Chapter Two: Approaches to Ethics

2.1 WHY SHOULD TO BE ETHICAL?

Society cannot exist without morality. Ethical rules guide the action and behaviors of individuals
and groups with in a society. Ensuring the promotion of the common good is the very reason
why one has to be ethical. The very existence of state and social institutions fosters morality and
ethics in the society. This lesson thus focuses on introducing you about the reasons behind the
existence and necessity of states and rules, why morality and to be moral is critically significant
to ensure collective interest.
There can be no society without moral regulation; man is man only because he lives in a society;
take away from man all that has a social origin and nothing is left but an animal on par with
other animals.
The above dictum clearly indicates that moral regulations are what makes society a society.
Society is not just a collection of individuals; it is much
more than that. It involves set of rules, in addition to individuals and groups, which guides social
relations by way of shaping the behaviors of individuals and groups in a society. In society
morality serve as bond that defines the roles/duties/ and function of members.

A. Self- Interest
The most usual answer, and the most popular answer, for the above question is because it pays to
do so-because it will, latter if not immediately, turns out to be to our interest to do so. We often
are told to be helpful to people when they need help anticipating that they will help us when we
need their assistance. So, our motive to pro social behaviors can be the expectation that we will
realize some gains or avoid some loss. We may behave morally to gain material benefits, social
approval, and honor, or to escape group sanction, social disapproval, and ostracism.

B. Devine Command
The belief that The Creator will reward or punish us can have powerful motivating factor to
respect moral rules. Religious teachings and dogmas have highly influenced moral practice of
human beings. Despite the prevalence of many religious sects in the world, there seems to be
commonalities with regard to their teachings. All Preaches about human dignity, respect,

1|Page
tolerance, compassion/ altruism/, Truthfulness. Some religions like Buddhism also teaches about
the dignity of all living sentient-Animal do have respect as human do have. Hinduism and
Budism have peculiar emphasis on the importance of wisdom-knowledge and perfection. Thus,
we can say for sure that religious teachings have significant in inculcating moral rules in human
mind.

C. The Common Interest

Morality is not of course identical with following self-interest. If it were, there could be no
conflict between morality and self-interest and no point in having rules overriding self-interest.
John Hospers
Hospers goes on elaborating the need to be moral as follows: <<…...We should be moral
because being moral is following the rules designed to overrule self-interest whenever it is in the
interest of every one alike that everyone should set aside his interest>>

Suppose that you are playing a game and when you play it you agree up on certain rules. You
cannot change the rules in a pinch just because the game is going against you. You play the game
to win but to win you must abide by the rules. To the extent that that you cheat, you are not
playing the game at all. If you are interested enough to play, you probably have an interest in
continuing the game. Yet the game can be continued only if you play by the rules. The game of
life is one which we all have to play in one way or another. Nor can we play it alone, for we are
surrounded by other people who also must play the game. What then is the best means of playing
it-best for all of us? As long as we are all together on this planet, is not it better for all of us to
find some arrangement whereby we can live together in such a way that we can each pursue as
many of our own interest as possible yet not prevent others from perusing theirs? To live in such
away we all have to stick to certain rules. Certain kinds of rules-those requiring us to consider
the safety and well-fare of others and those prohibiting us from aggression against them-will
operate to our mutual advantage; that is why we should be obey them.

Consider two groups of people. In the first group the people live by certain rules-they refrain
from killing, cheating, stealing and committing acts of aggression against one another. In the
second group the people do not wish to be tied down by any rules-they commit acts of

2|Page
aggression against one another with no punishment other than retaliation from the injured party.
Among the above case the first group live better than the second one. In the second case people
live under constant fear of aggression and insecurity.

2.2 Normative Ethics

Normative ethics;
o Offers theories or accounts of the best way to live. These theories evaluate actions in a
systematic way, i.e., they may focus on outcomes or duties or motivation as a means of
justifying human conduct.
o Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics,
principlism, narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
Normative ethics poses questions of the following kind:
 Are there general principles or rules that we could follow which distinguish between right
and wrong? Or:
 Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can nurture, in order to behave well?
Normative ethics includes the following ethical theories
2.2.1 Consequentialism/teleology
Consequential arguments focus on the consequence of the action in order to measure the
rightness or wrongness of an action. Accordingly, an action can be right if it promotes or brings
good results. So, to come at right decisions, we need to weigh the cost and benefit, or the good
side and bad side of the action, and then pass our judgments. In line with view there are three
strands of consequentialism. These include utilitarianism, egoism and altruism. Let us elaborate
each of them in the following manner.
A. Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is a sub section of consequentalism. According to this view the morality of an
action is determined in reference to the doer of the action. It holds that an action is morally right
if it maximizes the interest of the doer of action. Here morality is understood as mere reflection
of individual preference without giving due regard to the preferences and interest of the other.

3|Page
What do you think the danger of ethical egoism? Dear student! , more often corruption occurs
when individuals are trying to satisfy their own interest without giving prior regard to the interest
of others-the common interest.
B. Utilitarianism
Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness. John Stuart Mill
According to utilitarian an action can be right if the consequence of doing the action is more
favorable than un-favorable to everyone. Mill argues that morally right rules bring overall
happiness to everyone concerned. And hence he is categorized as Rule-Utilitarians.

Another influential ethicist is in this tradition is Jermy Bentham. An action is moral if it

promotes pleasure and wrong if it brings pain. So, for Bentham the calculation of pain/
pleasure is very important to decide the moral status of human action. Bentham `s famous
principle is what he coined it as ``the Greatest happiness for the greatest number`` it meant
that the summation of individuals give rise to the aggregate happiness and an action that
promotes the interest of the majority or everyone is morally right and hence everybody has to
do the same. From this principle we can deduce that the morality or effectiveness of any
policy need to evaluated in terms of its benefits to the society. Benthemite principle is referred
as Act-Utilitarian. Act utilitarian tells you to test the beauty of things through practice,
experiment than mere theory. Perfection comes through practice!

C. Ethical Altruism
True kindness presupposes the faculty of imagining as ones owns the suffering and Joy of others.
Andre Gide
According to this view an action is morally right if the consequence of the action is more
favorable than un- favorable to the society except the doer of the action. Here moral actions are
motivated by understanding and compassion to others especially the disadvantaged section of
society. This is an important virtue of good citizenship. A civic -minded person shows readiness
and commitment towards promoting the collective interest than individual interest.

4|Page
2.2.2 Deontology
Most people know what is right. The problem comes in doing what is right. Immanuel Kant
The second major perspective which is relevant to critically analyzing moral issues in our day-to-
day life is deontology. The rightness of an act depends not on the consequences to which it leads
but on its own inherent nature. Sometimes actions that we take to achieve some other goals
might be bad. To be a topper in the class, for instance is definitively good. But sometimes some
students will be toppers through cheating exams. As you know cheating is one of the immoral
practices, we teachers need to fight. Deontologists are telling us that the morality of an action
should not be measured in terms of its consequences. Instead, actions should be weighted by
themselves. Kant explains the only thing that is good without qualification is what he calls the
Good Will. Hosper presents the notion of good will as crisp as possible as: A good will is good
not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed
end, but simply by virtue of the volition-that is, it is good by itself, and considered by itself is to
be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it.
What is morally good, thus, is to act from the good will-which refers to fulfilling one’s duty
regardless of the consequences of actions. Kant believes that human beings are endowed with the
mental faculty to reason out. Reason helps them to distinguish moral acts from the immoral
ones. The problem comes, as indicated above, in doing what is right.
Kant Suggested some principles as guide line to make moral action. The first criterion is
consistency. You need to be consistent in your action. For example, truth telling is morally right
and acceptable among human beings. So, you cannot be truthful in one context and lie in another
context. What Kant is telling us is that human beings should not be layers at any circumstance.
Lying, stealing, killing, cheating and the like are absolutely wrong and cannot be justified at any
rate.
The other principle is what is called the reversibility principle. It implies that acting from the will
is just like of acting of universal law for others. Because it is when we are moral that others can
be moral. If for example you violate the law, because it is in the interest of yourself, you break
the law and let others do so.

5|Page
In Kants words: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become universal law. The other principle related to this is the issue of respect of human
beings. Kant holds that an action is morally right if-and again, only if –when performing the
action, a person does not use others as a means for improving his or her own interest.

Duties are not something you perform as per your inclinations or tendencies or interests. In fact,
inclinations, intentions may pull a person to do things. Yet these are offers that might result in
regret. Reason needs to guide the action of human beings, not passion or motives. More often
duty pulls you one way and inclination pulls you another, and the test of your moral character is
whether you are strong enough to follow duty in spite of your strong inclination not to do so.

Let say that it is your duty to keep certain promise that you have made but that you don not
desire to do so; your inclination is to forget about the promise, especially since keeping it would
cause you considerable inconveniences. Here is an asset of whether you are acting from duty or
from inclination: if you keep your promise any way, in spite of your inclination to the contrary
and simply because it is your duty to do so, then you are acting from duty and your action has
moral merit: but if you forget about the promise, then of course you are acting from inclination
and hence you are immoral.

2.2.3 Prima Facie Duties

We are now in a position to try to mediate between the ethical view of Kant and those of the
consequentialism. Kant`s criterion of universalizability has some merit-it does seem that if
something is right for one person to do, it would be equally right for everyone else in the same
position, and that is wrong for a person in applying amoral rule to make an exception for himself.
But Kant’s advocates absolute rules as: Don’t Kill, don’t steal, don’t break Promises etc. there is
no problem with these principles. But sometimes, as David Bross summits, breaking promises or
telling lies might save the life of the individual and hence is morally acceptable. As Plato says,
you cannot be just in returning a spear to a person who has gone crazy. But in normal
circumstance refusing ones due is immoral and an acceptable.

6|Page
Common sense Ethics as developed by David Bross tries to bridge the weakness of deontological
and teleological ethics. In this regard, William David Ross has postulated the following two
principles: These are: 1) duty has personal character, and 2) duty can be past and future looking

Duty has a far more personal character than would appear from the utilitarian account. Though
we have a duty to maximize the good, we also have a duty to specific people. For example we
have a duty to our parents, families, for our community and our country. All these entities have
done something for us. We might, sometimes, be forced to violate some moral principles for the
sake of the good of the whole.
Duty is past looking as well as future looking. To large extent duties arise from different
direction and context. Here are some lists of prima-facie- duties:

Fidelity: everybody has duty keep promises/ or contract, others commitment, which they have
voluntarily made and undertaken
Reparation: everybody has a duty of reparation for previous wrongful acts they have done on
others.
Gratitude: If others have done good to me, I owe them a debt I return-a duty of gratitude.
Duty of beneficence: that is, of promoting the maximum possible intrinsic good or promoting
the common good/welfare of others.
Non- maleficence: the duty of refraining from doing people harm.
A duty of justice: everybody expected to be fair and just in the treatment of citizens.
This principle is not limited to procedural justice, but it also refers doing distributive justice.
The duty of self-improvement: Every one of us is expected to improve our selves and be
competent enough. Don’t forget that a good citizen is self-reliant and creative. Without the
creativity and diligence activities of citizens, it is not possible to achieve social and economic
betterment of life.
2.1.4 Virtue Ethics

“Virtue ethics” is a technical term in contemporary Western analytical moral philosophy, used to
distinguish a normative ethical theory focused on the virtues, or moral character, from others
such as deontology (or contractarianism) and consequentialism. Imagine a case in which it is

7|Page
agreed by every sort of theorist that I should, say, help someone in need. A deontologist will
emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be acting in accordance with a moral rule or
principle such as “Do unto others as you would be done by”; a consequentialist will point out
that the consequences of helping will maximize well-being; and a virtue ethicist will emphasize
the fact that providing help would be charitable or benevolent – charity and benevolence being
virtues.

Aristotelian notion of virtue implies the ability to do the right thing at the right time in the right
way for the right purpose. Citizens are expected to act virtuously at any circumstance of life.

A different explanation of why an action is right or wrong given might be given by a virtue
ethicist E.g. a lie is wrong not because of its consequences and not because it violates rules but
because it is not what a virtuous and honest person would do. Virtues must be learned through
practice. They cannot be learned on a purely intellectual level.

A virtue is a trait that contributes to a person functioning well as a human being. (Examples
include bravery, generosity, friendliness, etc.). A virtue is not just a feeling. A person who
“feels” brave but does not act on it is not brave. A virtue is not just a natural inclination. A
person who is just born a certain way is not virtuous in virtue of being born that way . A virtue is
not just doing a given action on a given occasion. A person who does something brave or
generous once is not a brave or generous person.

Aristotle concludes a virtue is a learned disposition to reason and act in a certain way . A
disposition is a tendency, a characteristic that regularly brings one to reason and act in a certain
way. Aristotle describes a virtue as a “mean” or “intermediate” between two extremes: one of
excess and one of deficiency. Example: bravery (e.g. on a battlefield) Involves how much we let
fear restrict or modify our actions. Bravery is the mean or intermediate between cowardliness
and rashness. A coward is afraid too much, and lets it keep him/her from acting in the necessary
ways during a battle. A rash person is afraid too little: (s)he takes unnecessary risks, and
performs dangerous actions when there is little good to be got from them. A brave person is
someone in the middle of these extremes.

8|Page
Aristotle says the mean between pleasure and pain is “temperance”. (What he means by this is
the pleasures of the senses, like eating, drinking and having sex.) a) The excess would be
gluttony and nymphomania, leading to health or other problems. b) The deficiency would be
things like anorexia and/or painful asceticism. c) The mean involves wisely and deliberately
eating well, and restricting sexual activities to the appropriate times, places and relationships.

2.3 Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics

2.3.1 What is Meta-ethics?
Suppose I am debating with a friend the question whether or not we ought to give to famine
relief, whether or not we are morally obliged to give to famine relief. The sorts of questions
philosophers raise about this kind of debate fall roughly into two groups. First, there are first
order questions about which party in the debate, if any, is right, and why. Then, there are second
order questions about what the parties in the debate are doing when they engage in it. Roughly,
the first order questions are the province of normative ethics, and the second order questions are
the province of meta ethics. As one recent writer puts it:

In meta ethics, we are concerned not with questions which are the province of normative ethics
like 'Should I give to famine relief?' or ‘Should I return the wallet I found in the street?' but with
questions about questions like these.

Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as:

 What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean?
 What makes something good or right?
 Is moral realism true?
 Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding?
 Do intrinsic values exist?

Normative ethics thus seeks to discover the general principles underlying moral practice, and in
this way potentially impacts upon practical moral problems: different general principles may
yield different verdicts in particular cases. Meta-ethics, rather, concerned with questions about
the following:

9|Page
 (a) Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is the function of moral
discourse to state facts, or does it have some other non-fact-stating role?
(b) Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are they like? Are they
identical or reducible to some other type of fact (or property) or are they irreducible and
sui generis?
(c) Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral knowledge? How can we
know whether our moral judgments are true or false? How can we ever justify our claims
to moral knowledge?
(d) Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the experience of an agent
making a moral judgment? Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?

(e) Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational state of someone making a
moral judgment? What sort of connection is there between making a moral judgment and
being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes?
(f) Objectivity: can moral judgments really be correct or incorrect? Can we work towards
finding out the moral truth?

Generally, Meta-ethics:
• Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts and the relationships between these
concepts.
• Explores where moral values, such as ‘personhood’ and ‘autonomy’, come from.
• Considers the difference between moral values and other kinds of values.
• Examines the way in which moral claims are justified.

10 | P a g e