1.

Nature, Scope, and Method of Ethics

Nature of Ethics:

 Ethics as a Normative Science:

o Normative vs. Descriptive: Normative ethics is concerned with setting standards or norms for
behavior. Unlike descriptive ethics, which merely describes how people behave or what moral
beliefs they hold, normative ethics prescribes how people should behave. For example,
descriptive ethics might observe that lying is common in certain situations, but normative ethics
will argue whether lying is morally permissible or not.
o Objective Ethics: Objective ethics posits that certain moral truths exist independently of human
beliefs or opinions. For example, many argue that acts like genocide or torture are objectively
wrong, regardless of cultural or personal beliefs. This approach implies that ethical standards are
universally binding.
o Subjective Ethics: Subjective ethics, on the other hand, asserts that moral judgments are based
on individual or cultural perspectives. What is considered "right" or "wrong" can vary depending
on societal norms or personal beliefs. For instance, while some cultures view capital punishment
as just, others see it as morally wrong.
 Ethics and Human Purpose:
o Teleological Ethics: Teleology is the study of ends or purposes. In teleological ethics, actions
are judged based on the outcomes they produce. The most common form of teleological ethics is
utilitarianism, which suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its contribution to
the overall happiness or well-being.
o The Good Life: Philosophers like Aristotle defined "the good life" as one lived in accordance
with virtue, where individuals fulfill their potential and achieve eudaimonia (flourishing or well-
being). The good life, according to Aristotle, is not just about momentary pleasure but about
living a life of virtue and rationality.

Scope of Ethics:

 Ethics and Religion:

o Divine Command Theory: This theory holds that morality is ultimately based on the
commands of God, and that moral obligations are dictated by religious scriptures. This raises the
Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it
because it is good? This question challenges whether moral principles are independent of divine
will or if they are arbitrary.
o Secular Ethics: Secular ethics relies on reason, human experience, and empirical evidence to
determine moral principles, independent of religious beliefs. This approach allows for moral
discourse across different cultures and religions, emphasizing common human values like
justice, freedom, and equality.
 Ethics in International Relations:
o Global Justice: The concept of global justice deals with ethical issues that arise on a global
scale, such as poverty, human rights, and environmental sustainability. Ethical theories like
cosmopolitanism argue that all human beings, regardless of nationality, deserve equal moral
consideration. This contrasts with nationalism, which prioritizes the interests of one’s own
country.
o Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical debates in international relations often focus on the
justification for intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign states to prevent human rights
abuses. The principle of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) suggests that the international
community has an obligation to intervene when a state fails to protect its citizens from genocide,
war crimes, or other atrocities.
 Bioethics:
o Medical Ethics: This subfield of ethics deals with the ethical dilemmas faced in medical
practice, such as issues of consent, patient autonomy, and the allocation of scarce resources.
Medical ethics often revolves around principles like beneficence (doing good), non-maleficence
(avoiding harm), and justice (fairness in the distribution of healthcare).
 o Ethics of Genetic Engineering: As scientific advancements allow for greater manipulation of
genetic material, bioethics grapples with questions about the moral limits of such technologies.
For instance, should we allow genetic modification to enhance human traits, or should it only be
used to prevent genetic diseases? The debate often revolves around issues of "playing God" and
the potential social consequences of creating genetic inequality.

Method of Ethics:

 Intuitionism:
o Moral Intuition: Intuitionism holds that some moral truths are self-evident and can be known
directly through intuition, without the need for complex reasoning. For example, the wrongness
of causing unnecessary pain to others might be something we intuitively know. However, critics
argue that intuitions can be influenced by biases and cultural conditioning, making them
unreliable guides.
o Intuition vs. Reasoning: While intuition provides immediate judgments about right and wrong,
these judgments often require further reasoning to be justified, especially in complex moral
situations. For example, while our intuition might tell us that stealing is wrong, we need to
reason through situations where stealing might be justified, such as in cases of extreme need.
 Empiricism:
o Empirical Ethics: Empiricism in ethics suggests that our understanding of moral principles can
be informed by observation and experience. For example, empirical studies in psychology might
reveal how people typically make moral decisions, which can inform ethical theories. However,
empirical observations alone cannot tell us what we ought to do; they only describe what is.
o Limitations: Empirical ethics is often criticized for being unable to provide normative guidance.
It can tell us how people behave, but not necessarily how they should behave. For instance, just
because most people might act selfishly in certain situations does not imply that selfishness is
morally acceptable.
 Rationalism:
o Rationalist Ethics: Rationalism asserts that moral principles can be discovered and justified
through reason alone. For example, deontological ethics, particularly Kantian ethics, relies on
rationality to determine moral duties. Kant believed that reason could lead to the formulation of
universal moral laws, such as the Categorical Imperative, which commands us to treat others as
ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.
o Rationality and Morality: Rationalism posits that human beings can discern moral truths
through logical analysis, independent of emotions or external influences. This approach,
however, has been criticized for being overly rigid and for neglecting the emotional and
contextual aspects of moral decision-making.
 Virtue Ethics:
o Character and Virtue: Virtue ethics, especially as articulated by Aristotle, emphasizes the
importance of developing a virtuous character. This approach focuses on the long-term
development of personal virtues like honesty, courage, and compassion, which guide ethical
behavior. Virtue ethics is concerned with the moral character of the person performing the
action, rather than the action itself.
o Practical Wisdom: Practical wisdom, or phronesis, is the ability to navigate complex moral
situations by balancing different virtues. It involves making decisions that align with one’s
character and values, while considering the specific context. For example, the virtue of honesty
might need to be tempered with kindness in situations where blunt truth could cause harm.

2. Ethical Concepts

1. Good:

 Philosophical Theories of Good:

o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism defines "good" in terms of the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. It is a consequentialist theory, meaning the morality of an action is judged by its
outcomes. For instance, a utilitarian might justify sacrificing one person to save many others, if
that maximizes overall happiness.
 oDeontological Good: In deontological ethics, "good" is tied to adherence to moral duties or
rules, regardless of the consequences. For example, Kant argued that actions like lying or
stealing are intrinsically wrong, even if they lead to positive outcomes. The "good" in this
context is following one’s duty.
o Virtue Ethics: For virtue ethicists, the "good" is about achieving a virtuous character and living
in accordance with reason. Aristotle argued that the highest good is eudaimonia (flourishing),
which is achieved by living a life of virtue. The "good life" is one where individuals fulfill their
potential by cultivating virtues like courage, wisdom, and temperance.
 Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Good:
o Intrinsic Good: Intrinsic goods are valued for their own sake, not because they lead to
something else. For example, happiness, love, and knowledge are often considered intrinsically
good because they are desirable in themselves, regardless of any further consequences.
o Instrumental Good: Instrumental goods are valuable because they help achieve something else
that is good. For instance, money is an instrumental good because it can be used to buy things
that contribute to well-being, but it is not considered good in itself. In ethical discussions,
distinguishing between intrinsic and instrumental goods helps clarify the reasons behind valuing
certain actions or outcomes.

2. Right:

 Moral Absolutism and Relativism:

o Moral Absolutism: Moral absolutism asserts that there are fixed, universal moral principles that
apply in all situations. For instance, an absolutist might argue that killing an innocent person is
always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. This approach often appeals to objective
standards of morality that are independent of cultural differences or individual preferences.
o Moral Relativism: Moral relativism, in contrast, holds that moral judgments are relative to
cultural norms or individual perspectives. What is considered "right" or "wrong" can vary
between societies or even among individuals within the same society. For example, practices
like polygamy or arranged marriage may be seen as morally acceptable in some cultures but
wrong in others. Relativism challenges the idea of universal moral principles and suggests that
ethical beliefs are shaped by social and cultural contexts.
 Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights:
o Natural Rights: Natural rights are believed to be inherent to human beings and not dependent
on laws or customs. These rights are often thought to be derived from human nature or reason,
and include rights like life, liberty, and property. For example, John Locke argued that
individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that governments are established
to protect these rights.
o Legal Rights: Legal rights are granted and protected by laws within a particular society. These
rights can vary from one legal system to another and may change over time. For instance, the
right to vote or the right to free speech are legal rights that are recognized and enforced by
governments, but they are not necessarily universal or natural in the same way as natural rights.

3. Duty:

 Kantian Duty:
o Categorical Imperative: Kant’s concept of duty is central to his deontological ethics. The
Categorical Imperative is the fundamental principle that commands individuals to act according
to maxims that can be universally applied. For example, if you believe it’s wrong to lie, you
should act according to a rule that everyone should always tell the truth, regardless of the
situation. Kant believed that moral duties are binding on all rational beings, independent of their
desires or interests.
o Moral Worth: Kant argued that the moral worth of an action depends on whether it is
performed out of duty, rather than inclination. For example, if you donate to charity because it
makes you feel good, the action may be praiseworthy but does not have true moral worth in
Kant’s view. However, if you donate out of a sense of duty, even if you do not particularly want
to, the action has moral worth because it is motivated by respect for the moral law.
 Role-Related Duties:
 o Professional Ethics: In the context of professional ethics, duties are often defined by the roles
individuals occupy. For instance, doctors have a duty to prioritize their patients’ health, while
judges have a duty to administer justice impartially. These role-related duties are often codified
in professional codes of ethics, which provide guidelines for ethical behavior in specific
professions.
o Conflicts of Duty: Ethical dilemmas often arise when individuals face conflicts between
different duties. For example, a doctor might face a conflict between the duty to keep a patient’s
information confidential and the duty to report a public health risk. Resolving these conflicts
requires careful ethical reasoning, often weighing the consequences of different actions and
considering the principles involved.

4. Value:

 Objective vs. Subjective Values:

o Objective Values: Objective values are considered to be universally valid, regardless of
individual opinions or cultural norms. For example, many people believe that human dignity is
an objective value that should be respected in all circumstances. Ethical theories like moral
realism support the idea that objective moral values exist independently of human beliefs.
o Subjective Values: Subjective values, on the other hand, depend on individual or cultural
perspectives. For instance, what one person values highly, such as wealth or fame, might not be
valued by someone else. Subjectivism in ethics suggests that moral values are not universal but
are shaped by personal or cultural factors.
 Moral and Non-Moral Values:
o Moral Values: Moral values are principles that guide our behavior in terms of right and wrong.
Examples include honesty, fairness, and compassion. These values are central to ethical
decision-making because they influence how we treat others and make moral judgments.
o Non-Moral Values: Non-moral values, while important, do not directly concern questions of
right and wrong. For example, values like beauty, efficiency, or creativity are non-moral values.
They contribute to our overall well-being and satisfaction but do not necessarily dictate how we
should behave towards others.

5. Postulate of Morality:

 Kant’s Moral Postulates:

o Freedom: Kant argued that moral responsibility requires the assumption of freedom. If we are
not free to choose our actions, we cannot be held morally accountable. Freedom, in this context,
means the ability to act according to rational moral laws, rather than being driven by external
forces or impulses. Without freedom, moral duties would lose their meaning, as individuals
could not be blamed or praised for actions that they did not freely choose.
o Immortality: Kant believed that true moral virtue requires an infinite progression towards moral
perfection, which is only possible if the soul is immortal. The postulate of immortality supports
the idea that moral effort is meaningful, even if perfect virtue is never fully achieved in this life.
Immortality, therefore, provides a basis for the continued pursuit of moral improvement beyond
our earthly existence.
o Existence of God: For Kant, the existence of God is necessary to ensure that moral actions
ultimately lead to the highest good, where virtue and happiness are perfectly aligned. God, in
Kant’s view, serves as the guarantor of justice, ensuring that moral actions are rewarded and
immoral actions are punished. Without God, Kant argued, the moral law would lack ultimate
significance, as virtuous people might suffer while wrongdoers prosper.

6. The Nature and Object of Moral Judgements:

 Universalizability in Moral Judgements:

o Principle of Universalizability: The principle of universalizability requires that moral
judgments must be consistent and applicable to all similar situations. For example, if you believe
it is wrong to steal, you must also believe it is wrong for anyone else to steal under similar
circumstances. This principle is crucial in deontological ethics, particularly in Kant’s moral
 philosophy, where it forms the basis for the Categorical Imperative. Universalizability ensures
that moral principles are not applied arbitrarily or hypocritically.
o Moral Consistency: Consistency in moral judgments is essential for fairness and impartiality.
For example, if you condemn cheating in one context but excuse it in another without a morally
relevant difference, you are being inconsistent. Moral consistency demands that we apply the
same ethical standards across different situations, avoiding favoritism or double standards.
 Emotion and Moral Judgements:
o Role of Emotions: Emotions play a significant role in shaping our moral judgments. According
to emotivism, moral statements are expressions of emotional attitudes rather than objective facts.
For instance, when we say "Stealing is wrong," we are not stating a fact but expressing our
disapproval of stealing. Emotions can influence our ethical decisions, but they are often seen as
subjective and unreliable compared to rational deliberation.
o Criticisms of Emotivism: Critics argue that emotivism reduces moral judgments to mere
expressions of personal feelings, neglecting the role of reason and objective principles in ethics.
For example, when debating moral issues, we often provide reasons and evidence to support our
views, suggesting that moral judgments involve more than just emotional reactions.
 Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Theories:
o Cognitivism: Cognitivist theories in ethics argue that moral statements can be true or false
because they describe moral facts. For example, saying "Murder is wrong" is a claim about an
objective moral fact, which can be evaluated for its truth. Cognitivists believe that moral
knowledge is possible and that moral truths can be discovered through reasoning or empirical
investigation.
o Non-Cognitivism: Non-cognitivists, on the other hand, argue that moral statements do not
describe facts but express attitudes or prescriptions. For instance, when we say "Stealing is
wrong," we might be issuing a command ("Don’t steal!") or expressing disapproval. Non-
cognitivism suggests that moral language is not about stating facts but about influencing
behavior and expressing personal or social attitudes.