things relating to
the Republic, and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and richest of
all the people; these dead, he seized and held the princedom of that city without any
commotion.
Has Machiavelli any moral concern? Hardly. It is merely a question of choice
between immediate success and subsequent reputation.
The famous chapter of The Prince, What Force Can Effect. Here Machiavelli goes
back to the ancient argument of fatalism, but meets its problems in the spirit different
from that of old. It is not by resignation but by shrewdness that the vicissitudes of
chance can be met. Fortune is the arbiter of one half of our actions, but she still
leaves us to direct the other half. Sometimes we can only repair the damage after
the damage is done, as in canalizing a stream whose floods have carried all before it.
But it is better to prepare than to repair. We must be ready for any eventualities and
alter our methods to meet fortunes fickle mood. Consequently it is necessary for the
Prince to have a mind to turn itself accordingly as the wind and variations of fortune
force it; not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then
to know how to set about it; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright,
and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may
be able to know how to change to the opposite. So a prince is often forced, in order
to maintain his state, to act contrary to fidelity, friendship, humanity and religion.

30
Mediaeval Morality failed. It was especially ineffective in practical politics and
a useless instrument for the ambitious patriot. He therefore gives this final advice:
When the entire safety of one country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or

MODULE 2
unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or shameful, must intervene. On the contrary,

UFND50
every other consideration being set aside, that course alone must be taken which
preserves the existence of the country and maintains its liberty.
Views Pro-and-Con to Machiavelli ethics
Machiavellis radical divorce of politics from ethics drew many reactions pro and
con. He was the first who divorces ethics from politics and vice versa since Aristotle
established an inseparable connection between these two fields. For Aristotle and
for centuries after him ethics was considered as an integral part of ethics and vice
versa. First time in the history of mankind, Machiavelli dared to do divorce politics
from ethics, starting thus a new tradition which will last until today: with him ethics
will never meet with politics until about the second half of the 20th century, with
Habermas.
Following Machiavelli, during his time and afterwards, commentators diverged.
Some called him a moral whether cock, advocate of a double standard of morality
one for the individual and another for the state. He has also been charged with
being a corrupter of political ethics whose book has the most harmful influence on
European history.
Such is the attack, now for the defense, or rather for an explanation of such a code
of immoralism. It may be said that Machiavelli is mentally honest. He is frankly
realistic; he simply describes things as he saw them about him. Francis Bacon, saw
his system as a presentation of things as they are. So in The Prince, we have simply
a codification of the practices in vogue. In accordance of the spirit of the times to
which Machiavelli appealed, a moral code binding on the subject is not binding on
the ruler. Machiavelli follows up the divorce of politics from theology, by a divorce
of politics from ethics. He was laying down certain maxims of government as an art;
the end of that art was the security and permanence of the ruling power; and the
fundamental principle from which he silently started, without shadow of doubt or
misgiving as to its soundness, was that the application of moral standards to this
business is as little to the point as it would be to the navigation of a ship.

Erasmus: Humanist Critique of Christian Morality

His life story
The great Renaissance humanist and scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was
born at either Rotterdam or Gouda in Holland, the illegitimate son of a priest. As a child
he studied at Gouda, and later he studied at Deventer with a humanist-modernist
pious order. Next he became an Augustinian friar and in 1492 was ordained a priest.
Disliking monastic life, in 1494 he became Latin secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai.
Next year he went to Paris to study theology, but he found both the life and scholastic
philosophy distasteful. In 1499 Erasmus went to England, where he became a close
friend of the humanist Thomas More and devoted himself to the study of the classics
and sacred literature, desiring to combine the new humanistic spirit based on the
revival of interest in the classics with Christian learning. In 1500 he returned to the
Continent and devoted himself to the study of Greek. From 1517 to 1521 Erasmus
stayed chiefly in Louvain, corresponding with humanistic scholars all over the world
and became the leading figure of the northern Renaissance. His influence spread all
over Europe.

31
 His Ethics
Erasmus, in his Praise of Folly, wittily criticizes church practices, monastic activities,
Scholasticism, popular religion, and so on. He also wanted to revive the original
intentions of the Church Fathers and The New Testament advocating a revolutionary
MODULE 2

movement for church reform. As the reform movement became more revolutionary,
UFND50

however, Erasmus tried to stay aloof from the struggles.

Erasmus ambiguous position in the religious struggles was probably the result of his
peculiar non-dogmatic point of view and his cautious attitude toward developments
in human affairs. Here are his major ethical points of emphases:
He claimed to advocate the philosophy of Christ, in contrast with the various kinds
of scholastic theories put forth by the Thomists, or the Augustians, whose views we
have seen above. Their (Thomists, and Augustinians ) technical discussions about
the nature of baptism, grace and the freedom of the will left him entirely unmoved.
Rather than take their arguments analyses seriously and present refutations, Erasmus
attempted to undermine the whole scholastic approach with the force of his ridicule.
In place of the philosophical and theological systems of his time Erasmus set forth
his philosophy of Christ, to be arrived at by pious study rather than disputations. His
ethics was supposed to represent the simple and essential message of Christianity
in its spirit rather than its letter; it was a message to be lived, not to be formulated in
abstract systems. It was a non-doctrinal religion, a religion without theology, which
could be approached through the early Church Fathers and the morality of the New
Testament but not through the morass of distinctions, terminology, and theory built
up in the Middle Ages. This outlook had a great impact on the most liberal reformers
and the non-doctrinal mystics.
Erasmus on the Reformation Ethics of Luther
Erasmus, who was so fully aware of the foibles of man, was also extremely cautious
about the genuine possibilities for reform or constructive improvement in man and
his institutions. So he stayed away from the practice of the Reformation. He told
Luther, I always freely submit my judgment to the decision of the Church whether I
grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes.
Erasmus influence. Although Erasmus can hardly be classified as a professional
philosopher, he influenced the course of philosophy and ethics in many ways. His
humanistic scholarship greatly affected the European educational system band,
both personally through many of his writings, Erasmus encouraged the revival of the
ancient ethics of Aristotle and Plato.
He was the source of many new ideas and theories that became part of the
intellectual revolutions of Renaissance.
Erasmus ridicule of Scholasticism, although a hardly philosophical refutation of
either of its methods or its doctrines, created the generally accepted view that the
medieval approach to ethical questions was trivial and useless; he made it difficult
for many intellectuals to take seriously the views of Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine.
Herald of Enlightenment. Besides teaching future generations to scoff at the
achievements of the medieval school of philosophers, Erasmus also had a major role
in creating the critical spirit that culminated in the Enlightenment. Through his satire
in The Praise of Folly, Erasmus popularized a critical and questioning attitude toward
accepted mores, institutions, opinions and texts that was to flourish in many forms
in the next centuries, undermining confidence in almost every area of traditional
achievement.

32
 A conservative radical. Thus Erasmus, who was essentially conservative by nature,
and who shunned almost all theoretical or philosophical discussions, not even wishing
systematically to oppose dogmatism with skepticism, as many other opponents of
scholasticism later did, was one of the most influential figures of the 16th century in

MODULE 2
changing the entire intellectual climate of opinion and in establishing the direction
in which modern thought developed.

UFND50
Thomas More: Utopia
His life
St. Thomas More (1478-1535) was a lawyer and statesman rather than philosopher.
More was born the son of a London judge. He was educated at Oxford and at early
age, was elected to Parliament. He became Lord Chancellor but disputed with the
King about Catholic Anglican Churches. He was beheaded for his refusal to recognize
the King as the head of the Anglican Church.
This section examines his work Utopia from the perspective of a moral philosophy. In
this book he created a vision of an ideal state in which war and all glories connected
with it is criticized. The prince and all magistrates are elected. Nothing is private. All
work and all enjoyment are shared. There is no oppression, neither industrial nor
political-religious. Indirectly the British political life is criticized.
Let us first summarize the story of Utopia, and then the ethical implications of the
book are in order.
Utopia
More made up the word utopia putting together two Greek words together, one
being topoi which means place, the other is a combination of two prefix, eu
meaning good and ou meaning non-existent. Thus meaning of utopia roughly
corresponds to: a good place that which is non-existent. Before starting the story
of Utopia, let us mention Britannicas definition of Utopia: An ideal land whose
inhabitants live in a perfect (let us read perfect as also ethically perfect) world.
Utopia is a non-existent island, whose story is as follows:
Dialogue in the Council. The fictive character is the story teller Rafael. Rafael
starts the dialogue complaining the moral decadence in the world of Europe of the
time. Rafael continues complaining about the kings habit of starting wars with no
good reason and their uncaring and unnecessary wasteful spending of the poor
peoples taxes. He also criticizes death penalty given for theft, arguing that poor
people, although not justified in stealing food or other goods, do not deserve death
penalty. He also argues that, a thief, knowing that he will be killed when caught, will
nevertheless continue to steal, moreover he will say, commit worse crimes: in order
not to leave a witness behind, he may also kill the owners of the house he broke
into. Hence for many different ethical reasons death penalty must be abolished. He
suggests also that the main reason of theft is the governments bad land and farming
policies; governments confiscate the peasants properties in order to give them to
big landlords for the purposes of grazing meadows for their cattle and sheep herds.
Let us remember that at the time England was the forerunner of textile industry in
the world.
Next argument of Rafael is as follows: all these immoral acts and deeds of the
politicians will end if politicians are chosen from philosophers. This is an argument
we also remember from Platos utopia of the dialogue The Republic. Rafael says that
he agrees on this point with Plato. Rafael continues also criticizing the philosophers
and theologians of the time, saying that these thinkers instead of talking about
abstract but useless discussions, should concentrate on the concrete and urgent

33
 social, political and economic problems, and proposing some concrete solutions.
The sland of Utopia consists of 54 towns, each comprising 6000 households.
In each household, 10-16 people live. Private ownership is abolished. All the
valuable goods are kept in a common depot. So anyone who is in need of some
MODULE 2

goods provided in accordance with the equitable distribution principle is allocated.

UFND50

The household residency is limited with ten years, and they are changed accordingly,
so that no one feels any property ownership sense psychologically. Moreover none
of the houses have any lock in their doors. The most endeared preoccupation of the
island is farming. Each citizen has to stay and work in a farm for at least two years.
Besides, each citizen, man or women must be specialized in one of the following
artisanship: carpentry, weaving-textile, blacksmithing, bricklaying and or iron
workmanship. Everyone who is physically able must work six hours a day. Everyone
wears simple uniform clothing.
Strangely enough, there is system of slavery in the island of Utopia. Each
household owns two slaves. Slaves are either criminals or foreigners. Criminals were
chained with golden chains. Thus people would associate crime with gold causing
people to dislike gold at the same time making the gold asset of the island all
visible at the feet of slaves. Material wealth and money is something that must be
abhorred and hence deterred. Money was necessary only to buy necessary goods
from the other countries and or to bribe foreigners so that they fight and war among
themselves.
Other innovations in the Utopia are the following: All medical and health services
are free of charge. Euthanasia is legal but requires permission by the state. Priests are
allowed to get married. Divorce is also permitted. Punishment for sex before marriage
is to remain bachelor during life time. Punishment of adultery is slavery. The rules are
simple and clear, and therefore everyone is his-her own lawyer.
Ethical implications of Utopia
Utopia is a defense of the idea of tolerance which is something that is lacking in
Scholastic dogmatism. Thus for More, Scholastic thinking is a version dogmatist
authoritarianism.
Utopia is governed by the Scholastic idea of God, but a rational idea of the human
mind.
The social, political and economic order of Utopia is an ideal, just and ethical order.
Such a model of society is an implicit criticism of the unjust social political and
economic order of England of the time. Women and children were working 20 hour
a day at the early beginnings of capitalism of the time. In the Utopia women can
become even priests.
Utopia is also a critique of the unjust monarchical political system of the time. In
this system nobles and clergy were exempt from tax, while peasants and the workers
were heavily taxed. This way, peasants were losing their lands and being forced to
migrate to big cities, where they were either being exploited in factories as cheap
workload, or being forced to become street-dwelling thieves.
The name of the story-teller of Utopia, Rafael is also the name of one of the five arch-
angels in the Bible; Rafael is the savoir angel. Thus More aims at giving a message of
relief to the oppressed people of England with this metaphoric name.

Reformation Morality
The years 1520-1660 is known as Reformation period in the European ntellectual
history. Around the beginnings of 16th century, feudalism in Europe disappeared

34
completely, giving way to kingdoms based on nation-states. Despite this fundamental
political change, the Catholic Church of Rome still reined its universal leadership in
the Christian world. This monopoly of authority is first broken by the movement
called Protestant Reformation initiated by Martin Luther. The century following

MODULE 2
Reformation witnessed bloody religious wars between Catholics and Protestants
called Hundred Years and Thirty Years wars. Following these wars, the Western

UFND50
world began to take its present day modern shape.
How did Luthers religious humanism progress and how did it affect and criticize
Scholasticism based upon Catholic Church doctrine? As we have seen earlier in this
module, the morality in the Middle Ages is a result of the Christianization of the ethics
of Plato and Aristotle. Renaissance philosophers such as Erasmus and More aimed
at criticizing this morality. Luther too aimed at criticizing this Christian morality
with his Protestant morality and its principles based on the idea of back to Christ!
Augustine, Erasmus and More too based their criticisms of Scholastic morality on
the idea of Back to Christ! but they did this on a personal level of rebellion. Luthers
moral views too were on a personal level, but following his death is transformed into
a massive social, political and religious revolt, creating an age called Reformation.
The story of Luthers Revolt
Martin Luther (1483-1546) is born of a miners son in Saxony. He first started his
education as law school, but later left law school and chose to study theology and
became a priest. He then went on studying philosophy and theology at the University
of Wittenberg and worked as a professor of philosophy and theology at the same
time there.
Luther was very much influenced by the late Middle Ages and Renaissance humanist
philosophers such as Augustine and Erasmus who had already questioned the
Christian Catholic doctrines o Scholasticism. The main argument he pursued is as
follows: The question he asked himself was that if God is good and graceful, salvation
could not be achieved with what the Catholic Church asked from believers, that is
work for the Church. Catholic Church asked from believers to devote all of their lives
in order to reach salvation. Luther concluded that the foundation of Christianity is
not work but love. And the matter of salvations is a personal matter between God
and man. The Church is illegitimately assigns itself the role of a broker between
God and man. Love of God is the sole way to salvation. This idea of personal salvation
constitutes the founding principle of Protestant belief and morality.
Inspired by this fundamental idea, he put on the door of a Church near the University
of Wittenberg, where he was an instructor, what is later called Ninety-Five Theses.
This a declaration of his revolt or protest against the Roman Church. As a result he
was ex-communicated by the Roman Church and had to live in hide out for some
years.
During this time, he translated Bible into German. This was the first translation of
Bible into a national language. In 1518, he wrote a book called Appeal to the Nobility
of the German Nation, in which he called all Germans to unite against the authority
of the Roman Catholic Church.
Luther sets the new principle of his Protestant Church as follows:
Monasteries are banned.
The authority of the Pope as the sole spiritual leader of the Christians is rejected.
All of the rituals and ceremonies of the Church except baptism are banned.
The idea that the Clergy as a mediator authority between God and man is rejected.
The idea of personal salvation based on love of God is confirmed.

35
 Prayers should be conducted in German and not in Latin.
Luthers Protestant Morality
Luthers view of morality, as different from the Neo-Platonic and Neo-Aristotelian
MODULE 2

Middle-Ages morality, is not communal, social or political but personal. Here

community is merely a social scene in which personal salvation takes place. Within
UFND50

this individual-personal framework, the main points of Luthers ethics are as follows:
According to Luther human reason is contaminated by sin. For this reason we
cannot trust our reason and emotions. Our personal salvation is possible only when
we leave our reason and emotions behind and embrace Gods love and grace. Luther
insists that a true Christian is someone who is able to destroy his reason. This view
that happiness can only be attained by faith and love of God is obviously against the
ethical tradition of Plato and Aristo, which are based on reason.
Because salvation is possible by faith alone, ethical deeds and actions are secondary
to the source of these deeds, which is faith or revelation. This means that there is no
such thing as virtuous or ethically good act since salvation is something granted by
the divine grace. Luther expresses his anti-reason feelings as follows: All Christians
must destroy reason in their souls! In this respect, for Luther, Plato and Aristotle are
two evil minded clowns who misled the Christian Church.
For Luther the fact that God is good cannot be questioned: He is good even when
He gives the worst decisions; even his wrath is good.
The most important idea of Luther is insistence on the principle of secularism.
According to this principle, State and the Church are two separate and independent
institutions. State must be independent from religion and religion must be
independent from State. This principle of Protestant Churches all around Europe,
helped secularism, and hence democracies in Protestant countries during the next
two centuries.

Summary
Aim 1
To explain the ethical views of the ancient Greek and far Eastern
Cultures
Main points of Socrates ethics:
According to Socrates virtue is knowledge based on innate human reason; therefore
it can be learned and taught.
There is no distinction between value and knowledge: ethics is knowledge.
Dialectical or dialogical method. Socrates thinks that ethics (virtues) is knowledge,
therefore it can be put and formulated into clear and distinct definitions just lke
any other scientific knowledge. So there is no difference between the method of
defining what a particular virtue (such as justice or courage) and a say, lemon. And
the method of arriving at the right definition of a virtue is dialogue, or as Socrates
calls it mauetic method. In order to reach the right definition of a virtue, he follows
a three-step dialectical method: in the first step, Socrates pretends that he knows
nothing about the definition of a particular virtue such as justice, and challenges
the participants to define that virtue. He then takes each response and shows the
contradictions in their definitions of that particular virtue. Lastly, he puts together
all the counter arguments and reaches a final definitive definition of that particular
virtue.

36
 Socratic paradox. Ethics of Socrates leads us to a strange paradox: no one wants to
harm himself knowingly and deliberately. If so, when someone makes an ethically
bad choice, he does this because he doesnt know that it is an ethically bad choice.
Therefore he cannot be held responsible for this act. That means that someone who

MODULE 2
appears bad is not bad but merely unknowing the right way of action.

UFND50
Main Point of Platos Ethics
Platos ethics is an off shot of his theory of Ideas or Forms. According to this theory
the highest Idea or Form is that of the Good. Here the sole regulative Idea of the good
regulates the lower Ideas or Forms of all other virtues such as justice, courage, etc.
Main Points of Aristotles Ethics
Ethics of Aristotle is based on the concepts of Eudomonia (happiness) and
Arete (virtue), But as different from both Socrates and Plato, Aristotles ethics is
practical knowledge, or practical wisdom (phronesis). Practical wisdom is a kind ok
knowledge which cannot be taught. To acquire it one must practice virtues in his
daily life constantly.
Golden mean. A human being in his acquisition of practical wisdom, practices
virtues according to this principle. Golden mean is acting in the mean of two extreme
form of a virtue.
Main Points of Epicurean Ethics (Hedonism)
Hedonism views the end (telos) of life as seeking after pleasure and avoidance of
pain
Pleasure is defined as avoidance of physical pain and mental confusion.
Pleasures have a hierarchic order among themselves: Higher pleasures are
intellectual and esthetic, whereas lower pleasures are bodily, such as eating, sex, etc.
Being virtuous is the source of mental and spiritual peace and serenity. Virtue is not
a duty but rather the pleasures gained by contemplation and friendship.
Main Points of Cynic Ethics: Back to Nature and Seclusion
Cynics take seclusion, solitude and a life in nature as basic requirements of a virtuous
life.
Cynics liken mass thinking to herd mentality; basic social and religious values of
civilization are herd values and therefore cannot be accepted. For a Cynic nature and
ones self is sufficient for a virtuous life.
Main Points of Stoic Ethics: Determinism and Character
Determinism: Stoic view looks at life in a deterministic way. According to
determinism, universe is a cosmic machine, and in this machine whatever happens
happen necessarily; there is no room for accidents or chances.
For this reason, we have no say in nature; all we can, to be happy, is not to interfere
or meddle with nature, but rather, live in accordance with it. This is the only way to
happiness. Conversely, to think that human beings can change the laws of nature is
the cause of misery and unhappiness.
Character: Ones character is the sum total of his virtuous behaviors. In this sense
Stoics believe that one must condition oneself by restricting bad unethical behaviors
and develop and foster good and virtuous behaviors.
Main Point of Confucius Ethics

37
 Happiness for Confucius morality is not the individualistic eudomonia of the Greek
ethics, but the social and communal responsibility of man to his environment.
Humanly behavior (Ren) is well intention and treating others with respect and
dignity. It also includes trusting others and making others trust oneself politeness
MODULE 2

and making others feel valuable in your presence.

UFND50

Hierarch of human relations. Ones foremost responsibility is to ones own family

members. Responsibility to children, elderly and women come next.
Main Points of Mencius Ethics and its Differences From Confucius
Ethics
As different from Confucius Mencius defends the thesis that an unjust Sovereign can
be revolted against and overthrown by the oppressed people. For Confucius under
no circumstances, people have a right to revolt against the absolute Sovereign.
Mencius ethics claims that man is innately good.
Main Points of Taoism
Tao is the rule of grand unity of all universes.
Yin-Yang is name of this unity of polar oppositions in the universe.
Man reaches perfection of soul by living in conformity with the nature and with the
rule og grand unity.
Main Points of Buddhism
Buddhism believe that resurrection and eternal recurrence of man in the six level of
existence.
Nirvana is the perfection of soul which saves man from entering this eternal cycle
of six levels of existence. Those who reach Nirvana break out of this eternal cycle, do
not come back to Earth and rest in heaven infinitely.
Aim 2
To be able to explain the major moral views of Middle Ages Christian and Islamic
cultures, ethics of Renaissance and Reformation.
Scholastic Thought and Christian Theology
Scholasticism is the foundation of the morality of the Middle Ages. Its aim is to use
reason in the service of faith and revelation.
According to Scholastic thought reason is not sufficient for knowing truth. Reason in
some cases is even harmful since it tries to foreshadow the true source of knowledge
that is faith.
The prime source of all knowledge is not reason but faith.
Moral views in the Middle Ages are based upon Scholastic assumptions given above,
as in Augustine and Aquinas.
The teachings of the Christian Church too are based upon Scholastic assumptions.
Main Points of Augustines Moral Views
Augustines moral views are an amalgam of Platos and Aristotles ethical
views. Augustine brings these views in a Scholastic form. Platos idea of the Good
becomes Augustines idea of God.

38
 In the City of God, Augustine claims that people when alive on earth, either live in
the spiritual city of God, or in the material city of man. Those who live in the city of
God will be rewarded with heaven.
Problem of evil. God is all powerful but He bestowed man with a free will, so man is

MODULE 2
responsible from the evil existing in this world.

UFND50
Main Points of Aquinas Moral Views
In Summa Theologica, Aquinas takes Aristotles vies on natural law and teleology
and interprets them according to Christian Scholasticism. According to Aquinas
the aim (telos) of man is to attain the highest Good in achieving happiness. But as
different from Aristotle, this highest Good can only be achieved not in this world but
in the afterlife, in Heavens.
Mans happiness depends on his living in accordance with the laws of nature.
Aquinas is the first great philosopher who developed Aristotles idea of natural law
into a full theory of ethics.
Main Points of Farabis Moral Views
Happiness is the aim of ethics as mans telos.
The highest Good is not in this world but can be attained in the other world.
Anything which brings us closer to the highest good is good, anything which moves
us away from it is evil.
Mevlanas Dialectic of Good and Evil
For God good and evil is absolute, but for humans they are relative concept: we
define them according to our preferences as good or bad.
God and evil have a dialectical relationship: good cannot exist without evil and vice
versa.
Good-evil dialectic is necessary for man to attain moral perfection. Without
experiencing and knowing what evil is, one cannot know what good is.
Human life is a struggle for becoming an ethical being.
Machiavellis Politics Without Ethics
In Prince, Machiavelli states the supreme principle of politics as End justifies all
means! This means that a Sovereign must do whatever necessary to keep his
sovereignty intact, including unethical thing including, lying, cheating and even
killing.
This way first time in the history of ideas ethics was expelled from politics. Since
Aristotle, even in the Middle Ages, ethics was always considered as an integral part
of politics.
Machiavellis conception of mans nature too is very negative. Human beings are
innately evil creatures who want to abuse and mistreat one another. The soveregn
should not even trust his closest relatives.
Erasmus Book In Praise of Folly and Critique of Scholasticism
The purpose of the book is to ridicule and criticize the Christian Church and
Scholastic thought.
He is the defender of Renaissance humanism against the folly of the Christian
Scholastic thought.

39
 Theologians and Scholastic thinkers were presenting idiocy as virtue thus misleading
the masses.
The Christian idea of happiness by salvation is an utterly idiotic concept.
MODULE 2

The idea of humanism is going back to the simple virtues of early Christianity: Back
to Christ!
UFND50

Mores Book Utopia.

The aim of Utopia is to criticize the dogmatism of Scholastic thought, and put the
idea of tolerance up against this dogmatism.
Utopia is a land governed purely by reason. This means that this land gives priority
to ethics, justice and liberal governance.
Utopia is also a criticism of Englands political system which is based on the
exploitation of the masses by the nobles and clergy, tax injustices and heavy working
conditions of children and women.
Luthers Protestant Morality
Mans desires and reason is contaminated with the original sin. For this reason we
cannot trust our reason and feelings. Personal salvation is only possible with the love
of God, Gods grace, and resistance to desires and reason through faith and revelation.
Happiness comes not from reason but from faith and revelation.
Secularism is defended as a principle of giving Gods due to God, Cesars due to
Cesar. This means that state and church cannot interfere with one anothers business.
Luthers idea of secularism helped the rapid development secularism if the following
century amomg the Protestant nations all around Europe.

Self-Test
1. The name of the ethics of the middle ages is called scholastic ethics. Which of the
following is wrong for the scholastic thought?
a. The source of ethical knowledge is reason.
b. The source of ethical knowledge is revelation.
c. The source of ethical knowledge is faith.
d. Reason is in the service of faith.

2. Which of the following describes best the difference between the ethics of ancient
Greece and Europe of the middle-ages?
a. Antic Greek ethics emphasizes the cyclical temporality while middle ages
ethical thought assumes linear temporality.
b. Antic Greece ethics as different from middle ages claims that man is created in
the image of God.
c. Antic Greece as different from middle ages claims faith as the only source of
ethics.
d. Antic Greek ethics as different from middle ages claims that happiness is in the
otherworld.

40
3. Machiavelli excludes ethics from politics. Which of the following is wrong for
Machiavellis ethics?
a. End justifies all means.
b. Survival of the state is more important than ethics.

MODULE 2
c. A bad father cannot be a good statesman.

UFND50
d. The sovereign can lie to his people.

4. Which of the following is not among Erasmus critique of the Christian Churchs
morality?
a. Scholastic theologians present immorality as a virtue.
b. Kings are treating their subjects badly.
c. Religious rituals are against the spirit of true Christianity.
d. Scholastic thought is folly.

5. Which of the following is not among Mores ideas in Utopia?

a. The idea tolerance.
b. Ethical hedonism.
c. Absolute monarchy is unjust.
d. Utopia is governed by pure reason.

6. Which of the following is not an idea of the Enlightenment?

a. Fight against superstition.
b. Mans security and happiness.
c. The idea of tolerance.
d. The idea of otherworldliness.

7. Which of the following is wrong for Kants duty ethics?

a. Categorical imperative is the foundation of ethics.
b. The highest good is rational will.
c. Ethics is unrelated to the intention of the agent.
d. The highest good is happiness.

8. Which of the following propositions is true for Kants ethics?

a. Categorical imperative is conditional.
b. Categorical imperative may change depending on the peoples culture.
c. The goal of ethics is to discover universal maxims of moral action.
d. The goal of ethics is happiness.

9. Which of the following is true for Mills utilitarian ethics?

a. The goal of ethics is being virtuous.
b. The goal of ethics is to discover universal maxims of moral action.
c. Ethical person is the one who intend to do ethical deeds.
d. Ethical action is the one which provides maximum utility to people.

41
 10. Dewey criticizes the traditional ethics. Which of the following is not one of these
criticisms?
a. Science ethics distinction.
b. Means ends distinction.
MODULE 2

c. Separation of ethical goods from other kinds of goods.

UFND50

d. Being rational.

Bibliography
W. Riley, Man and Morals; The Story of Ethics, Ungar, New-York, 1960
E. Zeller, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, Meridian Books, New-York,
1965

Key to Self-Test
1.a ; 2.a. ;3.c. ;4.b. ; 5.b ; 6.d ;7.d ;8.c ;9.d ;10.d

42
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 3:
HISTORY OF ETHICS 2: FROM 17TH
CENTURY TO 20TH CENTURY

Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden

Yaar University

Key Terms
Enlightenment Utilitarianism
Rationalism Pragmatism
Progress Romanticism
Cosmology Existentialism
Secularism Over man
Tolerance Will to power
Categorical imperative Bad faith

Aims
By the time you finish this module,
You will be able to comprehend, discuss and criticize the ethical views of
Enlightenment,
You will be able to comprehend, discuss, and criticize the ethical views of anti-
Enlightenment philosophers.
 After the Renaissance and Reformation, especially with the influence of Luthers
idea of individual-personal salvation, and hence individualist, ethics, the idea of
happiness is completely cut off from the social and or communitarian connotations.
The idea of individualism and individual economic entrepreneur even fortified
MODULE 3

this individualistic view of ethics. Other factors influencing the new ethics are the
scientific developments of 17th century especially the ones in physics and astronomy.
UFND50

Newtons physics gave philosophers new ideas concerning the mechanisms of

universe as a perfectly operating giant machine, together with the idea of universal
laws of nature which could provide perfect model for ethical principles. So in Europe,
the age called Enlightenment or Age of Reason, or Illumination has started. It
was also an age of curiosity and wonder: people wanted to experience everything
including their individualism which they had forgotten during the dark Middle Ages.
They realized now that they were all misled in the name of God, religion or Church.
What was reason really? This is the fundamental question of Enlightenment. Reason
was forgotten since the time of Plato and Aristotle, and it was high time to remember
it! The main framework of Enlightenment ethics therefore is to discover reason in
relation to ethical behavior and replace the scholastic assumptions with that of
rational ones. Ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Mill and other Enlightenment philosophers
will just do that.
History of ideas has strange turns and twists: just the way the Enlightenment ideas
of the 17th, 18th centuries was a reaction to the scholastic dogmatism, the 19th
century ethical and philosophical ideas (at least some of them) are a reaction to the
Enlightenment dogmatism of Reason. In the first quarter of 19th century, witnessed
a movement of reaction to the Enlightenment idea rationalism called Romanticism.
Romantic reaction to Enlightenment was in literature and art more than philosophy.
Romanticism emphasized human feelings and emotions as against reason and
deliberation. For them nature is not what the rationalist or empiricist Enlightenment
philosophers make us believe: cold, mechanical, law-governed order of universe.
Nature was rather a part of human nature which was emotional, beautiful, intuitive
and spiritual.
In the field of ethical thinking, too a reaction against the Enlightenment ethics of
Kantian and the Utilitarian ethics was developed in the 2nd half of 19th century with
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Such anti-Enlightenments also continued until mid-20th
century with the ethics of Existentialism and Sartre.
Finally, within this module, ethical views of the 2nd half of 20th century which are
against the Enlightenment ethics, but not against reason (or irrational). These include
. the pragmatic ethics of Dewey and virtue ethics of McIntyre, as well as feminist ethics
of Nussbaum. So this is a full-fledged, heavy-loaded module.

Ethics of Enlightenment: 17th, 18th, and 19th

Centuries
The Fundamental Characteristics of Enlightenment Thought
Enlightenment covers the time period between the 2nd half of 17th and the end of
the 18th (circa 1650 to 1800) century in Europe. It replaces the old Scholastic God
centered world with Reason, Reason replaces God; that means that Reason is the new
God as the focus of all human action and thought. The age of Enlightenment in France
is called The Age of Reason (Lage de raison) in reference to great French rationalist
Rene Descartes. In Germany, the translation of the English word enlightenment
Aufklarung is used. In England the French word illimunation, (written the same way)
is used. In Turkish, the translation of the words enlightenment or the age of reason
are used. This period of enlightenment is the beginning of Western modernity, which

2
is great intellectual revolution that gave modern mind its temper and spirit. Modern
man rejecting medieval scholasticism and theology as the final authority, now sought
to interpret the universe, the world and himself in terms of reason and logic.
The gradual change from the medieval scholastic climate of opinion to modernity

MODULE 3
is accompanied by the sovereign nation state, absolute monarchy, representative

UFND50
government, diverse Christian sects, commercial capitalism, and politically conscious
bourgeoisie. Along with these new institutions came a distinct cultural transformation,
reflecting the new age. This new world required new patterns of thought. A brief
comparison of the age of enlightenment mentality with the previous periods which
we have examined is in order:
The Greek philosophers used reason mostly they descended into skepticism,
whereas the rationalists, considered as a group, saw no limit to their ability to attain
the truth.
The medieval thinker had turned to theology for answers to the problems of the
universe and life; the rationalists preferred to rely on science and reason.
The humanists of Renaissance, while strongly influenced by classical freedom of
inquiry, were more interested in man himself than in nature. They attacked the old
scholasticism because of its continued emphasis on theology, but they little attention
to the natural laws that attracted the attention of the rationalists.
During the Reformation, the agents of the various Protestant sects substituted for
the old medieval orthodoxy with their own national types of dogma, and sought for
absolute, revealed truth in the Bible. The rationalists on the other hand, turned away
from faith and revelation, and attempted deliberately to change existing institutions
traditions and standards.
One cannot reduce the Enlightenment to a single doctrine or theory, but the most
general characteristics of the age can be listed in a succinct way as follows:
The secularization of learning and mass education: Where medieval philosophers
and theologians interpreted the universe and man in terms of the Scriptures,
rationalists turned to the secularization of knowledge. The source of knowledge, they
insisted, was not revelation, but reason, that is, mathematics and logic.
The age of reason is also responsible of mass education. If it had contributed nothing
else, this achievement would have made it one of the truly creative moments of
history.
Faith in reason: Enlightenment or the Age of Reason was an age of faith in the
rational behavior of nature and absolute and universal scientific laws. Rationalism
sees Reason as God-like omnipotent arbiter of all things, as a powerful and beneficial
guide superior to all traditional authority. Man was destined, they say, to use his
reason in solving the manifold mysteries of nature and his own mind.
Utilitarianism: The spirit of Enlightenment was utilitarian and practical. Human
beings, said the rationalist, should promote their happiness and welfare by remaking
their lives and institutions on this earth. As we will see in the section on utilitarian
ethics, for the man of enlightenment that which is useful is good. And man deserves
the blessing of life, liberty and property.
Separe Aude (use your own mind!) Confidence. This motto is Kants famous
definition of Enlightenment. Kant and his ethics is a part of the enlightenment
idea of autonomy of reason. He is not a utilitarian but a fierce defender of universal
and immutable rational ethics. As we will see in the following sections, the period
of enlightenment is a battlefield of utilitarian and Kantian-type of ethical views. So
Enlightenment includes anti-utilitarian conceptions of life and happiness. But the

3
 idea of confidence is common both to utilitarian and the Kantian philosophers.
They both were enthusiastically confident of their power of understanding. They
both were convinced that man is intrinsically good and that he is able to achieve
happiness. They both aimed at freeing the human mind from nearly two thousand
MODULE 3

years of restraint and authority.

UFND50

Optimism and Self Confidence: The rationalists were supremely confident and
optimist men, fully convinced of their ability to discover natural laws and to perfect
the world and life in accordance with them. Science was still in its early stages and
there was much to be learned, but these self-assured men were exalted by their
discovery of a new religion (REASON) for mankind.
Meaning of Rationalism: Reason written by the rationalists with a capital R
was enthroned on the seat once held by God, tradition and authority. A correct
understanding of the Enlightenment hinges on the meaning of the term rationalism.
Rationalism is a comprehensive attitude to various theoretical and practical matters, to
individual and social life, which aims at interpreting them purely in terms of thought,
and in accordance of principles of reason and to eliminate from consideration, as far
as possible, anything irrational. This means that reason is a source of knowledge in
itself, superior to and independent of sense perceptions.
Cosmology: The new rationalist world-view set up a cosmology radically different
from projected by the Greeks or by Augustine and Aquinas. It was a new concept
of man, his existence on earth, and the place of the earth in the universe. Newtons
universal law of nature, subsequently tested and elaborated mathematically, gave a
new direction to man in the march of civilization.
Scientific Method. There was established during the Enlightenment a new scientific
method with emphasis on mathematical and statistical analysis, experimentation,
and observation. Men perplexed by the mysteries of universe and the complexities
of human behavior were convinced now that they had found the golden key to
knowledge. They fashioned a new age of faith and science. But technology as the
application of science to practical matters was yet to come.
Secularism as a way of life: The application of the methods of science to religion
and philosophy and the secularization of politics, morality, and ethics are now widely
considered to be no less subject to fixed formula than astronomy and physics. The
rationalists held all institutions to be amenable to natural law, and urged that all such
institutions be investigated, criticized, and explained in terms of the new pattern of
rationalism. Both religion and rationalism were systems of moral values, dedicated
to answering the vital questions; both had essentially the same ethical questions
and goals; both had similar conceptions of good and evil. But the final spirit of the
Enlightenment was clearly hostile to religion and the answers given by religion to
these questions.
Tolerance: The 18th century witnessed great struggle against intolerance and
its devastating effects. The idea of tolerance preached strongly by the rationalists
(especially by the philosophes of the French), was a mighty step forward in the
ethical pilgrimage of mankind.
Freedom: The modern battle against despotism and for freedom of thought and
expression began in the program of the rationalists. Emancipated themselves, they
dedicated themselves to the idea of bringing liberty to all mankind.
Legal Reform: It was the further glory of the rationalists that they sought reform
of laws in the direction of justice, kindness, and charity, as well as relaxation of
persecutions debtors and the delinquent. Montesquieus ideas were most imperative
on these steps.

4
In this module, the ethical views of great Enlightenment philosophers will be
examined: Spinoza, Kant the utilitarian Mill-Bentham. The module also includes the
anti-Enlightenment ethics of other philosophers such as pragmatist Dewey.

Ethics of Spinoza

MODULE 3
UFND50
Spinozas life story
The rationalist philosopher Benedictus Brauch Spinoza (1632-1677) was born
in Amsterdam, Holland. His family had fled from Portugal to escape Catholic
persecution, but even in relatively tolerant Holland his own views excited hostility.
He was expelled from the Jewish community for heresy. Later he was attacked by
Christian theologians because of his radical views about the Bible, and was banned
in 1674. Because of such attacks Spinozas major work, the Ethics did not appear until
1677, after his death.
As a Jew, Spinoza had relatively few ties with his Dutch neighbors. He refused a
university post (Heidelberg) on the grounds that attachment to an institution would
hinder his freedom of though and expression. Instead, he earned his living by grinding
and polishing lenses. This occupation was also responsible for his untimely death by
filling his lungs with dust of grinded glass.
Spinoza, like Plato, Aristotle and Descartes, believed that reason was the source
of human nature and existence. From the viewpoint of ethics this means that any
reasoning or act which is not founded on reason and logic cannot be an ethically
sound judgment or act. Similarly, all desires and emotions too must be controlled by
reason in order to be ethically correct.
Ethics
Spinoza reduces what most other philosophers call ethics to psychology. And this
requires us to examine his views on what he calls Conatus and conative aspect of
mind. Here are some of main steps of his arguments:
The most important characteristic of every modification of nature (including the
nature of mind) is its conatus, its striving to persist in its own essence. In man, as in
every other natural modification, there is an inherent tendency to react to all changes
in a way that maintains its characteristic unity and equilibrium. A man differs from
animals in being self-conscious in this endeavor.
Spinoza developed a theory of motivation about passions of human soul. He
postulated earlier that whenever a body is acted on by another body, its vitality
may be increased, may be diminished or may remain constant. The awareness of
these occurrences is the mental aspect of the psychophysical states which are called
emotions.
There are thus three primary emotions to increase, diminution and maintenance
of bodily vitality. These are joy (Leatitia), grief (Tristitia), and desire (Cupiditas). As a
result of experience men tend to keep before them what will increase their vitality
and remove what will decrease it. Love is thus defined as joy accompanied by the
idea of an external cause.
Spinoza then draws a sharp distinction between the passive emotions which
characterizes the first grade of knowledge and the active ones which mark the
second or third grades.
In the first grade of knowledge, men are passive when the cause of changes in them
lies outside of them. In this state of human bondage the emotions which accompany
confused, fragmentary ideas are thrust on people; they tend to be sporadic,

5
 unpredictable, inordinate and obsessive. Men are subject to panic, jealousy, and
overmastering loves and hates.
When a man passes to the second grade of knowledge, however, his vitality is
increased, and there is a distinctive form of joy which goes with the use of reason.
MODULE 3

The explanation of mans conduct is now to be sought within him, in his clear
UFND50

understanding of the world and of his relations to it. By understanding himself,

including his own emotions and history, as part of the system of nature, a man can
attain a kind of freedom which depends on his acceptance of his own nature.
Man is then, in the third grade of knowledge, capable of rational self-love and
rational benevolence and can have the greatest good which he can possess: the
knowledge of the union which the mind has with the rest of nature. The attainment
of this third state brings its own delight and happiness.
In making suggestions for attaining this state of happiness, Spinoza anticipated
many of the psychoanalytic techniques of 20th century psychoanalytic theories. For
instance he suggested that many of our irrational reactions could be traced back to
an early reaction to an object to which the present object had become associated
by irrelevant similarities. He is not suggesting that by thought control we can
eliminate negative emotions, but rather suggests that knowing the original cause
of this association can make us aware of ourselves. And this is an important step
for us to control our future reactions to our emotions and to others ill treatments
towards us. For example I know that I hate something irresistibly. But if I can go back
by rolling back technique to the sources of my hatred, I can respond to that thing I
hate differently, by restraining my feelings.
Emotions restrain emotions best: Sun technique. We all are sometime or another
under the possession of negative feelings and emotions. Spinoza suggests that a
negative emotion such as grief may be restrained by a positive emotive stimulus
which makes our body or soul feel good may eradicate that negative emotion.
Astronomy tells us that sun is huge, but if we put our thumb in front of our eyes, the
sun disappears, at least it doesnt hurt our eyes. Similarly our higher feelings such
as nobility, justice, pity or pride, makes such effects of thumb protecting us from
feeling grief or pain.
Advice to irrational people: Spinoza says that the levels of rationality differ from
people to people; some men are more rational than others, and conversely, some men
are more irrational than others. Spinoza calls irrational people poor characters. His
advice to these people is to increase their feelings of humbleness and remorsefulness.
People with such poor characters are mass people and they dont have any feelings
of humbleness and remorsefulness they become very dangerous for others. He also
notes that prophets of the past have always appealed to these feelings of these mass
people; they must be fearful of something.
Spinoza defines evil as anything that decreases a rational mans conatus that is his
power which enables him to pursue his existence vigorously. Such men whose powers
are decreased are whom we call irrational or with poor character. All these people
have to do, is to keep low profile and try to develop their feelings of humbleness
and remorsefulness and gain time until they regain their powers and function as a
rational man. So there is hope for them.
How do we know that our powers decrease? Spinoza suggests that in order to
understand whether or not we are losing our conatus, we must imagine a model
of free human being in our minds. And let us call everything which prevents us to
reach this model of free-man bad, and everything which facilitate us to reach this
model good. In this case, all we have to do try to increase the goods and decrease
bads in our lives. Meanwhile we can always double check our nearness to this

6
perfect model. For example if I catch myself lying in a particular situation, or if I catch
myself while I was planning to harm my work associate, it means that my powers are
on the way to decrease, and I am beginning to be less free and more slave.
Free man: So a free man is one who performs his actions only in the direction

MODULE 3
of his own free will, knowingly and rationally, and a slave if not so. A free man is

UFND50
trustworthy, sincere, and rational.
In sum, Spinoza is the first philosopher of ethics of Enlightenment period. For him
body and mind distinction is both possible and impossible to make. It is not possible
in the sense of Descartes, as two distinct substances whose essences are distinct. It is
possible in the sense that body and mind are the two distinct voices of the univocity
of being. This means that mind and body are one and the same and also two distinct

voices. Spinoza calls this univocity of all being God.

Ethics of Duty: Kant

Kants Life Story
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a German philosopher of Enlightenment who was born
in Knigsberg, in East Prussia. Kant was the son of a saddler, and according to his own
account, the grandson of an emigrant from Scotland. He was educated at the local
high school and then at the University of Knigsberg. After leaving the university he
was employed as a tutor in a number of families in different parts of East Prussia. Kant
never left the town, and for most of his life taught at the University of Knigsberg, at
which he became a professor of logic and metaphysics in 1770.
Kants outer life was almost entirely uneventful. He never married although he
contemplated doing so on several occasions. The one occasion on which he might
have become politically prominent was in 1794 when, after the appearance of book
on religion, the Prussian king asked him not to publish further on a topic on which his
views were causing alarm to the orthodox. But Kant duly promised, and no scandal
ensued. For the rest, he fulfilled the duties of of his professorship and took his turn
as the rector of the university, dined regularly with his friends, admired Rousseau
and the French Revolution from afar; conversed eagerly with the travelers who
brought him news of a wider world he never saw himself. Never was a good looking
and physically strong man, he carefully conserved his physical resources and was in
relatively good health until relatively short time before his death at the age of eighty.
He was also the first of the major philosophers in the history of philosophy, to spend
his life as a professional teacher of the subject.

Ethics of Duty
Historians of ethics remark that the history of ethics until Kant is the history of search
for happiness of man. With Kant this telos (aim) of ethics drastically changed: ethics
is not the ethics of happiness but duty, that is despite unhappiness. The readers of
Kant should themselves decide if duty can make one happy or unhappy after
reading this section of this module.
Kant expounded his ideas on ethics mainly in his books Critique of Practical Reason,
and Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the Introduction of the latter work
Kant says that his sole aim in the book is to seek out and establish the supreme
principle of morality. That is, he wishes to delineate the basic features of the situation
in which moral decisions are made, and so to clarify the special character of these
decisions.
The view of Kant on the subject of ethics is roughly as follows: man is a creature who is

7
 half sensual, half rational (just like Spinoza!). Sensuous impulses are the determining
factor in many of his actions, and the role of reason in these cases is that it is the
slave or servant of the passions. (this is too may be similar to Spinoza!). But there is
an identifiable class of actions in which reason plays a different part, leading rather
MODULE 3

than following (at this point Spinoza would never admit a leading terminology for
among passions). For Kant this is a class of moral actions. (at this point Kant diverges
UFND50

from Spinoza forever!). Such actions for Kant have the distinguishing feature that
they are undertaken not for some ulterior end, but simply because of the principle
they embody.
The moral worth of this group of actions, for Kant lies not in the purpose to be
attained by it, but in the maxim (rule )in accordance with which it is decided upon.
Whether or not I attain my end does not depend on me alone, and my actions cannot
be pronounced good or bad according to the effects they actually bring about. But I
can be praised or blamed for my intentions and I can, if I choose, make sure that the
maxim (rule) or the subjective rule of my actions accords with the requirements of
morality. To do this I have only to ask myself the simple question whether I could will
that the maxim should become a universal law, governing not merely this particular
action of mine, but the actions of all agents similarly circumstanced. For it is a formal
property of moral judgments, recognized in practice even by the layman, that they
hold without distinction of persons; the result is that an action can be permissible for
me if it is permissible for anyone in my situation.
The Categorical Imperatives
So we have just defined in the above in the underlined lines, Kants concept of
categorical imperative. Kant, in the second section of the Foundations of the
Metaphysics of Morals, attempts to explain the distinctive character of moral laws by
clarifying the logical differences between two types of rules or imperatives:
Hypothetical Imperatives. (1)Technical rules or skills. For example, If you wish
to hit the ball keep your head still. (2) Prudential counsels as to how to achieve
happiness. These rules are hypothetical in the sense that they are directives
contingent upon the desires of the agent. For example, Go to bed early, if you want to
succeed in your class grades. This advice might be offered because it is believed that
going to bed early maintains success in grades or good health. Some ethical views
mistakes counsels of prudence for moral laws because the desire for happiness is so
universal that the directives to this have the superficial appearance of unconditional
laws. But the generalization that all men seek happiness is a law of nature, not a
rule commanding action, and the very possibility of a moral code entails that this
psychological generalization is subject to exception.
Categorical Imperatives. Morality Kant claims depends on no ifs or buts, nor
does it depend on the particular wishes inclinations or idiosyncratic nature of the
agent.
Moral duties. If the motive action is not any particular wish, what is it?. For Kant, to
act morally is to act for the sake of duty. Feelings and inclinations cannot be the motive
for moral action, for however desirable and admirable they may seem to be. Moral
duty requires that the person sacrifice his personal happiness and even the welfare
of his community rather than violate a categorical imperative. A moral or genuinely
categorical imperative is a rule that commands a type of action independently of any
desired end, including happiness. Kant accepts the utilitarian account of hypothetical
imperatives (as we shall see next below), but argues that the peculiar obligatoriness
of moral principles can be explained only by their unrestricted universality and thus
by their independence of any facts of human nature or circumstance. It is not in virtue
of what satisfies human needs, but in virtue of the demand of reason that action be

8
in accordance with universal law, that we feel obligated to obey moral laws.
Universalizability Criterion. To the question of whether any rule of action can
qualify as a moral principle, Kants answer was in the negative. He maintained that
there is one general or fundamental categorical imperative from which all specific

MODULE 3
moral duties can be derived: Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a

UFND50
universal law. All maxims or specific rules of conduct can be judged morally right or
wrong according to this general criterion. If universal obedience to a proposed rule
would contradict the very purpose of the rule, as is the case for rules that under certain
circumstances permit lying (e.g., to save marriage in cheating), stealing (as in the case
of Julian Assange in high-tech), or taking life (as in the case of someone breaking into
your house), then the rule cannot be a part of true moral code. In contrast, a rule such
as Do not make false promises can in principle be followed and without exception
and thus qualifies as a moral duty.
The criterion of universalizability that is the logical or psychological possibility of
requiring universal obedience to a rule of action is Kants most original contribution
to ethical theory. It expresses more precisely and unambiguously the golden rule to
be found in all great religions and it has been incorporated, in one form or another,
in most systems of ethical theory. Countless writers since Kant have attempted to
formulate the criterion of universalizability in a way sufficiently qualified to avoid
reasonable objections, but without complete success.
Some different definitions and concrete examples of categorical
imperatives
The aim of Kants ethics of duty is find, by reason, the universal rule which governs all
ethical deeds and actions. Let us simply call this rule the rule everyone must follow
everywhere.This is the categorical imperative. Kant, in different places in his writings
gives several version-definitions of this rule (he sees them as equivalent) as follows:
Act on maxims which can at the same time has for their object themselves as
universal laws of nature.
So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a
principle establishing universal law.
Act so as to teat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another,
always as an end and never as means only.
Act according to the maxims of a universally legislative member of a merely
potential kingdom of ends.
In all these formulations of the categorical imperative Kant had in mind: a man is
dutiful to the extent that he is seriously concerned with being equitable and fair,
with treating other people like human beings and like machines, and with trying
to govern his own by standards that could be adopted by everyone. Thus the idea
of taking duty (die Pficht) as the moral concept originates with Kant, instead of the
previous ethical views idea of happiness (Eudomonia) since the beginnings of ethical
thinking in ancient Greece. Kant himself maintained that his basic thesis is neither
original nor esoteric and that, on the contrary, it is self-evident to the plain man.
Everyone, he held, recognizes the difference between doing something because one
wants to do it and doing something because one feels that one is morally obligated
to do it. Moreover, it is universally acknowledged that only what is done from a sense
of moral obligation is meritorious.
The views which Kant ascribes to common sense as part of ethical thinking are as
follows: people do not deserve credit unless they act from reasons of conscience, and
we do believe that such reasons are, somehow or other are distinctive. Kant used the

9
 word duty to refer to very generally to features to be distinctive of conscientious
conduct. He held that the only unqualified good is the good will and that to have a
good will is always to act from a sense of duty.
Pluralities of Duties and the Problem of Conflicting Duties
MODULE 3

Main ethical duties to which Kant applies categorical imperative are as follows:
UFND50

Duty to help others.

Duty not to harm others.
Duty to act justly.
Duty to self-actualization.
Duty to compensate. (If harm is done to someone)
Duty to reciprocate. (If a favor is done to someone)
Duty to keep promise.
In human relations, we must consider all of these duties at all times, but in a particular
situation two or more of these duties may be in conflict with one another. In our
decision making, we must choose one of these duties and relinquish the other(s). For
example your girl-friend calls you and asks you to pick her up and take to a movie. You
promise her to do just that. But on the way to her house, you witness a car collusion.
You saw that a male driver deliberately hits the car in front of him. And he gets out
of his car screaming at the other female driver accusing her. You saw who is guilty.
You must act justly. So in this case you must relinquish your duty to your girl-friend
(promise), and act justly as expected of you. So you pull over, and be a witness for the
car accident.
Criticisms
Main criticisms leveled against duty ethics are as follows:
Duty ethics is too strict and rule bound. It reflects very much the harsh Prussian
cultural values of Kants homeland.
Duty ethics ignores pleasure, happiness and other humanly feelings and
emotions.
Duty ethics sometimes even encourages pessimism and despair. Unconditional
imperative of do not lie under any circumstances, is such an example.
Rigidity of duty ethics cannot deal with the contemporary problems of applied
ethics. Such problems need a more flexible ethical approach.

Utilitarianism: Mill and Bentham

Life Stories
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). London-born philosopher who studied law , a
developed a life-long interest in the foundations of law. He was an influential
advocate of reform legal, political, social, and educational. Bentham and John Stuart
Mills father James Mill formed a political that helped bring about legislative reforms
by criticizing social institutions in terms of their utility in producing the greatest
happiness for the greatest number. He is best known as one of the two founders of
utilitarianism. He expounded this theory in his book Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation (1789).
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). English empiricist philosopher and social reformer.
He is educated by his father James Mill, through him he became acquainted with
Benthams work. Later he modified Benthams utilitarianism in his book Utilitarianism
(1863)

10
Benthams Utilitarian Ethics
Bentham attempted to make ethics and politics scientifically verifiable disciplines by
formulating quantitative standards of evaluation. Here are his steps:

MODULE 3
Equation between ethical obligation and psychological necessity. Bentham
began with the psychological generalization that all actions are motivated by the

UFND50
desire for pleasure and the fear of pain: Nature had placed mankind under the
governance of 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.
General principle of utility. From the equation between ethical obligation and
psychological necessity, Bentham derived the general principle of utility: This
principle approves or disapproves every action according to the tendency that it
either increases or decreases happiness; happiness is the predominance of pleasure
over pain.
Hedonistic calculus. Benthams most original contribution to ethics is his hedonistic
calculus for measuring pleasures and pains, in computing the over-all value of
alternative way of ethical decision making. According to this doctrine, the way to
judge between alternative courses of action is to consider the consequences of each,
in terms of the pleasure pain of all the people affected. For example you are trying to
decide whether to take your small nephew to circus or to spend his evening read a
book. You know that the circus will bore him: you may estimate this boredom at, let
us say, 5 units of pain; i.e., --5 units of pleasure. You will on the other hand gain some
pleasure from watching the small boys pleased excitement, though not enough to
compensate his boredom. So you may put this at +2 units of pleasure. But the boy
may be expected to gain great pleasure from the outing: perhaps 10 units. Taking
the child to circus then, may be expected to yield (10+2)5 units of pleasure; i.e., 7
units. Now consider the alternative course of action: a quiet evening at home, though
pleasurable, does not appeal an adult as much as an evening does a child. Perhaps we
may evaluate it 6 units. Your pleasure will be spoiled a little from the knowledge of your
nephews disappointment and pain: say 2 units. Then tere is that disappointment
itself: since both the pains and pleasures of childhood are intense, we may put it 8
units. To stay at home, then, will cause 628 units of pleasure; i.e., 4 units of pain.
The choice then is between a course of action that will cause, on balance, 7 units of
pleasure, and one that will cause 4 units of pain. The first is clearly the one that will
contribute most to the sum of human happiness. It is then, the right action in these
circumstances. Its rightness is not an intrinsic characteristic but depends entirely on
the consequences in any given case: if you found the circuses more boring, or your
nephew found them less pleasant, staying at home might become the right action.
Even if this is a crude example, it may give idea of how this calculus, as he claimed,
makes ethical judgments as scientific as meteorological forecasts, even though both
are subject to error, due to the complexity of the variables involved.
Greatest happiness principle. Bentham presupposes one crucial moral principle:
that one ought to aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Criteria of measuring pleasure. Bentham developed an analysis of pleasure into
factors of intensity, duration, proximity, certainty, and extent (number of persons
affected).
Defects of Benthams theory
Pleasure is such concept that, by its nature it resists measurement. Besides pleasure
unlike pain is not a bodily sensation, but a favorable response to an object grounded
on the subjective perception of value in that object. That is pleasure is in the eye of
the perceiver of pleasure, and it varies from person to person.

11
 Mills Revision of Benthams Utilitarian ethics
Mill, in recognizing the defects in Benthams formulation of utilitarianism, and
in his essay Utilitarianism, he offered a more sophisticated version that sought to
incorporate the moral insights of rival ethical systems. Realizing that Benthams
MODULE 3

emphasis on quantitative aspects of pleasure reduces pleasure to bodily sensations

UFND50

and tends to justify an uncultivated mode of life, Mill proposed a new factor by which
pleasures could be compared, the factor of quality.
The factor of quality. The first aspect of Mills utilitarianism is his attempt to
broaden utilitarianism by making a distinction between kinds of pleasures. So that
an act producing a smaller amount of a more valuable kind of pleasure might be
obligatory, rather than an act producing a larger amount of a less valuable kind
of pleasure. According to Mills criterion of quality, some pleasurable experiences,
notably intellectual, aesthetic, and moral achievements, are qualitatively superior
to the satisfaction of bodily needs: Better to be Socrates unsatisfied than to be a
fool satisfied, he declares. But like Epicures preference for natural over unnatural
pleasures, Mills criterion of quality introduces a standard of value other than pleasure,
by which pleasure it can be evaluated, and thus contradicts the principle of utility,
that pleasure is the single standard of good ethical behavior.
Later Developments
Direct (Action) and Indirect (Rule) Ethical Theories
Direct or action utilitarianism is what Bentham and Mills theories, and other similar
utilitarian theories assert: an action, deed, policy, etc., is ethically right, good, correct,
valuable, etc., according to the result it brings about, and not the intentions of the
actor(s) performing that particular act. For example, even if someone saved some
others life for the sake (intention) of the offered prize money, his act is considered as
ethical, no matter what the intention was. The result is good; a life is saved.
Another implication the action utilitarianism is that a man must think the results or
consequences of his actions, before performing it. He must choose the action which
will bring most benefit to maximum number of people.
Indirect or rule utilitarianism asserts that instead of thinking about the consequences
of our actions in each and every case, it would be more economical to think of a
general rule pertaining the results of actions, and act in accordance with this rule.
This means that there are some rules which, if and when followed, actions will bring
useful and ethically sound results. For example, if my following the rule A, rather
than B will bring better results, I then follow A and not B. And seeing that following
rule A brings good results, next time I follow the rule A without thinking about the
consequences of my action.
Two-Step (both action and rule) Utilitarianism
Some modern time utilitarian theorists defend a two-step action-rule theory, such
that the agent may both use a general rule while at the same time considering the
possible consequences of his action.
Negative Utilitarianism
This version of utilitarian theory replaces the principle of maximum utility with that
of minimum harm. In practice, it is asserted that to calculate minimum harm, pain, is
easier than that of maximum utility, pleasure, etc., since the former is more concrete.
For example, if you as an employee the question Are you being treated justly? is
more difficult to answer than the question, What are the injustices done to you by
your boss? In this sense justice equals the opposite of injustices done.

12
Common Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Here are some of the major criticisms leveled against utilitarian theory in general:
The most original but also the most dubious part of Benthams theory is his

MODULE 3
hedonistic calculus for measuring pleasures and pains, in computing the overall
value of alternative policies. The concept of pleasure resists measurement.

UFND50
Secondly, Benthams and Mills theory are both defective in the sense that of
predicting the long-range consequences of actions.
Another criticism is the following: to conclude that an object is good from the fact
that it pleases us involves the circular reasoning that it is good because it is judged
to be good, a principle too vacuous to provide a guide to ethical judgment. If on the
other hand, pleasure is understood in a more narrow technical sense as desirable
bodily sensations, then Benthams identification of happiness with pleasure is
unacceptable because it reduces human experience to the level of animal existence.
Benthams theory may be due to the ease with which he shifts inadvertently from
one of these senses of pleasure to the other.
Mill too like Bentham, left unanswered the question why, in cases of conflict, one
ought to place public over private interests, and confined himself to explaining why
we admire the person who does so. So even in Mills sophisticated version,
utilitarianism fails to provide a logical bridge between inclination and obligation,
between is and ought.
Some more harsh criticisms of utilitarianism claim that the utilitarian principle
neither scientific nor logically sound. They claim that there is no basis scientifically
and logically speaking, of a claim that all man on earth must reach the highest level
of pleasure, since they are pleasure-seekers per se. It is impossible to prove such an
assertion. Someone to tries to prove such a claim will have to search forever, albeit in
vain, the data and evidence, going in circular endlessly. This is called in logic, a vicious
circle.
John Rawls, the great American philosopher of law and ethics attacks the following
assumption of utilitarianism: all human beings have the same conception of
happiness. He mentions that eve a husband and a wife may hold divergent conceptions
of what pleases them, and what a pleasure consists of. Happiness and pleasure for
one differs for another. Who will decide for an average amount of pleasure for each
men and women? Perhaps a God, or a king or a fascistic prime minister who thinks
he has every right to decide how such pleasures could be achieved by producing a
certain number of children in each family, such that 4 child for one family=10 pts. of
pleasure and happiness!
Certainly, the harshest criticism comes from the Marxists, as they traditionally claim
that utilitarianism is an unethical sugarcoated cover to justify the power relations
under the pretext of utility, rationality, etc., all these being nothing but cover up
terminology for oppression of class over another. A contemporary philosopher calls
utilitarianism swine (pig) philosophy in the degrading sense that this brand of ethics
puts priorities and criteria of pleasure and then defining these as unattainable drives
masses into consumerism of the most destructive sort: carrot and donkey policy.

Pragmatist Ethics: Dewey

Let us take, in this section an example from the pragmatic American ethical theories,
that of John Deweys. Towards the end of the 19th century, John Dewey, Charles
Peirce and William James developed the philosophy of pragmatism, in which
all human knowledge is regarded as essentially ethical. They rejected both the

13
 Kantian separation of ethics from natural sciences and the traditional conception of
scientific knowledge as disinterested contemplation of value-neutral truths. The split
between value and fact was bridged by reinterpreting both so that they become
indistinguishable.
MODULE 3

Life Story
UFND50

John Dewey (1859-1952), is one of the three prominent representatives of the

American pragmatism of 19thcentury. Dewey was born in Vermont; a shy youth
enjoying books but not a bright student. He became Americas most influential
educator and philosopher in a long personal and professional ordeal. He completed
his doctoral studies at John Hopkins University, joined the faculty of Michigan
University in 1988. He lived a log life and came to Turkey in order to help devise a
new educational system and library systematization that we use up to date in Turkey:
it is called the Dewey Digital System.
Pragmatic Ethics of Dewey
Common mistake of the previous ethical theories 1: search for an ideal, fixed good.
According to Dewey, Plato and Aristotle left an unfortunate heritage to the history
of ideas: search for immutable, ideal good which will be a panacea for social and
political evils. The period in which Plato and Aristotle lived Athens was in decline
politically, economically and morally. They both wanted to find a solution to moral
and political corruption of Athens in their search for some ideal good. For Dewey,
history of philosophy has plenty of such goods: happiness, an ideal life-style or a life
lived according to categorical imperative or principle of maximum utility. For Dewey
it is unnecessary or even futile to search for single ideal good which will be a cure
for all ills.
Common mistake of all previous ethics 2: polar opposite dualisms
All previous ethical theories assumed the following mistaken dualisms:
Means and ends dualism: Ethical theories of the past assumed the existence of
some good-in itself and good as means of some other good. So good in itself
is assumed to be something desirable for itself only, whereas the goods that are
means of some other goods are desirable in order to achieve these other goods.
For example we take medicine for the sake of a good in itself which is health. Dewey
thinks that this dualism was created in order to distinguish that which is ethical
from that of non-ethical subjects and discourses. The truly ethical lied in the choices
related to those goods whose ends were in them. Those goods were usually higher
intellectual or esthetic pleasures, and the other goods which are means were lower
material wealth and bodily pleasures. Worst of all Dewey continues, with the influence
of monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam, those lower graded goods
were also assumed to be sinful,evil, etc. In addition, this dualism also reinforced the
rigidity of class distinctions in societies. For example, Dewey says, in Platos Republic,
those who work manual jobs are considered as the lowest of all classes. In the ideal
state of Aristotle, only those citizens who do intellectual activities could become
statesman; slaves were not even citizens, they were merely natural slaves. Dewey
calls the social effects of this dualism savageness of the life-world.
Dualism of ethical goods-natural goods: The second mistaken assumption of
traditional ethical theories is the ethical-natural goods dichotomy. Again Plato and
Aristotle is responsible for this mistaken view. They assumed that ethical goods are
those virtues of human soul such as courage, wisdom, justice, etc., whereas natural
goods are the ones that are not related to our innermost soul such as wealth, health,
security, art, technics, etc. All the previous philosophers assume the secondary status

14
of these lateral goods and the primary status of the former ones. Dewey wishes to
dethrone these higher ethical goods: all goods are on equal status. Each good
becomes valuable in its application in a particular situation. We will see the meaning
of the concept situation below.

MODULE 3
Dualism of ethics and science. Lastly, for Dewey, another fatally mistaken

UFND50
assumption is the radical distinction made between natural science and ethics or
social sciences in general). According to Dewey, if the application of the logic of
the natural sciences (logic of experiment) to ethical problems brings out positive
contribution to the solution of that ethical problem, then that result is good. For
example, only science can tell us what harmful ingredients fast food which our
children favor, contains. Similarly only science can tell us which hi-tech product and
why is harmful to ozone layer of the atmosphere. So science is instrumental in out
ethical stance and decisions. Ethical arguments devoid of scientific data are vacuous.
Science and ethics is intertwined and undistinguishable. We will see what this means
below. But first several important concepts must be examined.
Situation
In order to understand Deweys moral philosophy, we must focus on his concept of
the situation. This situation means that man is a creature who by nature possesses
values. There are things, states of affairs, and activities that he directly enjoys, prizes,
or values. Moral choices and decisions arise only in those situations in which there
are competing desires or conflict of values. The problem that a man then confronts
is to decide what he really wants and what course of action he ought to pursue. He
cannot appeal to his immediate values to resolve the situation; he must evaluate or
appraise the situation and the different courses of action open to him. The process of
deliberation that culminates in a decision to act is what Dewey calls valuation.
Process of valuation
But how do we engage in this process of valuation? His answer to this question is the
scientific method.We must analyze the situation as carefully as we can, imaginatively
project possible courses of action, and scrutinize the consequences of these actions.
Those ends or goods that we choose relative to a concrete situation after careful
deliberation are reasonable or desirable goods. Our choices are reasonable to the
extent that they reflect our developed habits of intelligence. Choices are irrational if
they are made on the basis of prejudice and ignorance.
Scientific research as a model for ethical arguments
Dewey thinks of modern science as a model for ethical thinking in the following sense:
according to modern science there is never final definitive answer to any question in
science. Similarly no scientific theory is a finished product which is close to further
alterations; on the contrary, each scientific theory is open to further changes and
continuous modifications. This open-ended quality of science resembles ethics: in
ethics too there is no final absolute truths and or ways of lives which provide ultimate
happiness. Instead ethics like science requires a way of investigation unique to
each particular case, and a general scheme or model of ethical argumentation and
reasoning. Dewy thus anticipates Toulmins model of ethical argumentation which
will be examined on module four of this book.
According to Dewey, the main characteristics of scientific method which will provide
a modef for ethical thinking are the following:
Ideas are means for problem-solving.
Problems arise out of concrete situations.

15
 A scientific discovery emerges from an events relationship with an environmental
context.
In science there is never a final fixed or definitive answer or solution.
MODULE 3

Ethical investigations like scientific ones have the following steps:

UFND50

There is a situation a concrete ethical situation. An ethical situation is a state of

concrete ethical problem (a dilemma, a paradox, a confusion of mind, etc.) on which
one must think and valuated.
At this stage, neither the practical meaning of the ethical situation, nor the courses of
action to be taken on face of this situation is pre-determined and known beforehand.
This meaning and valuation and the necessary course of action to be taken must be
done case by case, without any prejudgment and prejudices.
People who find themselves in such ethical situations are usually in a state of
emotionally confused and hesitant. Which way should I go? What if do something
wrong? Most I listen to what my friend advises me to do? What if do the wrong
thing?
For this reason, the ethical situation must be examined as described above in the
section on situation, with a careful scientific scrutiny, eliminating all vagueness and
contradictions of mind. This is a stage of clarification of the ethical situation.
All hasty generalizations, untested prejudgments, assumptions must be ridden and
mind must be clarified. No hasty reactions must be allowed to the ethical situation.
Usually it is advisable to count to ten before giving any hasty response.
Imagination is a great power of man in finding alternative ways of solution to scientific
problems as well as ethical situations. Practical wisdom, creativity accompanying
imagination solves the most difficult scientific problems and ethical situations.
We have chosen a course of action. What then? We have decided to take the action B
on this particular ethical situation. We havent taken any concrete step on the decision
to take the action B. At this stage, Dewey reminds us that our decision to take action
B is only hypothetical, as yet. We take the concrete step and act as B option says. But
this should never be a blind open check for our decisions in similar situations in
the future. We must go through the same steps of investigation for each new ethical
situations, as if we never decided before.
Dewy admits that this is a hard way and may rely on a lot of intelligence and
knowledge. But he insists that this is the right way; that there is no easy way out,
especially when it comes to life-and death situations of ethics, social and political life;
one must endure!
During this course of ethical reasoning, the importance of power of imagination
and practical wisdom were already emphasized. Dewey also adds to these virtues,
the power of empathy, keen sensitivity, and resoluteness.
Criticisms and Deweys response
Deweys rejection of mmutable universal truths and ideas make him an unwanted
thinker in the community of philosophers who value these universal ideas of
Enlightenment and traditional philosophy. This line of criticisms places Deweys ethics
into the relativistic camp of unacceptable philosophy of his time. This traditional
camp of philosophers resist the idea of relativizing the unchanging universal ethical
values of justice, universal inalienable human rights, equality, equity and the like.
More conservative criticisms are even harsher: for them Dewey invites and instigates
chaos and anarchy in society by rejecting the mmutable, fixed, universal and God
given ethical values.

16
Dewey responds to these criticisms as follows:
General, universal values of justice, human rights, and other values are of crucial
importance. But all of these ideas are nothing but mere instruments people use
in their daily ethical situation in order to solve these concrete ethical problems. But

MODULE 3
certainly they all are valuable instruments!

UFND50
If we consider each concrete ethical situation, the idea of offering one single
answer or solution to all different ethical situations seems suspect. For example, let
us consider some of the values that we take as our cardinal value to resolve our
particular ethical situation: health, wealth, honor, friendship, esthetic pleasure,
bodily pleasure, contemplative pleasure, justice, etc. The mistake of traditional ethics
was that of making a card-house pyramid of all those different sorts of values, almost
by arbitrary false dichotomies and prejudices of unfounded deep psychological and
religious assumptions.
Finally, Dewey responds to all these criticisms by saying that values should never be
seen as some reified things abstracted from concrete ethical situations. Values are
not pre-fixed things but are things created and shared doings things with words,
and standard patterns of behaviors.
All these radical ideas of Dewey, were the signs of only a transition period between
the rigid Enlightenment ethical ideas and of those which will counter (which we will
see next) rationalism and the age of aging age of Reason (with capital R).

Ethics of Anti-Enlightenment: 19th and 20th

Centuries
The Irrational (Existentialist) Anti-Enlightenment Views of Ethics:
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre
In the first quarter of 19th century, a harsh resistance against Enlightenment ethics
started in Europe under the name of Romanticism. Romantic reaction to the Age
of Reason took many forms other than philosophy such as music, arts, literature,
especially in the form of poetry. The common point of all these different reactions was
the question of the authority of god called Reason. All these criticisms converged
on the fundamental idea if Reason really is the solution of all humanly sufferings and
evils.
Romanticism only reacted romantically and not rationally (i.e., philosophically) to the
Enlightenment idea of strict Rationalism. They resisted poetically and romantically to
the cold, mechanical, natural laws and maintained that these views ignored the truly
human emotions and feelings. Great works of art and music were created around
this idea of human emotions and feelings. They revealed through great works of art,
music and literature, these centuries long neglected aspects of human experience of
intuition, beauty, imagination and feeling.
The philosophical reactions (non-romantic) to the Enlightenment idea of the Reason
as the only solution to human problems, and ethics, only started towards the mid-
19th century, with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. These two reactions to Enlightenment
ethics we call irrational reactions to Enlightenment ethics.
Other than these two irrational reactions to the Enlightenment ethics, this module, in
its last section also examines rational type of ethics which opposes to the idea of rigid
rational ethics of the Enlightenment. Here we will examine the ethics of McIntyre and
Nussbaum, who defend the idea of back to Aristotelian virtue ethics.
Kierkegaard: The Pioneer of Existential Ethics

17
 Life Story
Sren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Danish philosopher and religious thinker, frequently
considered as the first important existentialist, was born when his father was 56
and his mother was 44. His early childhood was spent in the close company of his
MODULE 3

father who insisted on high standards of performance in Latin and Greek, included
UFND50

an anxiety ridden pietist devotion of a deeply emotional kind, and awakened his
sons imagination by continually acting out stories and scenes. Kierkegaard thus
felt early the demand that life should be at once intellectually satisfying, dramatic,
and an arena of devotion. Confronted with the Hegelian system he reacted strongly
against it. It could not supply what he needed: a truth which is true for me, to
find the idea for which I can live and die. He then ceased to practice his religion
and embarked on a life of pleasure-seeker, spending heavily on food, drinks and
clothes. The melancholy which originated in his childhood continued to haunt him,
however, and was increased by his fathers confiding him his sense of guilt for having
somehow sinned deeply against God. For Kierkegaard, the question of how can a
man be rescued from despair was consequently intensified. He resolved to return
to his studies and become a pastor. But in short time he was dissatisfied of his role
of a Luther pastor. For him breaking of this engagement was a decisive step in his
future vocation. From then on (also after a heart breaking separation from a fiance)
Kierkegaard lived a withdrawn life as an author. He then delivered a series of bitter
attacks on the church. He died shortly after refusing to receive the sacrament from a
pastor.
Kierkegaards biography is necessarily more relevant to his thought than is the
case with most philosophers, for he himself saw philosophical inquiry neither as a
construction of systems nor as the analysis of concepts, but as the expression of an
individual existence.
Common mistake of the past ethical theories
According to Kierkegaard, theorists of ethics after Socrates have been seeking after
deal life conditions whose achievement is assumed to provide happiness and good
life. Here on this point Deweys and Kierkegaards criticism of the past ethical theories
coincide. But Kierkegaard radically differs from Dewey, in that, Deweys alternative to
past ethical views is worse than those views since making ethics a science is reducing
it a lifeless bulk of empty propositional knowledge.
So for Kierkegaard ethics cannot be some abstract theorizing either in its traditional
forms or in its modern scientific fashion. Ethics for Kierkegaard is about the concrete
human life and situation. As it was for Socrates; its function is to awaken people from
their slumbers! Socratic dictum of know thyself is also valid for Kierkegaard, when
he says: WAKE UP! To wake up is to possess the will to power and choice.
Kierkegaard was particularly antagonistic to Hegels rationalistic and socially oriented
ethics. While, like Hegel, he regarded the conflict between self-interest (esthetic
attitude) and duty (ethical attitude) as reconciled and transcended in a higher state
of consciousness, he denied that this could be achieved by reason and described it
as a leap of faith preceded by tragic anguish, fear, despair and anxiety. As the 20th
century existentialist Sartre would rediscover Kierkegaard has put it, the world is
absurd because there is no objective grounds for human decisions. What is right,
according to Kierkegaard, is what the individual asserts with the total commitment
born of faith, but it is right only for him. Emotional authenticity rather than conformity
to rules is the proper guide to action.
Ethical and the esthetic in Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard simply puts his ethical position as That individual. That individual has

18
three choices in life, the ethical, the esthetic and the religious:
The esthetic life: the esthetic point is that of a sophisticated and romantic hedonism.
The enemies of the standpoint are not only pain but also, and above all boredom. But
just because boredom is always to be guarded against, so its threat is perpetual. In

MODULE 3
the end, the search for novelty leads to the threshold of despair.

UFND50
The ethical life: by contrast, the ethical life constitutes the sphere of duty, of
universal rules, of unconditional demands and tasks. For the man in the ethical stage,
the chief thing is not whether one can count on ones fingers how many duties
one has, but that a man once has felt the intensity of duty in such a way that the
consciousness of it is for him the assurance of the eternal validity of his being. It is
important to note how intensity of feeling enters into Kierkegaards definition of the
ethical stage. He thought that what his own age lacked was passion; hence one must
not to be deceived by the Kantian emphasis of reason or its categorical imperatives
of duty. Kierkegaards categorical imperative is felt rather than reasoned. He is the
constant reminder of the fact that those who claim their own uniqueness are most
likely to have derived their ideas from authors whom they consciously reject.
The conflict between the ethical and the esthetic: In his book Either-Or, an older
man puts the case for the ethical, a younger for the esthetic. The reader, as we should
expect, is allegedly let to make his own choice. But is he? The description of the two
alternatives seems heavily weighted in favor of the ethical. Kierkegaard frames his
criticism of the man who adheres to the aesthetic: He has not chosen himself; like
Narcissus he has fallen in love with himself. Such a situation has certainly ended not
infrequently in suicide. So the aesthetic fails in its own terms. Kierkegaard, however
sometimes implies that if ethical is forced into its limits, contradiction results and one
is therefore forced to pass from the ethical to the religious.
The third stage of the religious. Kierkegaard describes the transition from
the ethical to the religious differently at different periods. In Either-Or, the ethical
sometimes include the religious. In Fear and Trembling, the passage from the ethical
to religious is more striking than from the aesthetic to the ethical. One of the heroes
of this transition is Abraham. In demanding from Abraham the sacrifice of his son
Isaac, God demands something that, from the standpoint of the ethical, is absolutely
forbidden, a transgression of duty. (Thy shall not kill!). Abraham must make a leap
of faith and thus accept the absurd. He must concur in a suspension of the ethical. At
such a point the individual has to make a criterionless choice. General and universal
rules cannot guide him here; it is as an individual that he has to choose.
The conflict between the ethical and the religious: despair, fear, anxiety. According
to Kierkegaard, there are certain key experiences on the margins of the ethical end
the religious through which one may come to censure oneself as an individual.
Despair and dread point in the same direction. The experience of each forces the
individual to realize that he confronts a void and that he is, in fact responsible for his
sick and sinful condition. In the state of despair he is brought to recognize that what
he despairs of are not the contingent facts (such as the loss of a loved one) that he
claims to be the objects of despair; the individual despairs of himself, and to despair
of oneself is to see oneself confronting an emptiness that cannot be filled by aesthetic
pleasure or ethical rule following. Moreover it is in order to become conscious that
one has brought oneself to this point. In analyzing despair, we recognize guilt; so too
with dread. Kierkegaard contrasts the fear that has a specific and identifiable object
with the dread that is objectless; or rather he identifies the fear and anxiety which is
a fear and anxiety of nothing in particular as a fear of Nothing. In the experience of
dread I become conscious of my bad-will as something for which I am responsible,
and yet I did not originate. Original sin is seen as a doctrine deduced from the analysis
of this experience.

19
 Nietzsche: Ethics of Overman
Life story
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is a German writer and philosopher born at Rchen,
MODULE 3

the son of a Lutheran pastor. He was an outstandingly brilliant student, who at the
UFND50

age of 24 was appointed as professor of classics at the University of Basel. Recurrent

psychosomatic illness forced him to give up his chair in 1879. He spent the next ten
years at resorts in Italy, France and Switzerland, writing and trying to recover his
health. He became insane in January 1889, after which his sister looked after him
until his death.
In the Anglo-Saxon world Nietzsche is rarely considered as an important philosopher.
Instead he is still popularly considered, at best, an impressive aphorist whose
psychological insights partly anticipated the theories of Freud and an opponent of
rationalism of Enlightenment. Among these were his contemptuous dismissal of
democracy as mockery, his atheism, his attacks on Christian, Kantian and utilitarian
ethics. He opposing to these enlightenment ideas, defended the unconscious,
voluntaristic, orgiastic, and Dionysian sides of human nature, seemingly at the
expense of the calm, conscious, individuated, and rational (Apollonian) sides.
Nietzsche was a very radical and, in some respects, one of the greatest prose stylist of
modern times. He was also a considerable poet, using language in an extraordinary
manner, which easily explains his great influence on contemporary poetry, literature
and arts. Some of his ethics related books are
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy
of Morals.
Hero Morality (Overman)
Master-herd moralities
Here are the main points of this dichotomy of master-herd morality and its valuations
(opposite values are underlined as we go along):
According to Nietzsche there were two contradictory valuation of human behavior,
two ethical standpoints and criteria: a Herren-Moral and a Herden Moral a morality of
masters and a morality of the herd. The former was the accepted standard in classical
antiquity, especially among the Romans; even for the ordinary Roman, virtue was
the virtus, --manhood, courage, enterprise and bravery. But from Asia, and especially
from the Jews in the days of their political subjection, came the other moral standard;
subjection breeds humility, helplessness breeds altruism which is an appeal for
help. Under this herd morality love of power and danger gave way to love of security
and peace; strength was replaced by cunning, open by secret revenge, sternness by
pity, initiative by imitation, the pride of honor by whip of conscience. Honor is pagan,
Roma, feudal, aristocratic; conscience is Jewish, Christian, bourgeois, democratic. It
was the eloquence of prophets from Amos to Jesus that made the view of subject
class an almost universal ethics; the world and the flesh became synonyms of evil,
and poverty a proof of virtue.
Herd morality was brought to peak by Jesus: with him every man was of equal
worth, and had equal rights; out of his doctrine came democracy, utilitarianism,
socialism; progress was now defined in terms of these plebian philosophies, in terms
of progressive equalization and vulgarization, in terms of decadence and descending
life. The final stage in this decay is the exaltation of pity and self-sacrifice, the
sentimental comforting of criminals, the inability of a society to excrete. Sympathy
is legitimate if it is active, but pity is a paralyzing mental luxury, a waste of feeling

20
for the incompetent, the defective, the vicious, the diseased and the criminal. There
is a certain indelicacy and intrusiveness in pity; visiting the sick is an orgasm of
superiority in the contemplation of our neighbors helplessness.
Secret will to power. Behind all this dichotomy of moralities, is a secret will to

MODULE 3
power. Love itself is only a desire for possession; courtship is a combat and mating

UFND50
is mastery: Don Jos kills Carmen to prevent her becoming the property of another.
Here what he says about love: People imagine that they are unselfish in love because
they seek the advantage of another being, often in opposition of their own. But for
so doing they want to possess the other being Love is of all feelings the most
egoistic; and in consequence it is, when crossed, the least generous. Even in the love
of truth is the desire to possess it, perhaps to be its first possessor, to find it virginal.
Here, humility is the protective coloration of the will to power.
Reason and morality are helpless against this will to power. Here reason and the
traditional morality are helpless they are but weapons in its hands, dupes of its game.
He declares at this point of argument: Philosophical systems are shining mirages,
what we see is not the long-sought truth, but the reflection of our own desires. The
philosophers all pose as though their real options had been discovered through
the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic; whereas in fact a
a prejudicial proposition , idea or suggestion which is generally their hearts desire
abstracted and refined, is defended by them with argument sought after the event.
Will to power determines our thoughts. It is these underground desires, these
pulsations of the will to power, that determine our thoughts. The greater part of
our intellectual activity goes on unconsciously, and unfelt by us; conscious
thinking is the weakest. Because instincts are the direct operation of the will to
power, undisturbed by consciousness, instinct is the most intelligent of all kinds of
intelligence which have hitherto been discovered. Indeed, the role of consciousness
has been senselessly overestimated; consciousness may be regarded as secondary,
almost as indifferent and superfluous, probably destined to disappear and to be
superseded by perfect automatism.
The will of the master overcomes. In strong men there is very little attempt to
conceal desire under the cover of reason; their simple argument is, I will. (Here
notice the similarity of this dictum to that of Kierkegaards). In the uncorrupted vigor
of the master soul, desire is its own justification, and conscience, pity and remorse
can find no entrance. But in so far as the Judaeo-Christian-democratic point of view
prevailed in modern times that even the strong are now ashamed of their strength
and their health, and begin to seek reasons. The aristocratic virtues and valuations
are dying out: Europe is threatened with a new Buddhism, even Schopenhauer and
Wagner became pity-ful Buddhists. The whole of the morality of Europe is based
upon the values which are useful to the herd.
Moral decay happens when virtues proper to the herd infect the leaders, and break
them into common clay. It is not true to say what is right for one is proper for another.
Different functions require different qualities; and the evil virtues of the strong are
as necessary in a society as the good virtues of the weak. Severity, violence, danger
and war are as valuable as kindliness and peace; great individuals appear only in
times of danger and violence. The best value in man is strength of will, power and
passion; without passion one is a mere milk incapable of good things.
The ultimate ethic is biological; we must judge things according to their value for life;
we need a biological trans-valuation of all values. By this Nietzsche means that real
test of a man, a group, or a species is energy, capacity and power. Soul is a function
of an organism; one drop of blood too much or too little in the brain may make man
suffer more than Prometheus suffered from the vulture. The decadent says, Life is
worth nothing; let him rather say, I am worth nothing. Why should life be worth

21
 living when all the heroic values in it have been permitted to decay, and democracy
that is disbelief in all great men ruins of whatever left from those values.
The Overman
MODULE 3

The main purposes and characteristics of the overman are as follows:

UFND50

Just as morality lies not in kindness but in strength, so the goal of human effort
should be not the elevation of all but the development of finer and stronger
individuals: Not mankind, but overman is the goal. The overman (bermensch) is
the type approximated by Goethe --the human being (Mensh includes women as
well as men) who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character,
and became creative. Aware of lifes terrors, he affirms life without resentment.
Overman is the superior individual rising above the mire of mass mediocrity.
Overman is beyond good and evil; he should not hesitate to be evil if his purpose
should require it; he would be fearless rather than good: What is good? To be
brave is good. What is good? All that increase the feeling of power, the will to power,
power itself, in man. What is bad? All that comes from weakness. The dominant mark
of the overman is love of danger and strife, provided that they have a purpose; he will
not seek safety and happiness; he will leave happiness to the greatest number (here
allusion is to the utilitarian ethics).
Energy, intellect, and pride are typical characteristics of the overman. But they
must be harmonized: the passions will become powers only when they are selected
and unified by some great purpose which molds a chaos of desires into the power
of personality; he is not the gardener but the soil of his plants. The opposite of the
overman, the welling lacks the power to inhibit: he follows his impulses blindly; he is
not strong enough to say No; he is discord, a decedent. To discipline ones self is the
highest thing. The overman has a purpose for which he can be hard on others, but
above all upon his own self. He has a purpose for which he will do almost anything
except betray a friend; that is the final patent of nobility, the last formula of the
overman.
Overman is the one who is able to create his own self. God is dead! Overman
is the anti-thesis of Him. He cannot replace God, but he is determined to make
His existence felt all over. To do this Overman also confirms the death of the herd
moralities of the past which are means of suppression of the weak by the strnger.
Overman simply is the one who does not oppress, nor admits to be oppressed by the
idiotic power mongers. Overmans ethics is but a list of his own individual values and
goods. Nietzsche blesses physics at this point: Hail physics! In order to be able to
create his own self, the overman needs to know the laws of nature, and utilize them
in his own being and life.
Overman leads a life of seclusion. He avoids masses and the herds. He prefers to
look at the masses from above with a birds eye view. This view from above horrifies
him: below there is nothing but herds of sheep!
Overman is burdened with a great responsibility. The mission he carries requires
him to be careful and gratly responsible.
Overman is a lover of fate (Amor fati). The over man takes suffering and pain
unconditionally and willingly, also without any remorse or resentment: it is his fate.
In sum, Nietzsche proposed a less mystical but equally individualistic transcendence
of morality and moral codes. He regarded altruism as contrary to natural impulse and
denounced moral restraint as a creation of religions. The true source of value lies in
the creative self-assertion of the artist and the man of genius who produced new and
positive forms of good, while moral prohibitions produce only resentment, envy and

22
dull conformity.

Criticisms
How could one criticize Nietzsches ethical stand?

MODULE 3
UFND50
Nietzsche is right in asking the overman (or any man) to be braver and harder on
himself. Almost all ethical theories have asked that, but there is no urgent necessity
for asking people to be crueler and more evil. And also there is no great call to
complaint that morality is a weapon used by the weak to limit the strong. He names
unjustly, as an example of such morality of weapon, Kant, the China man on morality
for his duty ethics. But what could be wrong with Kants call for universal human
principle of Separe Aude, that is, call for the autonomy of reason?
Nietzsche, just like his co-temporary Danish counterpart accused everybody
of missing the vitality of life by boggling down the drains of rationalism and
enlightenment. But now, by looking back, as we now that the way their lives ended,
both in insanity, can we say that their way was better than that of Kants, who lived
in a small town until the age of eighty, an age about the sum of both Nietzsches and
Kierkegaards. So who is right, ethically and otherwise?
Existential Ethics: Sartre
Life story
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is a French philosopher, novelist, playwright and activist.
He studied at the Ecole Normale Superiour from 1924 to 1928. At the outbreak of
war in 1939, he was called up by the French army and in 1940 was captured by the
Germans. Released after the armistice, he returned to Paris, where he continued
to teach philosophy until 1944. Then he studies at Sorbonne, and under Husserl at
Gottingen, and became with Heidegger, a leading exponent of atheistic existentialism.
At the end of World War II he emerged as one of the leaders of left-wing intellectuals
of Paris; he was co-founder (with Merleau-Ponty) and editor of the journal Les Temps
Modernes. Sartre professed to be a Marxist even after his break with the Communist
Party, maintaining that Marxism and existentialism is complementary in their critique
of society and the aim to express in political liberty, value and freedom in human
nature. In his semi-biographical novel The Nausea (1938) and his essay Existentialism
is Humanism (1946), express Sartres fundamental concern with ethics, human
existence and the freedom of the will.
Sartre rejected the Nobel Prize he won for literature in 1964. During the Second
World War, he was a captured by Germans, but he escapes and joins the underground
Resistance Movement. During the Vietnam War, together with the British philosopher
Russell, he established a World Tribunal where The United States of America was tried
and found guilty of crime against humanity. His life-long love affair with the feminist
philosopher Simone de Beauvoir is also well-known story.
Ethics
Sartres views on ethics centers on mans lot in the world as absurd. Since God is dead
with Nietzsche, life can have no ultimate meaning and there can be no objective
knowledge of good and evil. We cannot decide, a priori, or find out by empirical
investigation what we ought to do. Man in his forlornness and freedom imposes
values. The choices he makes, the projects he forms for himself and the sum of
his acts constitute his values. There is no good or evil to be intuited or in any way
discovered by the human animal. Man in anguish and forlornness creates his values
by his deliberate choices, and, to add to this anguish, in making his choices he
involves all mankind.

23
 Only if there were a God could values have an objective justification, but without
God, everything is permissible. Moreover as a result man is forlorn, because neither
within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. Other ethics related ideas
of Sartre are as follows:
MODULE 3

As an Atheist Sartre believes that no single individual can develop an objective

UFND50

theory of ethics. If individuals follow any of the traditional ethical systems (such as
Kant, Aristotle), it means that they are in bad faith; they are avoiding their own
responsibilities in constructing their own selves. Sartre, like Nietzsche, believes that
one has the responsibility of creating his own self and destiny: We are condemned
to freedom!
Thrown-ness. Mans concrete existence precedes his essence. This is the opposite
of what the Rationalist Descartes had said with his dictum: Cogito ergo sum,I think
therefore I am. This means that my essence (thinking) precedes my essence; Firs
I have an essence, pre-existing me, and, by my life time, I realize this pre-existing
project of mine. Sartre reverses this: I act therefore I am. Fist I act, then I create
who I am, by my life and actions; I dont have pre-existing essence or project which
I materialize by my deeds in life. I can only create my essence for myself by my life;
or refuse to create one and commit suicide; the choice is all but mine. We are thrown
into this existence by complete accident, without any pre-planned, preconceived
project, since God is dead. At this point Sartre compares the existence of man and a
stone. Stone has an existence; it is preconceived as a stone, and unless an artist gives
it a form it remains a stone forever. Human being is different: he is responsible for
shaping himself, creating his own existence by his actions; this is his fate of existence;
he is condemned to be free.
Responsibility. Mans necessity of self-actualization puts him under great burden
of responsibility. Mans process of self-creation is not a moment long decision of the
sort, Oh, wait a second, let me just create myself! It means rather (a) a man can only
create and determine himself through his actions and deeds; (b) only he himself is
responsible from his own actions and deeds.
Anxiety nausea fear. In his lot in the world as absurd, and the necessity and
responsibility of his own self-actualization may lead a man into despair and other
negative feelings such as anxiety, feeling of nausea and fear. Sartre underlines a
passage from Pascals book Ideas: there Pascal says that he always walks around as
if he is at the edge of a fearful, dark cliff; Pascals feeling of fear in front of a deep
cliff is that of fear. He not only feels fear, but also, imagining himself falling down
it, asks himself: There is nothing that prevents me from jumping down, but here, I
have decided not to! Here at this moment, that you have decided to go on rather
than choose to jump down, you have decided to start to create yourself; i.e., be free.
It equals to your freedom of responsibility and will. The fundamental characteristic
of the existential feelings of anxiety, nausea and fear if that they have no objective
references in the objective or in the subjective mental states; fear is not to be afraid
of something, anxiety is something you dont know why.
Bad fate. Existentialism is against all reason centered philosophies of the past. All
rationalist philosophies define man with his rational essence. Kants duty ethics is a
typical example of such philosophies. Existentialism denies that reason is the sole
source of values and meaning. An existentialist argues as follows: I wish it were true
that reason determines all human actions, then I would never be afraid of walking
around in the middle of the night in Taksim Istanbul, or in Central Park in New-York.
If I respond in a rational way to an irrational man in those circumstances, then most
likely I would end up in a hospital or in a morgue. Bad fate! For Sartre, imposing
rational ethical straightjackets to other, then the other becomes our hell!

24
Ethical Implications Existentialism
As we have repeatedly emphasized, Sartre is against any idea of constructing a
systematic ethical theory. But we have a right to draw some implications from his
existentialist assumptions for ethics. Here are some of the existential assumptions

MODULE 3
relevant to ethics: Human beings do not have an innate essence. Each human being

UFND50
is responsible for creating his own essence with deeds and actions of his life time.
Freedom equals will-power.
Each and every decision man takes is the result of his free will-power.
Each and every decision man takes brings along the negative conclusions
along.
Those assumptions mentioned above are the general assumptions of existentialism.
Now we are in a position to determine that, despite all these negative assumptions,
how are we act ethically, if possible under these assumptions. Here are some
suggestions:
Existential ethics, if it is possible, would require an alert mind and intellect aware of
continuous clarity of mind and soul.
We must remember that every decision we make is personal, and individual; it only
bins us.
The fact that these decisions only bind us, does not mean that they are irrelevant
to others. To the contrary, every decision we make for ourselves, may affect in either
negative or positive ways the group(s) we live in.
Again, if thinking that the things we want to do will somehow do good or harm to
the people with whom we live, we change the thing which we want to do, we cannot
create our own selves, and neither we can help the people we think we did some
sacrifice by modifying our behavior. This is certainly a painful experience, as every
loving parent knows.
As none has a right to demand from us to do a certain thing and behave in a certain
way for a purpose, we too cannot demand others to do so.
Think, decide and act. If you share your ideas with others and convinced that you
are right, do not hesitate in the direction you decide, and act. In a situation like this
an hesitant person cannot be a free one.
Once acted, you must firmly stand by your decision, no matter what the consequences
may be. An existentialist person is ready to face all negative consequences of his own
decision, and ready to defend it. The most important source of life of an existential
person is his risk taking ability. The ensuing possible crises are also the most valuable
jumping points which he could elevate himself into further jumping points.
Individual vs. society. Sartre is a Marxist, and as such, he gives priority to society
over the individual. The life struggle of an existentialist is between himself and
everything material conditions surrounding him. Most choices man makes against
these circumstances are of the bad fate sort, and he chooses to be miserable and
unhappy. Here Nietzsches herd morality should be remembered. But again, we are
not all overmen.
The Rationalist Anti-Enlightenment Ethics: MacIntyre and Nussbaum
In the above sections of this module, we have examined the enlightenment ethics
and anti-enlightenment ethics of the irrational existentialisms. These were the ethics
of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre.
In this last section, we took two samples of ethical views from the 20th century

25
 intellectual arena representing not irrational, but still anti-enlightenment ethical
views. These views are vehemently against the irrational ethical theories of
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, or Sartre, but at the same time they are also against the
extreme rationalist ethical theories of the Enlightenment.
MODULE 3

MacIntyres Return to Aristotle: Virtue Ethics

UFND50

A 20th century American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in his book After Virtue,
criticizes both the enlightenment ethics (Kants duty ethics and utilitarianism
of Bentham and Mill) and irrational ethics of Nietzsche, and proposes a return to
Aristotelian ethics of virtue. MacIntyre agrees with Nietzsches criticisms of the
enlightenment ethics, but disagrees with his own alternative of an irrational ethics.
He believes that an alternative to enlightenment ethics is another rational ethics
which has been left with the beginning of Enlightenment age.
McIntyres criticism of the enlightenment an irrational ethics
McIntyres book After Virtue (1981) brings detailed criticism of major ethical theories
of enlightenment such as Kants ethic of duty and utilitarian ethic. The book praises
Nietzsches criticism of the enlightenment ethics, but calls the alternative Nietzsche
brings to this ethic as nonsense. A reasonable alternative should be long forgotten
ethics of Aristotle, with an interpretation of virtue ethics for the modern world. Some
major points of criticism are as follows:
Inconsistent language of enlightenment ethics: imagine that in a science fiction
where all the sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, etc. have disappeared
following a major catastrophe. After the catastrophe, some bits and pieces of
sciences are being put together for the purpose of recovery of these sciences. The
reconstruction will never be complete since after the catastrophe, the general
attitude and the key scientific outlook to sciences which existed before has been
lost. MacIntyre compares the language of modern day ethics to the language of
sciences after the catastrophe. As an example of this confusion and inconsistency he
cites the ethical languages of Kierkegaard, Marx, Kant and Hume. These philosophers
share the major deficiency of the enlightenment refusal of the Aristotelian idea of
teleology. Logic and language of teleology was a cohesive adhesive making different
ideas of ethics consistent and coherent. Without teleology the language of ethics fell
into such confusion and chaos. A theory of ethics without teleology is a bundle of
inconsistent and confused words and sentences.
Enlightenment ethics reduced the subject of ethics to individual: Second
common mistake the ethics of enlightenment made is to reduce ethics to the level
of the individual from that of the social. The reason of this reduction too is related to
lack of teleology. Without teleology, ethics have become rules for individual conduct.
Atistotles fundamental thesis that ethics is part of politics and society is left by the
enlightenment thinkers. Ethics now is divorced from politics and society leaving
politics outside the confines of ethics. Ethics tus became rules for individual duty,
maximum utility, etc.
Nietzsche is praised but also criticized: McIntyre highly praises Nietzsche for
destroying the ethics of Enlightenment but is also highly critical of his irrational
heroic-ethical stance. A viable alternative to enlightenment ethic cannot be that of a
heroic ethics, since the overman is someone who lives in isolation outside of society.
Proper ethics is Aristotelian virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics retailored for modern world
McIntyre places the following three concerns at the heart of contemporary ethical
thinking:

26
 Who am I?
What kind of a person I ought to be?
How can I become the person I ought to be?

MODULE 3
Ethics of virtue is not an ethics of action or consequences, but rather is an ethics of

UFND50
person or personality. The words I and who are expressions of virtuous person.
Virtue ethics in this sense is concerned with the ethical personality of the acting agent-
subject. It is naturally assumed that if a person is ethical, then his actions too will be
ethical. Here are some major ideas and principles of virtue ethics as reconsidered and
shaped for the modern society:
An ethically correct action is the action which would be performed by any ethical
person under the same particular circumstances. In this sense virtue ethics focuses
not on the action itself but on the personality and intention of the actor. There is
no reference to the conclusion of the action or the action itself. So the question
emerges: what is a good character, and how does a good person behave under
certain situations.
A good man is one who acts virtuously. Here to the reference is not to the
goodness or badness of the action itself, but to the goodness or badness of the
character of the person performing the action.
A man is considered as good only if he possesses virtues. Possession here means
practicing and living in the Aristotelian sense of Phronesis, or practical wisdom. This
is also related to a society as a whole since the precondition of a good society is the
good individual (citizen).
Virtues are moral values which enable men to live a good life, Eudomonia.
Eudomonia is better translated as living well (rather than happiness). Living well
possesses all virtues harmoniously in a coordinated manner, and being able to utilize
them in proper portions, in the right place and time.
Answer to the three questions: Am I someone who is virtuous? Answer to this
question brings one to answer the second question. The third question is too obvious
to answer.
In sum, virtue ethics stresses the importance of skillful living as realized through the
practice of virtues. Virtue refers to human dispositions that involve the judgment
of the intellect, leading to right action and directing towards the attainment of the
moral good. Virtue ethics focuses on the individual virtues (such as prudence, justice,
temperance, courage) that are essential for the moral growth characterizing a well-
developed human being. It underlines that the acquisition of these virtues takes place
through participation in practices. Participation in virtuous practices is not simply
mechanical or animal motion it is purposeful (teleological) and chosen (uniquely
human) action and doing. Virtue ethics tells us that, if we want live in a morally right
way, we need not only to develop our reasoning skills, but also shape our personal
identity and actualize our true nature. We also and most of all, need to act intelligibly
promote the moral goods. Virtue ethics views a person as a moral agent --people are
more than what happens to them. A moral agent is one who not only possesses the
capacity to act. But one who has the capacity to choose which actions to perform,
because he or she has moral understanding. Virtue ethics engages the self-much
more than psychological theories The overall idea of moral agency of virtue ethics
helps us to understand that, despite the limits of the world in which one lives, one is
still able to shape responsibility the image of the person one ought to become.
Nussbaum: Ethics of capabilities and Human rights
Martha Nussbaum (1947-) is a feminist, liberal and democrat American philosopher.

27
 The main contention is that a liberal democrat person living in a society of relatively
goof level of economic wealth has a twofold natural tendency: (1) as being human
s-he has a right to have equal honor and other rights; (2) for this reason alone s-he has
a right to utilize these values and rights to enhance and ameliorate her happiness.
MODULE 3

Nussbaum asks the following Aristotelian question: what are the capabilities which
enable men to achieve the above two goals?
UFND50

A general classification of capabilities

Nussbaum classifies capabilities under three general types:
Basic capabilities: these are the main capabilities which will enable man to develop
further secondary capabilities as they live along. Babies at early life, have kernels of
some imaginative and cognitive capabilities. These constitute the origin of all other
capabilities which will be listed below.
Inner capabilities: these are built upon the basic capabilities by training and
exercises. Ability to use ones native language effectively and abilities relevant to
basic socializations are among examples of these capabilities. Most of our inner
capabilities require formal education and/or training.
Combined capabilities: These are inner capabilities plus all the external conditions
enhancing and ameliorating these capabilities. All the public policies aiming at
developing these capabilities are of two groups: (1) education as aiming to develop
inner capabilities; (2) Institutional and material conditions developed for the purpose
of future enhancement of these capabilities.
An open-ended list of these capabilities
What makes a human human are the following capabilities:
Right to life. Ones capacity to live a relatively long life; not to die untimely.
Health. Balanced diet, sex, shelter.
Bodily integrity and protection. Being able to move around and travel freely,
protection from bodily harm, sexual abuse, violence.
Feelings, imagination and contemplation. Being able to fully feel, imagine and
contemplate. Freedom of thought and expression, and while doing all these, having
right to be correctly infrmed and educated. Being able to use ones feelings and
imagination in freely selected fields, for creative purposes. Being able to use our
minds freely in freely chosen fields of study. Doing all these with the knowledge of
full protection of our freedom of thought and expression. Experiencing things that
brings pleasure and dispels pain and suffering.
Emotions. Being able to freely and free of any coercion or force, attach emotionally
to people we feel for. To be able to love and reciprocate to the people who care for
us. Being able to share their pain and suffering. To be able to develop our emotional
maturity fearlessly as a free and fulfilled person.
Pragmatic wisdom. To be able to develop for our own purposes in life a conception
of the good and be able to organize our life-goals around this conception freely and
fearlessly.
Friendship, human relations. Being able to have good friendships and good
relationships with others both in personal and professional life. To be able to
participate in social and political activities free of inner or external coercions. To be
able to spend some time for people in need.
Other living beings. To develop a sensitivity towards nature and environment and

28
all animals.
Play. To be able to play games, play-act, laugh and have fun.
Mans ability to control: (1) Political participation in all kinds of activities

MODULE 3
determining our political future; (2) Material control of our immediate life interests.
Being able to own a house, right to have a good job that is liked and cared for.

UFND50
This list of capabilities is by no means exhaustive: it is an open-ended list which
can be extended and/or modified according to time, place culture, etc. Secondly, this
list of capabilities is related to all other kinds of human rights and capabilities. Thirdly,
it must be underlined that all these capabilities are human deeds performed within
the forms of lives those human beings live in, and these forms of lives may change
from one culture to another.
Human rights and capabilities: the minimum level principle
In considering the problem of human capabilities, one necessarily has to tackle with
the global and international aspect of the issue. There is this necessary connection
between the capabilities and human rights:
Universal human rights involve this crucial ethical principle: human capabilities
in international and trans-national level cannot and should not be allowed to fall
under a certain level. Here, the lower limit for each capability should be determined
separately and unconditionally for each particular capability. International institutions
and national states must, in close cooperation have an obligation to determine
these lower limits of capabilities for all humanity. Certainly, the greatest burden of
effort falls to the shoulders of voluntary organizations and pressure groups in a free
democratic and liberal society. Human rights benefit all mankind; they are for all of
us.

Summary
Aim 1
To be able to explain, understand and criticize the Enlightenment theories of ethics.
Enlightenment ideas:
Rationalism. Human reason is the measure of everything and the sole source of
knowledge and morality.
Progress. Humanity with reason always progress forward linearly.
Cosmology. Universe is a giant machine governed by laws of nature.
Scientific method. Combining rationalism and empiricism, method controls and
predicts natural events.
Secularism. Separation of religion from state.
Tolerance.
Freedom and human rights.
Mass education.
Ethics of Spinoza
Ethics is reduced to psychology. Reason controlling and guiding emotions leads to
a content life.
Feelings and emotions cause inner conflicts resulting unhappiness. Reson and
logical thinking can resolve these conflicts.

29
 Duty ethics of Kant
Search for the highest good not in happiness but in rational will.
For an action to be ethically good, it must follow the universal categorical imperative
MODULE 3

which the rational will imposes.

UFND50

Ethics of duty aims at finding by reason, universal laws of conduct: categorical

imperatives.
Utilitarian ethics
Principle of utility. Any action maximizing utility is ethically good. This principle
rules that people should act so as to maximize pleasure for maximum number of
people.
Reversely, the utility principle rules that people should act so as to minimize pain
for maximum number of people.
Ethical action is not related to the intention or the character of the actor; it is merely
related to the consequence of the actors. Even if done with an ill-intention (i.e., for
harming someone) if the action bring maximum pleasure for some people, it is
considered as ethical.
Deweys ethics of pragmatism
The sole model of ethics is scientific research.
Science has common with ethics: ideas, problems; discoveries, lack of final,
immutable solutions to problems.
Aim 2
To be able to understand, explain and criticize ethical theories of anti-enlightenment.
Kierkegaards existential ethics
Ethical life is a life time conflict between aesthetic state and ethical state. Aesthetic
state is a hedonistic state of existence: seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, living
only for the day, without any responsibility. Ethical existence is a state of existence
where one strictly abides by rules, duties and morality of the community in which
one lives.
Ethical life is also a conflict between the ethical stage and the religious stage
(religion here does not mean religion as we normally understand). By religious state
of existence leap of faith is meant.
Religious stage is one in which a human being is beyond good or evil: he has made
his choice by fiat. He is the only responsible being for his decision.
Therefore this freedom of choice is scary, gives one an existential axiety, fear and
trembling.
Nietzsches ethics of Overman
Philosophers of the past, with their ethical theories, created two kinds of morality:
that of slave morality and master morality. These ethical theories were confining
people into two distinct categories for the purpose of maintaining hegemony of
the powerful over the poor and helpless. Throughout the history, sometimes the
becomes master, other times master becomes the slave; but the rule of hegemony
always persists. The two morality, that of the save and master remains unchanged.
Nietzsche aims at breaking this vicious circle of slave master morality by the ethics

30
of the overman. Philosopher tells all men: be the master of yourself! Create yourself!
Will to power. This is the most important concept of the ethic of overman. This
power is not an instinct of sheer survival; it is rather a positive, conscious joy and
affirmation of life and fate. Creativity, production and progress get their sources from

MODULE 3
will to power.

UFND50
Overman is not a superman but someone who can create his own self.
Nietzsche gives Goethe, Bethoven and himself as examples of overman.
Overman lives in seclusion, staying away from the herd masses. He carries a great
responsibility and is lover of fate (Amor fati), someone who is ready to take all pain
and burden on his shoulders for the mission he carries.
Existential ethics of Sartre
Mans existence precedes his essence. This is the reversal of Descartes famous
dictum that I think therefore I am. Thus is the existentialist dictum: I act therefore I
exist.
Translation of this dictum into ethics is expressed by the term thrownness. Since
God is dead, there is none who will give us a pre-existing essence according to which
we can conduct our lives. We are so to speak thrown into this world beyond our own
will. But we can will over the kind of person we wish to become by our deeds and
actions; we can create our own essence by saying: here I am, I am this and such a
person.
Man is condemned to freedom. A burden to create oneself in a lifetime is a kind of
condemnation to freedom. If we want to live and create ourselves, so we must decide
to do so. This brings a great responsibility with itself.
Such responsibility brings along some negative feelings such as fear, anxiety, feeling
of nausea. These feelings have no definite objects.
Bad faith. Those who choose to conduct their lives according to rationalist ethical
theories (such as duty ethics of Kant or utilitarianism) are in bad faith.
Virtue ethics of MacIntyre
Teleology. Ethics without teleology result in the enlightenment ethics of confusion
and terminological contradictions, such as Kants duty ethics or Mills utilitarian ethics.
These ethical theories reduced ethics to rules of individual conduct divorcing it
from politics and society.
Contemporary virtue ethics asks three fundamental questions: (1) Who am I; (2)
What kind of a person I ought to be?; (3) How can I become the person I ought to
become?
A mans action is called ethically correct if an ethical person will do the same action
under the same circumstances.
Virtuous man is one who performs virtuous actions.
Virtuous action is one performed by a virtuous person.
Virtues are qualities which enable men to live a better life (Eudomonia=living well).
Ethics of Capabilities: Nussbaum
Ethics begins with the following Aristotelian question: What are the capabilities
which enable men to live well (Eudomonia)?

31
 Hence the goal of ethics: to develop and enhance our capabilities.
These capabilities are: to live a decent and long life, body-care, mental and bodily
health, feelings and power of imagination, emotional balance, practical wisdom
and reason, friendships and relationships, sensitivity for other living beings and
MODULE 3

environment, play and having fun, control over ones physical and political-social
UFND50

environment.
A close connection exists between these capabilities and human rights. Ethical
imperative in global level includes keeping a level of minimum sustainability of all
these capabilities for all mankind.

Self-Test
1. Which of the following is true for the anti-enlightenment ethics?
a. Ethics is based on the principles of reason.
b. Ethics is based on divine revelation.
c. Ethics is based on concrete existential situations.
d. Ethics is based on the mystical.

2. Which of the following is not one of the criticism Kierkegaard levels against
traditional ethics?
a. All of the traditional ethics are rationalist.
b. All traditional ethics are about an ideal life form.
c. Old ethics are after unchanging principles and ideals.
d. Old ethics understood the irrational aspects of human being.

3. Which of the following is true for Kierkegaards alternative ethical view?

a. All known ethical viewpoint are suspended.
b. This is a life of seclusion.
c. This is a pessimist way of life.
d. This is a life of happiness.

4. Which of the following is Nietzsches fundamental criticism of the traditional ethics?

a. All of the traditional ethics are either ethics of slave or of master.
b. All traditional ethics are concerned with an ideal life style.
c. All traditional ethics suppress desires and feelings.
d. All traditional ethics are irrational.

5. Underlying Nietzsches views of ethics is the concept of will to power. Which of the
following best describes will to power?
a. Desire to have political and economic power.
b. Physical and spiritual power.
c. Masters power on the slave.
d. Passion for life and creativity.

32
6. Which of the following is not one of the characteristics of Nietzsches overman?
a. Seclusion.
b. Responsibility.

MODULE 3
c. Nobility of soul.
d. Rationality.

UFND50
7. Which of the following is wrong for Sartres existential ethics?
a. Mans concrete existence precedes his essence.
b. Existential man has a great sense of responsibility.
c. Existential man is extremely rational.
d. Existential man carries anxiety and feelings of fear.

8. Which of the following is true for McIntyres virtue ethics?

a. Ethically right action is the most rational one.
b. Ethically right action is the one which most pleases.
c. Ethically right action is the one done by a virtuous person.
d. Ethically right action is the irrational action.

9. Which one of the following is McIntyres criticism of the Enlightenment ethics?

a. Enlightenment ethics are too rational.
b. Enlightenment ethics assume ideal principles.
c. Enlightenment ethics assume a fixed and unchanging human nature.
d. Enlightenment ethics rejects the idea of teleology.

10. Which one of the following is the goal of Nassbaums ethics of capabilities?
a. A virtuous life.
b. Mans happiness.
c. To develop ones potentialities an thus pursuing a good life.
d. To have a sense of duty.

Bibliography
Ewing, A. C., Ethics, English Universities Press, London, 1963

Melden, A. I., (ed.) Ethical Theories, Engelwoods, New-Jersey, 1955

Self-Test key
1.c ; 2.d. ;3.a. ;4.a ;5.d ;6.d ;7.c ;8.c ;9.d ;10.c

33
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 4:
ETHICAL REASONING

Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden

Yaar University

Key Terms
Rhetoric
Factual reasoning
Value reasoning
Political-ethical reasoning
Formal logic
Syllogism
Claim
Support
Warrant
Backing of support
Backing of warrant
Rebuttal
Ethical dilemma

Aims
By the time you finish reading this module, you will be able to acquire the
following knowledge and skills:
To be able to explain the types of reasoning an ethical dilemmas.
To acquire the necessary knowledge and mental skill to conduct your ethical arguments
by using Toulmin model of reasoning.
 Ethical Reasoning
Types of Reasoning
People, by using non formal logic, most frequently exercise in their daily lives, the
MODULE 4

following three common types of reasoning:

UFND50

Factual reasoning is a type of argument about the factual existence of

thing or an event. How this happened? What has happened? Who did this?
What caused this? What will become of this? Here usually the reasoning is
about the cause of a thing or event to its conclusions and results. For exam-
ple: How will interactive education system will affect the quality of educa-
tion at Yasar University? Other examples could be: How do violence or sex
related programs on TV affect childrens behavior? Or, an argument for the
claim that Cigarette smoking causes cancer.

Value reasoning argues whether something or some event or situation is
desirable or not. Here, we must have criterion according to which we mea-
sure the desirability or undesirability of the thing or situation concerned. Is
this movie is good or bad, and why, according to which criteria? Or why this
novel X is bad, for such and such reasons.

Ethical-political reasoning argues for action, policy, or decision which

must be taken or avoided because of some good reason. For example recent
discussions in Turkish educational polices concerning the policies of allow-
ing or prohibiting boarding male and female students in the same houses.
Or should or not should death penalty be legalized.

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

English philosopher and logician Stephen Toulmin, in his The Uses of Argument,
describes an argument as a movement from accepted data though a warrant to a
claim.
Data (D) is the facts or evidence used to prove the argument. It answers the
question What have you got to on? Thus data corresponds to materials of fact or
opinion which are commonly called evidence. Data may report historical or current
events and facts, take the form of statistical data or citations from authorities,
or some declarative sentences established by a priori proof of an artistic nature.
. Without data clearly present or strongly implied, an argument has no informative or
substantive component, no factual point of departure.

Claim (C) is the statement being argued (a thesis). It is a term Toulmin applies
to what we normally call a conclusion. It is the explicit appeal produced by the
argument, and it is always a potentially controversial nature. A claim may stand as
the final proposition in an argument, or it may be an intermediate statement which
serves as data for another subsequent argument.
Data and claim taken together represents the specific contention advanced by
an argument, and therefore constitute what may be regarded as its main proof
line. The usual order is data first, and then the claim. In this sequence, the claim
contains or implies therefore. When the order is reversed, that is when the claim
was first pronounced, the claim contains or implies because. For the purposes of
teaching this model of argument, we take the second order, that is, we pronounce
the claim first, and then move backwards in the opposite of clock-wise direction, to
data, warrant, backings of both data and warrant and finally to rebuttal. In this
way the student is stimulated to unfold an argument like solving a puzzle. This way

2
of analysis is a unique contribution of the writer of this book to the subject.

Warrant (W) is the general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical statements
that serve as bridges between the claim and the data. It is the name Toulmin gives

MODULE 4
to that part of an argument which authorizes mental leap involved in advancing
from data to claim. As distinguished from data which answers the question what

UFND50
have you got to go on, the warrant answers the question How do you get there.
Its function is to carry the accepted data to the doubted or disbelieved proposition
which constitutes the claim, thereby certifying this claim as true or acceptable.

Backing of Data(B-D) are further hard core evidences, statistics, etc., backing data.
Backing of Warrant (B-W) consists of credentials designed to certify the
assumptions expressed in the warrants. Such credentials may consist of a single
item, or of an entire argument in itself complete with data and claim. Backing must
be introduced when readers or listeners are not willing to accept a warrant at its
face value.

Rebuttal (R) performs the function of a safety valve or escape hatch, and is, as a
rule, appended to the claim statement, with a qualifier unless It thus recognizes
certain conditions under which the claim will not hold good or will hold good
only in a qualified or restricted sense. By limiting the area to which the claim may
legitimately be applied, the rebuttal anticipates certain objections which might
otherwise be advanced against the argument. All these element of the argument
may be represented in the following diagram:

DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CLAIM
BACKING OF DATA

WARRANT

BACKING OF WARRANT
REBUTTAL

Diagram: Toulmin model of argument

A simple example of a Toulmin model of argument

Argument: Since Aye is born in zmir, she is a Turkish citizen unless she is convicted
for the crime of betrayal to ones nation, and therefore expelled from citizenship for
that reason.

Claim: Aye is a Turkish citizen.

Support: Aye is Born in in zmir.

Backing of Support: Here is Ayes birth certificate, and her papers of hospital
registration of her mother, etc.

Warrant: According to Turkish laws, a person born within the borders of Turkey, is
considered a citizen of Turkish Republic.

Backing of Support: In all democratic countries in the world, if a person is born

within the borders of a nation is automatically considered as a citizen of that nation.

3
 Rebuttal: Unless she is convicted of a crime called betrayal to the nation, and
therefore expelled from Turkish citizenship.
MODULE 4

Some examples of more complex ethical arguments as applied to Toulmin

model
UFND50

In the arguments listed below, the main elements of the Toulmin model, CLAIM,
SUPPORT, WARRANT, BACKING OF SUPPORT, BACKNG OF WARRANT and REBUTTAL
will be indicated in capital letters in parenthesis.

Argument 1: Turkish Parliament is concerned with the unethical practice

of using animals for the purposes of research in cosmetics industry, and
prepared a legislative proposal for banning such research. The argument for
this proposal is as follows: such experiments on animals must be banned by
legislation (CLAIM) since it serves for a purpose not directly serves human
health like cosmetics industry (SUPPORT). The statistical evidence and sci-
entific research done in this field is obvious (BACKNG OF SUPPORT). As the
most generally accepted ethical principle, animal rights are more important
than unfounded profits of the greedy cosmetic industry (BACKNG OF SUP-
PORT). Unless research on animal is for the higher purpose of saving and
prolonging human life and health (REBUTTAL).

Argument 2: Death penalty is an important useful weapon of the penal

code CLAIM) because it deters potential criminal actions (SUPPORT). Ac-
cording to the estimates of psychologists, 35% of the potential criminals
do not commit deadly crimes because of the fear of death penalty (BACK-
ING OF SUPPORT). Violence related deadly criminals must be penalized by
death (WARRANT) because these criminals have no respect for human life;
so anyone who take some ones life must pay it by his own life (BACKING OF
WARRANT). Unless another effective way of preventing these criminals from
killing others could be discovered. (REBUTTAL).

Argument 3: The use of cell phones in class-rooms should not be allowed

(CLAIM), since this causes distraction (SUPPORT). When questioned by the
instructor, these students cannot answer the question asked (BACKING OF
SUPPORT). All distracting material should be banned in classrooms. (WAR-
RANT). Education is a serious business that should be cared for. (BACKING OF
WARRANT). Unless of course there could be a way to use cell-phones in class
rooms without distraction (REBUTTAL).

Here are some arguments which the student can analyze in Toulmins model of
reasoning (as the above):
Death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes.

Global warming threatens future generations.

Environmental pollution is the greatest threat to

human life.

Combatting with terrorism increases human right violations.

Romantic love does not guarantee a strong marriage.

4
 Diet makes overweight.

Voting must be made compulsory.

MODULE 4
All social welfare programs must be abolished.

UFND50
Team-games help develop good character.

Censorship may be necessary.

All production and distribution of cigarette must be banned.

Fast food must be overtaxed if we want healthy children.

First traffic offences of drunk drivers must be punishable by prison sentence.

Anyone without a criminal record should be allowed to carry guns.

University students must be free to choose all of their courses.

Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical dilemma is a conflict of choice between two alternative ways that are both
negative. Here if one chooses the seemingly right way the result will be negative,
if choose the seemingly wrong way, the result will still be negative, but less tragic
than the other. So neither choice is satisfactory. The point of the dilemma is this: if
by choosing the right way, I cause a bad result, and if by choosing the wrong way, I
cause a lesser evil, should I choose the right one and have my peace of mind (which
is no peace of mind), or the wrong way and cause a lesser evil and have no peace of
mind anyway. We can show this paradox-logic in a diagram as follows:

ETHER: choose the good ..

RESULT..evil or bad result
OR: choose the evil.
RESULT ..the lesser evil

Philosophers developed certain resolution strategies against ethical dilemmas.

For example some claim that ethical dilemmas are not real dilemmas but merely
imaginary paradoxes; the real problem they say, is doing what duty requires us
to do, no matter what the consequence may be. This is the Kantian solution to
dilemmas. Others assert that solution lies in choosing according to the principle of
maximum utility, e.g., by choosing the the most good to most people involved, or
the least evil to most people. This is the utilitarian solution to dilemmas.
In our daily lives, at home, at school and at work, we all encounter such unresolved
ethical dilemmas. In a society for example, a women who is impregnated by rape
faces the dilemma of abortion or bringing a baby to life. Here are some well-known
examples of ethical dilemmas. Students may discuss these by putting their pro and
con arguments into the Toulmin model of argument and discuss in group setting.

5
 Dilemma of the sinking ship: A ship after crashing an iceberg is about to
sink in the middle of an ocean. Heavy rain and storm makes things worse. A
saving boat fit for 7-8 people is full of more than 10 people. Another imma-
nent storm is under way. The captain of the ship is also in the boat. The boat
MODULE 4

will definitely turn upside down by the coming storm, which means that all
on board will die. Unless, a few very old people hanging in the corner of the
UFND50

boat could be thrown out of the boat. Here is the dilemma. The captain is
advised by some in the boat that he should immediately throw these to fat
and old couple so that the rest could be rescued. A very young woman ob-
jects: No, each and every single life is sacred and no one should be thrown
out. The captain is you; how would you decide? Possibly, in the short few
seconds the captain has, his mind may be full of such conflicting ideas such
as: I must do the right thing. And what is this right decision? To push the
old couple and let them get drown! Or not to do that and let everyone on
the boat, including himself get drown! Well what do you think? What would
you do if you were the captain and why?

Sophies choice. In the famous novel called Sophies Choice, (William Sty-
ron, 1976. Ant the movie made with the same name in 1982, with Merlyn
Streep, as Sophie). A Polish woman, Sophie is in a Nazi concentration
camp, faced with the following dilemma: she will be honored to choose
one of her two children to save from the gas chamber. The two children are
taken away, and a decision on her part is awaited. Following a painstaking
reasoning she decides: the small girl should go to gas chamber. The reason
behind her decision is as follows: the small child in the ordeal of concentra-
tion camp will not be able to survive and die anyway; but the older male
child may have a better chance to survive. So she sacrifices her little girl. She
also lost her son in the camp and in the end she commits suicide. Should
you be in her shoes, what would you do and why?

A fathers painful dilemma. A father and son are in the concentration

camp. In an attempt to escape, the son is caught and therefore will be
hanged. The sadist guard tells the father to kick the chair under his sons feet
otherwise he will kill his son and another man in the camp. If you were the
father, what would you do and why?

The streetcar dilemma. A streetcar with broken brakes is coming full speed
downhill. There are five men are chained on the railroad on streetcars way.
You are there and by pushing a leverage, you are able to divert the streetcar
to an alternative railroad thus save these men. Bun on the alternative rail-
road, there is one man chained on the railroad. Would you pull the leverage
and save five mens life and let the one innocent man die in the second road,
and why?
Fat mans dilemma. A very fat tourist guide showing tourist around the
interior of an underground cave by the sea. While trying to get out of the
exit of the cave the fat guide is stuck, and cant move inside or outside. If he
cant get himself unstuck very soon, the waves will sweep and drown them
all. The only way for the tourists to save themselves is to blow the guide up
by explosive which one tourist carries in his back pack. What should they do,
and why?

Jean Valjeans dilemma. The hero of Victor Hugos well known novel The
Miserable, Jean Valjean is being sought for a minor theft he committed

6
 when he was small child (he was very hungry and stole bread). Now he is
grown up and a well to do and respectable mayor of a town. He learned that
a man called Jean Valjean is caught and committed to life in prison for the
crime which he himself committed decades ago. His initial reaction was to

MODULE 4
remain silent about the whole affair. Why should he save that miserable man,
and put himself in danger, since he helps many people in town and is well

UFND50
respected by everyone. Perhaps God willed this plot against that man in or-
der to save him. But his conscience bothers him, he cannot sleep any more.
He is now ashamed of the way he justified his decision to remain silent. He
then goes to court and confesses the crime and saves the other Jean Valjean.
What would you do is you were him, and why?

Carefree strollers dilemma. Ali who is a swimming champion is waking

along Alsancak sea side around midnight. He notices someone falling into
the sea. Seeing a child who is screaming for help he walked away, thinking
of the expensive suit he was wearing on that night. Besides the weather was
very cold, he could catch cold if he tried to save the child. Do you think that
Ali had an ethical obligation to save the child? What would you do if you
were him, and why?

Mad terrorists dilemma. A mad terrorist is captured. He confesses that he

placed time bombs which will explode at various pre-set times around sev-
eral crowded districts of the town. In the end hundreds of people may be
killed. Police cannot get the necessary information from the terrorist with
the usual legal ways of soliciting information. The terrorist is very skillful in
gaining time by misleading his interrogators. Time is short. A higher police
officer suggests a method of torture to make the terrorist talk, which is not
permissible by law. The officer insists that this is the only way to perhaps
save the lives of many people. Do you agree with this officer? Would you per-
mit torture so that the terrorist will talk? If so why?

Dilemma of a psychiatrist. A 1997 movie called The Devils Advocate, de-

picts a scene in which a patient confesses to his psychiatrist that he will kill a
women. Put yourself in the shoes of that psychiatrist. You have a professional
ethical rule of conduct: whatever your patient tells you is confidential; you
cannot even discuss these conversations with your wife. But what if your
patient is serious about killing that woman. If you dont share this informa-
tion with the police, and if that man kills the women, how would you feel?
Wouldnt you feel like an accomplice to a murder? And what about the loss
of a life, because you chose to follow the rule of your profession? Under such
circumstances would you desire an exeptio to the ethical code of your pro-
fession?

Nepotism dilemma. You are the head of the human recourses department
of a large firm. You heed to fill a position for which the son of your close
relative also applies. But there are people who are much more qualified
applicants than your relative for the same position. But you decided to hire
(whom) and why?

Betrayal to a friend. A friend of yours confesses that he committed a crime

in the past and asks you to keep it as a secret. You advise your friend to go
to the police and confees it, but he refuses. You in the meantime learn that

7
 some innocent person is accused of the same crime and is about to be con-

victed. What would you do if you were in his place?

Summary
MODULE 4

Aim 1
UFND50

Types of reasoning and ethical dilemmas

Factual reasoning. Arguments concerning if something or some event

happens and why it happens. How did this happen? What caused this event?
What are the effects of this event?

Value reasoning. Whether something, some object of art, some artistic

event is good or bad, and why.

Ethical-political type of reasoning. If an action, policy or social-politi-

cal-economic even, decision is right or wrong, its implications, long range
results, etc.

Ethical dilemma is a choice between two seemingly undesired choices.

Here choosing the ethically right decision results in bad, choosing the ethi-
cally wrong decision results the lesser evil than the other.

Aim 2
Toulmins model of ethical reasoning

Toulmins model of reasoning makes all logical reasoning simple and clear.

Secondly, Toulmin model gives us the most economical way of choosing

among various complicated ways of reasoning.

Models first element is the claim which the thesis to be proved. Claim is
both the beginning and end of an argument.

Support is the good reasons which support the claim.

Warrant is the most general, universal rules, principles and axioms linking
claim and support of the argument.

Rebuttal is the preconceived argumentation against possible attacks to our

argument; just like a preemptive attack on enemy territories.

Self-Test
1. Which of the following is the claim of a factual reasoning?
a. Mehmet said to Aye I love you.
b. Ahmet said: I will be a medical doctor when I grow up.
c. Aye said to mother this movie is terrible.
d. Father said to son If you dont study you flunk.

8
2. Which of the following proposition is the claim of a value reasoning?
a. Two plus two equals four.

MODULE 4
b. This painting is beautiful.

UFND50
c. It will rain today.
d. This house must be cleaned.

3. Which of the following propositions is the claim of a political-ethical reasoning?

a. This girl is pretty.
b. Today Fenerbahe wins.
c. Inflation must immediately be decreased.
d. Aye s a very happy person.

4. Which of the following is wrong for the Toulmin model of argument?

a. Toulmin model makes complicated arguments simple.
b. Toulmin model simplifies thinking.
c. Toulmin model help us cheating others.
d. Toulmin model helps consensus possible.

5. The first element of the Toulmin model is the claim. Which of the following is the
most correct definition of the claim?
a. Claim is the universal generalization which supports the warrant.
b. Claim is the proof of the main assertion of the argument.
c. Claim is the rebuttal of the argument.
d. Claim is the support of the rebuttal.

6. The second crucial element of Toulmin model of reasoning is the support. Which of
the following is the correct definition of support?
a. Support is the proof of the argument.
b. Support is the support of the warrant.
c. Support is the backing of the whole argument.
d. Support is the backing of the rebuttal.

7. The third important element of Toulmin model of reasoning is that of warrant.

Which of the following is the correct definition of warrant?
a. Warrant is the proof of the argument.
b. Warrant is the backing of claim.
c. Warrant is the backing of rebuttal.
d. Warrant is the element which connects claim with the support.

8. Which of the following is not a claim of an ethical reasoning?

a. It is wrong to torture animals.

9
 b. It is right to use animals for medical purposes as guinea pig.
c. All experiment of using animals should be banned.
d. All animals are creatures without reason.
MODULE 4

9. Which of the following is the support of the claim: Death penalty is good?
UFND50

a. All violent-deadly criminals must be punished by death penalty.

b. Death penalty deters potential violent-deadly criminals.
c. If someone takes ones life he must pay it by his own death.
d. Death penalty is not good.

10. Which of the following is the warrant of the claim: Aye is a Turkish citizen?
a. In her birthday certificate it is written Aye is a Turkish citizen.
b. Aye is born in Izmir.
c. Universal law stipulates that anyone in a country is considered as the citizen of
that country.
d. Aye is certified to be born in a hospital in Izmir.

Key to self-test
1.d ; 2.b ; 3.c ; 4.c ; 5.b ; 6.a , 7.d ; 8.d ; 9.b ; 10.c

Bibliography
Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, London, 1958

10
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 5:
ETHICS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden

Yaar University

Key terms
Informatics
Information
Overlapping technologies
Cybernetics
Info-sphere
Global village
Hacker
Cognition
Facebook
Twitter

Aims
After completing this module you will be able comprehend and explain the
following:
The problems and subject intersecting ethics with science and technology.
The problems and subjects intersecting ethics, economy (development),
business and technology.
 ETHICS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

The symbol of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th

century was the locomotive. Great 19th century Russian novelist Dostoevsky has said
MODULE 5

in one of his novels that railroads may physically bring people faster but they will also
make people emotionally more alienated from one another. 19th and 20th centuries
UFND50

have their technological symbols as cars and airplanes. The symbol of the late 20th
century and 21st century is Silicon Valley. Information technology has brought the
whole world into what McLuhan once has foreseen as the global village.
Historians have described the special circumstances that created technology in
Western Europe and its areas of influence. Western historians usually claimed that
modern technological way of thinking is an exceptional expression of the Western
societal response to the challenges of nature. In the words of Goulet, technology is a
latecomer on the historical scene and (is) an untypical phenomenon.
On the other hand, this latecomer Western miracle created serious ethical problems
all around the world. Let us take a very recent example: in November 2013, the author
of the best seller book Dignity of the Nation, also a well-known mathematician,
Masahiko Fujivara in a conference he gave in Istanbul, Turkey, complained that the
Japanese culture, after the World War II, gradually lost her Samurai spirit and became
Americanized. By Samurai spirit Fujivara meant four cardinal cultural values: passion,
resilience, order and courage. He added that most traditional Japanize values were
replaced by the so called global (he means by this American) values. For example
saving money replaced the old saving virtues; insisting on ones personal interests
and righteousness replaced caring for the other. Japanize culture is divided into rich
and poor and the poor is labeled as stupid and lazy. Before, a rich man would
not feel uneasy if there were some poor people around him. He also noted that the
Turkish culture should be more cautious and careful about not losing its authentic
cultural values. (A Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet, October 28, 2013.). So the
problem of value changes and disruptions resulting from technology transfers from
rich to poor countries poses an ethical problem.
This first section of module will examine the relationships between science and
ethics and the theoretical developments laying the foundations of technology and
ethics relations. The second section will look at ethics of technology and its related
problems. The third section will focus on ethics of economy and technology, more
specifically, how development ethics explains changes in the cultural values of the
tech receiving countries. In the last section we will examine business ethics and
. technology.

Ethics of Science and Technology

Ethics of Informatics-Information-Computer

Ethics of informatics studies the ethical and cultural consequences of information

technology. In a more narrow sense, ethic of internet and computer the application
certain ethical theories such as duty ethics and utilitarianism to the problems
posed by informatics technology. Ethics of informatics is also the name given to the
professional ethical codes and rules relevant to all computer and internet related
fields. Ethics of informatics, in the last two decades, is a field of applied ethics that
rapidly is placed in most major universities curriculums.
First Ethics of Informatics: Ethics of Cybernetics, Norbert Weiner (1947)

By mid-1940s an American mathematician Weiner wrote a book called Cybernetics.

2
This pioneer book first time discussed the ethical problems relevant to computers.
Weiner, in this book had this interesting and, at that time, unbelievable prediction:
The Western world will go through a second industrial revolution beginning with
the 1950s, unprecedented as ever. He called this revolution the age of automatics.

MODULE 5
He also predicted that this age of automatics will bring together with it the good and
the bad ethical consequences. People took Weiners ideas as strange and whimsical

UFND50
dreams of a genius at the time, not paying too much attention.

Weiner was a genius; he predicted in the several books he wrote after Cybernetics,
that there has to be field of ethics which has to tackle with the oncoming age of
technology. He did not give a name to this field of study, but later a name was found:
the ethics of cybernetics.

Cybernetics and his theory of human nature

Weiner defines cybernetics as the applied science of control and communication

in man and machine. Man is a complex machine composed of matter, energy
and information. Here machine is a metaphor suggesting law-governed and
deterministic nature of man; man is like machine. Not only man is like-machine, but
everything which is living in the universe too is so. Life or death of all living organisms
is nothing but continuous transformation of matter, energy and information. Even the
phenomenon of thinking is a kind of process of information. Human brain does not
emit thoughts; thought is not matter or energy, it is information. Man as different
from other animals has a much greater capacity of learning that is processing
information; he processes with his intellect the great amount of information he
receives from outside. In todays terminology, man is an object of information; his
intellectual capacity and personal identity largely depends on his capacity to process
information.

Justice and ethics: Maxims of Great Justice

Within the framework of the above described picture of human nature, the goal of
human being is to maintain his life the way he desires freely and creatively by way of
maximizing his capacity to process information. For this to happen, Weiner maintains,
a society must be founded on the following maxims of Great Justice:

Maxim of freedom: Justice requires developing and increasing ones own

potentialities freely and unrestrainedly.
Maxim of equality: Justice requires that whatever is fair for A, and whatever
is fair for B, will be fair and just, when A is replaced B, and vice versa.
Maxim of generosity: Justice requires that people should treat one another
in a generous and kind manner.

Weiners theory of cybernetic nature of man and society views man as a social being;
human beings cannot actualize and develop their potential capacities without other
human beings, aloe and in seclusion. For this very reason society is necessary for
man leading an ethical life. But there is fundamental condition that society is not
an authoritarian type; without a full democratic society, the above maxims of Great
Justice cannot be established. With such a reasoning, Weiner adds a fourth maxim:
Maxim of minimum violation of freedoms: All necessary limitations of free-
doms must be done in such a way to restrict peoples liberties minimally.

Ethics of cybernetics is universal

Weiner rejects ethical relativist claim that since there are so many different cultures,
languages and traditions, there cannot be single, universal global ethical principles.

3
 To the contrary, since human nature is the same in all around the world, universal
principles of the Great Justice constitute the foundation of a global ethics. The plurality
of cultures creates a plurality of values but they should not and cannot contradict
or violate the principles of Great Justice. The only limitation is the requirement that
MODULE 5

all nations and cultures should provide the environment and conditions necessary
for men to create and enhance their creative potentialities; an environment where
UFND50

freedom, equality and generosity reign.

Method of cybernetics ethic

Weiner comments on how each society could go about developing its ethics of in-
formation. Societies already have their own cultural values and ethical norms upon
which they can build universal ethics of informatics. Weiners conception of the
above described human nature can provide a base upon which a unified universal
and global information ethics can formed and developed. Such a process of forma-
tion includes the following steps:

A particular problem related to information ethics may be isolated and clari-

fied. The problem chosen must be affecting somehow negatively the health,
well-being, security, knowledge, happiness of the people.

Clarify in a clear and distinct way all the vague concepts, issues, additional
relevant information concerning the problem chosen.

Apply all the pre-existing values and norms of the society concerned to solve
this ethical problem.

In addition, if necessary also apply the universal ethical maxims of the Great
Justice, and other existing ethical theories such as Kants duty ethics and util-
itarianism.

The assumption that if the moral norms of society is basically just and fair, then the
ethics built upon these norms are also just and sufficient is essential to Weiners eth-
ics of informatics.

Second Ethics of Informatics: Computer Ethics of Johnson and Moore

Computer Ethics of Dobarah Johnson (1985)

Almost 40 years after Weiner, in 1984, another American scholar writes a book called
Computer Ethics. According to Johnson, computer ethics brings the old ethical
problems and dilemmas in a nee area and in a different fashion. Due to the special
nature of computer technology, these ethical problems reveal themselves if differ
fashion and form. She gives the following examples to clarify this assertion: Should
the software royalty should be put under legal protection? Do big data bases
threaten the right to privacy of citizens?

Ethics of computer covers the following issues and problems:

Royalties of systems of software.

Right to privacy.
Computer expertizes and related responsibilities and rights.
Computer technology and related human rights and values.
Computer design for the disabled.
Effects of internet technology on cultural values and democratic values.

4
Computer Ethics of James Moore (1985)
The year 1985 witnessed in addition to Johnsons book Computer Ethics, equally
influential article by James Miller called What is Computer Ethics? In this article,
Moore extends the content of computer ethics far beyond that of Johnsons.

MODULE 5
Johnsons ethics was merely concerned with the definitions and descriptive aspects
of computer related ethical problems. Moore, beyond such descriptive issues was

UFND50
looking for an to the question of how and why information technology was creating
more ethical problems than the other technologies. He finds this answer in the
revolutionary nature of information technology; the essence of this revolutionary
nature of computer technology, he asserted, lies in its flexible characteristic.
According to Moore, computers are easily amenable to be logically manipulated into
many different forms and styles; logically speaking, its field of application is infinitely
wide and variant. Moore even says that the creative imagination of these machines
is as rich as that of human beings. There we face a great potential of creativity which
none anticipated so far. And therefore governments, parliaments and states were
caught by surprise, unprepared for passing legislations on the possible ethical issues
of this field of technology. So there is a serious global problem of policy gap in the
field of computer ethics. Moreover this ethical policy gap is accompanied by a serious
conceptual gap meaning that the terminology and jargon necessary for developing
such an ethics of computer is largely and globally missing.

Considering the abovementioned problems and inadequacies, the foremost task of

computer ethics, according to Moore, is to develop some explicit rules and semantic
terminology for making a sufficient ethics of information possible.

During the 1980s and 1990s Moores concepts of flexibility of computer logic,
policy gap and semantic gap influenced many more research and inquiry.
During 1990s, Moore added more conceptual and terminological contributions to
the field. For example, he enlarged the computer ethics including such concepts
as life, prosperity, health, happiness, security, resources, opportunities, and
knowledge. His further contention is the premise that if a society loses any of these
values because of the introduction of computer technology, that society is doom
to failure. Certainly, this claim, in itself, deserves special attention: will computer
technology destroy our dear and innermost cultural values, and if so what must be
done to prevent this coming danger. Moore has some advice in order that this could
not happen under the concept of just and fair ethical purpose. as follows:

Determination and developing policies for both the policy gaps and con-
ceptual gaps in the field of computer ethics.

Use all major ethical theories of the past for this purpose; including Kants
ethics of duty and that of utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill.

This means that the computer ethics have to combine the two traditionally ri-
val ethics of Kant and utilitarianism. This project in itself constitutes a novelty
in applied ethics: combining rival traditional ethics in computer ethics.

Third Ethics of Informatics: Gorniak Hypothesis (1995)

The Gorniak Hypothesis

Kristina Gorniak, in a 1995 article she wrote, makes the following prediction: comput-
er ethics, in a very short time span in future, will evolve into a universal and global
ethics of information. As it is known as Gorniak hypothesis, this view claims that all

5
 the past ethics such as Kantian ethics of duty or that of utilitarianism were unable
to create a universal global ethics since they were merely conditioned by the local
parameters of their cultural and or social environments. In contrast to these condi-
tions, the universal and global ethics of information is universal and global for the
MODULE 5

following reasons:
UFND50

Information Technology is a revolution of unprecedented sort. Never in the

history of mankind before a revolution of this magnitude have happened.
And the internet and computer ethics too, is or should be as radical as this
revolution should demand.

So, the information technology revolution will and must create a universal
and global ethics of information equally unmatched in the history of man-
kind.

Internet technology has no limits; it is infinite in terms of space and time. Net-
work of internet are a genuine sample of globalization.

Norms of internet cannot assume their ethical status unless followed by all
users. If accepted by all, they become universal ethical norms.

Computer technology compels us to discover new ethical problems and solu-

tions to them; it also is a motivation for future policies and prospects.

Gorniak hypothesis doesnt tell us about the possible future norms of information
ethics. It assumes that, as new technologies unfold and progress, new ethical prob-
lems and solutions will necessarily follow.

Ethics of nformation (2005)

A progress confirming Gorniak hypothesis happened when, in 2005, Floridi estab-
lished his theory of information ethics. Floridi asserts that the present day computer
ethics will become, in the near future, will extend its borders beyond computers and
become a wide ranging macro-global ethics. This macro-ethics will incorporate
into its contents the old ethics such as Kants duty ethics and utilitarianism. The main
points of Floridis information ethics are as follows:

Existence is the most important element in life.

Everything that exist has ethical value and deserve due respect.

Everything that exists is an object of information and a process of informa-

tion.

Everything that exist is a totality of data and that existence=information.

In other words, everything which exists is a kind of proper organization of

data. These data are information about the configuration, specific identity,
position and characteristics of that thing.

Everything which exists is a totality of operations, processes and functions.

These totalities are the responses objects give to the information they receive
from the external world.

6
 By abstraction, the model of information is thus applied to all existing beings
in the universe, including the environmental processes and all kinds of chang-
es. Floriddi calls this universe of information infosphere.

MODULE 5
In nfosphere, there is phenomenon called entropy which is even worse
than the human suffering.

UFND50
If the unique structures of objects and processes existing in nature is ham-
pered with or modified, these objects and processes are seriously damaged
or destroyed. Floriddi calls this phenomenon entropy. Entropy in this sense is
another name for evil which must be avoided.

There are four rules related to entropy in the infosphere: (1) Do not do any-
thing which might have triggered entropy; (2) Entropy in the infosphere must
me minimalized; (3) Entropy in the infosphere must be, if possible, abolished;
(4) We must protect, develop and enrich the information systems in the info-
sphere.

Floridis ethics of information, with these characteristics aims at complementing the

classical ethical theories of the past.

Fourth Ethics of Informatics: Levys Ethics of Collective Intelligence (1997).

French philosopher Pierre Levy, with his book Collective Intelligence: The New
World of Mankind Emerging in Cyber-Space is one of the most recent contributions
to the ethics of informatics. Levy considers the prevalence of information technology
as one of the most important step or stage in the evolution of mankind.
Levy considers computer and internet technology as the producer of a new de-
territorialized society. Within this de-territorialized society, the bodies without-
organs that is the software programs become new prostheses of our missing
organs, such as brains. To give a simple example to this strange terminology, I become,
while writing this book at this moment have more than a crutch in my activity of
writing: my computer is substituting my brain in the spellings and grammatical
mistakes by correcting the as I go along writing. May be very soon IT may be a
perfect grammarian correcting every mistake even before I think making of it. So
far, IT can do it that much; but some day in the near future, I may just sit back, and
IT can do most of the work I plan to write! What if there comes a day that IT doesnt
even need me to write my own book! Scary nest pas!

To go back to Levy, for him the most important concept of the ethics of information
is its potential for creation of a common or collective intelligence. The kernel of this
concept is the idea of Canadian philosopher McLuhan, in the 1960s global village.
McLuhan predicted that communication technology will in the near future create a
global village. Levy goes beyond this idea claiming that compoter technology will
extent the scope of our intelligence. This field of created collective intelligence,
in some near future, will take the shape of a network of a cyberspace, a field of
knowledge and know-how that could be called a vast cosmopedia. As different from
the old encyclopedia tradition, will also include the dynamic vision, video, sound,
interactive simulation, interactive mappings, and many other innovations.

Levys projections may be viewed as another utopia in the same tradition, but his
message is not a utopia, but a very calm and common sense suggestion: humanity
must come to its senses and try to develop a common collective intelligence based
upon information technology; and this is not impossible. That day to start it is today:

7
 there is internet, there is facebook and there is twitter; and the more is on the horizon
to be able to create intelligent points of intensities (such as the Gezi Park in Turkish
society, One could imagine him thinking).
MODULE 5

Ethics of Information: Practice in Daily Life

UFND50

We have not, as yet reach the level of computer ethics which Levy has envisaged, but
we can, considering the level of a computerized society consider some ethical and
legal political consequences we are faced with in succinct captions as follows:

Computers and nternet in daily life. The vision of the capitalist economy
well suits the vision of computers and internet: these machines never get
tired, even though they need occasional caring and mending, they have a ca-
pacity to serve as slaves for the man of technology. They moreover save time
and space and worker capacity, with no additional cost.

But additional burdens are on the horizon. Computer and internet tech-
nology brings new measures and unexpected dangers to human health and
happiness. Anyone who tries to keep up with such high-speed apparatus is
also faced with some serious mental and bodily problems of health. Duress is
the most important problem of those who work in this field.

Computer related crimes. One of the most important ethical new ethical
problem instigated by the new technology is the so called hacking. This is
not a problem of theft of your computer; it is a theft of your privacy of in-
nermost life information. This problem creates in especially less democratic
societies like Turkey; every bits and pieces of information about your private
life can be scrutinized, searched, recreated as pieces of evidences against you
or your family by creating false information leading your prosecution and
imprisonment with false evidences if you are critical of the government in
power.

Right to privacy and anonymity. As early as 1960s, the U.S. Government had
already constructed a great data base concerning the citizens. Great contro-
versies followed, and the legislation protecting the right to privacy is secured
as a result. But the rest of the world couldnt keep up with these democratic
developments. In Turkey, today, as of 2013, no legal or social initiative is on
the horizon.

Globalization and Information Ethics

As we have seen in the above summarized long development of ethics of informatics,

the ethics of computer and information claims the right to be the sole universal
global ethics covering all life and bios. At this point globalization and information
ethics intersects. Internet connected the whole world in cyber-space, like a piece of
cake; global village, in McLuhans words. Here are some of the problems which this
global village of internet faces in ethical terms:

Urgent need for ethical norms globally imperative. For example, the users
of internet in Turkey, under which countrys jurisdiction will be protected in
their freedom to express and write in their thoughts in Facebook or Twitter
accounts? How an internet user Mehmet in country A could, be faced with a
criminal charge in the country B, with whom Mehmet is chatting with?

8
 Global-cyber-business connected ethical problems. A serious ethical
problem arises from the fact that high tech countries could exploit lo-tech
countries in respect of economic advantages provided by high internet tech-

MODULE 5
nology.

UFND50
Ethics of Overlapping Technologies

Overlapping technologies is a relatively new concept following the rapid develop-

ments in computer technologies in different fields of natural sciences that are cen-
tered on biology. This new technology is called technology taking the initials of
words nano, bio, information, and cognition. So it is called NBIC technology. NBIC
technologies made possible the creation of biological-artificial objects thus enabling
new innovations in medicine. Among these are new methods of medical diagnosis,
artificial organ transplantation, the use of nano-machines in cancer treatments, use
of chips in brain surgeries and transfer of organic molecules to artificial organs. Such
technological innovations blur the boundaries between machines and organisms,
brains and computers. NBIC technologies bring the following ethical question into
consideration: are human rights under the threat of being violated? Especially tight
to live, integrity of mind and body, right to privacy are in such a danger.

Ethical questions of NBIC technologies

The rapid developments and innovations in the field of NBIC technologies threat-
en many of our moral, cultural or religious values. Especially in traditional societies
where religious values are predominant, these threats are more visible. It may be
hoped that these values will gradually change as the benefits of these technologies
become more visible to the conservative sections of these societies.

Main areas which the NBIC technologies at present or in the future, might raise ethi-
cal problems are the following:

Cloning of human embryo.

Cloning grown-up human beings.

Changing human intelligence, height, skin color, hair color, etc.

Extension of life span.

Artificial organ plantation.

Euthanasia.

Three paradigms of overlapping technologies (NBIC)

The ethical consequences of NBIC technologies are evaluated from three different
angles: pure science, pure mystery, and science-spirit paradigms:

Pure science paradigm. Science is the supreme power which can explain
everything including morality and ethics which supposedly distinguishes
us from animals. This approach sees human life merely as a gene-machine.
Meaning of life must be found only in science, as any investigation into any
humanly research. And this research has two scientific tools. Firstly, the scien-
tific and technological developments and innovations. Secondly, in a more

9
 abstract level, scientific and technological concepts and terms. This paradigm
is both genetic-reductionist and socio-biological. That is human beings are
nothing but gene-machines and a sociologically and biologically determined
organisms. Meaning of life, whatever it is must be found in these two dimen-
MODULE 5

sions of man. Nothing about man is a mysterious sacred or metaphysical; ev-

erything about him is open to scientific investigation.
UFND50

Defenders of this paradigm see the ethical problems from the above view of
science and man. So technologies interfering in production and reproduc-
tion mechanisms of human beings are perfectly legitimate and ethical. Again
similarly euthanasia is also perfectly legitimate since it is personal choice of
the person concerned. A scientist commenting on euthanasia is striking: If
we have exceeded our dates of expiration, it is best to go without any pain
anyway!

Pure mystery paradigm. This is the opposite of the pure science paradigm,
in that human life is viewed as sacred and mysterious. No matter how close
one is to death, human life must be protected. Accordingly this view does
not see euthanasia as ethical. Similarly, any artificial intervention into human
mind or body is not natural and constitutes a violation of human sanctity. De-
fenders of this paradigm are usually religious fundamentalists and defenders
of extreme conservatism.

Science-spirit paradigm. This paradigm defends a mid-way approach to

technology defending both scientific research and human values. It is a secu-
lar democratic approach to ethical problems gene-technology presents. Hu-
man life is more than a gene-machine: it has a soul and spirit. Spirituality is
an important part of man which also brings deep ethical concern with itself.
Human intuition is a good and reliable guide which does not exclude scien-
tific and the logical evaluations and choices. This view demands respect for
human spirituality, intuition and ethical choices.

Comparison of the three paradigms from an ethical viewpoint

Pure science paradigm starts with a principle of scientific doubt, which orig-
inates in the Cartesian doubt; anything which passes the test of doubt is clear
and distinct and hence scientific. Ethics too is subject to science and criterion
of doubt, and as a result is reduced to biology.

Pure mystery-spirit paradigm goes in the opposite direction claiming that

what makes something free of doubt is not science but faith. So ethical is
what the faith claims to be true.

Both of the above paradigms claim the monopoly of truth for their own be-
liefs; belief in science and belief in faith; theirs is the only truth.

Science-spirit paradigm makes room for both science and faith. Therefore
for example, they permit a genetic intervention in human embryo for certain
cases which will help the patient. Similarly they accept abortion and euthana-
sia if they will have good consequences for the patients (i.e., stopping exces-
sive pain). Generally speaking, this approach considers each and every case in
itself and evaluates it on an individual basis.
Business Ethics

10
Business ethics is a relatively new branch of ethics which have entered rapidly into
curriculum of most universities globally. Ethical responsibilities of giant global
companies include many subjects from pollution of the environment to harming
human health by industrial malpractice and nuclear accidents. The most, important

MODULE 5
problem of business ethics is the world-wide reluctance and even resistance of
giant industrial companies to legal and ethical rules and norms for economic and

UFND50
profit related reasons; ethical standards and measures to be taken are viewed
as unnecessary loss of profit and waste of time and energy. A second problem is
the resistance of pressure groups supported and financed by these companies to
legalization by legislation of ethical rules and norms.
These companies must be persuaded that in the long run, the legalized ethical norms
will benefit them and the whole society and the future generations as well. Known
studies on this subject suggest that when ethical norms are converted into explicit
legislation the following positive developments ensue: (1) companies carefully avoid
violating laws on these matters; (2) they take voluntary ethical measures to prevent
possible legal actions; (3) they correct ethical malpractices in order to keep their
public image intact. Many large companies hire ethical experts into their payroll
in order to insure the legality of their ethical practices. There are, in practice three
major approaches to the relationship between business and ethical practices. The
first is the view that business ethics is motivated by profit expectancies. The second
view perceives business ethics merely identical with and amounts to the existing
legislation on the subject. A third view equates business ethics with universal ethical
norms of ethics. Each of these views considers the ethical responsibilities of corporates
and companies from the angle of their own notion of business ethics. The two minor
views of business ethics are also taken into consideration in the following review.

Models of Business Ethics

Model 1: Business ethics is motivated by corporate profit

This view of business ethics considers the establishment of ethical practices as part
of the companys business investment which will increase profit in the future. This
model has in itself two versions: the weak and the strong thesis. The weak thesis
simply assumes that if there are good ethical business practices, there is also good
profit. For example if there are good ethical practices, the the less the company will
lose money for suits of malpractices.

Some disadvantages of the weak thesis are considered as the following:

This view works only for those companies which can have long term invest-
ments. But most companies expect and operate for short-term investment
and profit. So for those companies such long term ethical practices are not
profitable or appealing.

Some of the business ethical practices are not profitable even in the long run,
like keeping the aging personnel until old age.

Thirdly, each ethical practice may operate differently in different sectors,

hence returning as profit in a vastly varied way.

There is also a strong version this view of business ethics. It states that in a free
transparently competitive environment the motivation of profit creates a medium
suitable for ethical practices. For example, if the consumer freely demand healthy
products, and if the workers can freely demand their own rights and benefits, then
the customer naturally turns to the producer of the healthy product and the worker
wants to work with the just and fair employer. The ones that do not act properly will

11
 not be able to stay in business.

This strong version too has its disadvantage:

The main assumption of this view is that the consumer and the worker will
MODULE 5

behave rationally and will always choose the ethical one. This not the case
UFND50

most of the time; the consumer can choose the cheapest and the unhealthy
or the qualified worker can choose the unethical company for higher wages.

Model 2: Business ethics is nothing but what the law requires

This ultra-pragmatic approach to business ethics may work well for some advanced
economies, since most business ethics practices are safeguarded into legislation in
those countries. There are legal sanctions against business accidents, deaths, health
hazards, malpractices, etc. Therefore there is no need for extra legal business ethics
norms. But in most developing countries this is not the case. And such a business
ethics practice in those countries amounts to avoiding ethical responsibilities
required by genuine ethical norms.

This view creates, in most developed countries certain auto-control mechanisms of

ethical practices. But even in the most developed countries, laws may not be able
to cover all new technological developments, and consequently, there is always a
need to keep up with the developments and try to put into legislation the novel
ethical norms and rules which the new technologies create. The best example is the
information technology which constantly creates novel ethical problems.

Model 3: Business ethics is what the great ethical theories demand

Defenders of this view of business ethics come from a philosophy background since
they consider business ethics as part of the field of general ethics, which itself is part
of the philosophy proper. This view then naturally considers business ethics within
the larger ethical framework of great philosophers such as Kant, Mill and Bentham.

This view of business ethics considers the following universal ethical principles as the
major canons of business ethics:

Principle of harm: No business practice may produce unjust harm to ant of

the parties concerned.

Principle of equity: All business practices must treat all parties concerned in
an equitable way.

Human rights principle: All business practices must be respectful to all hu-
man rights

Principle of autonomy: No business practice may lead the parties concerned

into misleading behaviors (by unfair advertising, wrong information, etc.)

Principle of righteousness: no business practice may violate the trust and

the sincerity of the parties concerned.

The appealing side of this view is that no one can and would want to challenge these
grand ideas and principles, but it has the following shortcoming:

These ethical principles are too general and encompassing to be specifically

considered and applied to concrete situations. In daily practices of business
it is not very easy to determine what practice is exactly harmful, against hu-

12
 man rights, unjust, unfair, etc. What is the exact enumeration of the prac-
tices harmful to environment? What if cutting several hundred trees will bring
a far much greater utility and good to the community.

Model 4: Business ethics is comprised of the practices of a company protecting

MODULE 5
the interests of the affected parties. This narrow and shallow view of business

UFND50
ethics is usually practiced in big family type of business enterprises. By the interest
of the parties concerned it is usually meant the employees, share-holders, creditors,
debtors, etc. This view has the following drawback: the boundaries of the concept
the interest of the parties concerned is very vague and open to all kinds of
misinterpretations. Who has the right to decide who will be included into this class?

Model 5: Business ethics is to develop ethical codes of conduct for each

company autonomously. Such a view is perhaps plausible for the giant global and
international corporations. The problem with this approach is that it reduces ethics
to mere practices of rules of etiquette.

Business World and the Ethical Responsibility

of the Protection of Environment
Environmental responsibility is a crucial part of contemporary business ethics and
therefore should be treated and given a special attention. We all know that the
business world does not aim intentionally an in a planned way aims at harming or
destroying the environment, but they do it anyway although unintentionally. Why is
harming is unavoidable, at least in the great part of the capitalist industrial complex?
There are several major reasons why this happens:

Firstly, giant global and international corporations, by the necessity of the

nature of their enterprise, are in the position of the using and processing the
resources of the nature; it is part of their job to do so. They take a part of na-
ture and transform them into automobiles, machines, houses, televisions, etc.
Producing these artificial products means by definition usurping the natural
sources.

Secondly, the natural resources and environment is in the position of the

common grazing grass land for all of these industries; meaning that it is a
land of no one and therefore can be legitimately and commonly be abused
forever: the air belongs to no one, let it be polluted so that people can have
a little bit of fresh air (meaning of course that some technological facilities
which will make their life more bearable!)

Thirdly, the allure of huge profits and greed. The greedy selfish and uneth-
ical investors all around the globe are after maximum profit and minimum
expenses in return. One of the best ways to maximize profit is to reduce the
expenses, including those of environment protection and human safety.

Fourthly, in most countries, even in the most developed democracies, pow-

erful lobbying financed by giant global corporations prevents the passage of
legislation for the protection of environment. These lobbies are so powerful
that the parties running for elections are totally victimized and enslaved by
them via huge amounts of bribes and extortion and blackmailing. As a sound
politician put this problem succinctly, next generations have no saying in
choosing their own representatives!

13
 Finally, the factor of the harm done by developing countries in their relent-
less effort to catch up with the highly industrial countries. Turkey is a good
example of this.
MODULE 5

Three major approaches on the problem of environmental responsibility

UFND50

The first is the human-centered approach. This view takes human being as
the center-subject of all business practices in relation to environmental re-
sponsibility. Traditional ethics falls into this category.

The second approach limits this environmental responsibility only to the

realm of animals.

The third approach eco-centered. According to this approach the environ-

mental responsibility includes the totality of the eco-system, including, all
wild life, animals, plants, even stones. This view takes nature in its totality as
the proper subject-matter of business ethics.

Economy, Development Ethics and Technology

The term economy comes from the ancient Greek term Aikon meaning an extended
unit of family connecting ethics and economic, social, and political affairs of a large
group of people. Homer, in his epic poems describes the details of such a life form.
In its modern usage of the term, economics is far beyond such an ethical and
cohesive unit. It is today the name of a technical science divorced of ethics and
morality. However some modern philosophy oriented economists developed an
area of science of economy called development ethics towards the mid-20tcentury.
Historians have described the special circumstances that created technology in
Western Europe and its areas of influence. The Western historians usually claimed that
the modern technological way of thinking is an exceptional expression of Western
societal response to the challenges of nature. In the words of Goulet: it is a latecomer
on the historical scene and an untypical phenomenon.
On the other hand, this latecomer Western miracle creates serious ethical problems
all around the world. Let us take a very recent example: only in November 2013, the
author of the best seller Dignity of The Nation, also a well-known mathematician,
Masahiko Fujivara in a conference he gave in stanbul, Turkey, complained that
the Japans culture, after the 2nd World War, gradually lost her Samurai spirit and
became Americanized. By Samurai spirit Fujivara meant four cardinal cultural values:
passion, resilience, order and courage. He added that most traditional Japanese
values were replaced by the so called global (he means by this American) values.
For example, saving money replaced the old saving virtues; insisting on ones
personal interest and righteousness replaced caring for the other. Japanize culture
is divided into rich and poor, and the poor is labeled as stupid, and lazy. Before,
a rich man would not feel comfortable, if there were poor people around him. He
also noted that the Turkish culture should be more meticulous and careful about
not losing their authentic cultural values. (A Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet,
October 28, 2013).
Another Japanize professor of physics, Michio Kaku, in a conference he gave in Ko
University in stanbul asserted that Europe discovered and developed technology
within the span of many generations, while for China, the transfer of Western
technology took only one generation thanks to information-internet technology
(henceforth IT). He also added that, such transfer of technologies from hi-tech
societies to low-tech countries will rapidly increase as a result of tech-transfer via

14
internet in the next years. ( A Turkish weekly magazine Bilim Teknoloji, November 18,
2003, p. 3). So can we infer from what both Fujivara and Kaku says that the problems
of value changes and disruptions resulting from technology transfers from rich to
poor technologies is a serious problem to be faced by development ethics?

MODULE 5
The present section, answering this question affirmatively, aims at studying the

UFND50
problems of value conflicts stemming from technology transfers from tech-rich
countries to tech-poor countries. As Goulet affirms, technology transfer is not some
neutral technological act, it is a value-laden political act. Assuming that this is so,
I will focus on the following question: How the continuing flow of technological
products from developed countries to developing countries affects the culture and
values of these people in these countries? This question will be addressed within the
framework of several sub questions:
o The effects: (a) What are the effects of receiving technology on the
culture and values of the receiving country? (b) What are the effects
of the cultural values of the technology receiving country to technolo-
gy adaptation and diffusion? This means an inquiry into the question:
What kind of value conflicts technology transfer triggers, causes in
the technology receiving countries?

o (2) The processes: How and Why technology received produced

these effects on the culture and values of the tech-receiving country?
Here what is important is the fact that, if technology transfer is itself
a value-laden political act, the answer to the second question will to
some extent determine the answer given to the first question. This
means that how and why certain technologies imported by the de-
cision makers of the technology-receiving and technology exporting
countries to some extent determine the effects of these technologies
on the values of receiving country. In other words, will what Fujivara
feared for Japan, happen to most of the technology receiving coun-
tries? Is this value erosion in the technology-receiving country an
inevitable destiny of globalization and modernization? So the final
questions this dissertation addresses itself will be:

o (3) What can development ethics teach the decision makers of tech-
nology receiving and sending countries to alleviate the impact of
such an erosion of cultural and ethical values? The reason for the
qualifications such as to some extent or to alleviate is that, as I will
try to demonstrate, some value changes in the technology receiving
country resulting from technology transfer is inevitable due to the
nature of technology-technical logic itself.

Theoretical Framework of the Problem

The problem posed above will be discussed within the theoretical framework of
development ethics. At the center of theory is Goulet, a Canadian ethicist and
economist, whose theory of development ethics have instigated endless research on
the field, on both sides of the Ocean.
Following the theoretical exploration of the subject, the second aim of the present
dissertation is to relate theory to our research question of values. Here the main focus
will be on Goulets fundamental book The Uncertain Promise: Value Conflicts in
Technology Transfer. His other books and many research articles on the subject will
also be utilized.
Finally, an over assessment of critical examination of both Goulets theory of
development ethics and the following research will be done. This will be the subject-

15
 matter of the concluding chapter.
Method (detailed exploration of this method is the topic of module
4)
MODULE 5

By method I mean the general argumentative structure of this dissertation. I will

UFND50

use Stephen Toulmins model of ethical arguments in my exposition of the problem.

Briefly stated, this model the model has the following elements:

Claim: The thesis question(s) put into statement-assertion form. Here in this
dissertation it is:

The global diffusion of modern technology will cause value conflicts in the technology receiving countries.

Data: The facts or evidences to prove the argument. Here in this dissertation they
are:

Such value conflicts happened in most developing countries receiving high technology.

Data-support: Empirical studies supporting data.

Warrant(s): The most general and universal theoretical and hypothetical (implicit
or explicit) statements that serve as bridges, connectors of between the claim and
data. Here they are the theoretical axioms, principles and assertions of the theory of
development ethics. Here in this dissertation they are:

In ALL societies which are modernizing, not only factories but also the technological approach to life
itself gradually comes to be viewed as normal. Here most value conflicts in technology transfers from
developed to less-developed countries are traceable to two factors: (a) that there is a logic of technical-
mind and that modern societies are the historical matrix of historical universal mind and rationality, and
(b) that the very modernity must necessarily pass through technology. The most general philosophical
principle here is John Montgomerys comment: Technology almost certainly offers the best hope of
improving the quality of life in the developing countries.

Conceptual Clarifications: Working Definitions of Key Concepts Used

The main concepts which will be used throughout this dissertation are ethics,
development, development ethics, technology, technology transfer, value, and
existent rationality. Let us clarify these fundamental concepts.

Ethics redefined for the theory of Development Ethics

As the simplest explanation, the term ethics is the study of what is good or bad for
humans and how humans reach their goal in life by living and acting in the best
way. Ethics are norms regulating actions. In ethics, reason is a part of the concept in
relation to the ends of action and rational ethics include intelligence as a part. Also
there are some values such as esthetic, emotional and others. Rather than ignoring
or assimilating them, ethics judges them by appealing to norm of oughtness. On the
other hand, these norms changes as social life changes. We can understand how the
social lives differ from each other by identifying and understanding the differences
in these moral concepts. The norms must be criticized rationally and examined in
the light of other values. Freedom and accountability is the basis of ethical norms by
reason of their ought-ness.

Ideally, development ethics plays the following roles:

It teaches men by making them critically aware of their moral choices. These
choices cover all of the subfields of development ethics.

16
 It compels them to be good and it forbids bad actions. It gives ill-intentioned
people a bad conscience and reversely all exploited victims some rational ex-
cuse for revolting against the injustices done onto them.

It lays the ground for positive laws and regulations concerning development

MODULE 5
to be rational and ethical.

UFND50
Because of the historical conditions of development which shifts in time, development
ethics cannot be based on the Kantian categorical imperative or fixed, timeless
natural laws. In the universe of complex irrational and multiple choices of different
human beings developmental ethics must be based on a utilitarian ethics.

Throughout this thesis, the term ethics is employed to mean those conditions of
knowledge men require in order to exercise a real choice of ends or of means. This
means that developmental ethics is based on the Aristotelian practical ethics. So the
principles of developmental ethics will change depending on the context time, place
etc. these principles may be deeply subjective, since they are grounded on diverse
levels of self-awareness, on the other hand they are also inter-subjective which
means they are universal since we are all humans.

Development
In the decades following the 2nd World War, as development gained formal
recognition as a sub-discipline of economics, it came to be considered as a technical
issue of resource planning and social engineering to start national societies into
economic development. Thousands of economists, administrators and engineers
from academic and political life served as technicians of economic development
of the so called underdeveloped countries. To these early developers, it seemed
self-evident that economic growth, as speedily as possible and with regard for social
or human cost was a good thing for everyone everywhere. While economists and
engineers were doing all the work, they excluded ethicists from their consideration.
Within this climate, development in purely economic terms has come to mean
the capacity of a national economy whose initial conditions at some point in time
is relatively static to sustain an annual increase in its GNP (Gross National product)
at a rate ranging from 3 to 7 percent or more. This has been called the engineering
concept of development. It is also within this context understood as the outflow
of hard currency for imports and exports. Certain economists stress the ability of
a nations government to execute its budget wisely as criteria for development.
Further, generally speaking non-economic social indicators of development are
also considered as follows: gains in literacy, schooling, health conditions and services,
provisions of housing and etc. as we can see from this description of development
there is no such thing as ethical concern; meaning that ethics is excluded from the
economic-engineering concept of development.
In this thesis, the term development will be used more broadly to include political,
cultural, ethical goals. The main emphasis will be placed in this thesis on the ethical
demands of the development experience. Moreover, the same term development-
designates two realities simultaneously: a terminal condition and a process by which
successive approximations to this desirable terminal condition. Development as it is
employed here in this thesis refers to the entire group of changes by which a social
system along the wishes of its members moves away from a conditional life described
as unsatisfactory, unhappy in some sense of the terms towards some terminal
conditional labeled as humanly, ethically better. These changes in the process of
development may be gradual or sudden. And if they are to be called development,
these must be somehow measured and objective. Within that matter, it should also
be considered which values ought to be encouraged and developed in the effort

17
 to obtain a humanly better life. In fact, everyone who defines development makes
an explicit or implicit reference to several basic values. Among these values the
following are important ones:
The degree of mastery to be exercised by individual overthinks.
MODULE 5

The level of critical awareness to be judged as desirable in different levels of

UFND50

human actions

The optimal level of sharing of power to make decisions

The preference of wider reciprocity and solidarity to the destruction of partic-

ularistic individualistic interest

As we have already mentioned the most important elements of development as these

values mentioned above, are not subject to quantitative measurement. Many diverse
ideal models of a good society exists; attitudes change towards material benefits
and the relation of these two personal wisdom, enlightenment, harmony and other
values change relatively depending on the cultural values of different cultures. In
some, there is no absolute ethical basis of development in the sense of Kant. The
ethical basis of development is more utilitarian as we have described above variable
depending on each society. So the evaluation of each process of development
requires careful attention to differences and capacities of each country and culture.

Certain authors have suggested modernization, contemporaneity or maturation

instead of development. All these terms aim at emphasizing the following aspects
of development:

An attempt by a society to live consciously in its own historical time

The recognition that this time is not fully of its own making and that there is
necessitating character to contemporary history

The will to achieve some measure of control over its own destiny by its own people

In this thesis, I will simply use the term development covering all these senses. To
put it simply development means economic growth plus ethical social change.

Development Ethics
Generally speaking development ethics is defined as the nature of development and
the purposes of development in humanly terms. There are two groups of development
ethicists. The first group of development ethicist is usually called ethical strategists.
They define development ethics as follows:

Development ethics is a new discipline which has its own original subject matter,
method, and research principles.
Development ethics is a source of knowledge from where the ethical strategies and
principles are developed.

Development ethics plays the guiding role which provides decision making and
action strategies for certain economic sectors concerning development.

Development ethics is also the source of ethical criteria for development performance
of a particular country.

The second group of development ethicists defines the concept of development

ethics in a wider context. These are generally arm-chair ethicist. They see development
ethics as an interdisciplinary field related to the environment and world order which

18
combines theory and practice. They take as their task the philosophical ethical
analysis in the following areas:

The justification of the concepts such as rights, needs and decision-making

MODULE 5
Developing evaluations and policies within the process of development

UFND50
concerning the suppressed excluded underprivileged women children and
de-territorialized people together with ethnical and cultural minorities.

Evaluation of different but discernable economic, political and social systems

The evaluation of the process of being authoritarian in the process of devel-

opment and the questions of security which this authoritarian tendencies
bring about

The violation of mutual rights and economic interests of countries in the pro-
cess of development.

Problems of economic liberalization and global corporation.

External economic and political interference to the developing countries

Is the authoritarian or democratic regimes are more advantageous in devel-

oping process?

The control and international supervision of bio-genetic and nuclear sources

Development ethics today in its initial stages and universities and research centers
are recently including the problems and research in this field into their curriculum.
Development ethics, as the subfield of ethics, underlines the importance of the
concepts of well-being which includes happiness and freedom in business life.
Development ethics have been considered as a theory focuses on economic goals
for years. But in reality, rather than just focusing on economic concerns, also pointing
the non-material concepts such as wealth, happiness and freedom of people in
business life is more explicit in order to understand what development ethics about.

Technology
Technology is defined by Goulet as the systematic application of collective human
rationality to the solution of problems by asserting control over human processes
of all kinds. Here technology is viewed normally as the result of systematic research
which is systematized and disciplined, and not merely accidental. Moreover, it is
not mere intellectual speculation or theoretical modeling but rather knowledge
applicable to practical problems. And further, this systematically applied human
reason (practical-instrumental reason) must operate in a collective societal context.
In this way, a practical invention that comes from a solitary mind is excluded from
the definition of technology. Because to be called a technology, an invented tool
must be put to use into the service of others. Technological activity, therefore, aims at
expanding and improving the ability of human beings to control the natural sources
around them. By doing so technology also controls the social environment of man
therefore man himself. This is what is meant by technology controlling man.

Technology transfer
Technology transfer for the British economist Charles Cooper is the transfer or
exchange from advanced to developing countries of the elements of technical know-
how which are normally required in setting up and operating new production facilities
and which are normally in very short supply or totally absent in developing countries.
Goulet thinks this definition is incomplete since there are many technologies which

19
 do not relate directly to the operation of product producing or processing facilities. So
in Goulets opinion, technology transfer must also include the circulation of know-
how used to conduct feasibility or marketing studies and to manage varied services
(transportation, distribution, etc. A second element which is missing in Coopers
MODULE 5

definition of technology transfer is, according to Goulet, the mastery of the criteria
for evaluating and choosing from among numerous technological alternatives and
UFND50

the kinds of specialized knowledge needed, for example, to engineer designs and
construct plants. All these are technologies which are transferrable from one country
to another. So the term transfer as used in this thesis refers to the circulation of
know-how across national boundaries; excluded from consideration are transfer of
technology from one sector to another within the same national societies, such as
the application of a finding from space research, say to the housing industry of a
particular country.

Values
Values have many different philosophical definitions. In this dissertation values will be
operationally defined as attitudes, preferences, styles of life, normative frameworks,
symbolic universes, belief systems, and networks of meaning which human beings
give to life. Social scientists, law-specialists, poets, theologians, philosophers all
experience great difficulty in defining value with precision and realism. As a working
definition, Goulet takes a value to be any object or representation which can be
perceived by a subject as habitually worthy of desire. We all agree that value
entails ought-ness, a note captured in the foregoing definition by the element of
worthiness. And whether it stems from subject or object, value is only operative
when perceived: hence a value is a value perceived; the concept of perceptibility
is essential to the definition of a value. Let us take the example of justice. Justice
is perceived unjust actions by the perceived group of people. The word desire
suggests that value is not a purely cognitive category but can involve will, motion,
and passion. Values, in short, are all goods real or imagined- which stir peoples
desires, command their attachments, and incite them to act.
Existence Rationalities: Value Universes of Two Different Worlds: Hi-Tech and No-Tech
Worlds
All human societies display a phenomenon of what Goulet calls existence
rationality. Existent rationality is the sum total of a societys value universe, that
is, whatever may be their information-processing capacities and effective access
to resources; all human groups devise concrete strategies which enable them to
survive, to protect their identity and dignity, and to assert whatever freedoms they
can muster over nature, over enemies, and over destructive social forces at work
within their own boundaries. These strategies, according to Goulet, taken as a whole,
constitute their existential rationality. In this sense, even societies which attempt to
solve problems by consulting ancestors or fertility gods employ a strategy which is in
true sense rational: since it rests on some proportion between available information
and resources and perceived vital needs. Existent rationality of the Western hi-tech
countries will be examined in the following section on development ethics. Here,
we will depict the existential rationality of the typically what is called traditional
values or non-Western values of the technology receiving countries. For the sake of
convenience, let us use the term non-Western values.

The value Debate

David Wu, in his paper titled The Value Debate exposes the existence rationalities
or value universe of the non-Western countries relevant to technology transfers
from West to East as follows:

20
People of the non-Western cultures value family, kin, and kinship relations.

People of non-Western cultures value education, social mobility, and personal

achievement, but they still have to face the challenge of a communal quality of life.
They value work, but many place leisure above this value.

MODULE 5
UFND50
They value spirituality, moral ethics, and sense of humanity and regard that these
values are under great challenge by the Western values of profit chasing, consumption
and material possession.

Theory: Development Ethics

Lebret: Hierarchy of Needs in Development
L.J.Lebret initiated a movement called Economy and Humanism in France around the
beginning of1940s. According to this movement, the problems of economy are first
of all humanly ethical problems. Lebret defined development as a basic question of
values and the creation of a new civilization. (D:E. p.6) He considers this definition to
be deeply seated in essentially human values and, consequently, to be valid for all
cultures and social groupings. Lebret describes development as:

the series of transitions, for a given population and all the sub-population
units which comprise it, from a less human to a more human phase, at the
speediest rhythm possible, at the lowest possible cost, taking into account all
the bonds of solidarity which exist (or ought to exist) among these populations
and sub-populations. (D.E.p.6, quoted by Goulet)

Hence for Lebret, the discipline of development is the study of how to achieve a more
human economy. The expressions more humane less human must be understood
in the light of a vital distinction between plus avoir (to have more) and plus tre
( To be more). Societies are more human or more developed when men and
women have more but when they are enabled to be more. The main criterion
of development is not increased production or material well-being but qualitative
human enrichment. Economic growth and quantitative increases in goods are
doubtless needed, but not any kind of increase nor growth obtained at any price.

According to Lebret, the world remains underdeveloped or falls prey to an illusory

anti-development so long as a few nations or privileged groups remain alienated
in an abundance of luxury goods at the expense of the many who are deprived
of essential goods. Lebret defined the problem of underdevelopment not as an
economic problem but as a problem of crises in value of the whole world community.
In other words, underdevelopment is not a problem of unresponsive, backwards
societies to the demands of development in the Western sense. In accordance with
this shift of emphasis Lebret views the main task of development is the removal of
injustices and inequalities and provide a new solidarity which will correct these in
the new world order.

According to this view, the responsibility of underdevelopment is on the shoulders

of Western advanced economies and their irresponsibility. The failure of the Western
rich world created on the one hand enormously rich societies on the other incredibly
poor societies of the underdeveloped world. Within this context, the concept of
underdevelopment meant the outsider of the developed Western world. In order
to compensate such a one sided Western prejudices against the underdeveloped
world, Lebret proposes three different hierarchies of needs that has to be satisfied by
the Western rich countries towards the suppressed underdeveloped countries:

Basic needs: food, accommodation, health etc.

21
 Confortable life needs: public transportation, leisure and moderate luxury
utilities

Needs satisfying human soul: cultural, social and religious etc.

MODULE 5

The development policies considering this hierarchy of needs have the following
UFND50

priorities:

All development projects and initiatives must consider as prior the above
mentioned basic needs and confortable life needs. This priority will take
precedence within the decision makings of investments and choice of social
institutions and the projects exchanges of energy and other source within
the world.

The third category of human needs can only be established after the
satisfaction of the first two categories of needs.

Denis Goulet: Development Ethics: Technology as a Value Universe

Denis Goulet (1931-2006) was a pioneer of development ethics together with his
mentor Lebret. He was interested in the value questions posed by development
theories, planning and practices. In this section of the thesis I will look at general
aspect of Goulets theory of development ethics. He proposed development ethics
as a new discipline. Development ethics has to be accepted as he later admits an
interdisciplinary field. Brief career of Denis Goulets: lessons for development ethics.
He asks the initial question for his studies of development ethics: what kind of
development can be considered human . already in 1960s he wrote with his teacher
and associate that development means changes which allow human beings both as
individual persons and as members of groups, to move from one conditional life to
one which is more human in some meaningful way He also declared in his book The
Cruel Choice: the aim of this work is to thrust debates over economic and social
development into the arena of ethical values. In other words, developments ultimate
goals of existence itself: to provide all men with the opportunity to live full human
lives. He thus presented an ideal of full, comprehensive human development. His
idea of development ethics can best be described in his own words as follows:

Development ethics borrows freely from the work of economists, political

scientists, sociologists, planners and spokesmen for other disciplines.
Although each discipline supplies its own definition of development, ethics
places all definitions in a broad framework wherein development means
ultimately, the quality of life and the progress of societies towards values
capable of expression in various cultures. Along with the late L. J. Lebret, I
view development as a complex series of interrelated change processes,
abrubt and gradual, by which a population and all its components move
away from patterns of life perceived in some significant way as less human
toward alternative patterns perceived as more human. How development
is gained is no less important than what benefits obtained at the end of the
development road. In the process new solidarities, extending to the entire
world must be created. Moreover, cultural and ecological diversity must be
nurtured. Finally, esteem and freedom for all individuals and societies must be
optimized. Although development can be studied as an economic, political,
educational, or social phenomenon, its ultimate goals are those of existence
itself: to provide all men with the opportunity to live full human lives. Thus
understood, development is the ascent of all men and societies in their total
humanity. (Cruel Choice, p. X.)

We have to briefly look at Goulets career to identify some questions that he was

22
interested during his lifetime. He started his career with the idea of his teacher Lebrets
that economic growth and technological modernity must be treated as not end in
itself but as means towards higher human values. This is very important because
until that time that is before Lebret as we have described above, development was

MODULE 5
only considered within engineering and economical terms. Accordingly he at the
beginning of his career also insisted together with his teacher Lebret that principle

UFND50
of ethics had to be confronted by and related to the full realities and complexities of
modern technology and economics.

Goulet sees development itself as an ethical question faced by all societies since
ancient times: what are the nature and foundations of the good life? What is the
basis for justice in society relations? What posture should societies adopt towards
nature and that second nature called technology? . Goulet adopts these questions
to the modern technological context characterized by the following threads: Global
level of operations in development; their technical complexities and the global
interdependencies which link all societies- local, regional, national, international
levels. The dual nature development as an array of competing ideas of the good life
and as a socio-economic change process is best understood for him by focusing on the
value conflicts it poses. These conflict make up the subject-matter of development
ethics. These value conflicts are found in four different arenas:

Debates over goals: economic growth, the provision of basic needs, cultural
survival, ecological balance, transfers of power from one class to another.

Divergent notions of power, legitimacy, authority, governance, competing

political systems.

Competition over recourses and over rules of access to recourses, competing

economic systems.

Pervasive conflicts between modern nodes of living (with their peculiar

rationality, technology, social organization, and behavior) and traditional
ways of life.

The goals of development ethics: The Good Life

Goulets conception of the good life: Universal and unchanging
human values
Which common goals do all societies seek? Do certain goods exist which
development claims to provide and which development claims to provide and which
are desired by all societies, developed and undeveloped alike? If there are, then
any theory of development must take these values into consideration. Accordingly
Goluet emphasizes three such goals which are soughed by all individuals and
societies: optimum life sustenance, self-esteem (happiness), freedom. These goals,
Goulet asserts, are properly universalizable, although their specific modalities vary
in different times and places. They refer to fundamental human needs capable of
finding expression in all cultures and all times. Such values of the good life need not
enjoy the same relative importance on the scale of values of all societies: it is simply
required that they be present in all.

Optimum life sustenance

According to Goulet, people everywhere aims at nurturing and cherishing their
own lives; they are seeking, as Aristotle would say the good life. No one disputes the
importance of life sustaining goods and that consensus exist over one important
goal of development: to prolong lives and render them more happy and less exposed

23
 to natures calamities. Longer human life can appear desirable only after it appears
possible, he says. Goulet asserts that both traditional and modern societies esteem
as desirable this element of life sustenance. The strongest argument invoked by
conservative peasants in resisting proposed innovation (fertilizer, new seed, modern
MODULE 5

tilling practices) is precisely that life-sustenance is too important and too valuable
to warrant risk-taking on their part. He adds that modernizers in turn, claim that
UFND50

these same innovations possess superior power to assure and maintain life. Hence
even contradictory prescriptions regarding the vital activity of food growing are
rejected or accepted by the same reason of the common value of life-sustenance.
This indicates that life-sustenance is a universal goal of development ethics.

Self-Esteem
A second universal component of the good life is self-esteem, every persons sense
that he or she is respected a being of worth and that others cannot use one as a mere
means to attain their purposes. Everybody seeks esteem and respect to themselves.
They want to be accepted by the society within their own identities. If esteem is
understood as materialistic concept as material welfare, all poor societies suffer. If
we say that the cornerstone of a good life is material welfare, it becomes difficult
for the poor to feel respected. Since esteem is one of the aims in development path,
the underdeveloped societies are ready to pay a lot to gain respect in order to
develop. Goulet observes that poor underdeveloped societies with a profound
sense of self-esteem suffer in their contacts with economically and technologically
advanced societies because material richness has now become a widely accepted
criterion of human worthiness. Because of the status attachment to material success
in developed countries, esteem is nowadays increasingly conferred to those who
possess material wealth and technological power in a word, on those who have
development.

Goulet asserts that the universal human need for esteem explains both the utmost
desire of some societies to achieve development and the resistance by others to
developments innovations. The first seek development in order to receive some of
the esteem. The second resist development because they feel deeply wounded in
their own sense of worth, regardless of levels of material richness.

Goulet emphasizes the need for the poor societies to climb out of their wretched
condition in order to gain the esteem of the other societies, and cited the example
of Japan in the 19th
century. Just as the 19th century Japan embarked on the path of industrialization
in order to avoid humiliation by technologically and militarily superior barbarian
Western powers. Similarly, today the Third World countries pursue development
in order to gain the esteem denied to societies living in a state of disgraceful
underdevelopment. Goulet citing these historical examples concludes that once
the deprivation of esteem reaches an intolerable point, a society is quite ready to
begin desiring material development. Thus they legitimize development as a
goal because it is an indispensable way of gaining esteem. In this sense esteem,
like life-sustenance, is a universal goals of societies: whether they accept or reject
development the same value lies behind the choice.

Freedom
A third transcultural component of the good life, valued by developed and non-
developed countries alike, is freedom. This third universal element of the good life is a
twofold concept of freedom: Freedom from and freedom to. Freedom from means
to get rid of unnecessary constraints of life, while freedom to connotes striving
actively for freedom to fulfillment and happiness. Even though many meanings are

24
attached to the word freedom, Goulet restricts freedom to these two meanings. It
covers the range of choices for societies and for individuals. This means that first
freedom is passive getting rid of the restraints and the second parts of freedom is
meaning active search for desired goods. At least in minimal terms, development

MODULE 5
for Goulet means that (1) freedom from the servitude of ignorance, misery and
exploitation by others; (2) actively search for ethical strategies to look beyond the

UFND50
goals personal enhancement and development.
In sum, irrespective of its possible other purposes, development has for all groups at
least the following objectives:
To provide more and better life-sustaining goods to member of societies.

To create or improve material conditions of life related in some way to a perceived

need for self-esteem.

To free man and women from servitudes (to nature, to ignorance, to other men and
women, to institutions, to beliefs) considered oppressive. The aim here may be to
release individuals from the bondage of these servitudes and/or to heighten their
opportunities for self-actualization, however conceived.

The Means to Achieve Development Goals: Existence Rationality, Inner Core and Periphery
Values
Existence Rationality
The central question of development ethics for Goulet is the following: How are
change strategies aimed at development to be proposed ( and not imposed) to a
populace whose traditional interpretations of its cultural (including religious) value
system may display a lower coefficient of insertion towards these innovations? Here
lower coefficient of insertion means reluctance on the part of the populace holding
these traditional values to admit these innovations which require new values, into its
system.

Goulets answer to this question is his theory of existence rationality, which

is developed in his book The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theory of
Development. Existence rationality is the process by which any human society
applies a conscious strategy for realizing its goals: survival, the defense of its identity
and cultural integrity, the protection of possibilities for its members to attain what
they understand to be the good life and so forth.

Inner Core Values, Periphery Values

All existent rationalities contain an inner core of values which must not be
sacrificed, along with an outer periphery, where at least on principle, alteration
is admissible. Even the narrow existence rationalities of traditional societies offer
considerable scope for change, on condition that proposed alterations reinforce the
dominant strategy adapted by the society in question to assure the values of the
good life: life sustenance, minimum esteem (self-esteem and out-group esteem),
freedom from unwanted constraints, and modes of fulfillment of its own choosing
all of which are core values.

To conclude this section of theory, I will, as a starting point for the empirical and or
non-empirical (observational, ideational) theses I will list in the next section of my
dissertation, some hypotheses of this thesis are as follows:

We can say, inferring from the foregoing theoretical ideas that development

25
 poses profound value problems which a development ethics must deal with.
Any concept of human fulfillment is highly relative. Although developments
general goals of optimal life-sustenance, esteem, and freedom, no priority
ranking among these goals can be established.
MODULE 5

The only sensible hypothesis which we can establish is the fact that any
UFND50

development ethics research project must assume that it will have to deal
with values and value conflicts between the society receiving innovation and
the sender of the innovation, be it technological or other.

To put it differently, each development ethics research (empirical or evaluative)

must take into account the way these values are confronted, conflicted and
somehow resolved.

This means that the researcher of development ethics must clarify the ethical
principles which the policy makers of both technology receiving and sending
countries ought to assume; that is which values are to be considered as central
core values and which ones are amenable to be changed and left behind. This
is the ought-ness aspect of development ethics.

Technology Transfer and Value Conflicts, Changes

The problem of value conflicts in technology transfer is the application of the
development ethics principles into a specific and concrete case. Goulets favorite
example of a development ethics research is the case of value conflicts in the process
of technology transfer from a technology rich country to a technology poor
country. Here let us see his exposition of the problem.

Technology as a Two-Edged Sword

According to Goulet, technology is experienced as ambiguous for two reasons:
(1) modern technology is simultaneously the bearer and the destroyer of precious
human values; (2) although it brings new freedom from old constraints imposed
by nature, tradition, or ancient social restraints, technology also introduces new
determinisms into the life of technology receiving society. Using the method of
phenomenology, Goulet peels away the characteristics below the surface in order
to unveil the ambivalent core of technology.

Unchanging Core values of Technology: What Values Technology

Transmit to tech-receiving Countries?
Here in this section what Goulet calls the value universe or existence rationality
of the contemporary Western modern technology will be exposed and examined,
contrasting this value universe or existence rationality, with the non-Western
developing countries value universe or existence rationality. This will give us an
objective picture of value conflicts created by technology transfers from hi-tech
countries to technology-receiving developing countries, revealing the dynamics of
transference of technology.

Four core values are embedded in contemporary Western technology:

The first is particular approach to rationality. For the Western technological

mind, to be rational signifies viewing every experience as a problem which
can be broken down into parts, reassembled, manipulated into practical ways,
and measured in its effects. The cognitive task of technology is not what older
traditions called truth; instead, technologists are interested in verifiability.

Here the value conflict reveals itself as follows: Expressed in terms of

26
 technology flow from West to East, from North to South, The West (the North)
brought, historically and geographically speaking, the East (South), the ability
to change things, to control and extract more out of nature, to organize
human efforts so as to get efficient results. But in the East the mythical

MODULE 5
thought is no less real that historical level. Accordingly, it may be wrong for
Westerners to assume that historical reality is somehow more real than myth

UFND50
simply because myth cannot be empirically verified and does not directly
control and manipulate nature. Elsewhere, Goulet clarifies this point with a
personal anecdote. In a colloquium he attended one participant observed
that the East needs the West and the West needs the East, but the East is not
very dynamic, and its wisdom is static. What the West gave the East was the
ability to change things and extract more out of nature, to mobilize human
effort so that it can lead to greater results. The Indian scholar replied: You
Westerners insist on the need to live and think on the historical level. But
those of us who still attach importance to the Hindu approach to reality have
tended to live rather on the mythical level. We believe that the mythical level
is no less real than the historical level. Goulet, commenting on this dialogue,
adds: This person was in effect saying: It is ethnocentric for Westerners to
assume that historical rationality is more real than other realms of cognition
simply because its elements are amenable to direct observation. The Indian
scholar further asked: Does not the West too have a profound need for
meaning, myths and symbols? Perhaps Western societies are so susceptible
to ideological and symbolic manipulation because they operate in a vacuum
of myths. Goulet infers from this dialogue the important conclusion that
Western technology is reductionist in its approach to rationality.

The second value embedded in Western technology is what Goulet calls

the cult of efficiency, expressed in industrial terms by productivity.
Efficiency is a general relationship, and its dynamics can be laid bare by
analyzing a specific expression drawn from industry, that is the metaphor of
productivity. Production looks to the amount of final output; productivity, to
some proportion between what is put in and what comes out. Like efficiency,
productivity is measured by comparing the product the volume, weight, or
value obtained with amounts of labor, capital machinery, or time invested.
Whoever thinks about efficiency, Goulet says makes judgments regarding
what to include and what to exclude from comparisons made. An economist
would say certain elements are treated as externalities to the efficiency
calculus, while others are labeled internalities. The favorite question a
Western economist asks: which externalities do one to choose to internalize?
To illustrate this point Goulet gives the example of factory managers in the
United States, who until very recently, did not include antipollution expenses
in their cost/benefit calculations: pollution was treated as a mere externality.
Protecting nature was not a considered a value in itself. Goulet explains the
exclusion of this and similar values as follows: Given the socio-economic
system within which Western technology grew, the production of goods by
firms was treated according to a profit-maximizing calculus. So it was normal
for them to exclude which will fit this logic. Therefore important values such
as protection of nature were systematically included. Behind this form of
reasoning lies mechanistic engineering mentality.

Here the value conflict reveals itself as follows: The above described
Western value of efficiency sharply contrasts with the non-Western value of
efficiency. Goulet gives the example of Muslim African Bedouin tribes vale of
efficiency. For Bedouins judgments of efficiency reflected their belief systems.
Their view of an efficient way to work was one that allowed them time to make

27
 prayers five time a day, and that limited expenditure of energy while fasting
month Ramadan comes. Also they did not lead their flocks to pasture via
the shortest route, with shortest possible interruptions. Their belief required
that on the way, they stop by and pay respect and give food to poor and
MODULE 5

elderly. These tribes had thus internalized religious and ethical values into
their assessment of efficiency.
UFND50

Most non-Western societies, adds Goulet, continue to make a calculus of

efficiency which internalizes religious, kinship, aesthetic and recreational
values in the performance of economic activities like agriculture, hunting or
fishing works. Modern societies, in contrast, treat these values as externalities.
The impact of Western technologies on non-Western societies cannot be
estimated without considering this difference.

The third value of Western technology is concerning problem-solving

attitude towards nature and human events. By definition technology aims at
getting things done, and consequently, it is impatient with values such as
contemplation or harmony with nature. It is in conflict with values such
as indifference, passivity, or resignation in the face of perceived problems. In
this sense technologists do not regard nature so as to harmonize with it; they
seek to manipulate and dominate it. So Western technology biases towards
problem-solving which means that en expert steps back some distance
from reality, breaks it into and analyzes its component parts, devises means
for solving difficulties in the most efficient way, and then dictates a strategy
or policy. This approach according to Goulet distorts the organic totality of
human experience by reducing it solely to those dimensions which can be
treated as mere difficulties to be removed.

Here the value conflict reveals itself as follows: The problem solving
approach to technological mentality conflicts with the non-Western values
of indifference to problem-solving stemming from passive fatalism. Here the
Muslim value of kismet is a contrasting attitude towards problem-solving.
Technology transfer to less-developed countries must also consider such
a value conflict in channelizing the value of problem solving, which must
come along with such a value. A Brazilian educator Paulo Freire suggested
an attitude he called problematizer for the change agents instigating
technological change in less-developed countries, to face this problem.

Problematizers vs. problem-solvers: According to Freire, one can truly

know only to the extent that one problematizes the natural, the cultural, and
historical reality in which one is immersed. And how does problematizing
differs from technocratic problem-solving? Problematizing is the antithesis
of problem solving; in the latter, an expert steps back from reality, analyzes it
into component parts, devices ways to solve difficulties in the most efficient
way, and then dictated a strategy and policy. This approach, Freire thinks,
distorts the reality of experience by reducing it to some difficulties to be
solved.

To problematize, on the contrary, is to engage an entire populace in the

task of codifying its total reality into symbols capable of generating critical
consciousness and empowering them to alter their relations with nature
and social forces. Problem-solvers who break reality down into parts remain
outside viewers of that reality and unable to grasp the totality surrounding
them. But problematizers, as different than problem-solvers see themselves
as part of that totality; in addition, that totality is itself subject to the
influence of their own actions once they gain new critical understanding

28
 it. Thus, the question that, do people become transforming agents of their
own history, with the problemitezers approach, or do they become forced by
the problem-solvers to passively accept the foreign technological logic of
the technological mind of the Westerner, becomes a dilemma faced by the

MODULE 5
un-developed societies. We shall come back to this dilemma, in the later
sections and in the final section of this dissertation as development planning

UFND50
as dialogue. Here let us mention Frieres concern as the either-or choice
between people becoming, in his terms, subjects of the dialogue between
the tech-receiving party and the representatives of the tech-sending society,
instead of objects of a one way tech-imposing mind of the problem solver
of the Western technocrat. By adopting the problematizing stance, one
perceives the totality of outside relationships. Friere sees this as the prelude
to viewing oneself (in the tech-receiving country) as an active social actor
capable of transforming the oppressive Western technocrats ( of the tech-
sending country) will into his own will. I think that the most important historical
example of such a technological development project is the revolutionary
development project of the Turkish Republic which was established in 1923,
under the problematizer-ship of Mustafa Kemal Atatrk. Goulet confesses
that he cannot decide which course of technology transfer is better in such
words:

The problem-solving stance so essential to the technological mentality contrasts sharply, therefore,
with two antithetical postures: the indifference to problem-solving of those who are passively fatalistic
and the politicized problematizing of revolutionary change agents. This opposition explains why both
traditionalists and revolutionaries find themselves ill at ease in the face of technology. (Uncertain
Promise, p. 19-20).

I think Goulet mistakenly confuses and conflates fatalism with revolution at

this point, since values such as fatalism, kismet and the like are reactionary
and not revolutionary values, and fatalism as a value can never be a part of
what Friere calls problematizing. I think Frieres concept of problematizing
mentality is neither Western nor Eastern; it simply is Aristotelian and humanly
logic which, as an innate capacity belongs to all humans, Western or non-
Western.

The fourth value carried by technology to the developing countries is an

exaggerated Promethean view of the universe. Gould views that the Western
technological mind is embedded in a peculiar value-laden Promethean view
of universe. Here, natural forces as well as human institutions are viewed by
experts of technology as objects to be used and manipulated; indeed, the
value of their existence is equated with their usefulness. The usefulness in
turn is reduced to mans control and manipulation by technology.

Here the value conflict reveals itself as follows: Most traditional societies
presuppose some kind of harmonious compact with nature and its forces
to seek to minimize the damage done to nature and life. For example, plant
life, so precious to American Indians, that when a man stepped on a plant
and bruised a stalk of wheat it was his duty to make a ritualistic invocation to
nature to express his regret for violating life. He felt a deep kinship with the
nature he was hurting and a sense of responsibility for the harm he caused,
even if his actions were necessary for survival. This attitude is the polar
antithesis of the exploitative Prometheanism which so deeply characterizes
Western technology.

29
 In sum, the four main values are channeled by the Western technology into the
non-Western societies are: a reductionist form of rationality, a closed efficiency
calculus, a bias for problem-solving and an exaggerated Promethean view of
universe.
MODULE 5

The question remains as to what values does technology destroy or weaken in

UFND50

the tech-receiving countries.

What Nexus of Values Technology Destroys or Weakens in the Tech-

receiving Developing Countries?
Following the above exposition of the conflicting values between the technology-
receiving un-developed counties and the technology-sending developed
countries, I will now explore the values which technology destroy or weaken the
cultural values of the tech-receiving societies. Technologists do not deliberately
plan to destroy old values in the tech-receiving countries. They dont even intent
to implant new values directly. Their aim is to solve problems more efficiently and
improve the quality of products and processes. But according to Goulet technologists
do much more than destroying the values of tech-receiving countries: simply by
acting as innovators, they cant avoid tempering with prior values. Worse still, they
fracture the delicate bond which weaves the totality of values in pre-modern societies
into meaningful patterns.

Normative Values (rules) and Significative Values

My own diagrams showing the relationship between normative and significative
values are as follows;

An example from a high-tech Western country (USA):

Normative value: What ought to be done in conducting ones business? To conduct

ones business fairly and follow professional ethic rules. Thus A Mormon businessman
and an atheist businessman follows the same normative value.

Significative value: WHY should I do what ought to be done? Here the Mormon
businessman may say his significative value as follows: I do it because I do Gods
bidding. The atheist businessman may say as his significative value: I do it because I
play the business game fairly and to keep my good reputation intact.

An example from a pre-modern society: The trader.

Normative value: I am an honest trader, I do not cheat, lie, etc.

Significative value: Most members of the traders say they do it because they do
Gods bidding.

So, in a modern developed society, significative values may vary while normative
value of people may still be the same. In traditional, pre-modern society, there is web
or nexus of normative-significative values which give the same behavior the same
signification.

What is this fragile web or nexus which binds all the values of pre-modern
communities into a meaningful whole?

It is a nexus existing between normative and signifying values, between rules for
action and symbol conferring meaning. It is what ought to be done in such domains
as family relations, work, commercial exchange and the images a society adopts to
explain to itself the meaning of life and death. This nexus Goulet says, is absent in

30
developed societies; there is no one unifying vision of lifes total which is shared by
all. In fact the opposite is true: society exhibits great tolerance towards a plurality
of significative values. Goulets illustrates this point as follows: A devout Mormon
businessman in the United States obeys the same professional ethic as his agnostic

MODULE 5
or atheist businessman friend. Yet, although the norms guiding their respective
professional behaviors are the same, the ultimate significance attached by each to

UFND50
these norms differs. The Mormon works hard and remains honest in order to do
Gods bidding, whereas the others motive is simply to play the business game fairly
and avoid losing his good name. For this reason the gap separating behavioral norms
from their deeper symbolic meanings cause no problem in hi-tech industrialized
countries. The opposite is the case in less developed, transitional societies.

In less developed traditional countries, whereas a high level of integration exists

between normative and significative values, economic activities remain fragmented.
A large numbers of production units individuals, families or villages operate
independent from one another. Also there is no coordination of specialization of
the production. The opposite condition exists in developed areas. Ultimately, the
importance of the nexus between normative values and significative values lies in
this: In traditional, pre-modern societies lies in this: In traditional societies work is a
cosmic act; in developed societies, a specialized function.

The process (the HOW) of value change in less-developed countries

Through modern technology traditional societies are directly challenged with their
normative values (normative values as they are defined above). These challenges
take the form of models-rules for doing thing differently planting corps, educating
chldren, or practicing hygiene.

Modern technology also challenges the traditional societys significative values

(significative values as they defined above); new this-worldly goals of human
effort (other than outworldly-cosmic values) are suggested: to earn cash, to build a
better house, or eat more food, or gain greater mobility.

All these new proposals by the modern technology raise an existential question
as Goulet calls it: Should members of society continue to act as before or modify
their normative and significative values? Because traditional nexus of normative-
significative value system are founded upon and derived from, a given universe of
explanations, to challenge this nexus is by definition is to challenge these underlying
belief system. Goulet gives a striking example of such a value conflict: during the
Algerian war of independence, in an Algerian family the fathers authority over his
sons immediately deteriorated for the following reason: There was a great scarcity
of food, and for this reason his sons had to take salaried jobs with a French road-
construction company. And his degree of control over his wives lessened because
the French government organized in 1958 a referendum to induce the Arab populace
to keep the French in power. The French pressured Muslim women into voting in this
referendum. Even in small Saharan towns, the referendum had a shattering impact
on the Islamic values of the community. Many women had never before taken part in
any outside home and family. In the very process of modifying normative values
(expressing preference by voting), the referendum also attacked the significative
values of society: it shattered the nexus between normative and significative values.

Once this nexus, this link is shattered, affected societies are left with two demoralizing
options. This is expressed in the striking title of one of Goulets book: The Cruel Choice.
The cruel choice is that the technology receiving country faces (both unpleasant) to
choose one of the following cruel path:

The first alternative cruel choice is to hold fast in the traditional

31
 significative values even if these now contradicts the ancient normative
values and rules which increasingly determine and govern daily practical
activity. Such fragmentation is traumatic and psychologically damaging to
people accustomed to attach cosmic if not mystical significative values to
MODULE 5

simple actions carried in the home, in the field, or on the pathways. Because
serious identity problems are posed by this kind of forcing people into
UFND50

new patterns of behavior, change in values frequently tends to be either

immediate rejection or embracing too uncritically. Goulet notes that
although certain Western writers fondly praise achievement orientation and
the spirit of initiative in many societies, both of these values are regarded as,
in many traditional societies, equivalent to theft or criminal neglect. In sum,
the first option open to transitional societies is to live in a state of cultural
fragmentation where their cherished meanings are daily violated by new
normative values and rules of action.

The second alternative cruel choice on the part of the technology-

receiving country is an impossible choice. It is only theoretically open to
them and practically is almost impossible. It is to fashion a new coherent
nexus between meaning values and rules for actions. That is between what
we called normative values and significative values above. Goulet
thinks that such a synthesis is practically impossible in the short term, since
such a creation is beyond their capacities. Goulet supports his argument
by saying that how can communities undergoing their first experience of
modern technology develop a new value synthesis when modern nations
themselves, after two centuries of contact with science and technique, have
proven unable to find a wisdom to match their sciences? He quotes Danilo
Dolcito to support his point: We have become experts when it becomes to
machinery, but we are still novices in dealing with organisms. This means that
pre-technological societies lack the familiarity with science and technology
which might enable them to create a new synthesis. Once they receive new
techniques, they have no realistic hope of preserving unity in their world of
values. So they are doomed to value disruption, thus the fragile and delicate
balance between acquisitive desires and effective access to resources has
been shattered. This balance, Goulet comments, finds its expression in the
commonplace phrase of these pre-modern cultures: One shouldnt want
what one cant get. This value claim is also expressed in the traditional
Turkish culture with many proverbial expressions such as stretch your feet
in accordance with your bed cover, etc. Goulet argues that the traditional
psychology of needs has always been based on this principle.

After the Import of Technology: Chaos or Order?

The major impact of technology, thus is the creation of value conflicts in the
technology receiving countries. Gradually technology becomes the vector of the
virus of acquisitiveness, thereby shattering the delicate balance between social
restrains on desire and effectively available resources. Here what is meant is that
the psychology of needs in traditional society is necessarily a general constraint of
acquisitiveness imposed on the many. And the rationale for putting the brakes on
desire was that under no conceivable circumstances could enough resources be
available to allow all to desire, and to obtain much more. Hence normative values
and significative values restricted the instincts of accumulation. These values
legitimized the need for all minimum food, shelter, sexual satisfaction, access to
lands, fishing grounds or hunting areas. But in those societies this limited goods were
not distributed justly: often men owned wives in much the same way they owned
houses, goats or jewelry. Moreover certain classes enjoyed greater material prestige

32
and rewards than others. It is assumed normal for some to accumulate excessive
wealth, while the majority of people is in bare survival. The vector of the virus
(technology) mentioned in the above quote, shatters this existence rationality of
the traditional societies. Technology undermines the norms of the aforementioned

MODULE 5
balance of normative and significative values which ensures the need-satisfaction of
these societies.

UFND50
With the impact of technology, normative and significative values begin to change
in these traditional societies. Technology introduces new dynamism of desire which
legitimizes a general drive toward acquisitiveness. It thereby changes the existence
rationality of society, its strategy to optimize survival in ways which preserve the core
values of meaning, esteem and freedom.

This traumatic disturbance of delicate dynamism of desire in non-Western countries

occurs independently of the will and intentions of those two channel technology.
Technology causes the following impact and change on the value structure of the
non-Western societies:

Existential rationalities. Technology attacks the principle of cohesion which

wove the value universe of pre-industrial societies into a unified fabric.

Nature. Technology undermines the view of nature such societies have.

As was mentioned above the American Indians had a cosmic view and
relationship with nature: they were a part of nature, so disrespecting or
harming nature means also, disrespecting and hurting themselves. They had
a cosmic relationship with nature. Technology on the other hand vies nature
as an external object to be manipulated and used.

Work. Technology changed the view of work of these societies. Work for these
societies was a means of sharing in the creativity of nature. Under the assault
of technology, work can no longer be seen as sharing in the creativity of nature
or as expressing cosmic relationships; it becomes the mere performance of
task whose only meaning comes from external monetary rewards.

Time. Time con no longer be lived as a rhythm of maturation cycles but must
instead be endured as succession of atomistic moments to be used efficiently
and profitably.

Kinship and friendship. Kinship and all other human relationship values
become secondary and subordinated to criteria of performance and power.

Authority. Before technology authority is legitimated in stable patterns by

meaningful significative values bringing satisfaction even to those who have
no power. After technology, power becomes reified and becomes an object
negotiable and subject to laws of competition.

Deep social bond value of gift giving is irrevocably destroyed: all

exchanges of gift giving are commercialized. And governed by the law of
interest.

Gratuity and the fulfillment of social obligation are banished from the
language of social intercourse.

In sum, the major impact of technology is the reification of all traditional values of
the pre-technological societies. In this sense, technology brings a new deterministic
technological imperative. While freeing the traditional societies from their old
determinism and constraints, it brings determinism of its own. This paradox has to
be examined further and taken into consideration before we proceed into how to

33
 remedy the constraints of technology via developmental ethics.

The Paradox of Technology: Freedom From Old Value-Constraints To

Bondage Into New Determinism of New Value-Constraints?
MODULE 5
UFND50

Are we Possessed by the Power of Technology? Does An Inner Force Drives

Technology to Render Actual Everything Which is Possible?

I was initially interested in the subject-matter of this dissertation with a simple

observation of myself and my friends around: we were constantly changing our cell-
phones and small technological toys and replacing them with the new versions of
the products, even if the ones we already have do the job we needed. I then called
this strange phenomenon as we are controlled or possessed by technology. At his
point of my research I found an answer for this technology sickness: technology
makes us believe that what is new is necessarily better. My small personal survey
of my friend circles proved that even the modest civil-servant parents of my friends
did not object to the unreasonable demands of their children (us) on this point: they
took credit from banks and bought their children the new tech-toys. At this point
I inquired into the source of this strange belief, and found that even the serious
grown-up technologists and scientists of the biggest universities in the U.S. too are
under the influence (lure) of this power of technology, i.e. that technology is all-
powerful, and can make anything possible! Here is an example: Goulet cites Lord
Ritchie-Calders comment on a contract once given to the University of Michigan to
study the technological feasibility of a planned city of 60 million to be built north of
Bombay:

You know what happens when enthusiasts get busy on a feasibility study They prove it is feasible! And
once they get to their drawing boards, they have a whale of time. They design skyscrapers above ground and
subterranean tenements below ground. They work out how much air can be spared and hence how many
cubic feet of breathing space is required for a family. They design living units which are just hutches for
battery-fed people. They design modules and clamp them together, pile them up like kindergarten bricks.
They lay on water and regulate the sewage water and sewage, in this case for 60 million people on the
now well-established principles of factory-farming. And when they have finished they can prove that this is
the most economical way, cost-efficiency-wise, of housing people. I hope that project has been scotched; I
did my best to convince my friends, with influence, in India. I asked them, for instance, how many hospitals
they were providing for the millions who would go mad under these conditions. ( Unc P. pp. 24-25)

I must add to Lord Ritchie-Calders comments, my own comment about the city
I live at present, Istanbul. Istanbul of today, is on the process of creation of newly
appended surrounding small-cities of millions of people as it is planned by the
example of Bombay.

The problem is general: technology makes means ends: process experts of

technology express their own dynamics apart from goals they are meant to serve.
When technology (means for prosperity and happiness) becomes end in itself, human
happiness and prosperity becomes secondary and technology itself takes the reigns.
Goulet comments that,

Proving that any idea can be translated into an artifact constitutes for many engineers or chemists a
challenge they find irresistible. Momentum builds up within research institutions for them to do something
mainly to prove that it is possible.. This bias gives them a vested interest in perpetuating the technological
imperative, that is, the tendency of technology to impose itself independently of larger purposes. (Unc P.
p. 25.)

A French philosopher of technology, Jacques Ellul is often accused of overstating

34
the autonomy of technology. His response to this criticism is that technology need
not be deterministic, just because it seems to operate powerfully in the direction of
determinism. (Jacques Ellul, Ebscodan bir makaleden footnote bul). So unless one
finds ways to curb these destructive aspects and direct it to support humane values

MODULE 5
and tasks, technology will do as much harm as ill-intentioned politicians and policy-
makers wish it to be. In the remainder of this dissertation we look for an answer

UFND50
to this question: Hoe can development ethics help us to direct technology in the
developing countries to be less destructive of cultural values?

How Can Development Ethics Help?

This section of the module has two aims:

Discussion of the recommendation of development ethics to alleviate or

lessen the harms and destruction technology induces on the value structures
(core values) of the tech-receiving societies.

The case studies done on this direction I China, Turkey and other countries.

Ethics of development brings the principle of responsible internalization of values

previously considered as externalities. A values being treated as internal simply
means inclusion of that value into consideration when designing and producing that
particular technology. This may be done in many ways: by forceful legal sanctions;
by voluntary decisions of the technology planners, or by international agreements
such as Kyoto Agreement. In all three cases, development ethical principles play
important guiding role.

Discussion of the recommendation of development ethics to alleviate or lessen

the harms and destruction technology induces on the value structures (core
values) of the tech-receiving societies

Development ethics stipulates externalities ought to be internalized by the policy-makers

Ethical imperatives are part of what ought to be done in the process of technology
transfer. These are summarized as follows:

One Must Internalize Externalities. According to economists, an externality

is any value or consideration which does not enter a cost calculus. (Arthur. M.
Okun, Equality and Efficiency, p. 79. The Brookings Institution, Washington
D.C. 1975.)

The Externalities Which Must be Internalized in the Process of Technology

Transfer

Because survival and clean air were treated by policy makers as externalities; that
is for the specific aim of making production decisions, such values are considered
as irrelevant. But as development ethics teaches us the social, psychological and
ecological costs of any technological activity is never irrelevant. Therefore, many
values treated as externalities must be internalized if sound decisions are to be
reached.

The principle of responsible is also illustrated in the case of auto safety. For many
years decision-maker of auto factories considered sale-ability and luxury-appeal
as major internalities, and treated safety as mere externality. Even fuel economy
was not considered (in the U.S) as internal until the oil embargo of 1974 hit the
prices of oil badly. Once fuel economy became important, and many car accidents

35
 due to safety hazards occurred, public pressure grew to provide greater safety in
vehicles. Thus new safety values are internalized not only to different safer designs
and new economic equation measuring costs and benefits.

Some other values which development ethics brings fort for internalization are:
MODULE 5

equity, cultural diversity, ecological health, and reduced dependency.

UFND50

Development ethics redefines efficiency.

In the words of Websters Seventh Dictionary efficiency is the ratio of the useful
energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it. The notion of
efficiency which governs the technological production and transfer is born in the
engineers mind. Efficient operations are measured by comparing inputs in energy,
time, or money with quantified outputs. Because technology operates in closed
circuits engineering values remained unquestioned and closed to social and
ecological externalities.

Development ethics proposes that the following three values must be internalized
(included) in any efficiency calculus:

The abolition of mass misery.

The survival of the ecosystem

Defense of the entire human race against technological determinism.

Most giant global technological corporations simply do not know or do now prefer to
know how to be efficient without destroying the environment, alienating workers, or
reinforcing technological determinism. Technological determinism is frame of mind
which the engineering-logic imposes on the thinking of designers and technicians.
Out of habit, they judge the efficiency of machines by systematically excluding
important social values. Therefore efficiency must be redefined in the following ways:

Comparisons must be made between total inputs and total outputs in the
functioning of any technology, for technology itself, as presently utilized, are
a large part of the very problem to be solved.

A new breed of technicians and engineers who are acquainted with the
principles of development ethics must be raised.

A new balance between obeying the inner efficiency demands of

technologys logic, and external demands of the higher logic of social
values.

Gould cites China as one of the few countries which has redefined efficiency in
her technology policies. China overtly incorporates political criteria in its choices
of technologies. Politics is in the command is the slogan of the process. Politics is
interpreted to mean as the inclusion of basic values into consideration. These are:
social equality, the diffusion of revolutionary spirit, the serve the people ethic, and
respect for those who perform menial jobs.

Development ethics directs attention to social injustices induced by technology transfer

Technology transfers between rich and poor countries result in heavy social and
human prices in technology receiving countries. Development ethics underlies the

36
fact that these costs are not inevitable. There is no single criterion for measuring
social justice in technology transfers, but at least three elements must be counted
as defining characteristics of social justice: equality, equity, and participation. A
technology transfer strategy which stresses social justice, therefore seeks to achieve

MODULE 5
relative equality in the provision of goo9ds and opportunities induced by new
technology imported. It is also concerned with a fair distribution of the fruits of

UFND50
technology. It also tries to institutionalize the concept that respect must be shown
by leaders to the wishes of people.

The answer to the following question may reveal the extent of social injustice in
technology-receiving countries: Who benefits from technology transfers from trans-
national corporations to firms, laboratories, universities, and governmental agencies
in less- developed countries? Goulet cites a study by Adelman and Morris showing
that greater inequality of income distribution and increasing concentration wealth
in the hands of few privileged usually occurs at the first years of development. The
reason for this is the fact that modern technologies are best at producing marketable
goods services so expensively priced that they are beyond the purchasing power of
the poor.

A second reason for the social injustice is that technology transfers tend only to
improve the relative position of those who benefit directly from them. And by
improving the relative position of those already favored, they worsen equality. This
inequality exists at many levels:

Inequalities in assets. New technology benefits primarily individuals and

firms and institutions already in control of large amounts of assets. Expensive
technologies cannot be afforded by individuals or small firms.

Inequality of incomes. Technology transfer obviously reward engineers,

chemists and technicians more than anybody else. The unskilled and the
unemployed get no share from it.

Inequality in opportunity. Technological opportunities resulting from tech-

transfer in most countries are monopolized by the small apex in the educational
pyramid of those societies. The exception is that of those technologies which
are specifically structured to increase education.

Inequality in degrees of participation in employment. Imported

technologies by definition exclude unskilled workers. But this may be also
a positive incentive for the unskilled workers to learn skills required to work
with new technologies.

Injustice caused by machine replacing man problem. Here arguments are

often phrased abstractly around a question such as: Are modern technologies
too capital-intensive instead of labor intensive? Do such technologies make
optimum use of local production factors (labor power)? Almost always the
answers to these questions are negative.

Development ethics draws attention to the loss of cultural (in values) autonomy as a result
of technology transfer

Technology, as we have in the initial pages of this dissertation discussed, has a

unique logic of its own and that this logic tends to standardizes products, processes,
aspirations, facilities, work styles, instruments and overall modes of living. By cultural
autonomy is meant the preservation of the three basic-core values of each culture

37
 and society which is described at the initial section of this dissertation. These core
universal values were labeled as value universe and existential rationalities of
each culture. The three indispensable and inalienable such values were examines
there as life-sustenance, self-esteem and freedom. In addition to these three
MODULE 5

core values, each culture and society has many normative values and significative
values which complement these three core values in their own unique existential
UFND50

rationalities or value universes. These were examined in detail before.

Cultural autonomy as defined above is difficult to maintain in sudden technological

change, and the most important social effects of the dissemination of Western
technology is the homogenization of lifestyles. This standardization is evident not
only in airports, hotels, and tourist installations but also in industrial parks, residential
suburbs, supermarkets, clothing, habits of food consumption, aspirational levels of
professionals, and many other areas. This lure of standardization is best revealed
in the very logic of multi-corporate technology. Gould describes how this process
evolves as follows:

The trick consists of taking a genuine human need, packaging it in some manner advantageous to the
supplier, and capturing the aspirations of the population at large so that its generic desire will be expressed
as a compelling urge to buy the specific package. This is exactly what large corporations do in order to create
markets for new products as well as the old products which are only slightly transformed but are made to
appear as radically new and different. Therefore, the psychological energies unleashed by the experience
of thirst are pre-empted by Coca-Cola; the need for transportation, by manufacturers of automobiles; the
dream of a vacation, by travel agents who convince people of their need to fly far away via expensive
airlines, and so on. Thanks to its influence on the aspirational content and schedules of large masses of actual
and potential purchaser, modern technology (particularly advertising technology) deeply affects popular
cultures in most less-developed lands. ( Unc P. p. 136.)

Thus modern technology once transferred to underdeveloped countries carries its

innermost logic of uniformity of tools, work pace and safety standards. As a result one
may continue to meet in those countries where technology is imported suddenly,
one may see in the streets of stanbul, La Paz, Nairobi, or Tehran peasant women
in traditional garb alongside bankers in ties and business suits. Here the question
that development ethics asks is the following: Whose values are dominant in the
elaboration of school curricula and the programming of television and internet and
the so called social media, twitter, face-book or other.

In conclusion, technology transfers from rich to poor countries impose a very high
price in cultural dependency, which as development ethics stipulates, by deliberate
policy measures only if cultural homogenization is recognized as a serious danger in
uncritical technology transfers from rich to poor countries.
Summary
Aim 1
Ethics of Information Technology

Weiners Cybernetics Ethics

All living beings including that of humans are nothing but a system of cyber-
netic information.

Cybernetics is the science of control and communication in man and ma-

chines. Here man is considered as a machine, whose principles are informa-
tion, control and communication.

38
 Within this framework the aim of ethics of cybernetics is to make people uti-
lize their information system to the optimal level as to lead a happy life.

For this to happen a society must be governed by the great principles of

justice. First principle is freedom, the second is equality and the third is

MODULE 5
generosity.

UFND50
Mores Ethics of Computer

One serious problem of the computer ethics is the policy gap which results in
the use of new technology in new situations since not encountered.

The main task of computer ethics is to fill such policy gaps in the usage of
computers.

Gorniak Hypothesis

The hypothesis stipulates that in the near future, computer ethics will become
a universal and global ethics replacing all the traditional ethical theories.

Hypothesis assumes the identity of being and information. Everything exist-

ing in the universe is information. This universe is called infosphere.

The main principle of infosphere is entropy. Entropy is the loss of informa-

tion, destruction and death of the universe. It is the evil.

The main task of information ethics is to reduce entropy in the universe.

Levys Ethics of Collective Reason

Information technology bears in itself the potential to develop collective uni-

versal reason.

This collective reason is called cosmopedia which will replace all the previ-
ous information systems of data and information.
Aim 2
Main points of Development ethics

Development Ethics

Approach of engineering to development ethics:

According to engineering approach development is technical problem unre-

lated to ethics. Until about mid-20th
century development was understood in technical terms only.
Ethical approach to development considers ethical considerations more important
than that of technical considerations in development. The true aim of development
is to raise life standards of human beings, preserve innermost core values of a culture
and achieve happiness and good life.
Main points of Development ethics

Development ethics is an autonomous field of investigation with its own sub-

ject-matter, methodology and research rules.

Development ethics is a discipline which develops developmental strategies.

Development ethics guides certain sectors in their strategies and action plans

39
 for development.

Development ethics develops ethical criteria utilized in development perfor-

mances of companies and countries.
MODULE 5

Aim 2
UFND50

To be able to explain models of business ethics

There are five models of business ethics;

Model 1. Business ethics is motivated by profit. According to the weak form

of this thesis ethical behavior of the company increases profit. The strong
form of this thesis claims that free market competition will in the long run
cause ethical behavior motivated by profit.

Model 2. Business ethics is limited to obeying the rules given by laws only, no
more than that. Laws take care of all ethical problems.

Model 3. Business ethics means the application of universal ethical maxims

to business. Laws are always behind these universal ethical principles.

Model 4. Business ethics is to protect the interest of everything and everyone

related to a particular business sector.

Model 5. Business ethics is the establishment of ethical rules and regulations

on an institutional basis.

Self-Test
1. Which of the following is not one of Weiners great principle of justice?

a. Freedom
b. Generosity
c. Equality
d. Happiness

2. Which of the following is Weiners principle of cybernetics?

a. To combine the existing ethical norms in a society with the view of nature of
man.
b. Maximum benefit for the maximum number of people
c. To apply science to society
d. To teach virtues

3. Mores ethics of computer is the second information ethics. Which of the following
is wrong for Mores ethics of computer?

a. The source of the problem with computer ethics is a policy gap.

b. The task of computer ethics is to fill the existing policy gap in the field of
computers.
c. The task of computer ethics is to fill the conceptual gap existing in the field.
d. The task of computer ethics is to teach people how to use computers.

40
4. Global computer ethics is the third information ethics. Which of the following is
not the hypothesis of the global computer ethics?

MODULE 5
a. Computer ethics in the near future will turn into a global information ethics.

UFND50
b. Global ethics of information as different from traditional ethics is not dependent
on a local cultural source.
c. According to global information ethics being is equal to information.
d. According to global information ethics, the formula ethics=information is valid
only for living beings.

5. Which of the following is correct for the engineering approach to development?

a. Development is only an ethical problem

b. Development is merely an economic problem
c. Development is merely an engineering problem
d. Development, in its final analysis is an ethical problem.

6. Which of the following is correct for the ethical approach to development?

a. Development is firstly an economic problem, then an ethical problem.

b. Development both an ethical and an economic problem.
c. Development is primarily an ethical, secondarily an engineering problem.
d. Development in the last analysis a ethical problem
7. Which of the following is wrong for development ethics?

a. Development ethics is an autonomous field of its own.

b. Development ethics is sub-branch of economics.
c. Development ethics is a human science.
d. Development ethics is a sub-branch of ethics.

8. Universal theories and norms is a model of business ethics. Which of the following
is true for this model?

a. A company following the norms of business ethics gains profit.

b. Business ethics is merely what the law says.
c. Business ethics are the self-imposed rules of conduct which a company puts.
d. Business ethics are the rules and theories asserted by the great philosophers of
the past.

9. Which of the following is correct for the man-centered model of environmental

responsibility?

a. Environmental responsibility is limited to everyone affected by the business

concerned.
b. Environmental responsibility is limited with the men concerned in the company.
c. Environmental responsibility includes all animals.
d. Environmental responsibility includes all bios.

41
 10. Which of the following is wrong for the eco-centered environmental responsibility?

a. We must respect all nature.

MODULE 5

b. Nature has an indirect ethical demand from man.

UFND50

c. Man must actively protect his environment.

d. Nature has a moral character

Key to Self-Test
1.d ;2.a. ;3.d. ;4.d ; 5.b ;6.d. ;7.b ;8.d ;9.b ;10.b.

Bibliography
Dallmary, F.R., Police and Praxis, The MIT Press, London, 1984

Goulet, D., Development Ethics, Routledge, New-York, 2006

Goulet, D. , The Cruel Choice, Athenium, New-York, 1971

Kinsley, D., Cultural Perspective, Egelwoods, New-Jersey, 1995.

42
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 6: ETHICS, LAW,

POLITICS, ARTS, LITERATURE
AND PSYCHOLOGY

Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden

Yaar University

Key terms

Pax Romana Epic poem

Code of Justinian Catharsis
Nation-State Dionisian
Natural law Agnostic
Social welfare state Atheist
Civil state Psychoanalysis
Positive law Id, ego, super-ego
Distributional justice Self
Corrective justice Inferiority complex
Zoon Politicon Moral psychology
Animal Sociale Heterenom ethics
Vita Activa Traditional ethics
Animal Laborans Humanistic ethics
Homo Faber Self-actualization
Mimesis Selfishness
Humanism Self-love
Esthetism Hypothesis of happi-
Tragedy ness
 Introduction
Ethics, law and politics are three intertwined overlapping concepts. One can
MODULE 6

simply formulate the relationship among them as follows: Everything which is

related to law is simultaneously ethical and political. This close relationship among
UFND50

these three concepts has been noticed by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and
Aristotle. This line of reasoning has been transmitted by the philosophers of the
Middle Ages, and later by Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers. Following the
Enlightenment too, close connection among these concepts have been carried on
by the modern versions of the theories of natural law.

Connection between the concepts of ethics and arts has been emphasized since
the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. This connection between the two concepts
has been at the center not only of philosophers and artists, but also politicians,
and society in general. The reason for this is obvious; that art is one of the most
influential and efficient ways of influencing the masses; by means of art, we identify
our identity of social and political membership. This effect is particularly obvious
in popular arts. For example, Hollywood movies influenced for many decades, not
only the American peoples but also many other cultures habits, from fashion to
consumer patterns. Similarly, In Turkish culture Yeilam movies for generations
influenced the Turkish culture with their heroes, women victims, wealth
aspirations, courage, chastity, etc.

Ethics has a very special connection to psychology. Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and
Alfred Adler, the three great founders of psychiatry, all emphasized the connection
between ego and ethical concepts, in chldrens psychological development. Freud
used the Latin translation of the German word (Das Ich) ego in a special sense
establishing this word ego as a universal term for personality. The relationship
between ethics and the concept of ego will be given a special attention in the
following pages.

The 2nd half of the 20th century witnessed a special field of scientific investigation
called moral psychology. Moral psychology investigates all common and
overlapping fields between psychology and ethics, and for this reason it is an open-
ended field of investigation whose boundaries are hard to delimit. Psychologists
. usually define moral psychology the developments of ethical concepts in children
from childhood to adolescence. Kohlbergs views are of this nature. Philosophers
on the other hand tend to emphasize moral psychology, in order to describe the
philosophies of psychologies of such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle.

Aims
To be able to understand and explain major theoretical views of the inter-
sections among ethics, law and politics.

To be able to understand and explain major theoretical approaches inter-

secting ethics, arts and literature.

To be able to understand and explain major approaches intersecting ethics

and psychology.

2
Ethics, Law, and Politics
Process of Historical Formation of Common Ground of Ethics, Politics and Law

MODULE 6
Ancient Greece and Rome

UFND50
From the historical viewpoint ethics, politics and law appeared together in the
ancient Greek City-States as follows: Around 800-700 B.C. among many Greek
Aikons (extended family-economic and political units) allied and formed city-states
establishing their common geographical economic and social boundaries. Also
a common military force, religious and noble classes together with a political
government system was established. Following the establishment of the governing
class and the governed people, the problem of the legitimacy of the state power
emerged. Meanwhile tradition and customs were no more viewed as sufficient to
legitimize power therefore morality centered upon religion was used to legitimize
political power. State, based upon such legitimization process developed rules
of law in order to protect the citizens from one another and from the outside
intruders.

First time in the history of ancient society, relationship between the state and the
citizen are founded not on religion but on a written and secular basis. Rome, in
passing from republic to empire, (cosmopolis) established its legal system as based
upon multi-cultured empire under the name Pax Romana (Roman Peace).

Middle Ages

With the destruction of Roman Empire, the gap which has been created in the
legitimacy of the state power was filled with the Christian Church and the Papacy
in Rome. The part of Eastern Empire, codified the old Roman Law within the new
form of Justinian Code. Later on, Ottoman Emperors also used this code as we
know from Codes of Sultan Mehmet and Kanuni (meaning the codifier) Sultan
Sleyman.

Towards the end middle ages, disputes concerning the legitimization of law by
religious or secular sources continued, finally, with the emergence of modern
secular sources of legal and political legitimization of power, a new secular form of
legitimization was attained in the West at the beginning of Enlightenment.

Modern Ages

Concept of Modern Constitutional State (Divorce of politics from ethics)

The first step towards democracy is the concept of modern constitutional state.
This concept implies that all of the organs and all actions of a state are subject
to legal sanction and control. The modern state can be understood as a result of
differentiation of an economic system which regulates the production process
through market that is in a decentralized and apolitical manner. The state
organizes the conditions under which the citizens, as competing and strategically
acting private persons, carry on the economic production processes. The state
itself doesnt produce except perhaps as a subsidiary to entrepreneurs for whom
certain functionally necessary investments are not yet or no longer profitable. In
other words, the state develops and guarantees bourgeois civil law, the monetary

3
 mechanism, and certain infrastructures overall the prerequisites for the continued
existence of a depoliticized economic process set free from moral, ethical
laws and orientations to use values. Since the state does not itself engage in
capitalist enterprise, it has to siphon off the resources for its ordering achievements
MODULE 6

from private incomes. The modern state is a state based on taxation. From these
determinations there results a constellation of state and civil society.
UFND50

In comparison to the state of feudalism or the ancient empires, the modern state
gains great functional autonomy; the ability of the modern administration to
assert itself vis--vis citizens and particular groups also grows in the framework of
stronger functional specification. On the other hand, however, the complementary
relationship to economy into which the state now enters makes clear for the first
time the economic limitation on the states scope of disposition.

Modern state did not emerge in the singular but as a system of states; it took shape
in the Europe of the 16th century, where traditional power structures were dissipated
and cultural homogeneity was rather great, where secular and spiritual authority
had parted ways, trade centers had developed and so on. Modern system of states
emerged in the midst of a what Habermas called a European world economy, that
is, of a world market dominated by the European states. War and the mobilization of
resources for building up standing armies and fleets are constitutive for the modern
state system. The construction of a tax administration, of a central administrative
apparatus in general, was at least as strongly shaped by this imperative as directly
by the organizational needs of the capitalist economy.

For the sake of simplicity let us restrict ourselves to controversies concerning the
theory of state in following five themes. These thematic strata run through several
centuries helping the formation of modern constitutional state. The first two reflect
the constitution of the new level of justification, the other three the structures of
the modern state and the nation:

Secularization. With the functional specification of the tasks of public ad-

ministration and government, there developed a concept of the political
that called for politically immanent justification. Detaching the legitimation
of state power from religious traditions thus became a controversy of the
first order. This controversy lasted several centuries and extended into 19th
century.
Rational Law. The great controversy between rational natural law and classi-
cal natural law, the effects of which also reached into 19th century, focused
on working out a procedural type of legitimation. From Hobbes to Rousseau
and Kant the leading ideas of rational agreement and self-determination
were explicated to the extent that questions of justice and public welfare
were stripped off all ontological connotations. This controversy dealt ex-
plicitly with the depreciation of a level of justification dependent on world
views.
Abstract Right and Capitalist Commodity Exchange. Rational natural law
had, of course, not only a formal side but also a material side. From Hobbes
and Locke through the Scottish moral philosopher Mill, the French En-
lightenment philosophers, and classical political economy to Hegel, there
emerged a theory of civil society that explained the bourgeois system of civ-
il law, the basic liberties of the citizen, and the capitalist economic process as
an order that guaranteed freedom and maximized welfare. At the new level
of justification only an order of state and society organized along universal-

4
 istic lines could be defended. The controversy with the traditionalists con-
cerned the historical price exacted by bourgeois ideals; it concerned, that is,
the rights of the particular, the limits of rationality from the perspective of
the present, the dialectic of enlightenment.

MODULE 6
Sovereignty. The establishment of monarchic sovereignty ignited a conflict

UFND50
that was carried along the fronts of wars of religion (100 Years Wars and 30
Years Wars). From Boudin to Hobbes, the problem of sovereignty was re-
solved in favor of absolutism. In the course of the 18th century there was an
attempt to rethink princely sovereignty into sovereignty of people, so that
the external sovereignty of the state could be unified with political democra-
cy. The sovereignty of the people then was unfolded into the constitutional
democracy debates of the 19th century. In it various thought motifs flow to-
gether: the sovereign power of the state appears as the expression of a new
principle of legitimation, of the domination of national identity.
Nation. This last complex has a special place insofar as national conscious-
ness developed inconspicuously in very differentiated cultures, often on the
basis of a common language, before it was dramatized in independence
movements. Actually, national identity became a controversial theme (in
19th century) only where modernization processes were delayed, as in the
succession states of the empire dissolved in 1804. A nationalism that served,
as in the Bismarcks empire, to separate out internal enemies such as social-
ists, Poles, and Catholics no longer reflected the legitimacy thematic of the
bourgeois state in its formative period; rather it now reflected the legitimacy
conflicts into which this state fell.

Up to this point we discussed the process of legitimation themes of the modern

constitutional state. By the end of 18th century, bourgeois class have acquired the
land of the religious class and the noble class and became all powerful protector of
modern constitutional state. The state now is in the obligation to protect the basic
human rights of its citizen; law is now above the bourgeois state demanding of its
allegiance to the rule of law. State is the originator of law, but is itself subject to it.
Both 1776 American Declaration of Independence and the 1789 French Revolution
are an expression of such a modern constitutional state model.

Social-Welfare State-Mass Democratic State

The next stage of the coexistence of politics, law and ethics is the emergence of
social welfare state. Wild capitalism of the 19th century created great inequalities
and injustices in the name of economic and industrial development and
competition.

During this period threats of legitimacy of state power were averted only if the
state can credibly present itself as a social welfare state which intercepts the
dysfunctional side effects of the economic process and renders them harmless for
the individual after the fact, through a system of social security which is supposed
to mediate the basic risks connected with weak positions in the market, and before
the fact, through a system of securing the conditions of life that is supposed to
function primarily by way of equal opportunity access to formal schooling. In
mass democracies, fulfilling this social welfare program is, if not the foundation, at
least a necessary condition of legitimacy; it presupposes of course an economic
system relatively free of disturbances. Thus the state progressively assumes the

5
 responsibility to to make good deficiencies in the functioning of the economic
progress.

Civil State and Society

MODULE 6

The last stage of intersection among ethics politics and law is that of the civil state.
UFND50

Here the term civil connotes the following:

A separation of three powers of the state: Legislative, executive and judicia-

ry.

A priority of universal ethics in the conduct and affairs of political system.

A political system in which all kinds of political views can legitimately be

represented and run for political power.

A pluralistic political system in which all truths, facts and rules are tested
only by the communication of plurality of differences and based upon con-
sensual procedures.

Intersection of Ethics and Law: Process of Natural Law

The oldest point of intersection between ethics and law is the Western
philosophical tradition of natural law. The expression theory of the natural law is
both used to connote ethical and political theories of law. The term natural law
has always connoted the unchanging and binding natural tendencies of human
nature. The principles of natural law, in the sense that they are natural they are
also universal, and the opposite of the term positive law which is man-made and
artificial. The criteria of the quality of the positive law therefore is the natural law; to
the extent that positive laws are closer to the natural laws, they are considered as
good, adequate, just, well-written, etc.

Since Aristotle, theories of natural law have influenced political systems and
theories of positive law within the tradition of Western society. With the 18th and
19th centuries theories of natural law have also directly influences the theories of
natural rights, inalienable rights. And the American and French Revolutions, and
the ensuing Declaration of Independence and of Declaration of Human Rights.

Both classical and modern (rational) theories of natural law originate in ancient
Greek philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. Medieval philosophers took up
the Aristotelian conception of natural law and reformulated it into Christian form
and content. With the beginning of modern philosophy, especially with Hobbes
and Locke, natural law theories were rationalized both in form and content being
completely divorced of their religious and classical Aristotelian form. Let us see
these developments briefly.

Classical Natural Law: Ancient Greek and Medieval Theories of

Natural Law
Plato

Plato makes a distinction between nature (physis) and law or custom (nomos).

6
Accordingly, laws change depending on custom and tradition whereas the natural
is fixed and unchanging. For this reason for the ancient Greek to say something like
natural law may sound like contradictory.

MODULE 6
Plato does not a theory called natural law, but the closest term his theory of justice
comes to this notion is his natural just (dikaion physikon). Later on this term is

UFND50
translated into Latin as Jus Naturale. Bits and pieces on Platos ideas on this notion are as follows:

According to Plato, we humans live in universal and rational world. Under-

lying this system is the universe of Ideas or Forms. The highest Idea is the
Good which is the cause of all other Forms and beings, as well as all rational
ethical behavior.

The Idea of the Good is the realm which ethics and justice illuminates every-
thing on earth clearly and distinctly. It is through this light which human
beings can become just and good. But Justice, to protect her eyes from this
blinding glittering light must cover her eyes, otherwise she cannot be blind-
ly just as justice needs to be. Therefor it is said that justice is blind! This
Platonic image of the blindfolded beautiful women also suggests the con-
nection of the idea of beauty with that of justice. In his dialogue Republic,
Plato describes the ideal political-social society as that which comes closest
to nature.

Aristotle

It is Aristotle rather than Plato which is considered as the father of the theory of
natural law. The main reason for this is not because Aristo had an explicit theory
of natural law but that the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas influential and
lasting interpretation of a few systematic remarks of Aristotle on the concept of
natural law.

According to Aristotle, natural law-right (Jus Naturale) is a name generally given to

a certain branch of political justice. Accordingly, for Aristotle, political justice is
divided into two: (1) distributive justice; (2) regulative justice. Distributive justice
is the equal distribution of all rights to citizens, whereas regulative justice is the
corrective or compensation of a violated right (intentional or unintentional). The
regulation of these two justices by law is what is called natural-law-justice by
Aristotle.

The closest formula Aristotle comes to the concept of classical natural law is stated
in his book Rhetoric. Here Aristotle distinguishes between what each state develop
their own special system of law, there also exist a universal natural law applicable
to all states. However this idea was not developed in any coherent system of natural
law.

Stoics

Together with Aristotle, the ancient Stoics too were considered the originators of
natural rights. Stoics with the idea that there exists a rational telos in the universe
transformed the Aristotelian idea of natural right-justice into the proper idea of
natural law. The name of this goal-directed universe is natural law. In practice, this
natural order reveals itself in the virtuous life of men; human being as a universal
citizen of equal and natural rights.

7
 Cicero

The great Roman thinker and politician Ciceros ideas on natural law has been very
MODULE 6

influential on the following generations of natural law scholars. These influences

even reach as close as that of 1776 American Declaration of Independence.
UFND50

According to Cicero, natural law is eternal, immutable and eternal. Natural law
deriving its legitimacy from God, forces us to participate in the general welfare
of all mankind. As such those positive laws made in accordance with natural law
prosper and enhance mans security and happiness. Those positive laws violating
the principles of natural laws do not deserve being called laws in any sensible
meaning of the term since they disregard the basic human rights and serve as a
tool for abuse of the masses by the undemocratic rulers. The term laws in this
sense includes, by definition some connotation to rightness and just. By this way,
a law by definition must be of a reformative and a progressive nature.

Aquinas

13th century medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas reformulated the Aristotelian

conception of natural law-justice into Christian theology by interpreting it into
a full-fledged Christian theory of natural law. According to Aquinas, natural law is
the embodiment and the unification of the rational being into the eternal and
universal law of God. However, the human reason, since it cannot directly unable
to comprehend the divine design, must and should obey it as it is revealed by God.
This revelation is that of the Bible.

Another important idea Aquinas develops is that all the positive laws developed
and created by man, should be measured up against this divine natural law.
Accordingly, a positive law devoid of justice cannot deserve to be called law
since law, as Aristotle claimed cannot be law without being just; if so it is merely a
deviated form of true law. To put it differently, for Aquinas, divine natural law is a
regulative rule for all positive laws.

In Kantian terminology, Aquinass concept of natural law is deontological, that is

an imperative categorical rule, a categorical imperative. It is also teleological in
the Aristotelian sense of the term: the telos of life is that of happiness, and natural
law too is in the service of this goal-directedness. State is governed by this natural
law and has the goal of providing its citizens such a happy and good life. Here in
Aquinass theory of the natural law we see a juxtaposition of ethics, politics, law and
religion. With such a scope and content, Aquinas theory of natural law influences
many different fields of political philosophy in the following centuries, including
both classical and modern natural law theories.

Theories of Modern-Rational Natural Law:

Hobbes and Locke
Hobbes Rational-Totalitarian Theory of Natural Law

8
17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan, redefines
the concept of natural law in rationalistic lines as those maxims discovered by
reason and serve for the purpose of enhancing human rights, life and freedoms.
In this rational sense natural law tells the rational human being how to act if he

MODULE 6
wants a life based on reason and wisdom. This is reversal of the classical concept of
natural law in the sense that all natural rights discovered by the classical natural law

UFND50
theories by definition are left once and for all, irreversibly to the absolute sovereign.
Now the only source of natural law is the absolute sovereign.

For Hobbes, there are nineteen laws of nature:

First natural law: men should strive towards the hoped goal of peace and
prosperity. But if convinced that he cant achieve this by peaceful means, he
should be ready to fight for it. Be ready to protect yourself!

Second natural law: men with a sense of mutual freedom of will, should
aim at peace. But if necessary, they should be obliged to remind others the
fact that this effort is also a reciprocal one. Do not do anything which you
dont want others do unto you!

Third natural law: One has to keep his promises. This law is the pillar of jus-
tice. The exact definition of injustice is the violation of this natural law.

Fourth natural law: to act in such a way that to reciprocate the favor done
to oneself. The opposite of such a behavior would be that of ingratitude.

Fifth natural law: everyone should make an effort to cooperate and com-
municate with one another. This law can be called being sociable the op-
posite of which is being asocial.

Sixth natural law: thinking about the future, to be able to forgive the injus-
tices done to oneself in the past. To be merciful!

Seventh natural law: no one may insult another either by words or by ac-
tion.

Eighth natural law: when you think of revenge, stop for a second and think
if your revenge will also harm you in the future.

Nine: Everyone must consider everyone else as his peer, if this is violated it
means one considers himself to be more of the possession of pride.

Tenth law: no one should ask for himself more than he ask for the other. Vio-
lation of this law is arrogance.

Eleventh law: if someone is accepted as arbiter for two parties, one must be
impartial in his judgment.

9
 Twelve: if a property is impossible to be commonly utilized by the share-
holders, it must be divided according to the shareholders due shares.
MODULE 6

Thirteenth law: if a common property is impossible to be commonly uti-

lized, ad if it is impossible to be divided, then the right to property (or its ini-
UFND50

tial right to use) is to be determined by lot.

Fourteenth law: if a commodity is impossible to be commonly utilized and

it is impossible to be divided, then the right to use its totality should be giv-
en to its initial user, or to the first child to be born among the shareholders.

Fifteenth law: for someone volunteering to be a peace mediator, all means

should be provided.

Sixteenth law: if two parties cant reach an agreement, they must agree to
go to an arbiter.

Seventeenth law: no one can be an arbiter for a case in which he has some
interest.

Eighteenth law: no one can be an arbiter in a case whose result will provide
him with some gain or benefit.

Nineteenth law: the arbiter cannot favor one party or the other on the truth
of the factual evidences.

Hobbes theory of natural law rejects the emphasis on virtue and happiness of the
classical theories of natural law. Similarly, it also rejects the classical natural law
theories teleological emphasis on the common good. Hobbes in this sense is an
anti-Aristotelian; for him, human nature is innately evil, and humans by nature tend
to harm one another. This is famous motto: Homo Homini Lipus (man is the man-eater).
He thus reverses the golden rule of the classical theory of natural law: do not do
anything that which you will not do to yourself to others! The original form of
this rule was, as we already know: do not do to others, anything that which you do
not want to be done to you.

Lockes Rational-Liberal Theory of Natural Law

Lockes theory of natural law is meant to be a critique of Hobbes harsh and

totalitarian theory of natural law. This criticism centers around the following point:
for Hobbes, even if the absolute Sovereign violates some or all of the natural laws
himself, he cannot be blamed for doing so. For Locke, if the sovereign violates the
inalienable rights of its citizens (such as right to property, right to life, and right to
freedom), citizens then have a right to revolt and overthrow the sovereign from
power and to elect another.

Lockes ideas on the concept of natural law are scattered around his theories
of state and social contract. But the true aim of his idea of natural law is that it
provides a protective shield for citizens rights. Liberal politics for him is to defend
the inalienable rights of man, and the protection of these rights from the State
and the sovereign-King. Thomas Jefferson, uses Lockes idea in the Declaration of
Independence he wrote as follows: all men are born equal, and equipped by

10
the Creator with inalienable rights; among these are the right to life, freedom, and
search for happiness.

Some Contemporary Versions of the Concept of Natural Law

MODULE 6
In contemporary jurisprudence, concept of natural law refers to several different

UFND50
doctrines:
Just laws are natural, that is just law is not created but discovered, that is it
already exist in nature.

Just laws emerge as a result of a natural process of conflict resolution. An

example of this is the evolutionary development process of the British Com-
mon Law.

Just law means that the totality of the content of it must conform to the ethi-
cal principles and norms.

Contemporary legal positivists contrary to the natural law theorists, claim that a law
is no less a law if it is not just in any sense of the meaning of it. They even claim
that in some cases a law may be (or must be) unjust.

Ethics and Politics

Finally let us look at the relationship between the last two terms of our three term
(ethics, law and politics) combination, namely that of ethics and politics. During
the history of mankind, relationship between ethics and politics has been a kind
of Janus-faced relationship. As we know, the ancient Greek God Janus has two
faces; one looking back to the past; the other looking forward to the future. From
another angle, one of these faces represents being content with oneself, prosperity,
happiness and the good life (peacefully smiling), the other representing the earthly
riches power and injustice (angrily raging). Zeus gives Janus the power to see
the past and future of this ethical and the unethical in relation to past and future
politics.

Beautiful soul-face argument of Janus begins with the optimism of politics and
ethics: The sovereign or the elected political leader tells his beloved people that
he will be in their humble service. All he wants is to provide security for the people,
and to prosper the people. Gradually beautiful face turns to be the ugly face of
Janus: advanced (ileri) democracy means less democracy, more security means
more oppression and suppression. In the end, all the power is centered in one
dictator, until the time comes for a revolution or another dictatorship. Nietzsches
eternal recurrence is in operation in the politics: history repeats itself!

The historical evolution of the relationship between ethics and politics has evolved
in three stages:

Ethics is considered as part of politics: from the ancient Greece to Renais-

sance (Machiavelli).

Ethics is considered as irrelevant to politics: From Machiavelli to the 20th century.

11
 Ethics re-enters politics (the 2nd half of 20th century.

Let us see each of these closer.

MODULE 6

Ethics is Part of Politics

UFND50

Aristotle

Aristotle in his book Politics defines politics as part of a larger branch of

knowledge called practical philosophy. Within such a framework, ethics and
politics has the following type of relationship:

Politics is the practical knowledge (Praxis) of living well and just. In this sense,
politics is an extension of ethics. Aristotle did not see a discrepancy between
the custom and tradition (ethos) of a Polis (city-state) and that Polis consti-
tution (Nomoi). To put it differently, the ethical nature of human action is not,
in essence different from that of custom and tradition. In this sense, Aristo-
tle definition of man as a political animal (Zoon Politikon) makes sense. The
happiness of a citizens depends upon his being a part of that political unit
called Polis.

In Aristotle, politics is part of the practical philosophy (Praxis). Being so it is

not a technical know-how (Techne). Technical knowledge is the knowledge of
artisan and engineers and by definition politics excludes such knowledge.
In the last analysis politics is related to being virtuous and living well in the
sense of Eudomonia.

As it is different from the technical know-how (Techne), politics is also dif-

ferent from the theoretical knowledge (Episteme). Theoretical knowledge is
exact scientific knowledge of the unchanging things, whereas politics is the
knowledge of the uncertain and a constantly changing thing. This kind of
knowledge is called by Aristotle under the umbrella name of practical wis-
dom (Phronesis). Cicero later called the knowledge of politics common sense
(Prudentia). In English it is also called prudence.

Aquinas

Medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas carried the Aristotelian definition of

man as a political animal, to the medieval conception of political man as social
animal. (Animal Sociale). Aquinas follows the tradition of Aristotle in ethics-politics
relationship: even if a state is established for its own survival, its first and
foremost task is to provide its citizens the good and happy life. The survival of
the state cannot overshadow this priority.

Aquinas enlarges the Aristotelian concept of political in political animal (Zoon

Politicon) into a larger complex called society (Societas). Then Aristotles phrase is
translated into Latin as natural human being is social animal. This relationship
is extended via Christian doctrine into the hierarchical order of religious society
(ordre civitatis). Even with such revision of terminology, ethics still is considered as
an integral part of politics.

12
Ethics is Divorced from Politics

Thucydides: Might is just!

MODULE 6
UFND50
The view that ethics has no relationships with politics is a common view among
historians of the past. One of these historians is Thucydides; he himself was one of
the ten generals governing Athens at the time of Peloponnesian Wars (431-411)
between Athens and Sparta, he was personally involved in the actual stages of the
war whose history he wrote. Thucydides warns us from 2400 years back that ethics
and politics should not be confused with one another; politics is related to concrete
interests of the states whereas ethics is related to personal virtues of individuals. In
order to support his thesis he relates this anecdote between the winner and loser of
a battle in the Peloponnesian Wars:

In a battle of the war, Athens is the victor. The representatives of the looser
city-state Melos, meet with the victor Athens representatives to discuss the
terms of the cease-fire. Between them the following dialogue develops. Rep-
resentative of Athens speaks: You must understand clearly that we are here to annex your
sland into our empire in order to enlarge it. We thus undertake the protection of Melos into the hands of
Athens. Representative of Melos replies: How can the people of Melos could help this cause
of yours by being enslaved by you? Representative of Athens replies: By surrendering you
save your country from being sacked. And we by not destroying you all deserve the benefit of enslaving you.
Representative of Melos speaks: But then your sense of justice does not make a distinction between who
attacks you and who doesnt, since we never attacked you but you attacked us. Representative of
Athens: For us what is important is not what is right or wrong, but rather the relative power of a state to
maintain its independence. If we do not attack a state, it is because we are afraid of the power of that state.
So by winning Athens enlarges its territories and at the same time fortify its borders. We are an all-powerful
state whereas you are a small island. Therefore it is quite natural that your people become our slaves.

So simply because Athens is more powerful than Melos, this gives them the right to
enslave them: might is just!

Thrasymachus of the Republic: Just is Might!

Platos dialogue Republic starts with Socratess questioning some sophist

philosophers as to the meaning of justice. One sophist called Thrasymachus replies
that justice is what the strongest says it is, or that just is might. Heres his argument:

Justice is what stupid and simple people call virtue.

Those simple people know nothing better than or are afraid to know better
than that of what they call simple and good life.

For those of complex and strong men injustice is more valuable than that of
justice. In business and in politics unjust men are much more successful than
those of just men; he pays no tax, he evades all punishment by his cunning
and he can maintain his power by being unjust rather than just.

The more he is unjust the more he becomes powerful and successful. If he

can do this in a larger context to include the whole of the state, he can be-

13
 come the most powerful political leader.

Simply put, the life of a tyranny is the happiest and the most just.
MODULE 6

Thrasymachos argument that just is might! is an argument that has been a

recurrent theme in the history of mankind. This argument means that ethics and
UFND50

morality has no saying in politics and business and even that ethics and morality
is against the nature of politics and business; i.e., that a politician cannot be a
politician and an ethical man at the same time. 1600 years from Thrasymaschos,
Machiavelli of Renaissance has claimed the same idea in his book Prince.

Machiavelli: End Justify Means

Machiavelli, in his book Prince defends a position which is similar to that of

Thrasymachos; ethics is excluded from practice of politics; the sovereign, in his
practice of politics aims at the survival of the state as its sole purpose: the end
(survival of the state) justifies all means (being unethical). The main steps of his
argument are as follows:

The sole purpose of the sovereign is to maintain his power and existence at
all costs.

Those who expect unconditional virtue live in an imaginary unreal world. A

sovereign who doesnt want to relinquish his throne must be able to use all
unethical means to keep his power and throne.

Should he choose the cruel way to keep his throne, he will make sure that he
shouldnt leave an unfinished work behind him; he should know how to kill!

There is no harm for the sovereign to be virtuous; but not to those who
threatens his authority.

It is desirable that a sovereign be popular; for he could maintain power in

two ways only, by being loved or by being feared; but not by both.

The sovereign must be a realist; he must always go by facts. The most im-
portant fact is the value of power and authority. Even prophets keep their
power with the help of their swords.

Victory is achieved in two ways: by law or by sheer force. Law is for men,
sheer force for animals. But sometimes for men law may not be sufficient,
sheer force too must be necessary; in those conditions the sovereign must
not hesitate to treat men by sheer force as if they are animals; for this is the
only language they will understand.

Moreover, even there are differences among animals; if necessary, the sover-
eign must use the language of lion by combining it with the cunning of fox.
A fox without the muscle of lion, or a lion without the cunning of fox cannot
succeed.

14
 A successful sovereign may not keep his promises if keeping them will not
in some yay strengthen his own position. Simple people are so dumb and
stupid that it is as if they deliberately look for a leader who will mislead and

MODULE 6
cheat them. Here the sovereign must carry the carrot and the stick using
them in the right time in the right measure. Masses are asses.

UFND50
Machiavelli is the first modern philosopher who divorced ethics from politics. With
Hobbes this divorce between ethics will be fortified and will last until about the 2nd
half of 20th century.

Hobbes: Homo Homini Lipus

In the previous section we have examined Hobbes theory of natural law. An

extension of his theory is his conception of politics without ethics. For Hobbes
politics is a branch of scientific social science which takes its model as the
mechanical laws of Newtonian physics, whereas ethics is a branch philosophy
dealing with personal ethical and moral conduct. Hobbess argument is as follows:

Politics means political technique that is the field of a special expertize on

the regulative conduct of state behavior. This science of politics was first
expressed in Vicos concept of new science. This idea of science implies that
what we produce scientifically is what we know best. Such is the technical
know-how of the new science of politics. Within the production of this ma-
chinery called politics the place of ethics is similar to its role in the produc-
tion of textile and or production of a sewing machine. The science of politics
almost mechanically applies the laws of nature into the body politics effec-
tively without any need for ethics or morality.

In the above mentioned sense, politics can no more be viewed as a teaching

of just and good life, as it was in Aristotle. Relationship between ethics and
politics has become the reverse of what it was for Aristotle: ethical is distinct
from the legal, and legal is distinct from that of the political. For Aristotle,
these three fields of knowledge is intertwined and overlapping.

Politics as divorced from ethics stand as a distinct field of scientific knowl-

edge which designs and coordinates the mechanisms of state and society.
Thus as a field of science politics is an applied science; it investigates the
principles of state and politics and applies it to the actual body-politics in a
particular society and state.

The question remains as to the whereabouts of justice end ethics within

the mechanisms of the state and society. Justice and ethics is embedded in
the social contract assumed to be signed between people and the supreme
sovereign (Leviathan). In this sense ethics and just simply means nothing but
blind obedience of the people to the supreme sovereign called Leviathan: so
just is what the supreme sovereign sees as good, just, etc.

Hobbes claims that ethics and justice is universal since in all the states of
the world, the obedience to the state means the same thing.

15
 Following Machiavelli ethics was already divorced from politics in the 13th century,
and by Hobbes in the 16th century, ethics which was so dear to politics since
Aristotle was completely cut off from the language of ethics and justice. This
dominant view of relationship between ethics and politics will continue until about
MODULE 6

mid-20th century.
UFND50

Ethics Re-marries with Politics: 20th century

Contemporary political philosophy in the 2nd half of 20th century witnessed a

surge of views defending the Aristotelian unity of ethics and politics. Hannah
Arendt and Alesdaire McInytyre in the U.S., Karl Otto Apel and Jurgen Habermas
in Germany, and many other philosophers in the Continental Europe developed
political theories aiming at reuniting ethics with politics.

Here in this section we will take only one example among these theories, that of
Hanna Arendts. Arendt was Jewish born German who studied with Heidegger in
Heidelberg and escaped from the Nazis and died in 1975 as an American citizen.

Arendt takes as her starting point Aristotles concept of practical wisdom

(Phronesis), and political animal (Zoon Politicon) and develops a theory of political
philosophy based on ethical action of the contemporary man of Cosmopolis.

Here are some major concepts of her theory:

Vita Activa. This is a concept connoting the opposite of what Aristotle called
a theoretical life (Theoria), and denoting what Aristotle called practical life
(Praxis). Vita activa is the totalitu of mans practical-political-social life. Arendt
criticizes the history of Western philosophy for considering mans theoreti-
cal (contemplative) life to that of practical life. Arendt blames Plato for this
misdirection. Contrary to Plato, Arendt claims Aristotle wished to reclaim
practical life a priority over theoretical. Vita activa is divided into three parts:
labor, work and action. Mans practical activities have the hierarchical re-
lationship among these three concepts. Modernity requires the concept of
action as the zenith of these three hierarchical concepts. Let us see them
in their hierarchical order.

Animal Laborans: Mankind as Laboring-animal. Labor is what is common to

man and animal their physical purposeful action. Labor is repeated infinite-
ly in the same manner or other but is exhausted at the moment of its end;
it doesnt create a product repeatedly; it is the closest activity which man
shares with animal. This ontological part of human beings is called animal
laborer by Arendt. Animal laborer equals slavery forced labor and lack of
free will. It existed in ancient Greece, Rome and even in the 19th century
America. Today the de-territorialized labor in all around the globe is also an
example for this kind of existence. There are many modern form of this type
of existence, including child and women slave-labor practices.
Homo Faber: Mankind as Artisan-Artist: Just as labor is related to the biolog-
ical activities, work is related to the technical know-how of human beings.
Work corresponds to two sorts of activity in Aristotle: Techne (technical ar-
tisanship, engineering) and Poiesis (work as literature, art poetry). Category
of work is different from the category of labor in the following points: (1)
Labor is related to biological-natural animal-like forced deed and physical

16
 action whereas work is merely human related. We cannot talk about work
of animal in this sense; (2) work brings with it a sense of freedom and free
will since it is about voluntary control of nature by man. Labor, on the hand
requires a kind of forced-slave action necessitated by nature; (3) labor gen-

MODULE 6
erally is the personal satisfaction of an individual concerning his needs and
is therefore private, whereas work is within the public sphere which binds

UFND50
people together at social level. At this stage however work is not yet a part
of ethical-political realm of society.
Zoon Politicon. Mankind as Political Animal in Action: Work is properly hu-
man and necessary for the freedom of man, but for freedom mere work
is not sufficient. To explain this idea in Aristotelian terms, we can say that
work as Techne and Poiesis are not sufficient to emancipate man but that
freedom requires human action proper. This field of human action is what is
ethical-political in the proper sense of the term, meaning that it is equal also
to freedom: action is freedom, and freedom is action. To define these two
terms in a circular way for Arendt is not a vicious circle, but rather to define
human action as both the beginning and end of human freedom; human
being is free because he is an initium and a telos simultaneously, to put it in
Aristotelian terminology.

Action with these characteristics, differ qualitatively from the rest of human
movements and deeds; it has a very special status in human existence. Action as
different than movement implies freedom of choice, making promises, telling lies,
can attempt to persuade, etc. Action is by definition an ethical deed; it requires one
to take a stand and say yes or no, right or wrong.

The most important characteristic of the category of action is its being a social-
public category. Action happens in between humans; for Robinson Kruoze to
perform an action, at least a Cuma has to be in the island.

This communicative character of action becomes obvious with its close connection
with language: via speech-acts, people convey each other their own identities. For
Arendt the medium of language is the ontological center of the political: politics
and action as an expression of freedom is one and the same thing.

Action is related directly to ethics in two important speech acts: competence to

forgive, and competence to promise. These two competences are like the two sides
of a coin: forgiving enables us to proceed to act without remorse and promising
makes our future actions less uncertain clear. Moreover both competences are
temporal: forgiving is directed towards past actions, whereas promising is directed
toward future actions.

Ethics Arts and Literature

Different Views Concerning Ethics and Arts relationship
During the history of ideas four dominant approaches to the relationship between
ethics and arts has been developed by philosophers. These are as follows:

Art is unethical. This approach is a typical Platonist view of the relationship

between ethics and arts. Plato, in his Republic condemns epic poetry and
arts in general as a cause of corruption of the youth in the ideal state he
envisages. Tragedy for Plato is also an insult to human intelligence; it brings

17
 into the fore the most irrational and negative emotions and passions of hu-
man soul.

Art is ethical. This approach begins at the beginning of 19th century with
MODULE 6

the movement called romanticism and humanism in arts. Humanists be-

lieve that arts in general and poetry in particular is by definition is an ethical
UFND50

speech act; the artist, with his work of art conveys an ethical message to
the reader and or viewer. For example for Tolsloi, what makes a work of art
great is to elevate the reader-viewer to a higher level of ethical union with
the work of art. This is also the view of Aristotle.
Ethics is irrelevant to arts. This is the view of aestheticism which appeared
at the second half of 19th century. Aestheticism is the view that esthetic and
artistic criteria are autonomous in the sense that they are independent from
any value imputation. Art is about the beautiful and the form of beauty. An-
other motto if this view is art is for the sake of art.
Art is more than art and ethics. This is a radical view which claims art to
be a tool of revolution and or radical change in society. Art according to this
view is the motor power for transforming society and culture. The famous
motto of Marxist art theory: art is for the sake of society!

Problems Related to Ethics and Art

The general questions which the above four general views on art-ethics relationship
address themselves include the following:

Does a work of art affect us in any sense of the ethical? Does or can a
work of art makes us more or less ethical than what we were before? To put
it differently, is there an cause-effect relationship between a work of art
and our ethical stand on a particular issue? This question naturally gets four
different answers from the above four perspectives of the relationships be-
tween ethics and art. Firstly, this question can be interpreted as a question
concerning the power of art in a society. We know that Plato sees this power
in a very negative sense of destruction of fundamental values gluing a soci-
ety and state. The humanist-romantic view we mentioned above, on the oth-
er hand would see the influence of arts in society in a very positive manner
as that of enhancing the value-ethics consciousness of the members of so-
ciety. Kant for example, claims that the beauty in nature and the re-presen-
tation of this beauty in nature via a genius into arts enhances the sense of
beauty in human beings. Contemporary literary critics argue that the novel,
or a painting, with its ethical content will bring some sort of ethical con-
sciousness on the part of the reader-viewer of the work of art concerned.

What is the role of the state in arts and ethics? This question brings one
of the oldest political problem, that of censorship in art and literature. The
firs example of the expulsion of artists and poets from the society by the
state is Platos Republic. Plato thinks of poets and artists as the cause of
corruption of children. We all know how Hitler, after taking power burned all
the liberating literature and philosophy books with a great ceremony. The
degree which the state interferes art and literature is in proportion to the
degree of the authoritarian nature of that state.

What kind of conceptual relationship exists between the concept es-

thetics and ethics? Since Plate this conceptual relationship is a problem-

18
 atic issue in philosophy. Plato, for example claims that most of the ethical
virtues are also beautiful such as justice (depicted as a beautiful women
blindfolded).

MODULE 6
Do arts and ethics have an internal relationship? This question is not
about the ethical impact of art on society, but is the question whether an

UFND50
ethical content adds additional esthetics value to a work of art. The hu-
manists of the 19th century assumed so; an ethical content (i.e., a message)
would add to the esthetic value of that work of art. Many people would cer-
tainly disagree, and accuse such a view with excessive moralism.
Is there a structural symmetry between ethics and esthetics? This has been
a complicated philosophical problem of these fields. The thesis that there is
a structural similarity between ethics and esthetics claims that the values in
fields of arts and ethics can be formulates in structurally identical forms; that
the principles of both fields are universal, eternal, objective, etc. For example
for Hume, fields of knowledge, the ethics and esthetics is based on the same
fundamental principle: that of subjectivity. On the other hand Kant rejects
this idea of formal symmetry between these two fields, asserting that ethical
principles are rational universal and categorical maxims while esthetic judg-
ment is subjective but depends on a general common sense.

Poetry and Tragedy in Ethics and Arts

How is the relationship between tragedy-poetry and ethics understood in the past
history of philosophy? Let us see.

Plato

Platos views on the relationship between ethics and arts are developed in his
dialogue Republic. He discusses these views in the section of the Republic called
The place of literature in education and the necessity of censure. In this section of
the book the assumption of Plato is the following unfortunate statement; the early
age is the period children are conditioned best in the service of the states ends. He
banned all the literature of ancient Homeric literature and the tragedy of all Greek
classics from his ideal state. For Plato, there are two important reasons why arts and
literature must be expelled from the ideal society:

Epic poets such as Homers epic poems Iliad and Odyssey is considered by
Plato as the most dangerous influences on the youth for the following rea-
sons:

Poets (meant all the Greek epic poetry) lie about all the real life; they create
an imaginary world in which the divine is reduced to lies and contradictory
statements.

They violate the immutable principle of the good in the unethical forms and
characters. The sacred and the immutable is transformed into the ridicule
and the profane.

Epic poets affect the youth negatively in the ethical sense of the term. Poets
degrade the virtue of courage, justice and discipline in a negative way de-
grading all the higher values.

19
 Aristotle: Function of Arts, Psychological Purification

Aristotles book Poetica is the most authoritarian support for the thesis of the
internal relationship between ethics and arts. Aristotle defines tragedy in Poetica
MODULE 6

as follows:
UFND50

Tragedy is the mimesis (imitation) of an event in a story so that it will ignite

feelings of pity and fear in the audience; by this way the audience will rid
himself of those negative feelings by catharsis (purification).

There are several important concepts in this definition which makes Aristotles
conception of art and tragedy clear. Art and poetry is for Aristotle is imitation
(Mimesis). Mimesis is translated as re-presentation which gives a new significance to
the conception art that it is a repetition of the same work of art by different people
at different times; re-presentation of Ethos (ethical characteristics) of a work of art
such as a tragedy. These characteristics may be passion, rage, courage, etc. So as
different from mimesis in Plato, for Aristotle it is not imitation of the beauty in
nature but the imitation of human ethos or the ethical characteristics.

The last sentence of the above definition of tragedy expresses Aristotles famous
theory of the function of tragedy: Catharsis that is purification of the imitation of pity
and fear. So in watching a tragedy, the viewer empathizes with the tragic hero via
pity and fear thus purifying his own negative feelings of fear and pity. So the social
function of theater and tragedy in the Greek culture becomes obvious: the viewer
after the show goes home feeling good about himself, saying may be to himself:
Thank God, Im not the King Oedipus! Aristotle explains this process as follows:
we feel pity for someone who has been in this tragic situation, and we fear that it
might have happened to us.

And the process of Catharsis (purification) means that by experiencing pity and fear,
we thus get rid of our own fears and negative feelings in general. Aristo explains:
people are affected by the feelings of pity and fear differently, but in general
the common experience is similar to taking a drug and passing out and then
awakening with a different state of mind. This is what purification effect of a tragedy
is like. Art and theatre is useful and good for giving people such an experience of
psychological relaxation.

Aristo also disagrees with his teacher Plato in the banning of art in the state. For
him art and tragedy is ethical in the sense that it gives people good feelings and
comfort even it may have violent content and examples. Aristo with his theory
of tragedy has also been the first to put the Freudian paradox of science of
psychology: that which can give us pain and negative feelings, can also make us
happy and relaxed.

Nietzsche: Function of Arts; Metaphysical Purification

Dionysus-Apollo

Aristotle was the first to ask the question that how cans the thing that gives us pain
can also give us pleasure with his theory of tragedy and Catharsis. 19th century
German philosopher Nietzsche asked the same question but gave a different
answer than that of Aristotle.

20
Nietzsche, in his book The Birth of Tragedy, claims that the viewer in tragedy
experiences a kind of metaphysical purification as different from the Aristotelian
psychological purification. Even though he later confesses the unfortunate term
he used as metaphysics, he says that he simply meant by metaphysics the fact

MODULE 6
that even though how painful experiences one may go through life experiences,
he-she thinks that life is still worth living. This conclusion is different from Aristotles

UFND50
rational-psychological theory of Catharsis: it is more of a irrational confession that
the pains and sufferings of life teaches us that life is worth living, as the famous
Turkish poet Nazm Hikmet says, after 20 some years of solitary confinement that
life is good, my dear brother! So, Nietzsche too confirms that suffering makes life
valuable. Nietzsche finally confirms: pain is necessary for life sustenance. If there
is more pain in the lives of Agamemnon, Hamlet, or Oedipus, this means that their
lives are much more worth living than that of others. For Nietzsche, therefore, the
message which the tragic gives us must be that of keep going, you are in the right
direction!

What makes us affirm the tragic is the power of Dionysus, or the psychological
Dionysian power. This is not the power which is related to the Aristotelian feeling
of pity and fear, but rather to the affirming of eternal joy of life beyond of all these
earthly feelings.

Nietzsche, within this context also interprets Shakespeares Hamlet as follows: The
Dionysian man is like Hamlet; they both have observed life with keen inspection,
and gained deep understanding of life. But their gained insight of life made them
nauseated; they felt paralyzed, unmoving, and frozen; since whatever they do, will
be of no cause for any novelty; they need not move! If there is more pain in the
lives of Agamemnon, Oedipus, or Hamlet, it is because their lives are much more
attractive than those of our dull lives. So tragedies helps us to be aware of the
worthlessness of our own lives, getting us hit the consciousness that such pain and
suffering makes life all the more dear and endearing. So tragedies makes us aware
of the fact that even the most horrible tragedies we face in life makes us aware that
life is worth living. This conclusion is certainly paradoxical or even contradictory, for
how can pain makes us happy; so we go back to the Aristotelian theory of tragedy,
and its fundamental question of how Catharsis solves this paradox. Nietzsche
rejects the Aristotelian simple resolution, by simply affirming and insisting in the
impossibility of a resolution: There is no solution, but this is the fire which starts
solution; even God is dead! So you are of your own! You dont even have a Father!
So you better keep going, or if you cannot, stop living: Die! And if you see the world
as out of joint! just revolt against it and go to the deepest reasons of corruption
and betrayal.

So for Nietzsche, art is the re-presentation of that which is out of joint in society
and that which is the domestication of the horrible by re-presentation.

Ethics and Literature: Dostoevsky and Camus

How is ethics related to literature? We choose a single work by Dostoevsky,
Brothers Koramozof and analyze it for the purpose

Dostoevsky: Brothers Karamozof

Fedor Dostoevsky wrote his famous novel Brothers Karamozof in 1880, which
comprises his ethical views as is described in what follows. Here ethical dilemmas

21
 and contradictions of two brothers of a Russian family will be presented in short
dialogues and ensuing comments.
.
The plot of novel
MODULE 6

The story of Brothers Karamozof happens around a Russian family of the father
UFND50

Fodor Karamozof and his three legitimate sons, Dimitri, Ivan and Alyoa, and
an illegitimate son Simerdakof. Simerdakof is born as a result of Fodors rape of
a retarded girl in the village. Here it is important to note that Fodor is merely a
biological father to the boys and not a father in the true sense of love and affection.
Fodor cares nothing of this world and lives an extreme hedonistic life. Dimitris
mother died soon after she deserted Fodor. Fodors second wife, the mother of Ivan
and Alyoa also died young. Dimitri, Ivan and Alyoa was taken care by the relatives,
while Simerdakof was taken care by Fodors housemaid.

Dimitri, Ivan and Alyoa now have grown up and returned to their farm-home.
Dimitri asks from his father Fodor to give them their share of the family inheritance.
Fodor the father tells them that there is no such inheritance of the family. After
the long story, Fodor is murdered but all the factual observable evidence shows
Dimitri as the murderer while the real criminal is Simerdakof. For the crime, Dimitri
is accused and jailed. Ivan and Alyoa make plans for getting Dimitry out of prison.

The ethical nexus of the novel centers on the long dialogues between the two
brothers Ivan and Alyoa. Before we examine these dialogues, let us see the two
contrasting personality traits of the two brothers.

Ivan the anarchist character: Intellectual and skeptic

He is atheist, agnostic, and skeptic, or anarchist depending upon the situation of

arguments he engages with other people. Atheist means that he doesnt believe
in the existence of God. Agnostic means that he doesnt know if there is God or
not. Skeptic is the one who doubts about everything including the existence of
God. One cannot be all three but Ivan, with his cunning way can become one or
the other depending on the argument or the person he argues. But actually he is
not any of all these things: he simply is in a state of intellectual paralysis on every
ethical subject. He was a bright child which could surprise his teachers with his
smart remarks. The year he graduated from university he publishes an article on
which Dostoevsky comments as follows:

What was conspicuous about the article is its openness to many contradictory interpretations. Its subject
was not of Ivans expertise; he was educated in natural sciences. The initial reaction of the religious authori-
ties was that the article defended their religious position. But those who are in opposite views also thought
that the article was defending their own views. Later it was decided that this article ridicules human intel-
lect. (Dostoevsky, p. 18).

This was Ivan: he would enter in arguments in the subjects of which he has no
specialty and argue for the sake of argument; he was aimless; he had no values, no
ethical stand or moral norms. In that article he was an atheist while being a skeptic
while being an agnostic; he was all and none! The rony of the situation was that he
himself believed that he was sincere in the ideas he was defending. When his father
Fodor at the presence of Alyoa inquired his belief in God, he frankly answered
that he believed that there is no such thing as God. But the next day, when he was
with Alyoa, he said that he was not serious about his remarks he made to Fodor

22
about God. He said to Alyoa that to question Gods existence is a mistake. He even
becomes a believer as he confesses:

I, not only believe in the existence of God, but also believe His grand design in this universe. This great

MODULE 6
purpose and design is utterly sacred and incomprehensible to us human minds that work according to the
Euclidian geometry. We may newer comprehend His grand purpose. (Dostoevsky, p. 282)

UFND50
Ivan makes this false move only to make his conversation with Alyoa more
intellectual and interesting, since he was just having fun! Ivan made this false
pretentious move not just to instigate a colorful conversation with Alyoa, but he
had a deeper perhaps unconscious intellectual research: Ivan even if he pretends to
be a believer, he does this to be known as a result of a revolt against the injustices
(if God exists, He is the cause of them) existing in this world.
There are two sections called Revolt and The Great Inquisition. Both of these
are related to Ivans dealing with the problem of evil in life. Here Ivan accepts the
existence of God but revolts against the unjust world which He created. There are
two reasons for his revolt which is examined in these two sections of the novel. Let
us see them:

The Revolt: Ivan rebels against the suffering of innocent children in this
world which God created. What is this grand design in the name of which
innocent people have to suffer or die? The evil has no explanation except
that it is for some grand design which is supposed to be non-accessible
by plain human reason. Ivan revolts against this nonsense. One example he
cites is the father and mother who tortures their small daughter for no obvi-
ous reason: they simply hate their child. Imagine, Ivan says:
Poor child doesnt even understand why she is being tortured. All she does is cry and ask help from God:
Please God, help me! she says, of course in vain! God doesnt hear it! (Dostoevsky, p. 291).

For Ivan the believers supposed explanation that this world which God
created is like a train running through troubled experiences but finally take
man to salvation is very suspect. This is a criticism of the Christian argument
of salvation, an explanation that men must suffer in this world because of
the original sin. Ivan takes this argument as rather nonsense. He revolts by
saying:

No! I certainly dont want to be a part of that grand design. I dont want it because I like humanity; I wish
to remain at peace with my feelings of rage, pain, mercy and compassion. I desire no vengeance, no hatred
or evil in life. This business of great design is very costly. For a one-way ticket to heaven this price is too
much. Therefore I return the ticket to the sender God revolting: please do not send me your stupid ticket!
(Dostoevsky, p. 295-96.)

The Great Inquisition: In this section of the novel, Ivan complains about the
great responsibility of freedom which this unjust world which God created
gives us humans. He starts by telling the story of the great Inquisition to
his brother Alyoa. The story goes in the 16th century Spain, where the fires
by which human beings were burned were started for the sake of celebrat-
ing God and Christian faith. Christ resurrects in Seville and shows signs of
miracles proving that he is the Christ resurrected. He brings a dead child to
life and makes a blind child to regain her sight. The Great Cardinal who is 90
years old recognizes Christ and orders him to be imprisoned. Cardinal visits
Christ in prison and accuses him of interfering into the affairs of the Church.
He tells Christ that the humanity deserves not to be free but to be enslaved

23
 as what it actually deserves to be. Christ listens to what the Cardinal says
quietly, and kisses the Cardinal in his two cheeks.

Ivan cannot accept this grand design and salvation story. The first reason
MODULE 6

is simply the fact that some powerful people such as the Great Cardinal in
society is using the name of God and using religion to keep the masses un-
UFND50

der their yoke. This is unacceptable to Ivan. He reminds Alyoa the words
which the Grand Cardinal tells to Christ: What you had to do in the first
place we succeeded in doing that is bringing life a miracle, a mystery and a
tyranny for the masses. The masses are nothing but herds to be guided and
ruled. They thus got rid of their alternative of freedom of choice. We told
them how they will become free by being a part of the herd.

The question remains: who is Ivan? Is he religious, skeptic, agnostic, or atheist? Is he

all of these, or none of these? Ivans stand of the role as pure intellectual prevents
him being labeled by any of these adjectives. He is just the aloof intellectual which
remains above all these accusations. But can he be also free of a person beyond
good and evil? as Nietzsche would say.

Ivans intellectualism thus prevents him from taking any kind of responsibility from
any kind of good or evil deed. This means that he sees himself free of any ethical
responsibility. As we have seen above Ivan has moral reasons behind his arguments
such as innocent suffering of children. But Dostoevsky is careful to distinguish
between having such moral feelings for argumentation and having an ethical stand
in front a concrete life experience such as the murder of Fodor the father. Ivan may
bring moral reasons in order to win intellectual arguments, but when it comes to
taking concrete ethical stand in concrete life situations, he refuses to take sides. In
real life situations Ivan never accepts ethical responsibility. We will see that even
people like Ivan is unable to be free from such responsibility, with the unfolding
course of events in the plot of the novel. We will see how he will take the agony of
doubt that he killed his father Fodor, while actually his half-brother Simerdakof
killed Fodor.

What is the source of his intellectualism, and his refusal to take an ethical stand on
any action? Dostoevsky relates this reluctance on the part of Ivan to his views on
religion and moral virtues. Ivan argues that if there is no God, then there is no good
or wrong; everything goes! Everything is good or bad depending on ones own
subjective judgment of a person. Virtues have their sources in religion, and without
a belief in God and immortality, there is no reason to be virtuous or moral.

In the article Ivan wrote on state religion and law, he defends the idea of unification
of the state with religion. Ivan argues that if this happens then the penal law can
deal better with the problem of crime since people will think that if they violate the
law, they will also be violating the law God meaning that they will go to hell! And
this will certainly reduce the crime rate in a society. Moreover the additional penalty
of ex-communication which the religious courts will give may prevent crime for the
fear of ex-communication will overweight the lure of the prospect crime. Ivans last
judgment on this matter is the following: if there is no God and immortality so there
is no virtue; everything goes!

Murder of Fodor

Ivans half-brother takes Ivans ideas seriously and kills their Father Fodor. Ivan

24
without knowingly influenced Simerdakof and causes him to kill Fodor. Ivan did
not direct Simerdakof intentionally to commit the murder. Smerdakof, justifies his
action as follows: ..I killed our father because everything goes! I learned this from
Ivan. Ivan was right about the death of God and its consequence that there is no

MODULE 6
such thing as virtue.

UFND50
So Simerdakof had pursued the logic of Ivan into action; Ivan himself, being an
intellectual as he is, would have never done this; nor even would he want to do
such a thing. Ivan here plays the role of the brain and Simerdikof, that of the
pistol. But Ivan is terrified that Simerdakof did such a thing. He caused his fathers
death, his brother Dimitris imprisonment and his other brother Simerdakofs
suicide. He tells the judge that it was not Dimitri but was himself which helped
Simerdakof in their fathers murder, but the judge doesnt believe him and Dimitri
stays in prison. Now his mind is utterly confused and baffled and needs to converse
with his brother Alyoa about this whole affair.

Ivan has the following lesson: ethical responsibility and virtues are much more
important than his intellectual games of argumentation. Real life is not a game. The
rest of the story will reveal how much Ivan suffers from his empty intellectualism
and the feeling of guilt that he himself was the real murderer of their father Fodor.
Now it is Alyoas mission to convince his suffering brother Ivan that he is not the
murderer of their father.

Alyoa: the ethically responsible brother

The contrast between the characters of the two brothers Ivan and Alyoa is not
simply a matter of skepticism and believer; Alyoa is a believer but his ethical
responsibility does not come from his religious allegiance. Dostoevsky underlines
this point at the very beginning of the novel:

Alyoa is not a fanatical believer; he is not even a mystical person. He had this loving character from his
childhood onwards: he loved humanity, he loved life and was a born optimist in his life-outlook. (Dos-
toevsky, p. 20).

Alyoa chooses to join a monastery, not because he was a devout Christian, but
because of his search for a reasonable way of loving humanity. He once out of his
ethical sensitivity had to deny his religious belief. Let us see scenes of Ivans and
Alyoas dialogues in order to understand how the teo brother differ and clash in
their ethical stands.

Ivan in his usual way tries to corner Alyoa with the argument of theodicy. Theodicy
is the scholastic argument that the problem of evil on earth is not the responsibility
of God, or at least that He was fair and just when He created the universe:

Alyoa, I dare to challenge you, and demand an honest reply from you: imagine that you had a chance to
bring salvation to the world and thus bring the people a happy and good life; you know that if you wish
to do so you will be able to do it. But there is just one condition: in order that you can do this you will have
to torture a small girl who has been beaten up and thrown out of her house by her parents, and she is
crying for help in the freezing cold of the night, outside of that house. Would you be willing to torture her?
(Dostoevsky, p. 269)

Alyoa replies firmly: No, I wouldnt do! Alyoa is sensitive to the sincere religious
beliefs, but he too as much as Ivan, revolts against the injustices of the world

25
 created by God. But as different from Ivan, Alyoa would not permit his intellectual
arguments to foreshadow his ethical concerns and his love of humanity; for him
ethical virtues precede religious dogmas and stupid intellectual arguments.
MODULE 6

The real conflict between Alyoas and Ivans character is the contrast between
skepticism and virtuous life. This contrast is at the hearth of Alyoas rejection of
UFND50

Ivans stupid intellectualism; Ivan had claimed that if there is no Gods infinite grace
and freedom there would not be ethical virtue and morality. To the contrary, Alyoa
argued that there is virtue in this world, and the proof of it is his own life-style. It is
important that Alyoa shows as the proof of his argument as his life style; he says
he lives a very simple life and he is content with it. For him, this also means the
confirmation of Gods grace.

The rest of the argument between Alyoa and Ivan goes like this:

Alyoa asserts that the model for his life is that of Father Zosima. Here at this point
the Father Zosima enters into the picture. Alyoa takes as his ethical model the
picture of Father Zosima. What is it that is appealing for Alyoa in Zosima? Zozima is
the religious leader of the community.

Father Zozima is the person morally taken as the ideal by Alyoa. For Zosima love
means reaching the grace of God. Life for Zosima is constructed on two basic
principles, love and ethical responsibility. Those who come to him for counseling
always hear these two cardinal principles from him: love others indiscriminately,
and feel deep ethical responsibility for the deeds you do and decisions you make. A
young woman who is married to an old man is physically abused by him. But when
her old husband gets ill and becomes an invalid, the young wife gets her chance to
revenge. She comes for advice to father Zozima; because she give him the wrong
medicine and caused his death for he abused her in the past. Here is what Zozima
counsels the young woman:

As long as you lament God forgives you!.. Not any love kind surpasses love of God. No sin transgresses
love of God. You must forgive your old husband for what he did to you; have peace with him. If you lament
sincerely, you can even love him and thus be with God. Lave cures every kind of wound, deep and shallow.
Even if I forgive a sinner like you, imagine what God would do for you; forgiveness is the panacea for all evil
and sin. Forgiveness can forgive not only your sins, but the sins of all mankind. (Dostoevsky, p. 60).

For Father Zosima love and forgiveness is a union with God. Love is sacred and
determines our reactions to the evil in world. Accompanied to Zosimas idea of
love is the feeling of responsibility. Loving the other immediately brings along the
feeling of responsibility for the others existence: if you love you are responsible
for what you love. Is this argument not fair enough? Love means responsibility,
and vice versa. Father Zosima tells Alyoa these flashy words about lave and
responsibility:

My dearest ones, I want you to know that each of us is responsible for each and every human and other
living and non-living beings in universe. And this responsibility is a personal and subjective one; each and
every one of us is for everyone else and everything else in this universe responsible. This awareness of re-
sponsibility is the dearest crown of humanity. (Dostoevsky, p. 196.)

Thus Alyoa tries to hold the Karamozof family together with this spirit of
inspiration he gets from Father Zosima. For him Fodor, Dimitri, Ivan and Alyoa are
unfortunate members of a broken family. He wants the remaining family members

26
to have peace and consensus. Alyoa had, besides, many bad memories of how
bad his father Fodor had treated her mother. But Alyoa, despite all this never was
disrespectable to his father, never judging him.

MODULE 6
Alyoa was also at peace with his brother Ivan. Alyoa always knew how different
ideas he had than that of his brother Ivan. But he never revealed his opposition

UFND50
to him; respecting his ideas and loving him as a brother. As we have related the
dialogue between them, let us go back to where Ivan had related the story of the
great Inquisition to Alyoa.

Ivan asks Alyoa whether he thinks evil of him after he tells the story of the Great
Inquisition. Alyoa stands up, goes towards Ivan and kisses him in the cheeks. Of
course, this is only what a Christ would do in a situation like this. Alyoa never
turns his back to Ivan. Here comes the crux of the ethical irresponsibility which
Ivan goes through where Alyoa still tries to console his brother with his Christ-like
patience.

Ivan tries to convince himself that the real murderer of their father Fodor is Dimitri
and Simerdakof. But he in his conscience (in Kantian terminology this means
categorical imperative) thinks he himself is the real murderer of their father.

A Different Look at Karamozof Brothers: Kant: The Categorical imperative:

Thy shall not kill! or the conscience.

Here we pause and give credit to the great rationalist Kant, the ethics philosopher
a credit: For Kant, as we know from our previous readings, the sole instigator
of all ethical reactions, decisions, mores etc., passes through what people call
conscience. This is a very simple word for being human. Being human equals
for being or having conscience, where the following striking dialogue between the
two brothers Ivan and Alyoa reveals: Is what revealed in these dialogues a proof
of what Kantian ethics has always claimed. There is a universal source of resistance
to unethical deeds that are simply called human conscience. Here in the following
dialogue you can see the traces of a Socratic dialogue with a touch of Platonist
universalism:

Ivan still thinks that Dimitri is the true murderer of their father Fodor. But deep in
his soul, he is afraid to spell out the innermost thought he hides: that he himself is
the real murderer of their father Fodor. The conflict in his soul is in extreme when he
shares this dialogue with Alyoa:

Ivan asks impatiently: But then, who is the true murderer? His voice was dry and indifferent.

Alyoa replies: You know who is the murderer with a tone of tranquility and calm.

Ivan was impatient. Well is he the idiot Semerdikof?

Alyoa felt his whole body shivering with pain and replied with an inaudible voice.
He could hardly breathe in his response:

You know who is he. Said Alyoa, he was hardly breathing.

Well then tell me, tell me. Whispered Ivan. His voice was coarse and wild. He almost lost his control.

27
 Alyoa repeated slowly, I know this: you are not the murderer.
MODULE 6

What do you mean by this you are not the murderer?

UFND50

You are not the killer of our father, Alyoa said firmly.

There was a pause of a minute or so.

Alyoa continued firmly: During the last two month you said to yourself many times that you are the mur-
derer of our fatherYou kept confessing that you are the true murderer. But you are not my dear brother.

Here we see how Ivans conscience bothers him and the feeling of guilt surfaces:
I am the murderer. It is at this point which Kantian ethical imperative surfaces:
behind the dictum of anything goes lies the feeling of guilt and the revelation of
the human conscience. Is Ivan an anarchist or a rationalist Kantian?

Albert Camus: Ethics of Revolt

Albert Camus is an Algerian born French novelist and philosopher. As a philosopher

of art he sets out to answer the question of the role of the artist in defending mans
honor against the forces threatening his existence. Camus in all his works tried to
find an answer to this question. He wished to pursue answering this question in his
words, without putting an esthetic distance between himself and life. Again in his
own words, he wished to do this just the way Mozart did in his works, that is with
mans feeling of joy in front of nature. He also added the existential touch of the
happiness felt against the absurd and revolt against death.

Human Condition

Camus calls his overall philosophy human condition in which two important
concepts, that of the absurd and revolt is central:

The Absurd
Even readers not closely acquainted with Camus works are aware of his in
his early writings underscore a great paradox of the human condition: where
life is joyful, nature is beautiful and humans deserve to be happy, life is also
absurd: this beautiful life is absurd. He develops the idea of the absurd in his
book The Myth of Sisyphus. Here Sisyphus is the Greek God of lower status
who is renowned for his cleverness and knavery. Sisyphus lived by thieving.
When the famous thief Autolycus began stealing his cattle Sisyphus marked
the hooves and caught him, and then seduced his daughter. He treacherous-
ly ousted his brother from the Thessalian throne. In the end of a long story,
Zeus sentenced Sisyphus to roll a huge to roll a huge boulder up a hill, one
which kept rolling back down after reaching the top. This was his eternal
punishment. In Camus interpretation, this myth was an epitome of the hu-
man condition. This was his eternal punishment. Camus thinks this myth as
an example of human condition which must be revolted.

28
 The Revolt
The revolt is against death. He was obsessed with the fear of death. In
physical terms, he was a tuberculosis patient for some time which trig-
gered his fear of death to the extreme. He took a long journey to southern

MODULE 6
Italy, hoping to get well. He always felt that death was near him. While he
was in Florence he visited an old cemetery reading through the scripts on

UFND50
tomb-stones. He deduced from these scripts that all of these dead men and
women were, while still alive, accepted their final lot and were content with
it. At that moment he felt a great feeling of revolt against the lot of death.
This revolt was against the idea of dutiful acceptance of our kismet or fate.
Camus revolted against this passive acceptance of humans against the idea
of death. He kept saying: No! No! No! In thinking over the reasons of his
revolt against death, he discovered the feeling of life, and the joy which liv-
ing brings to human beings. At this point he decides about his ethical stand
in life: he must resist against all forces which risk our life and the joy which
living brings to us. Life despite death is good; and our revolt against all the
negative forces which threatens life must be resisted and fought against. We
revolt therefore we exist! This is the existential version of his motto. Our
revolt is for our right to life.

Obsession with death

Camus had a near-death experience. While he was travelling in Italy, he
spent some time in a big cemetery, where he translated all of the scripts
written on the tomb-stones. The result was the following: all of the dead
people in these scripts seemed to obey the fate of their inevitable end,
which is death. He felt that he should revolt against this feeling of submis-
sion on the part of human beings. He did revolt but he did not know exactly
what it is that he revolted.

The Plague (1947)

Camus develops the abovementioned early ideas into his first mature work, the
novel called The Plague. The plot of the novel goes like this: in a remote town
in Algeria an epidemic of plague outbreaks. The town is sealed off to the rest of
the world. Camus insists that the word plague is a metaphor which has several
different connotations: (1) this is a sign of contemporary calamities; the German
invasion of France by the Germans; (2) the world of German concentration camps;
(3) the world of the totalitarian hierarchy of the bureaucracy of capitalist system
of government. This is also an allusion to the Webers concept of the iron cage of
bureaucracy.

This novel is cardinal in the sense that the main characters and figures are typical
representatives of the human condition. Here in this novel, a selfish man who thinks
that life is absurd realizes that he cannot remain insensitive to the others suffering
and become a humanist at the end. Rebellion against the suffering of the other and
against death is turns us humans to be responsible and responsive to the sufferings
of others. This means that the ethical responsibility is mans defiance in the face of
the absurd.

The Rebel (1951)

The companion theme to the absurd is the idea of revolt which Camus devoted

29
 his book The Rebel. What is revolt? Simply defined, it is the Sisyphean spirit
of defiance in the face of the absurd. More technically it is a spirit of opposition
against any perceived unfairness, injustice, oppression, or indignity in the human
condition.
MODULE 6

Rebellion in Camus sense begins with recognition of boundaries, of limits that

UFND50

define ones essential selfhood and thus must not be infringed as when the
slave stands up to his master and says in effect thus far, and no further shall I be
commanded. This defining of the self as at some point inviolable appears to be
an act of pure egoism and individualism, but it is not. Camus argues that an act of
conscientious revolt is ultimately far more than just an individual gesture or an act
of solitary protest. The rebel, Camus says, holds that there is a common good more
important than his own destiny and that there are rights more important than
him. He acts in the name of certain values which are still indeterminate but which
he feels are common to him and to all men. (The Rebel, pp. 15-16).

Camus then goes on to assert that an analysis of rebellion leads at least to the
suspicion that, contrary to the postulates of contemporary thought, a human
nature does exist, as the Greeks believed. After all Why rebel, he asks, if there
is nothing permanent in the self, worth preserving? The slave who stands up
and asserts himself actually does so for the sake of everyone in the world. Camus
declares that all men even the man who insults and oppresses himhave a
natural community. Here we may note that the idea that there may indeed be an
essential human nature was actually more than a suspicion as far as Camus himself
was concerned. For him it was more like a fundamental article of his humanist faith.
It represents one of the core principles of his ethics and is one of the things that set
his philosophy apart from the general stream of existentialism.

True revolt then is performed not just for the self but in solidarity with and out of
compassion for others. And for this reason, Camus is led to conclude, that revolt has
its limits. If it begins with and necessarily involves recognition of human community
and a common human dignity; it cannot without betraying its own true character,
treat others as if they were lacking in that dignity, or not a part of that community.
This idea sounds familiar to the student who remembers the Kantian maxim that
one should not treat others as means.

The Philosophy of Moral Development: Ethics and psychology

This section of this module tries to answer the simple cardinal question of the
juxtaposition of psychology and ethics: What is moral development? Is it
something that we learn? Or, does it happen to us naturally? If it is learnable, how
do we learn it and how do we teach it? Does Socrates have anything to say on this
question? Is there a space for moral development in education? And what is the
role of ethics in all this?

The Big Three of the Psychiatry: Freud, Jung and Adler and Ethics

Freud Ego and Ethics

The word Ego is for Freud is part of our unconscious. If we think of our
unconscious like an egg, and divide it to three parts, the lower part of the egg is
the id, the top part is the super ego, and the middle of the egg is the ego. The
id is our desires and passions which we are not conscious. Freud basically describes

30
the id in terms of sexual desires. The super ego is our father figure representing
the inhibitions or moral restraints. Ego is the self which the id and super-ego press
from below and above. The self in Freudian psychology is helpless in between these
two forces; struggles to keep its integrity by resisting both of these forces; while the

MODULE 6
id desires its object, the super-ego says No!

UFND50
The Freudian concept of the ego, seen from the ethical viewpoint represents our
attempt to adjust to the environment; while resisting the demands of the id, it tries
to decrease the pressure of the super-ego. The conscience in Freud is not the ego
but the super-ego. In that sense, the ethical imperatives are a natural part of our
super-ego. A healthy moral sense in Freud is a milder, non-oppressive super-ego.
This is the auto-control mechanism of a normal, enlightened, educated grown-up.

Jung, Ego and Ethics

The ego in Jungian psychology is not the same as that of the Freudian ego. Jung
does not make distinction between the id, ego, and super-ego. The ego for him is
the center of psychic energy of our unconscious. Ego-complex is formed around the
age of two, following the childs gaining his psychological independence from the
mother. This is a painful but necessary development for the childs healthy growth.
Ego-complex becomes vulnerable and open to different unconscious forces. For
example the typical Casanova ego-complex is the possession of ego-complex by
sexual urges, while aggression or power-money hunger may cause different types
of ego-complex such as G. W. Bush or Hitler. So the problem is not the ego itself
but what the other unconscious forces do to ego. Ideally a normal ego-complex is a
perfect equilibrium among these forces.

From the ethical viewpoint, in Jungs theory, a concept other than that of the ego
is necessary for men to be able to function. This is the concept of self. Self is not
identical with ego. For the first half of an average life span, man spends his time to
strengthen his ego; we wish to leave our parents home, we want to have a job, to
get married, to be a father or mother. In all these affairs the object of our actions are
the external world. Towards the mid-way in life, people need to get in touch with
their inner self; our ego must start a dialogue with the inner self. Here if the inner
dialogue can be established in a healthy and adequate way, then we can proceed to
our lives in ways which initially resisted by our ego; if self cannot establish an inner
dialogue with ego, then the two conflicts and the result becomes suffering and
unhappiness for the person. A simple example is when at some time in their mid-
life people leave their confortable jobs and move to a secluded town or village. This
is the proof that what their true self wanted was not that life of a comfort and that
particular job and status, but rather to do the thing their inner self always wanted
in the first place. He now realized that his egos demand had made him what he
was, but that from now on, he will live the way his self really wishes. So the ethical
responsibility of the ego is to keep in touch with the wishes of the inner self while
trying to meet the harsh demands of the realities of life.

So conscience is not the ego but the inner self in Jungs theory. He calls the inner
dialogue between the ego and the self the virtue of the organism.

Adler, ego and ethics

According to Adler, the last of the three big psychoanalyst of the 20th century, the
ego is identical with the totality of the person or personality. Adler too like Jung

31
 rejects the tree-partite division of the unconscious as id, ego and super-ego; person
is an indivisible totality which cannot be divided into parts. Adler on the other hand
differs both from Freud and Jung in that he rejects the division of conscious and
unconscious: anything that may seem to be unconscious can become conscious
MODULE 6

and vice versa.

UFND50

For Adler, what determines personality or the actions of a person is the imaginary
purpose he assumes. This imaginary purpose differs for each person, but what
determines a persons thoughts, memories, dreams, fantasies, hand writing, etc. is
this imaginary purpose.

The imaginary purpose begins to take shape in early childhood. There develops
some childhood prototypes for his-her own person. For example, if she feels that
she is not pretty, it means that in the future she will be pretty. Or if he feels poor,
he imagines he will be rich in the future. Similarly, all the feelings which instigate
inferiority complex in chldren are related to such imaginary purposes; the future
will bring him the opposite of what he-she feels to be now.

This imaginary purposes man have causes him great troubles all during his life,
sometimes forcing him into depressions and despair. The ethical mission of
psychoanalysis reveals itself at this point: a psychoanalyst should not deal with
single symptoms, but with this imaginary purpose and try to help the patient to
get rid of it.

Some people are successful in changing their imaginary purposes while some
others resist change and continue to hang onto their imaginary ghost.

Adler connects the concept of conscience to ethical responsibility at this point.

Conscience is mans ability to live with others in a social community. Being able
to be social is the cure; a social is another name for the psychologically disturbed
person. The conscience of a healthy person is not the individual conscience of the
I but the social conscience of the we.

Kohlbergs Theory of Stages of Moral Development

American psychologist and moral theorist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-87) is a

follower of the Swiss genetic epistemologist Jean Piaget. He developed Piagets
views on the stages of moral development in children and constructed a
comprehensive theory of stages of moral development in children. Before we
examine his theory let us look at Piagets views on the subject briefly.

Piagets Stages of Moral Judgment in Children

Piaget, during 1960s developed a two stage development theory on childrens

moral judgment:

Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral rules differently

from the older ones. Younger children regard moral rules as fixed and abso-
lute. They believe that these rules are handed down by adults or by God, and
that one cannot change them. The older children view these rules in more
relativistic terms. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules
if everyone approves; they are not fixed or absolute but rather devices that

32
 can be modified or adapted to human needs.

At approximately the same time 10 or 11 yearschildrens moral thinking

undergoes other shifts. Younger chldren base their judgments on conse-

MODULE 6
quences, whereas the older ones base their moral judgments on intentions.
For example a small child thinks that a child who breaks 15 glasses is more

UFND50
guilty than the child who breaks one glass. The small child loos at the con-
sequence, the older ones look at the motive or intention (action done while
helping mother or action done while stealing cookies).

Kohlbergs Theory of Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg extended his research far beyond Piagets initial research of two staged
development into a six staged development theory. Kohlberg wrote in 1958 his
Stages of Moral Development where an initial 72 boys between ages 10-16. In the
later editions of the book, more research results from all around the country were
also added. Kohlberg used ethical dilemmas such as the following in his research
questions asked to these children:

Heinz steals the drug. Somewhere in Europe a woman was near death
from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought
might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had
recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was
charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid 200 Dollars for
the radium and charged 2000 Dollars for a small dose of the drug. The sick
womans husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about 1.000 Dollars which is the half of what
it costs. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it
cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: No, I discovered the drug
and Im going to make money from it. So Heinz got desperate and broke
into the mans store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have
done that? (Kohlberg, Stages , p. 19)

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says yes or no to this
dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. The interviewer wants to know
why the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug. The
interview schedule then asks new questions which help one understand the childs
reasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to steal the drug, if
he was violating the druggists rights, and what sentence the judge should give him
once he was caught. Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the
answers. The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good
sampling of a subjects moral thinking.

Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to know
whether his classification was reliable. In particular, he wanted if others would score
the protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored a sample of
responses and he calculated the degree to which all rates agreed. This procedure
is called inter-rater reliability. The resulting six stages of moral development are as
follows:

Level I. Pre-conventional Morality

33
 Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Kohlbergs stage 1 is similar to Piagets first stage of moral judgment. The

child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules
MODULE 6

which he or she must unquestionably obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child
typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because Its against
UFND50

the law, or Its bad to steal, as if this were all there were to it. When asked to
elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved,
explaining that stealing is bad because youll get punished.

Although the vast majority of children at this stage oppose Heinzs theft, it
is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 rea-
soning. For example, a child might say, Heinz can steal it because he asked
first and its not like he stole something big; he wont get punished. Even
though the child agrees with Heinzs action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the
concern is with what authorities permit and punish.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking pre-conventional because children do not

yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something
external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange

At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is
handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different view-
points. They may say that Heinz might think its right to take the drug, the
druggist would not. Since everything is relative, each person is free to pur-
sue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the
drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesnt have to if he wants to
marry someone younger and better-looking. Another boy said Heinz might
steal because, May be they had children and he might need someone at
home to look after them. But maybe, he shouldnt steal it because they
might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. So what is right
for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests.

One must note that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment.
However they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in
the childs mind with wrongness; punishment proves that disobedience is
wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally
wants to avoid.

Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some

sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The logic
behind it is one of returning favors: If you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours.
To the Heinz dilemma, children often say that Heinz was right to steal the
drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was trying
to rip Heinz off, Or they might say that he should steal for his wife because
she might return the favor someday.

Respondent children at stage 2 are still said to reason at the pre-convention-

al level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of
society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identifi-
cation with the values of the family or community.

34
Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Personal Relationships

MODULE 6
At this stage children (now in their teens) see morality as more than simple

UFND50
deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the
family and community and behave in good ways. Good behavior means
having good motives and interpersonal feelings such a love empathy, trust,
and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the
drug because He was a good man for wanting to save her, and His inten-
tions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves. Even if Heinz
doesnt love his wife, these boys and girls often say, he should steal the drug
because I dont think any husband sit back and watch his wife die.

If Heinzs motives were good, the druggists were bad. The druggist, stage 3
children emphasize, was selfish, greedy, and only interested in himself, not
another life. Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist
that they say that he ought to be put in jail: It was really the druggists fault,
he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his
wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I dont think they would
put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist
was charging too much. (A Typical stage 3 response by Don age 13.)

We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors character traits and
motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the
understanding judge. His answers deserve the label conventional morality
because it assumes the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire
community --anyone would be right to do what Heinz did.

As was mentioned above, there are similarities between Kohlbergs first three stages
and Piagets two stages. In both sequences, there is a shift from unquestioning
obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a a concern for good motives. For
Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order

Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family mem-

bers or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the
others feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respon-
dent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the
emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing ones du-
ties so that the social order is maintained. In response to Heinz story, many
children say they understand that Heinzs motives were good, but they
cannot condone the theft; what would happen if we all started breaking the
laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos;
society couldnt function. Because stage 4 children make moral decisions
from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged-
member-of-society perspective.

As we have seen above stage 1 children also oppose stealing because it

breaks the law. Superficially stage 1 and stage 4 children are giving the same
response that is why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reason-

35
 ing behind their overt response. Stage 1 children say, Its wrong to steal
and Its against the law, but they cannot elaborate any further, except to
say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 children, in contrast, have
a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole a conception
MODULE 6

which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

UFND50

Level III. Post-conventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights

At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smooth-

ly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society
might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, chldren
(now almost grown-ups) begin to ask, What makes for a good society?
They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back
from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society
ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these
prior considerations. They are said to take, in the words of Kohlberg, a pri-
or-to-society perspective.

Stage 5 children basically believe that a good society is best conceived as

a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit
of all. They recognize that different social groups within a society will have
different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two
points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life,
and to be protected. Secondly, they would want some democratic proce-
dures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

In response to the Heinz dilemma, children of stage 5 make it clear that

they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we
agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. However
the wifes right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus stage 5
respondents sometimes defend Heinzs theft in strong language such as: It is
the husbands duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you
might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.

This young man went on to say that from a moral standpoint Heinz should
save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of life means
any life. When asked if judge should punish Heinz, he replied: Usually the moral
and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more
heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly.

Stage 5 children then, talk about morality and rights that take some prior-
ity over particular laws. Kohlberg insists however that we do not judge peo-
ple to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their
social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, children frequent-
ly talk about the right to life, but for them this right is legitimized by the
authority of their social or religious groups. Presumably, if their group valued
property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making
more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value.
They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like.

Stage 6: Universal Principles

36
 Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society.
They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b)
settle disputes through democratic process. However democratic processes

MODULE 6
alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just.
A majority for example, may vote for a law which hinders minorities. Thus

UFND50
Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage stage 6which de-
fines the principles by which we achieve justice.

This stage corresponds a young grown-ups age (about 20s). Kohlberg here
takes the ethics of Kant and Rawls as the model for this stages moral re-
sponses. According to these philosophers, the principles of justice require us
to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic
dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore
universal; they apply to all. Thus for example, we would not vote for a law
that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us
toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions through one
anothers eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties the
druggist, Heinz, and his wifetake the roles of the others. To do this in an
impartial way, people could assume what Rawls called a veil of ignorance,
acting as if they do not know which role they would eventually occupy. If
the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority
over property; for he wouldnt want to risk finding himself in the wifes shoes
with property valued over life. Thus they would all agree that the wife must
be saved this would be a fair solution. Such a solution, let us note, requires
not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal
respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solu-
tion could not be reached.

Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil dis-
obedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience
because of its commitment to to the social contract and to changing laws
through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at
stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a com-
mitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and
broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid
insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice
carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized,
of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes and he was
therefore willing to accept the penalties for his actions. But he believed that
the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience. It would be inter-
esting to inquire the Socratess refusal of civil disobedience (i.e., escaping
from the prison) with Kings acceptance of it.

In sum, according to Kohlbergs theory of the stages of moral development, at

stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing
the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children
are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different
sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue ones own
interests, although it is often useful to make deals and and exchange favors with
others.

37
 At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society
with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good
person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one.
MODULE 6

At stage 4 the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
UFND50

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for its own
sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good
society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that
give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement
will be most just.

Two General Criticism of Kohlbergs Theory

The Cultural Variations Neglected. Here the central idea of criticism is that
Kohlberg ignores the Eastern cultures and their attitudes to moral acts. Here
the focal point of criticism is that of Kohlbergs (and Piagets relentless ap-
plication of the values and mentality of the Western philosophical tradition
to non-Western cultures without considering the extent to which they have
different moral outlooks. This criticism has its own merits: why and how well
Kohlbergs stages apply to the great Eastern philosophies. One also wonders
if his stages do justice to moral development in many traditional village
cultures. Researchers find that villagers stop at stage 3, but perhaps they
continue to develop moralities in directions that Kohlbergs stages fail to
capture.

Gender emphasis neglected: Carol Gilligans criticism of Kohlbergs theory

is the following: Gilligan observes that Kohlbergs

The Humanist Ethics of Maslow: Self-Actualization

What Humanist Ethics and Self Actualization are?

An American psychiatrist and philosopher has started in the mid-20th century a

humanist theory of self-actualization which influenced many social and political
science fields outside the field of psychology. The concept of humanist ethics
within this context connotes the view that human happiness can best be achieved
through the process of self-actualization. Actually many cardinal ideas put through
this theory originates from the Greek theories of Eudomonia.

The Theory
Theory of self-actualization asserts that the happiness of man is possible only when
the potential of human beings are actualized; these potentialities are biological,
social, genetic and psychological.

Which of these cardinal potentialities should be primarily developed? To this

question the teory has three different answers:

Model of plurality of choices

This approach asserts that one should actualize his-her potentialities in a

balanced way, meaning, a patchwork kind of a bit of all kind of attitude.

38
 Here, a human being may develop many skills for a life span, but all of them
would be at a shallow level. The ideal man of this choice is that of the Man
of Renaissance; the first name of which one remembers, of course is that of
Michel Angelo.

MODULE 6
Model of dominant style

UFND50
According to this model anyone may choose a dominant style of life that is
deemed worth pursuing. Accordingly, other related topics may be studied
and investigated. Those who choose this model draw attention that (1) since
many people are skillful in doing many things simultaneously; if so would
they be spending their lives wondering about which of their skills they
would be specialized and go on; (2) against reality: the path you have cho-
sen may starve you to death.

Model of naturalism and the hierarchy of needs

This model advises the maximum satisfaction of all desires (as we know as
Hedonism). Here the Socratic critique is the following: what we know is
best for our well-being may not really the right knowledge of that particular
action. Accordingly, this model asserts that hedonism is good. What does
the hedonistic theory of value maintains* First of all a hedonist about the
good need not be a hedonist about the right. To hold that the right act is
that which produces at least as great a balance of pleasure over pain for self
or world as any alternative is to hold a hedonistic teleological theory of obli-
gation. Maslow rejects this line of humanistic reasoning.

Hierarchy of needs: they are the following: (1) esthetic need; (2) Cogni-
tive-informative needs; (3) Self- actualization; (4) Self-respect; (5) Feeling of
love and belonging; (6) Feeling of security; (7) Basic biological and physio-
logical needs such as food, sex, housing, etc.

Who is the self-actualized person?

Here are the main characteristics of a self-actualized person:

--A person who has fulfilled most of his-her basic needs such as love, re-
spect for others, self-respect. This person has a deep sense of belonging to a
deeply rooted past of his own; he is loved by many and appreciated by most
of his environment.

--Self-actualized man-women have no fear of anxiety, panic-attack and or of

destitute. He is perhaps vulnerable, but never to the point of being degrad-
ed; for he feels sorry for the person who tries to degrade her-him.

--Self-actualized person doesnt panic nor does she make the people around
panic stricken.

--Self-actualized person is someone who loves his job; it is as if he is created

for his job, and that job is created only for him.

--Self-actualized person has a relationship with his job, just like a player has
a relationship with a game he plays. His job is his game or a vacation.

--Self-actualized person is in complete harmony with his environment.

Maslow describes this point with a metaphor, a key which fits into its key

39
 whole.

--Self-actualized person has inner directed urges rather than sense of duty
type of urges; for example, a troubled neighbor calls him to help, a helpless
MODULE 6

baby asks him to take care, a women who is physically abused waits for
his help. These inner requirements are identical with the sense of duty but,
UFND50

they are inner directed, not externally (with a sense of duty) required. This
is a natural sense of duty.

--Self-actualized person ideally determines his own lot.

--Self-actualized person is amor fati (love of fate). This is a Stoic term

expressing a self-content person who takes life as it comes. This is not fatal-
ism.
--The best metaphor which describes a self-actualized person is the person
who falls in love with life.

--When asked a self-actualized person What is your occupation? he would

answer this question just like anyone else: I am a lawyer, I am a artist, etc.
But when asked What other occupation would you want to do if you were
not a lawyer, he would look at you with a great surprise; he wouldnt or
couldnt imagine himself to be anything but a lawyer; he was born to be a
lawyer. His job is part of his life, and he is a part of his occupation. Maslow
thinks this doesnt mean to be a work-o-holic, which is an escapism or ob-
session of a pathological nature.

What are the ethical values of a self-actualized person?

--Justice: For self-actualized person justice is not only desirable for himself
but for whole humanity. We can see such people struggling for stopping
wars, hungers, child or women abuse, injustices and disasters of all kind all
around the world. It is as if those people have extended and enlarged their
beings to the whole of human race.

--Self-love: Self-actualized person is not selfish but he loves and respect his
own self. By asking and struggling for a just world for everyone, he develops
a kind of self-love for himself. Maslow compares this idea with a pregnant
mother who cares and loves herself because of her responsibility of the un-
born baby. Similarly, a self-actualized person who cares for others is the best
friend of himself.

--A dozen or so ethical human values which we know are like natural parts of
the personality of a self-actualized person.

Heidths Theory of Moral Psychology: Positive Psychology

Hypothesis of Happiness

American social psychologist Jonathan Heidth, in his book Hypothesis of

Happiness (2005) presents five ethical values he distilled from the ancient cultures
of India, China and Greece. He calls these five values hypothesis of happiness. His
main assumptions are based upon a theory called positive psychology, according
to which psychological research aims at investigating the reasons for enhancement

40
of peoples happiness. The questions which positive psychology tries to answer are:
What kinds of things make people happy? When do people feel happy? What
are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being and feeling happy? etc. The
results of these studies indicate that many things that people think that will make

MODULE 6
them happy actually do not make them happy. A research finding on the subject
suggest the following result: the subjects of the research are equipped with some

UFND50
devices which will measure their degree of satisfaction and were sent home. The
result suggest that people are happy mostly when they eat, walk, do simple things,
or idle chatting with the others.

Here is Heidths hypothesis of happiness (the five values):

Keep regular contact and relations with people. The people you contact
and relate to may belong to different groups or to the same group. Relation-
ships are a fundamental source of human happiness. Research indicates that
the happiness increase as these relationships involve social activities such as
eating out together, dancing, conversing, etc.

Work at a job that will make you satisfied. You are never happy in a job
that you dislike even if the pay is excellent.

Never sky-rocket your expectations from life. Heidth gives the example
that a person who hit the jack-pot lottery may be less happy than a person
with a broken neck, for the latter may hold on to life so dearly that this can
make him feel happier than the former.

Always assume the responsibility of your own happiness (or misery).

Never accuse others for your misery nor expect others to change for your
own selfish satisfaction; for such satisfaction never bring happiness. Never
use others as a crutch for your ends. Hold on to your own feelings and ends.

Reach out to people who need your help, return the favors of those who
help you. Helping others without expecting any return make people happy.

Heidths comments on certain ideas of ancient cultures

Heidth in his book Hypothesis of Happiness compiles certain ideas of the ancient
thinkers on mans happiness and misery and comments on these ideas in detail.
Here let us mention some of these ideas, and the summary of his comments:

Split personality: What the body desires soul rejects, what the soul desires body rejects. (St.
Paul). Comment: human being involves many dichotomies such as body-soul.
These dichotomies are like an elephant and driver on it. The driver is the
mind, the elephant the body. The diver is most of the time unable to control
the elephant; this is called weakness of the will. We call the learning process
of the driver to conduct the elephant the process of self-actualization.

To renew oneself: All universe is nothing but change, and life is but what how you change it.
(Marcus Aurelius). Comment: Can we stop the elephant to drift us around? How
can we take command and change our lives ourselves?

Sweet revenge: Ziyong asks: is there a single word which will guide the whole life of man? Wise
man answers: reciprocity, meaning, do not do anything to others which you do not want to be done

41
 onto you. (Conficius). Comment: many species are a kind of social, but only for
humans social includes the concept of reciprocity. The key to being human-
ly-social is the concept of reciprocity.
MODULE 6

Unjust criticism: Without seeing the wood in your own eyes, you complain about the splinter in to
others. (Jesus). Comment: our being ultra-social creatures also make us vulnera-
UFND50

ble and open to gossip and unnecessary-unjust criticism of others.

Go get it: Do not sit back and wait for the things you want to happen to yourself; go and get them.
(Epictetus). Comment: we usually feel that happiness is inside us, but not always
so; in right circumstances spending your money lavishly may make you per-
fectly happy.

Love and affection: No one can just live by respecting himself and by adjusting everything ac-
cording to his own desires and wishes. Live for the other as if you live for yourself. (Seneca). Comment:
there are many kinds of love, but to understand what love really is we must
see from whom and where it comes. What are the differences between self-
love and the love of self?

Virtue and happiness: There is no happiness without a just, noble and emotional life, and there
is no just, noble and emotional life without happiness. (Epicurus). Comment: Is virtue its own
reward? In western societies being virtuous is almost seen as identical with
being polite enough. Can you explain why this happened so? Is this one of
the price the Enlightened Western man pays for his being non-virtuous-but-
sort of virtuous kind of non-attitude.

Summary

Aim1
To be able to explain the relationships between ethics, law and politics

Story of the relationship between ethics law and politics

In ancient Greece city-states formed their legal and political structures as

based upon ethos that is customs and tradition, and religion. First time in
history, political and legal relations were formed independent of religion in
Roman Republic.

During Middle Ages the task of law making was taken over by the Christian
Church. The Eastern Roman Empire, emperor Justinian developed the infa-
mous Code Justinian which also influenced the Ottoman Empire and the
codifications of Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Sleyman the Magnificent.

Constitutional State, Social Welfare State, Civil State

The first step towards liberal pluralist democratic society is the formation of
the constitutional State. Constitutional state means that even though the
legislator is the state itself, the state and the sovereign too is subject to law.
The state, independent from religious authorities is responsible from creat-
ing positive laws.

Social Welfare State emerged to compensate the injustices incurred by

42
 the wild capitalist economy of the Western countries. Social welfare state
firs emerged in the U.S. early in 20th century after the great recession of the
1930s to compensate the sufferings of great masses following the depres-
sion.

MODULE 6

Civil State is the latest stage of the liberal democratic societies. Here ethics

UFND50
is closely related to law and the relations of politics. Mainly the separation
of three branches of the state, the executive, the legislative and the judicial
is regulated by the principle of checks and balances. Each branch, while tied
the other two, is also regulated by the principle of autonomy. Moreover in
civil state there is a free and independent political opposition and a plurality
of non-governmental organizations.

Views of Classical Natural Law

In Plato the best example of natural law is his Idea of the Good. After that
Idea comes the Idea of Justice. These two Forms constitute the light with
which the state guides and forms its laws. Justice in soul is the same justice
which naturally governs the state.

Aristotle is considered the true grandfather of the idea of natural law.

His idea on natural law-justice is the kernel of all later ideas of natural law.
This idea of natural law-justice for Aristotle is common to all societies at all
times and places.

Stoics are the firs initiators of some great themes of modern natural law
theories. Among these ideas is the rational telos which governs the universe,
and that human beings are best and the happiest when they are in harmony
with this great rational universe.

Cicero, develops Aristotles views on natural law for the great Roman Empire
and its cosmopolitan nature. For Cicero, natural law receives its legitimacy
from God and is eternal and immutable. If the written positive laws of coun-
tries are in conformity with the natural law, then those people in these coun-
tries are in the just and ethical protection of the natural law.

Aquinas is the great reviver of the Aristotelian idea of natural law for the
Christian community and society. A just law means a law in conformity with
natural law.

Views of Modern Natural law

Hobbes is the first modern philosopher who developed a theory of state

based on the concept of social contract. Hobbes sees natural law as the rules
which are imposed by the sovereign as based on reason. Hobbes reverses
the golden rule of classical natural law: do not do anything to others that
which you do not want to be done to you.

Locke constructed a liberal theory of natural law as an extension of his theo-

ry of social contract. His theory also meant to be a harsh criticism of Hobbes
theory of absolute state. His main concern in maintaining the concept of
natural law is to protect the citizen from states violation of mans innate nat-
ural and inalienable human rights. Lockes concept of natural law includes

43
 the right to revolt against the state (government) in case of violation of the
state the basic inalienable rights of man.
MODULE 6

Ethics and Politics

UFND50

Politics is Inclusive of Ethics

Aristotle is the first major philosopher which considers ethics is a part of

politics. Human being is defined as a political animal and whatever is polit-
ical is by definition is also ethical. Both the good politician and an ethically
good man have Phronesis that is practical wisdom.

Aquinas is the great medieval follower of Aristotles ethics and politics. He

redefines the Aristotelian relationship between ethics and politics in term of
Christian morality.

Politics Excludes Ethics

Thucydides. Greek historian and Athenian general. He wrote the history of

Peloponnesian War. He claimed that politics is about the interest of the state
and has nothing to do with ethics and personal morality.

Thrasimakhos. The Athenian sophist philosopher, defending against Soc-

rates the thesis that right is might. Politics according to this view excludes
ethics and morality since power relations lies at the center of politics; power
politics cannot be concerned with the ethical since this is not realistic.

Machiavelli. Renaissance Italian philosopher who wrote a book called

Prince where he advised the sovereign to ignore ethics from consideration
of state politics. The only end which the sovereign is concerned is the surviv-
al of the state. And the end justifies all means, all unethical actions, including
that of murder.

Hobbes. A few centuries after Machiavelli divorced politics from ethics, the
British philosopher Hobbes confirmed the separation of ethics from politics
definitely as a confirmation of modernitys project of scientific politics. For
Hobbes politics is technical science whereas ethics is part of philosophy
which looks after a good and lust life.

Aim 2

To be able to explain relationship between ethics arts and literature

Four views concerning ethics and art relationship

Art is unethical. Platos view in the Republic. Art especially epic poetry (Ho-
mers epic poems) is hazardous to the morality of the youth.
Art is ethical. 19th century humanist defend the view that art has in it ethi-
cal messages. Aristotle too defends this view.
Ethics is irrelevant to art. Art is for the sake of art; it has no ulterior purpose,
ethical or social.
Art is beyond ethics. 20th century Marxist views advocate a view that sees

44
 art as revolutionary.

What are some of the problems and their possible solutions in ethics arts
relationship?

MODULE 6
Does a work of art affect the viewer ethically? Before answering this

UFND50
question the culture at issue must be examined from a sociological view-
point in terms of their value perceptions, levels of intellectual maturity, etc.
So a look and see kind of answer must be developed, without unwarrant-
ed sweeping generalizations.

Should the state interfere with art? This has been a common theme of
politics ethics and art and has been a perennial question since Plato. The
answers are need long and difficult assessment, both philosophical and po-
litical and ethical.

Conceptual clarification of the distinctions between the field of esthet-

ics and ethics.
Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche on the relationship between esthetics and ethics

Plato claims that the art and poetry misrepresents the sacred as profane.
The injustice it doer to the sacred make it unethical by definition. Epic poet-
ry makes Gods lie, cheat and treat humans as means for their immoral ends.

Aristotle disagrees with his teacher Plato on the relationship between eth-
ics and esthetics. For Aristotle, esthetics, (Poiesis) is a close kin to ethics, which
is (Phronesis). Ethics is relevant to poetics (or epic poetry) via the concept of
(Catharsis) which means the purification of soul by identification and or empa-
thy with the tragic hero in the epic theatre.

Nietzsche interprets the tragic epic theatre, different from that of Aristotle.
For Nietzsche, the tragic gives the viewer not a passive purification of fears
but rather an affirmation of the joy of life, that is by feeling so low as the
tragic figure, the spectator feels at hearth, despite all these disasters and ca-
lamity, he feels that life is still worth living, he could not feel otherwise, for
he had to commit suicide. This is what he calls the Dionysian man; it means simply
that of the message to keep going!

Ethics and novel: the example of Dostoevsky and Camus

Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamozof. The emphasis is on the two contrast-

ing ethical views of the two brothers of the novel. Ivan is a rebel, revolting
against the order of the universe which God has created: this is an unjust,
ruthless, world of inhuman law and order. If God made this entire evil, then
God is not! If God is not, everything goes! The other brother Alyoa is an op-
timist Kantian humanist.

Camus and the ethics of revolt. Camus two important conceps which
comprises his theory of the human condition: the absurd and the revolt.
These two concepts summarize the history of mankind. History is the history
of revolt.

45
 Aim 3
To explain the relationship among ethics, psychology psychiatry and moral
psychology
MODULE 6

Freud ego and ethics

UFND50

In Freuds ethics conscience is not ego but the super-ego. Ego is one of the
three parts of the unit called the unconscious. The ego needs the support
of the super-ego to be able to sustain its adjustment and conformity to the
environment. So the point of ethics is that of conformity to the requirements
of society.

Jung ego and ethics

Jungs ego is not like the squeezed ego of the Freudian psychology. In his
terminology ego is the ego complex which lies at the center of human per-
sonality as a source of energy. The important thing is to channel this source
of energy into the right ways and keep it from the possession of the destruc-
tive forces of unconscious.

Adler ego and ethics

Adler differs from both Freud and Jung in that (1) no distinction is made be-
tween the conscious and the unconscious; (2) that ego is the totality of ones
personality, not a part of it. The inferiority complex is his famous term for the
incongruence of a persons imagined purposes and his actual self and to
be happy, he has to change and modify this imagined purpose he is haunt-
ed by.

Developmental psychology and ethics

Piagets two-step developmental view of moral judgment

The first stage is before 10-11 years of age: the child at this stage regards
moral rules and maxims as god given or Dad-given unchanging rules to
be obeyed without question. Children after this age look at these rules as
relative and changeable maxims.

Secondly before the age 10-11 children give their moral verdicts according
to the consequences of the actions. After that age they include into consid-
eration in their decisions whether an act is moral or immoral, the intentions
and motives of the person who acts.

Kohlbergs three level model of moral judgment

The first level: pre-conventional level of morality. This level comprises

two stages which covers the pre-10-11 ages of children and corresponds to
Piagets firs level of development. Before this age children think that these
moral rules are either God given or dad-given unchanging fixed rules. In
the he second stage of this fist level, children become aware of the relative
status of these moral rules. The older ones view these rule as changeable
depending on the needs and requirements of the situation.

46
 The second level: conventional level of morality. This level represents the
view of the children above 11 age. This level comprises several stages where
children develop their attitude to actions of the people around in a way to
more rational and mature human beings.

MODULE 6
Post-conventional level of morality. This level is Kohlbergs last level of

UFND50
moral development in human beings where universal rules of justice are
firmly established and internalized by humans. Not much research has sup-
ported this level of moral judgment as Kohlberg would have wished. But
one must not lose hope and faith for humanity, as he would very much wish
so.

The Humanist ethics of Maslow

Self-actualization

What do we see if we try to describe who is the self-actualized person? This

portrait comprises 10-15 distinct characteristic which the reader-student
must go back to the main text of this book to be able to see the details of.

Heidths hypothesis of happiness

These five values comprise the hypothesis of happiness:

Regular contact with other people.

Work at a satisfactory job.

No over-expectations from life.

Help the needy and return the others favors.

Self-Test
1. Which of the following defines best the constitutional state?
a. State which protects the economic interest of its citizens
b. State which protects human rights
c. State which defends universal rights.
d. State which is subject to the rule of law

2. Which of the following best defines social welfare state?

a. State whose total apparatus are under the rule of law.
b. State which compensate the living conditions of its underprivileged citizens.
c. Federal sate
d. State where powerful opposition exists

3. Which of the following is wrong for the thesis ethics is part of politics?
a. Politics must be ethical.
b. Man is a political animal.
c. End justifies all means.
d. Man is a social animal.

47
 4. Which of the following is wrong for the thesis: politics excludes ethics?
a. End justifies all means.
b. Just is might.
MODULE 6

c. Homo Homini Lipus

d. Man is a political animal.
UFND50

5. Which of the following is part of the thesis: art is unethical?

a. Art is non-ethical.
b. Arts affect people unethically.
c. Ethics is irrelevant to ethics
d. Ethics and arts are two contrast terms.

6. Which of the following is the claim statement of the thesis: art must be cen-
sured?
a. Art is ethical.
b. Art exceeds ethics.
c. Ethics is irrelevant to arts.
d. Art affects people negatively.

7. Which of the following is wrong for Platos theory of art?

a. Poetry and tragedy turns the sacred into profane.
b. Poetry and tragedy symbolizes the sacred into misrepresentation.
c. Poetry and tragedy makes Gods to lie and cheat.
d. Poetry and tragedy provides a psychological relaxation and comfort.

8. Which of the following corresponds to conscience in Freuds theory?

a. The id
b. The ego
c. The auto-control
d. The super-ego.

9. Which of the following corresponds to Jungs concept of the self?

a. The ego
b. The super-ego
c. Conscience
d. The totality of the person

10. Which of the following corresponds to Adlers concept of the ego?

a. The totality of the whole self.
b. Superego
c. Unconscious suppression
d. Inferiority complex.

Key to Self-Test
1.d ; 2.b ; 3.c. ;4.d. ; 5. b. ; 6. d. ; 7. d. 8.d ; 9.c ; 10. A.

48
Bibliography
Aristotle, Poetica

MODULE 6
Ansal, P., Nietzsche and Rousseau, Cambridge University Press, New-York, 1991.

UFND50
Brown, J., Freud and the Post Freudians, Penguin Books, London, 1971.

Camus, A. The Rebel, 1951.

Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamozof, (tr. A. Mc Andrew,)

Jung, C. G. Modern Man In Search of Soul, Routledge, London, 1966.

Kohlberg, Stages of Development, Chicago, 1958

Sturrock, J., (eds.) Structuralism and Since, Oxford University Press, London 1979.

49
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.
Yaar University Foundation Course Programme

ETHICS CULTURE
UFND50
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University
ETHICS CULTURE

MODULE 7: CONCLUSION: ETH-

ICS, UNIVERSAL VALUES, UNI-
VERSAL-GLOBAL RESPONSIBILI-
TY
Prof. Dr. Akn Ergden
Yaar University

Key terms

Relativism
Universalism
Conformism
Responsibility
De-territorialization
Communicative rationality
Communicative rationality
Universalizability principle

Aims
Upon completing of this module

You will be able to comprehend and explain the main ideas of Habermas
and Jonas universal ethical theories.

You will be able to comprehend and explain Gilligans ethics of care.

 In the first four modules of this book ethics culture has been examined in its historical
dimension; in the last several module ethics has been considered in its relation with
other fields of knowledge. Here main focus has been the fields of contemporary
applied ethics. In this concluding module universal and global dimensions of ethics
MODULE 7

will be underlined. The main question to be answered is: n this post-modern age,
where the principle of relativism seems to be the dominant mode of thought, is it
UFND50

possible to talk about universal ethical norms and values? We will look at this question
from three different angles: universal discourse ethics of Habermas, ethics of global
responsibility of Jonas, and Gilligans ethics of care.

Principle of Relativity and Universal Values

We have seen the idea of relativity in ethics in various different contexts in the
past modules. It was discussed mainly in the ancient Greek ethics and the anti-
enlightenment ethics of 19ty century. With the post-modern thinking which
appeared in the second half of 20th century, relativism not only in ethics but in all
fields of knowledge has become fashionable once more. Simply stated relativism in
ethics means that there cannot be any universally accepted rational moral or ethical
principles since all values and norms gain their meaning and significance only within
the cultural context.

If ethical relativism is true then we cannot talk about universally valid ethical theories
such as Habermas universal pragmatics or Jonas ethics of global responsibility.
We will see soon how Habermas and Jonas respond to ethical relativism with their
theories. But for nor let us see what is it that we call a universal value?

Many researches have been conducted concerning which values are regarded
as universally valid throughout the 20th century. The analysis of these researches
reveals that some ten or so values are determined to be universal. These values and
their kin values are as follows:

Power, authority, leadership, force.

Success, capability, ambition, influence, intelligence, self-respect.

Hedonism, pleasure, enjoying oneself.

. -
Self-conduct, creativity, freedom, independence, curiosity, doing ones way.

Universalism, open-mindedness, virtue, social justice, equality, peaceful co-

existence, love of nature, respect for nature.

Trust, pity, dutifulness, responsibility.

Tradition, humbleness, piousness, moderation.

Conformism, discipline, obeying.

Security, cleanliness, family security, national security, social order, reciproci-

ty, health, feeling of belonging.

The list above is the result of a research conducted by a group of American social
scientists over a four year period and with the participation of 250.000 people from

2
44 different countries. To conclude with a definition: a universal value is a value
accepted by:

Most of the people

MODULE 7
Living in most part of the world

UFND50
At all times and places

With their conscious and voluntary verbal acceptance.

Habermas Ethics of Universal Pragmatics (or

Ethics of Discourse)
Post-Modern Relativism and Re-Creation of Enlightenment Project

Habermas considers his theory of universal pragmatism or discourse ethics as part

of project of re-claiming the Enlightenment reason and universal rationality contrary
to the prevalent ideas of relativism of the post-modern thinking. He thinks that with
his theory a society and or societies universally reach consensus over rational ethical
principles and norms. Within this context, a democratic process is nothing but a
process of creation of common rational will. The necessary tool for the creation of
this common rational will is the discourse ethics or communication ethics.

The project of enlightenment which will make democratic process (as described
above) has the following three principles:

No matter how different cultures are from one another, and no matter how
customs, cultural and other values are different from one another, all man,
by being rational animals they necessarily share the same capacity called
reason.

Reason means first of all that autonomy and freedom. As Kant would put,
this means that man can with his own reason legislate the rational maxims he
himself will voluntarily follow.

Just the way reason discovered the laws of nature in natural sciences (New-
ton), it can and will find out or create universal laws of conduct. Kant calls
these laws categorical imperatives.

An example of such a universal norm is the following: if I am utilizing my freedom to

realize my own project in the direction in which I will, then this liberty of mine cannot
and should not prevent others doing so, nor should their liberty of doing the same
cannot and should nor limit or interfere with mine. This simply means that people
cannot use each other as means to an end. Principle of reciprocity requires just that. I
discover this for myself and others in Turkey, in 2013, John in England, and Ahmet in
a village in Africa can do it, since we all possess the same reason.

In the second half of 20th century, complains Habermas, a version of relativism in the
name of post-modern philosophy strongly attacks this Enlightenment idea of reason
and universal ethics. They claim that there is no such thing as a universally accepted

3
 rational norms and principles. Habermas thinks that such relativism harms the
principle of freedom that we described above, resulting with a denial of democracy
and freedom, and leading way to all sorts of authoritarian thinking, even fascism.
MODULE 7

Starting point of a discourse ethics: colonization of the life-World (Lebenswelt)

UFND50

Communicative action is a very special term referring to actions transmitting the

existing system of cultural values to future generations. In this sense communicative
action ensures the continuity and consensual integrity of a culture. Through
communicative action a cultural identity is also formed and transformed through
the coming generations.

Life-World connotes the totality of mans natural and socio-cultural forms of life. A
society forms its integration through the communicative actions of its members on
the one hand, and the oppressive system of economic and socio-political hierarchies,
on the other. This fact gives us the two faced nature of the modern society: inner,
subjective life world, and outer, objective system world.

The systematic formalization and differentiation our subjective and inner life-world
(rapid information technological developments) brings the communicative action,
which is consensus and cooperation oriented, under the domination of power and
money. Cooperation and consensus, in this process is replaced by power and money.
This result in the loos of responsibility on the part of the actors of communicative
action, resulting in the fragmentation of social discourse; this phenomenon is called
by Habermas colonization of life-world.

The colonization of the life-world by the steering media happens in the following
four ways:

Traditional life forms are destroyed or fragmented.

Social roles are differentiated in a detailed manner.

For the alienated labor, excessive payments and reward systems are created
(Show-biz.)

The steering of wealth and culture by the state causes the individualization of
hopes and expectations (The State Lottery)

All these processes, Habermas claims are also legitimized and institutionalized via
global legalizations.

Habermas next asks the following question: how can we turn this process around?
The answer to this question is to be able to develop the following four types of
discourses in a society:

Communicative rationality. This discourse is the foundation of communi-

cative ethics or as Habermas usually calls discourse ethics. Communicative
rationality is the application Kants duty ethics on communicative action. He
looks for a categorical imperative a la Kant which will ensure communicative
consensus and cooperation. As different from Kant, these categorical imper-
atives are not individual, but rather social and communicative level. We will
give a detailed analysis of discourse ethics below.

4
 Esthetic discourse. If these esthetic discourses are not manipulated by the
state, art can play an emancipatory role in recuing man from the colonization
of his life-world.

MODULE 7
Therapeutic discourse. Habermas thinks a radical (non-Freudian) therapeu-

UFND50
tic discourse of therapy may aid emancipation on this point.

Main Ideas of Habermas Discourse Ethics

Implied Principle of Universal Norms Underlying Discourse Ethics

Underlying discourse ethics is an implicit assumption of all human discourse and

talk. Here is how this principle reveals itself in our daily talk. Imagine during a casual
conversation, I tell my friend: You couldnt possibly be a fascist! or This must be
measured only in accordance with amount he works. These two sentences reveal two
unwritten implicit rule: the first sentence implies that one ought to avoid fascism,
since it is bad. The second implies the principle that payment and reward ought to
be fair. These two universal norms are not only valid for those people concerned;
they are, as the qualification ought to indicates universally valid for all times and
places. If during a communication situation, we are willing to use these universal
norms as a basis for consensus and mutual cooperation, then it means that we are in
the process of a discourse ethics communicative action. To put it differently, reaching
consensus on a particular issue is at the same time reaching consensus on these
most general universal norms; we are demanding that the other side should agree
on these universal laws.

Discourse Ethics is a Means to Discover These Universal Norms

Relativism, after being eliminated by the above argument, Habermas next tries
to pinpoint the necessary conditions for the discovery of universal norms. Those
conditions under which universal norms may be discovered are as follows:

The first and foremost pre-condition for universality is the unconditional

freedom of the members of a society. Form the viewpoint of communica-
tion this freedom means the following: on particular issue which is discussed,
all participants of communication are free to express their views uncondition-
ally, and in an unlimited way.

The second condition is equality. From the communication viewpoint this

means that all participants have equal right to express their opinions on the
universality of the principle under discussion.

The third condition is that of lack of external use of force on the participants
on their way towards consensus.

Three fundamental Universal Principles of Discourse Ethics

Habermas reformulate the above mentioned three principles into a Kantian

categorical imperative format:

Maxim 1. Principle of Universalization. All of the parties concerned in a par-

5
 ticular communication situation, promise to accept the final settlement of the
issue prior to the beginning of the discussion. No one in the end must have
the heart feeling of being treated unfairly.
MODULE 7

Maxim 2. Only those norms that are approved by all in an equal way will be
accepted.
UFND50

Maxim 3. Consensus can only be achieved by the free and unrestrained par-
ticipation of all participants. Maxim of freedom includes two aspects:

Freedom to. Participants may freely actively express their opinions, needs
and attitudes.

Freedom to. Participants must refrain from all kinds of use of force, ideolo-
gies, temporal and external (monetary, social, etc.) restraints.

Ideal Speech Situation

In addition to these three maxims of universal categorical imperatives, discourse

ethics include some additional principles which establish the ideal speech situation
of the ethical discourse:

Anyone who is normal has the right to participate in communication.

Any participant in a communication situation has a right to claim any thesis

s-he wishes to.

Any participant has the right to present his needs, attitudes and wishes.

Any participant has every right to challenge any claim made by other partic-
ipants.

No participants may relinquish any of the above rights.

Discourse Ethics and Solidarity

For Habermas not all societies may develop a discourse ethics as outlined above; for
a society to reach some level of discourse ethics, there must exist in that society a
sense of solidarity. Yhis idea has its origins in Kants idea of sensus communis-common
sense. Habermas expresses this idea as follows: during the process of rational
communication, each free and equal participant must put himself in shoes of all the
rest of the participants. Only by doing so, he can understand himself and others. To
put it differently, he thus passes from being the I to the us.

Habermas uses a contemporary Kantian psychologist, Kohlbergs experiments

(especially the sixth stage of development). The reader may reread that section of
this book, to refresh his memory.

Discourse Ethics and Democracy

For Habermas discourse ethics when supported by a spirit of solidarity constitutes

the foundation of democracy in a society.

6
This is also true for the liberal pluralism in democracies. Radical differences can be
overcome without losing the inner core of cultural, ethnic, religious identities by
developing a discourse ethics based on universal principles of reason.

MODULE 7
Main Ideas of Jonas Ethics of Responsibility

UFND50
German born American philosopher Hans Jonas thinks that all the traditional
theories of ethics such as Kants duty ethics or Mills utilitarianism remain inadequate
for dealing the modern global problem of ethics. He therefore formulates a new
theory of ethics of responsibility which aims at solving such contemporary global
problems of ethics.
Let us first see how Jonas sees the old ethical theories as insufficient to deal with the
new technological problems. Secondly, we will look at the main ideas of his ethics of
global responsibility.

Why the Traditional Ethical Theories are Insufficient?

From the ancient Greek Stoics, to the 19th century ethics of modernity have the
following four common characteristics which make them difficult to deal with the
modern global ethical problems:

Traditional ethical theories view human being as neutral both as subject and
object. As an object, actions of man take nature as an object; as subjects, hu-
mans take control of nature and manipulate it as an object.

Traditional ethics take ethical relations not between man and nature, but be-
tween man and other men. Nature, animals, universe, bios are not the proper
objects of ethical inquiry.

Traditional ethics take the category of man as a substance whose essence

always remains fixed. So a conception of man which can be molded and
changed by technology remains alien to these theories.

Take what is good, bad, right, wrong, ethical un-ethical actions only
within the immediate temporal spatial context, never consider the action
long-range future ethical consequences.

Jonas Conception of Technology and Its Relation to Ethics: Why A New Ethics Is
Needed?

Jonas defines technology in a unique Heideggerian way as total sum of all resources
which is responsible for mans self-forgetfulness; it makes man to forget his own
being-in-the-world. Stripped from this philosophical jargon, this simply means that
technology causes mans alienation. Here are some technological developments
which render the old ethical theories inadequate, and which makes a new ethics
which is able to deal with such problems of technology necessary:

Modern technology created such diverse ethical problems that no traditional

ethical theory is able to address itself sufficiently. For example all traditional
ethical theories remain silent against the destruction of nature by technology.
Mans helplessness in the face of technological destruction of nature at least

7
 has two ethical dimensions: (1) Today, mans intervention into nature is great-
er than ever, in the history of mankind. Before 1943 (atom bomb over Naga-
zaki) no super powers was able to intervene nature to that extent. But today,
this danger is more than ever; (2) secondly today we are able to measure the
MODULE 7

damage done over nature by technology, including the long-ranging effects

of this destruction on the future generations.
UFND50

Traditional ethics are human-centered. Jonas thinks this must change since
his creation itself has itself become an ethical problem. This problem is his
ethical responsibility of his creation, i.e., technology. Modern technology de-
stroys the equilibrium of nature, endangering the lives of future generations.

Traditional ethics are male oriented and tend to exclude female person as an
ethical subject

Modern technology creates the following ethical problems related to mans

nature: (1) prolonging life span; (2) controlling human behavior; (3) meddling
with human genes.

Technology and globalization also created world-wide problem of territorial-

ization, de-territorialization.

Main Ideas of Jonas Ethics of Global Responsibility

Jonas uses Kants concept of categorical imperative to include in it the long

range destructive effects of technology on nature. In its revised form, this
categorical imperative becomes: Act in such a way that, your action follows
the exigencies of the continuity of human life. To put it differently, nature as
mans natural habitat must be protected and cared forever.

Technology gradually opens new space for new human actions for which
new ethical principles must be developed.

The new ethics brings the concept of responsibility into prominence. Re-
sponsibility, beyond being an ethical principle, is also a power. Our responsi-
bility must be in proportion to our technological power. Jonas expresses this
idea by saying that ethics include some sort of fortune-telling about science
and technology.

One must not forget that even the best fortune teller may be wrong! So he
proposes to replace the slogan of the traditional ethics, What can I hope,
the slogan What can I fear? The barometer of fear is a criterion of dan-
ger signal about our future lives, which will warn us over the consequences
of our actions.

The ultimate guide of the ethics of responsibility must be nature itself. A nat-
ural philosophy replacing all religions must be guiding science for the ethics
of responsibility.

Ethics of responsibility is an open ended concept. What has Jonas said in the
1950s must be developed and many new technologies such as information
technology and the ethical concepts it will bring must be discussed and included

8
into the theoretical framework.

Feminist Ethics

MODULE 7
UFND50
The second half of 20th century witnessed several versions of what is called feminist
ethics all of which commonly criticized traditional ethical theories for their lack of
concern for women in their treatment of ethical problems.

Traditional Ethics Ignores Womens Special Status and Rights

In the following points, traditional ethics have ignored womens special status:

Traditional ethics favored mans rights mostly ignoring female rights and in-
terests.

Traditional ethics favors persons rights and obligations in public spheres, ig-
noring private sphere rights and obligations. But it is this the private sphere
which women live and must be protected.

Traditional ethics assume generally that ethically speaking, females are more
mature than males.

Traditional ethics have always praised more manly virtues such as indepen-
dence, autonomy, reason, courage, etc. Less manly virtues such as mutual in-
terdependence, community, body, emotion, nature, peace etc.

Finally traditional ethics favored manly ways of reasoning such as rule, univer-
sality, impartiality while deemphasizing less manly ways such as relationship,
partiality, subjectivity, etc.

Historical Development of Feminist Ethics

Beginning with 1960s feminist ethics passed through several stages of developments:

1960s is the first decade where feminist ideas flourished in literature and so-
cial sciences. French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir wrote the first feminist
book The Second Sex. In this decade, womens rights were discussed in the
context of traditional ethical frameworks and the traditional ethics was as-
sumed to be sufficient for womens rights.

1970s abortion was at the center of womens rights discussions. In the U. S.

abortion was illegal (was considered as murder) until the end of 1970s. At this
stage also the problem of pornography was also considered as a new issue to
be dealt with in this context.

1980s signal the emergence of many feminist theories. Another important

development of this stage is the rejection of some of these feminist theories
of the traditional ethics and their sexist assumptions. Hence feminist theo-
ries tried to develop their own ethical terminology and theoretical assump-
tions. Among these theories Gilligans feminist ethics is the most prominent
one.

9
 Gilligans Ethics of Care

Carol Gilligan (1982)

MODULE 7

Feminist philosopher Carol Gilligan developed her ethics of care in the following
main lines:
UFND50

Males and females have different moral attitudes and moral reasoning. For
example in ethical reasoning males use more of justice, rights, autonomy
and individualism, together with more abstract and universal principles. In
females, care instead of justice, personal relations instead of social relations
is emphasized. Women tend to less about universal abstract principles and
more about concrete details and emotional relations. Gilligans ideas went
beyond the academic circles creating novels such as J. Grays best seller Men
Come From Mars, Women From Venus.

The contrast between care and justice enabled the feminists to develop con-
ceptual framework beyond that of the traditional ethics of Kants and utilitar-
ianism. According to Gilligan, both Kants ethics and utilitarianism collabo-
rate in defending an objective universal principle of justice which excludes
the principle of care.

Ethics of care aims at bringing into prominence the idea and the practices
of care in interpersonal relations. What are these practices of care? They are
the following: (1) how can we care and pay special attention to people with-
in their particular conditions and situations? (2) Emotional aspect of people
must be respected and cared for; traditional ethics completely ignored the
emotional aspect of human beings consider it outside the realm of ethics.

Human relations are cared for by women more than men, the latter being
more individualistic and even egotistic.

In sum, the aim of Gilligans ethics of care is to bring womens status in society
into a better position and help them gain their rights and freedoms.

Why Become Ethical?

Throughout this book we have examined the views of many philosophers views
concerning the nature and extent of the ethical. It is now the right time to answer
the question: Why does one have to be ethical? This question is independent from
the question of the nature and its content. To be able to answer this question, let us
divide it into as follows: (1) Why does a society as an institution must be ethical? (2)
As an individual why would A choose to live an ethical life?

Why should a society, in addition to the existing traditional values, customs, moral
rules must develop and encourage a systematic universal ethical stand? To be able
to live in global world peacefully and happily a society must follow a system of
universal and global rules. To argue from the opposite, without the existence of such
a systematic guiding ethical principles a society would be in a state of nature Hobbes
called Homo Homini Lipus. Here the life of man would be lonely, evil, cruel and short.

10
In answering the second part of the question, to give some ethical reasons to the
person who asks this question is futile. For every ethics related reason, the person
may retort with no less powerful counter reasons. In the end the person who asks this
question may say: you see you couldnt give a rational reason for being ethical! Well

MODULE 7
your answer can be nothing but to say to that person: Well as you can see, even your
question why should I be ethical is the same question as why should I be rational;

UFND50
this meaning the proof of your being ethical and or rational!

As you may have already noticed, the answer to this final question was of Toulmin
kind of an argument. What is the intrinsic value and the good life?

Summary
Aim 1.
To be able to understand and explain Habermas and Jonas universal ethical theories

Habermas Universal Ethics of Discourse

Four discourses which prevent the colonization of life-world:

Colonization of the life-world Lebenswelt) happens when (1) social roles are
differentiated in a detailed way; (2) detailed differentiation of social roles; (3)
rewards and extra money for the alienated labor; (4) steering of wealth and
culture by the state and individualization of hopes and aspiration.

Three discourses which might be developed to prevent this process: (1) dis-
course ethics; (2) esthetic discourse; (3) therapeutic discourse.

Discourse ethics is the application of the Kantian ethics to social communication,

and if successfully implemented will prevent the colonization of life world.

Esthetic discourse is the enlightenment effect of the art, theatre and litera-
ture.

Therapeutic Discourse is the awakening (not conformist) effect of radical

therapists.

Which principles of Enlightenment are involved in discourse ethics?

Universal validity principle underlined the discourse ethics.

Principle of universalizability.
Principle of equality.
Principle of freedom.

Jonas Ethics of Responsibility

Universal responsibility is both a responsibility and power.

Idea of responsibility requires a kind of fortune telling. We must predict the

possible calamities which technology will bring to humanity and make a pro-

11
 gram to take preventive measures beforehand.

For this purpose we must develop a barometer of fear which must be used
to measure the future dangers of technology to nature.
MODULE 7

The Main Points of Gilligans Ethics of Care

UFND50

Traditional ethics largely ignored womens rights and needs.

Feminist ethics started in 1960s and developed into full ethical theories
during the next two decades

Ethics of care emphasizes interpersonal relations, emotional relations and

personal rather than public sphere communication of human beings.

Self-Test
1. According to Habermas, our life-world is colonialized by the steering media
technology. Which of the following is not one of these ways of making life-world a
colony?
a. Fragmentation of the traditional ways of life.
b. Differentiation of social roles.
c. Psychological depression.
d. Steering of wealth and culture by the state.

2. Which of the following is one of the discourses which reduces the colonialism
of life-world?
a. Scientific discourse
b. Ethical discourse
c. Discourse of justice
d. Religious discourse

3. For Habermas contemporary relativism endangers rationalism and enlight-

enment. Which of the following prevents such a danger?
a. To develop a strong economy.
b. A reform of justice
c. Education reform
d. To develop discourse ethics.

4. Which of the following is not one of the ethical principles discourse ethics
depends ?
a. Universal laws of validity
b. Principle of freedom
c. Principle of maximum utility.
d. Principle of equality

5. Which of the following prevents the formation of a universal ethics of respon-

sibility?
a. Determinism
b. Principles of enlightenment
c. Existentialism
d. Relativism

12
6. Which of the following expresses the inadequacy of the traditional ethics for
the contemporary problems?
a. Traditional ethics are rational

MODULE 7
b. Traditional ethics are universal
c. Traditional ethics are rule bounded

UFND50
d. Traditional ethics ignore the long term consequences of actions

7. Which of the following is wrong for the ethics of responsibility?

a. Ethics of responsibility is a power
b. Ethics of responsibility requires fortune telling
c. Ethics of responsibility develops a barometer of fear
d. Ethics of responsibility id relativistic.

8. Which of the following indicates the insufficiency of traditional ethics on

womens status?
a. Traditional ethics care for womens rights
b. Traditional ethics assume the secondary status of women
c. Traditional ethics confine women to the public sphere
d. Traditional ethics defends womens rights more than that of mans.

9. Which of the following statement is wrong for feminist ethics?

a. In 1950s no such concept as womens rights existed
b. By 1960s abortion was being discussed as an ethical problem.
c. By 1980s feminists ethics started to develop their own special terminology.
d. Feminist ethics carries the moral agent beyond the public sphere into private
sphere.

10. Which of the following is wrong for Gilligans ethics of care?

a. Women are more sensitive to moral issues than men
b. Male thinking is care oriented, female thinking is justice oriented
c. Men come from Mars women from Venus
d. Ethics of care brings interpersonal relations to the fore.

Self-Test Key
1.c ; 2.b. ; 3.d; 4.c ;5.d; 6.e. ; 7.d ;8. B.;9.b. ; 10.b.

Bibliography
Feminist Ethics, Google, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009
Gilligan, C. , In a Difference of Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens
Development, Cambridge, M:A: 1982.
Habermas, J. Communication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon Press, Boston,
1971

13
Copyright Yasar University
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to Yasar University.
These lecture notes have been prepared for Yasar University Foundation Courses
Program.
This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
without permission.