ETHICS
UNIT 1
THE NATURE OF MORALITY
Five Branches of Philosophy
- Epistemology (study of knowledge)
- Metaphysics (study of the nature of
reality)
- Ethics (study of morality)
- Aesthetics (study of values in art or
beauty)
- Logic (study of argument and reasoning)
Ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning
character
- Pertains to the individual character of a
person or persons
Morality comes from the Latin moralis, meaning
customs or manners
- Pertains to the relationship between
human beings
AMORAL AND NONMORAL
Amoral
- having no moral sense, or being
indifferent to right and wrong
- This term can be applied to very few
people
- The complete absence of a sense of right
and wrong may be caused by physical
trauma to the brain
- In addition, some criminal types are
amoral despite moral education
Nonmoral
- outside the realm of morality altogether
- Inanimate objects are neither moral or
immoral, but could be used immorally
- Many areas of study are in themselves
neither moral nor immoral
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF
MORALITY
- This approach is most often used in the
social sciences and, like ethics, deals with
human behavior and conduct
- The emphasis in this approach is
empirical
- This approach is also descriptive because
it involves the observation of human
behavior and the description of those
observations
- In this approach, the observers make no
value judgments as to what is morally
right or wrong
PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO ETHICS
Normative Ethics
- Deals with norms (or standards) and
prescriptions
- Goes beyond observation and description
and makes normative moral value
judgments
Analytic Ethics
- Rather than being descriptive or
prescriptive, analyzes ethical language
and the rational foundations of ethical
systems
Synthesis of Approaches
The complete study of ethics demands a reasonable
synthesis of ethical views
- Requires the use of descriptive,
normative, and metaethical approaches
- Ethicists draw on data and results of
experiments from the natural, physical,
and social sciences
- They also must examine their language,
logic, and foundations
 - Finally, ethicists should contribute
something toward helping all human
beings live with each other more
meaningfully and more ethically
Morality and its Applications
- There is a difference between ethics and
aesthetics
- The terms good, bad, right, and wrong
can be used in a nonmoral sense, usually
in references to how someone or
something functions
- Manners, or etiquette, differs from
morality even though the two are related
Four Aspects of the Application of Morality
- Religious morality is concerned with
human beings in relationship to a
supernatural being
- Morality and nature are concerned with
human beings in relationship to nature
- Individual morality is concerned with
human beings in relationship to
themselves
- Social morality is concerned with human
beings in relationship to other human
beings
o This is the most important
category
Who is Morally or Ethically Responsible?
- At the present time, only humans can be
considered to be moral or immoral;
therefore, only humans should be
considered morally responsible
- Some recent experiments suggest that in
the future certain animals could be taught
to be moral
Objective Views of Morality
- Values come from some supernatural
being or beings
- There are moral laws embedded in nature
itself
- The world and objects in it have value
with or without the presence of valuing
human beings
Subjective View of Morality
- In opposition to the objective views, some
believe that morality and values reside
strictly within human beings and that
there are no values or morality outside of
them
Criticism of Objective View
- It is difficult to prove conclusively the
existence of any supernatural being(s) or
to prove that values exist outside the
natural world
- There is a difference between “natural
laws” and “moral laws”
- There is no conclusive evidence that
“natural moral laws” exist
- It is impossible to think of things of value
without someone valuing them
Criticism of Subjective View
- Because aspects of the world and nature
can be valued whether or not human
beings exist, values would not seem to be
totally subjective
- It is true that there are many things in
the world, such as art, science, politics,
and music that are valued only by human
beings, but there are many others that
are valuable whether human beings are
around or not
The Synthesized View: Values are Both Objective and
Subjective
• Values are determined by three variables:
– The first variable is the thing of value,
or the thing valued
– The second is a conscious being who
values, or the valuer
– The third is the context or situation in
which the valuing takes place
Theory on the Origin of Morality
• If values are both objective and subjective, it
is possible to construct the following theory
concerning the origin of morality:
– It comes from a complex interaction
between conscious human beings and
material, mental, or emotional
“things” in specific contexts
– It stems from human needs and
desires and is based on human
emotions and reason
Customary Morality
- Customary (or traditional) morality is
based on custom or tradition
- This is the first type of morality that we
encounter
- Customary morality is presented to
members, often accepted without analysis
or critical evaluation, throughout
childhood and adult years
Reflective Morality
- Reflective morality is the careful
examination and critical evaluation of all
moral issues whether or not they are
based on religion, custom, or tradition
- All customs, traditions, systems of ethics,
rules, and ethical theories should be
carefully analyzed and critically evaluated
before we continue to accept or live by
them
Morality and the Law
- Morality is not necessarily based on law
- However, the law provides a public
statement to guide humans in their
behavior and to protect them from doing
harm to persons and property
- Some laws have more or less moral
impact than others, but the relationship
between law and morality is not reciprocal
- What is moral is not necessarily legal and
what is legal is not necessarily moral
Morality and Religion
- Throughout history, religion served as a
powerful institution for getting people to
behave morally
- But, the fact that religion may have
preceded formal legal or moral systems,
or that it may have provided very
powerful and effective sanctions for
morality, does not prove that morality
must of necessity have a religious basis
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s theory sets up three distinct levels of
moral thinking, and each level is arranged in two
stages
• Preconventional Level
– The Punishment and Obedience
Orientation
– The Instrumental/Relativist
Orientation
• Conventional Level
– The Interpersonal Concordance
– The “Law and Order” Orientation
• Postconventional Level
– The Social Contract Orientation
– The Universal-Ethical-Principle
Orientation
Preconventional Level
Terms like good and bad, or right and wrong are
interpreted in terms of either physical or hedonistic
consequences of action
• Stage One: Moral decisions are made in
response to authority
• Stage Two: Moral decision making is
conditioned primarily by self-interest
Conventional Level
Similar to the customary or traditional morality,
which is unreflective and consists in maintaining or
conforming to the expectations of others
• Stage Three: Conformity with the group,
living up to other’s expectations, and earning
the approval of others by being “nice”
• Stage Four: Concerned with maintaining
social order for its own sake or as an end in
itself
Postconventional Level
Requires reflective morality and the ability to
effectively engage ethical reasoning apart from, or
independently of, group identification and authority
Also called the autonomous or principled level
UNIT 2
TWO VIEWPOINTS OF MORALITY
o Consequentialist (teleological)
▪ Morality is based on or concerned with
consequences
o Nonconsequentialist (deontological)
▪ Morality is not based on or concerned
with consequences
TWO MAJOR CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICAL
THEORIES
• Ethical Egoism
• Utilitarianism
– Both theories agree that human
beings ought to behave in ways that
will bring about good consequences
– The theories disagree on who should
benefit from these consequences
• Ethical egoism → act in self-
interest
• Utilitarianism → act for the
interests of all
• Stage Five: Understand that there are ends
beyond the law and that laws are crafted to
bring about these ends; views laws as a
social contract
• Stage Six: Right is defined by the decision of
conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical
principles appealing to logical
comprehensiveness, universality, and
consistency
A Working Definition of Morality
- Morality, or ethics, deals basically with
human relationships—how human beings
treat other beings so as to promote
mutual welfare, growth, creativity, and
meaning as they strive for good over bad
and right over wrong
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
• Psychological egoism is not an ethical theory
but a descriptive or scientific theory having to
do with egoism
• Two forms:
o Strong form: people always act in
their own self-interest
o Weaker form: people often, but not
always, act in their own self-interest
In its strong form
o Does not refute morality
In its weaker form
o Does not provide a rational foundation
for ethical egoism
What about circumstances in which people do
unselfish things, even though they do not want to do
them?
ETHICAL EGOISM
• Ethical egoism is a philosophical-normative,
prescriptive theory
• Three forms:
– The individual form (everyone ought
to act in my self-interest)
– The personal form (I ought to act in
my own self-interest, but make no
claims on what others should do)
– The universal form (everyone should
always act in his or her own self-
interest)
PROBLEM WITH UNIVERSAL ETHICAL EGOISM
• Universal ethical egoism is the theory most
commonly presented, but still has problems
• Inconsistency
– It is unclear whose self-interest
should be satisfied
• What is Meant by Everyone
– The term “everyone” is unclear
– Everyone’s interests create conflicts
and inconsistencies
• Difficulty in Giving Moral Advice
– It is difficult to determine how to give
moral advice
• Blurring the Moral and Nonmoral Uses of
Ought and Should
– Supporters of egoism tend to blur the
moral and nonmoral uses of ought
and should
– This makes universal egoism highly
impractical and, at worst, creates
conflicts and inconsistencies
• Inconsistent with Helping Professions
– Ethical egoism in any form does not
provide the proper ethical basis for
people in helping professions
– Some people in helping professions do
so out of self-interest
– Others do so to help others
– A highly self-interested attitude would
not serve one well in a helping
profession
ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL ETHICAL EGOISM
• It is easier to determine self-interest
– It is easier for individuals to determine
what their own interests are
• It encourages individual freedom and
responsibility
• It works when people operate in limited
spheres, isolated from one another, which
minimizes conflict
LIMITATIONS OF UNIVERSAL ETHICAL EGOISM
• It offers no consistent method of resolving
conflicts of self-interests
– While individuals operate in limited
spheres, it is much easier to maintain
self-interest
– As soon as individual or limited
spheres start to overlap, individual
self-interests will start to conflict
– Some principle of justice or
compromise must be brought in to
address that conflict
AYN RAND’S RATIONAL ETHICAL EGOISM
• Ayn Rand was the foremost exponent of
universal ethical egoism (which she called
rational ethical egoism)
– Self-interests of rational human
beings, by virtue of their being
rational, will never conflict
• That theory does not address the very real
conflicts that do actually arise in our crowded
and interdependent societies
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism maintains that everyone should
perform that act or follow that moral rule which will
bring about the greatest good (or happiness) for
everyone concerned
ACT UTILITARIANISM
Act utilitarianism says that everyone should perform
that act which will bring about the greatest amount
of good over bad for everyone affected by the act
• One cannot establish rules in advance to
cover all situations and people because they
are all different
CRITICISMS OF ACT UTILITARIANISM
• It is difficult to determine the consequences
for others
– What may be a good consequences
for you may not be equally, or at all,
good for another
– How are you to tell unless you can ask
other people what would be good for
them?
• It is impractical to have to begin anew for
each situation and to have to decide what
would be moral for that situation
– Is each act and each person
completely and uniquely different?
– An act utilitarian might argue that
there are many similarities among
people and their behaviors that would
justify the laying down of certain rules
• It is difficult to educate the young or
uninitiated in acting morally without rules or
guides to follow
– The only guide would be: Each person
must assess what would be the
greatest good consequences of each
act for each situation that arises
RULE UTILITARIANISM
Rule utilitarianism states that everyone always
should follow the rules that will bring the greatest
number of good consequences for all concerned
• There are enough similar human motives,
actions, and situations to justify setting up
rules that will apply to all human beings and
all situations
CRITICISM OF RULE UTILITARIANISM
• It is difficult to determine consequences for
others
• It would be difficult to be sure that a rule can
be established to cover the diversity of
human beings, which will truly and always
bring about the greatest good for all
• It is difficult to educate the young and
uninitiated
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• Creates problems for utilitarianism:
– Danger of trying to determine the
social worth of individuals
– The greatest good is often interpreted
as the “greatest good of the majority,”
with possible immoral consequences
to the minority
– Does even a good end justify any
means used to attain it, or should we
also consider our means and motives?
DIFFICULTY WITH CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES
IN GENERAL
• Consequentialist theories demand that we
discover and determine all of the
consequences of our actions or rules
– That is virtually impossible
• Do consequences or ends constitute all of
morality?
CARE ETHICS
• Established by Carol Gilligan, sometimes
called “feminist ethics”
• There are fundamental differences between
men and women:
– Men’s moral attitudes have to do with
justice, rights, competition, being
independent, and living by the rules
– Women’s moral attitudes have to do
with generosity, harmony,
reconciliation, and working to
maintain close relationships
CRITICISMS OF GILLIGAN’S THEORY
• Gilligan’s theory raises “female values” over
“male values”
• It replaces one unfair system with another
• The theory seems to prescribe more
traditional gender roles to men and women
– I.e. Men are most concerned with
justice, so only men should be judges