PHL204 Introduction to Ethics

Course Guide

Corse Code: PHL204

Course Title: Introduction to Ethics
Course Developer/Writer: Dr. A.Z. Ibrahim
Department of Philosophy
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
Course Editor:
Prof. Andrew Efemini
Department of Philosophy
University of Port Harcourt

1
Course Guide
Introduction
Welcome to PHL204: Introduction to Ethics. PHL204 is a three-credit unit course that has a
minimum duration of one semester. It is a compulsory course for all B.A. Philosophy students of
the University. The course is supposed to expatiate on ethics which the student was informed of
in Introduction to Philosophy during the first semester. It aims to enlighten the student about the
significance of ethics in philosophy.
Course Objectives
By the end of this course, the student should be able to:
 Explain the origin of ethics;
 Give a definition of ethics;
 Explain the division of ethics;
 Discuss the methodology of ethics;
 Explain the value of ethics;
 Explain human values;
 Explain the nature of human conduct;
 Explain human act;
 Explain the relationship between ethics and morality;
 Identify the disparity between ethics and law;
 Explain the concept of moral law;
 Discuss the principles of justice and conscience;
 Give a definition of the concept of good;
 Identify the good and doing the good;
 Explain the nature of right and wrong.
 Explain whether ethics is science or art;
 Explain the assumption of ethics;
 Identify some fundamental principles of ethics;
 Discuss the relationship between ethics and religion

Working Through this Course

To successfully complete this course, read the study units and do all the assignments. Open the
link and read, participate in the discussion forums, read the recommended books and other
materials provided, prepare your portfolios, and participate in the online facilitation.
Each study unit has introduction, intended learning outcomes, the main content, conclusion,
summary and references/further readings. The introduction will tell you the expectations in the
study unit. Read and note the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). The intended learning

2
outcomes tell you what you should be able to do at the completion of each study unit. So, you
can evaluate your learning at the end of each unit to ensure you have achieved the intended
learning outcomes. To meet the intended learning outcomes, knowledge is presented in texts and
links arranged into modules and units. Click on the links as may be directed but you are reading
the text offline, you will have to copy and paste the link address into a browser. You can print or
download the text to save it in your computer or external drive. The conclusion gives you the
theme of knowledge you are taking away from the unit. Unit summaries are also presented in
downloadable format.
There are two main forms of assessments – the formative and the summative. The formative
assessments will help you monitor your learning. This is presented as in-text questions,
discussion forums and Self-Assessment Exercises.
The summative assessments would be used by the University to evaluate your academic
performance. This will be given as Computer Based Test (CBT) which serves as continuous
assessment and final examination. A minimum of two or maximum of three computer-based tests
will be given with only one final examination at the end of the semester. You are required to take
all the Computer Based Tests and the final examination.
Study Units
There are 25 units in this course grouped into five modules. The modules and units are presented
as follows:
Module 1
Unit 1 Origin of Ethics
Unit 2 Definition of ethics
Unit 3 Divisions of ethics
Unit 4 Methodology of Ethics
Module 2
Unit 1 The values of ethics
Unit 2 Human Value
Unit 3 Nature of human conduct
Unit 4 Human act
Module 3
Unit 1 Relationship between ethics and morality
Unit 2 Ethics and law
Unit 3 The concept of moral law
Unit 4 Principles of justice and conscience

3
Module 4
Unit 1 Definition of ‗good‘
Unit 2 Knowing the good and doing the good
Unit 3 The nature of ‗right‘ and ‗wrong‘
Module 5
Unit 1 Is ethics a science or art?
Unit 2 Assumptions of ethics
Unit 3 Some fundamental principles of ethics
Unit 4 Ethics and religion

References and Further Readings

Bentham, Jeremy (1825). The Rationale of Reward, trans. R. Smith, J. and H.L. Hunt, London.

Bentham, Jeremy (1830). The Rationale of Punishment, trans. R. Smith, Robert Heward,
London.

Brentano, Franz (2009). The Origin of our Knowledge of Right and Wrong, Oxon:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Broad, C.D. (1930 and 1967). Five Types of Ethical Theories, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd.

Deigh, John (2010). An Introduction to Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ltd.

Foot, P. Ed. (2002). Theories of Ethics, Oxford: University Press.

Graham, G. (2004). Eight Theories of Ethics, London: Routledge.

Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral Thinking, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lillie, W. (1971). An Introduction to Ethics, London: Methuen & Co Ltd.

Morgan, P. and Lawton, C.A. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions. Edinburgh
University Press.

Popkin, R. H. (1993). Philosophy. Oxford, Made Simple Books.

Sagi and Statman (1995). Religion and Morality. Rodopi, Amsterdam-Atlanta.

Sidgwick, Henry (1962). The Methods of Ethics. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

Solomon, R.C and Greene, J.K (1999). Morality and the Good Life, New York, McGraw-Hill.

4
Tannsjo, Torbjorn (2002). Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Theory, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Presentation Schedule
The presentation schedule gives you the important dates for the completion of your computer-
based tests, participating in forum discussions and participating at facilitations. Remember you
are to submit all your assignments at the appropriate time. You should guide against delays and
plagiarism in your work. Plagiarism is a criminal offence in academics and it is highly penalized.
Assessment
There are two main forms of assignments that will be scored in this course: the continuous
assessment and the final examination. The continuous assessment shall be in three-fold. There
will be two computer-based assessments which will be given according to the University
calendar. The timing must be strictly adhered to. The computer-based assessments shall be
scored a maximum of 10% each, while participation in discussion forums and your portfolio
presentation shall be scored maximum of 10% if you meet 75% participation. Therefore, the
maximum score for continuous assessment shall be 30% which shall form part of the final grade.
The final examination for PHL204 will be a maximum of three hours and it takes 70% of the
total course grade. The examination will consist of five questions out of which you are expected
to answer four.
Note: You will earn 10% score if you meet a minimum of 75% participation in the course forum
discussions and in your portfolios, otherwise you will lose the 10% in your total score. You will
be required to upload your portfolio using google Doc. What you are expected to do in your
portfolio is to present your notes or the jottings you made on each study unit and activity. This
will include the time you spent on each unit and or activity.
How to get the Most from the Course
To get the most of this course you need to have a personal laptop and internet facility. This will
give you adequate opportunity to learn everywhere you are in the world. Use the Intended
Learning Outcomes (ILOs) to guide your self-study in the course. At the end of every unit,
examine yourself with the ILOs and see if you have achieved what you need to achieve.
Carefully work through each unit and make your notes. Join the online real time facilitation as
scheduled. Where you missed the scheduled online real time facilitation, go through the recorded
facilitation session at your own free time. Each real time facilitation session will be video
recorded and posted on the platform.
In addition to the real time facilitation, watch the video recorded summary in each unit. The
video/audio summaries are directed to salient part in each unit. You can assess the audio and
video by clicking on the links in the text or through the course page
Work through all self-assessment exercises. Finally, obey the rules in the class.
Facilitation

5
You will receive online facilitation. The facilitation is learner-centred. The mode of facilitation
shall be asynchronous and synchronous. For the asynchronous facilitation, your facilitator will:
 Present the theme for the week;
 Direct and summarise forum discussions;
 Coordinate activities in the platform;
 Score and grade activities when need be;
 Upload scores into the university recommended platform;
 Support you to learn. In this regard personal mails may be sent;
 Send you video and audio lecture and postcards
For the synchronous:
There will be a minimum of eight hours and a maximum of twelve online real time contacts in
the course. This will be video conferencing in the Learning Management System. The sessions
are going to be run at an hour per session. At the end of each one-hour video conferencing, the
video will be uploaded for view at your own pace.
The facilitator will concentrate on main themes that are must know in the course. The facilitator
is to present the online real time video facilitation time table at the beginning of the course.
The facilitator will take you through the course guide in the first lecture at the start of the
facilitation.
Do not hesitate to contact your facilitator. Contact your facilitator if you:
 do not understand any of the study units or the assignments;
 have difficulty with the self-assessment exercises;
 have a question or problem with an assignment or with your tutor‘s comments on an
assignment.
Also, use the contact provided for technical support.
Read assignments, participate in the forums and discussions. This gives you opportunity to
socialise with others in the programme. You can raise any problem encountered during the study.
To gain the maximum benefit from the course facilitation, prepare a list of questions before the
discussion session. You will learn a lot from participating actively in the discussion.
Finally, respond to the questionnaire. You will help the university to know your areas of
challenges and how to improve on them for the review of the course materials and lectures.

6
 PHL204 Introduction to Ethics
Study Units

Corse Code: PHL204

Course Title: Introduction to Ethics
Course Developer/Writer: Dr. A.Z. Ibrahim
Department of Philosophy
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
Course Editor:
Prof. Andrew Efemini
Department of Philosophy
University of Port Harcourt

7
 PHL204 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
MODULE 1

UNIT 1: Origin of Ethics

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Origin of Ethics
3.2 Stages of the development of ethics
3.2.1 Plato‘s Ethics
3.2.2 Aristotle‘s Ethics
3.2.3 Epicurus‘ ethics
3.2.4 Diogenes‘ ethics
3.2.5 Zeno‘s ethics
3.2.6 Religious ethics
3.2.7 Spinoza‘s ethics
3.2.8 Utilitarian‘s ethics
3.2.9 Kant‘s Ethics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
Welcome to the course which introduces you to ethics. Ethics is an important
branch of philosophy and this is shown in your course Introduction to Philosophy.
Ethics is a reflective philosophical venture which examines human actions. It
attempts to make sense out of our actions in terms of good and bad actions. These
actions are in the basic categories of the morally permissible, morally
impermissible, and the morally obligatory. Hence, ethics is all about human
morality, values and norms. Values or normative principles belong to the society,
being universal and invariable. Both people and associations are subject to values,
which they can obey or disobey. Values characterize the relation frames (modal
aspects) following the natural ones. Norms are man-made realizations of values,

8
 and they are historically and culturally different. Persistently, humans do evaluate
their own actions and the actions of other people from a moral point of view.
Philosophical ethics, therefore, investigates the normativity of human act.
However, this unit will concentrate on the origin of ethics, its development
through the periods of Plato, Aristotle and Kant.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you would be able to explain:
 the origin of ethics;
 the stages of the development of ethics;
 Plato‘s ethics;
 Aristotle‘s ethics;
 Epicurus‘ ethics;
 Diogenes‘ ethics;
 Zeno‘s ethics;
 Religious ethics;
 Spinoza‘s ethics;
 Utilitarian‘s ethics; and
 Kant‘s ethics

3.0 Main Content

3.1 The Origin of Ethics
Ethics originated from the various cultures and civilisations. That is why it
is not a common code of law for all nations. Some civilisations had times
when there was no knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. They
therefore had no ethical feelings and no general standards of ethics which
were accepted (Brentano, 2009:3). These situations or conditions continued
even after the bigger societies formed themselves into states. As such, the
earliest systems of law and of punishment were set up without the influence
of anything like moral feelings or a sense of justice.
However, is there such a thing as a moral truth taught by nature itself and
independent of ecclesiastical, political, and every other kind of social
authority? Is there a moral law that is natural in the sense of being
universally and incontestably valid—valid for men at all places and all
times, indeed valid for any being that thinks and feels—and are we capable
of knowing that there is such a law?
At a later stage of development, people discovered that some actions are
good and some are bad or wrong. As such, some people always try to do
what is good and avoid what is bad or wrong. They also try to advise others
to do the good and warn them against doing what is bad or wrong. Some

9
suppose that we have discovered a natural sanction for a given type of
conduct if we can show how it happens that the individual feels compelled
to act that way. It may be, for example, that when we first render services to
others, we do so in the hope that we will receive similar services in return.
We thus form the habit of performing such services and then we find that
we are motivated to do so even when we have no thought of recompense.
Some would say that we have here the natural sanction for the duty to love
one‘s neighbours. But any such view is entirely wrong. A feeling of
compulsion may well be a force that drives us to action, but it is not a
sanction that confers validity.
There are those who think that motives stemming from hope and fear
constitute a natural sanction for certain types of conduct. Thus, we may
take an interest in the general good merely because we know that people in
more powerful positions will look with favour upon certain types of action
and with disfavour upon others. If this sort of thing is a natural sanction,
then so, too, are the lowest forms of flattery and cowardice. But virtue
proves itself most truly when neither threats nor promises can divert her
from the path that she has set upon. As such, we cannot regard ethics as
purely academic study. The fact is that it has innate connections with the
daily lives of people. To an extent, every person who is troubled by certain
situations in his or her life, and who is also reflective, is a philosopher of
ethics. Ethics, therefore, originated from people asking questions and
wondering about the activities around them (Popkin, 1993:2). At a certain
time, people believe that no one should take a human life. They also believe
that they have to defend their communities, nations and countries against its
enemies. Now, what should a person do when his or her nation is at war? It
is a default on the belief that one has an obligation to fight for his or her
country if one refuses to do so. But on the other hand, if one does fight, he
or she may take human life. So, what should one do in such circumstances?
How can a person decide? The raw materials on which ethical theories are
made are found in reflections of this kind. That is to say that ethics
originates from everyday life.
The difference between the reflections of the ordinary person and those of
the philosopher is that those of the philosopher are often more organized
and usually more general. While ordinary person may only be trying to
solve a particular problem by deciding on a particular form of action, the
philosopher tries to generalize.
So, the philosopher‘s question is not ―What is the right course of action for
an individual in a circumstance?‖ but rather, ―What is it that will be good
for everybody at all circumstances?‖ ―What goal should we strive for to

10
 live better?‖ ―Is it accumulation of wealth?‖ ―Is it having fun and
pleasure?‖ ―Is it happiness that we should strive for?‖ ―Is it our duty that
we should do well?‖
The philosopher, like the ordinary person, starts a contemplation of ethics
by reflecting about common issues. But then goes further to discuss more
general issues. This kind of contemplation, when developed, usually forms
‗ethical theories.‘ To this extent, we can say that ethical theories are
products of their own time. They arise because people are not satisfied
either with their personal lives or with the world in which they live. The
origin of these ideas is what we shall later discuss.

3.2 Stages of the development of ethics

3.2.1 Plato’s Ethics
Plato (c.429-347 BC) has his ideas disseminated mainly from the
conversations called ‗Dialogues‘. These are exchange of ideas between
Socrates (470/69-399 BC) and other Greek philosophers. They lived during
the fifth century BC. Plato‘s position about ethics since 300BC is that ‗evil
is due to lack of knowledge.‘ That suffice to say that if a person knows
what the good life is, he or she will not act immorally. Plato is of the belief
that if people can discover what is right, they will never act wickedly. But
the philosophical question Plato asked and addressed since that time was
―How do one discover what is right, or the good?‖ This seems to be
something difficult when people differ so greatly in their opinions about the
good life.
Plato‘s answer to these questions is that ―finding the nature of the good life
is an intellectual task very similar to the discovery of mathematical truth.‖
It has to be done by trained people who must acquire certain kinds of
knowledge, especially philosophy. His ethical philosophy is referred to as
Platonism.

3.2.2 Aristotle’s Ethics

Aristotle (c.384-322 BC) adopts a scientific or an empirical approach to
ethics. Instead of using reflection alone to discover the nature of the good
life for all, he examined the talk and behaviour of different people in
everyday life. He observed that ordinary men consider some people within
the society as leading what can be called ‗good life‘ and others leading
what can be called ‗bad life‘.
He further observed that the various lives which ordinary men consider to
be ‗good‘ all have one common feature, which is happiness. In a like
manner, the lives which ordinary people consider to be ‗bad‘ all have

11
common feature, which is sadness. While answering the question ‗What is
the good life for a man? therefore, Aristotle‘s answer, in a short sentence,
is: It is a life of happiness. His ethical philosophy is referred to as virtue
ethics.

3.2.3 Epicurus’ Ethics

Epicurus (c.341-271 BC) was the advocate of a type of ethics which has
continued for a very long time. He is of the view that pleasure is the only
source of attaining good life. The influence of this ethics can be judged
from the fact that the English language still contains the word ‗epicure‘,
which is based upon the view of Epicurus (Popkin and Stroll, 1983:13). His
ethics is said to be inconsistent; it consists mainly of the advice for living
moderately but pleasurably (Johansen, 1998:435). It is wholly sufficient to
create a life for oneself in inner freedom, independent of the external world,
which in itself is neither good nor evil and which is not determined by a
higher purpose or a providence. But man‘s forging of his own happiness
presupposes that he has what we call free will, and that again presupposes
that natural events do not adhere to a strictly predetermined course.
Apparently, the Epicureans were never really accepted (Johansen,
1998:436). They considered ‗pleasure‘ as the goal in life and virtue as a
means not as a goal, and therefore they were not socially acceptable.
Internally the school was dominated by its founder even as late as the
second century AD, when it faded. His ethical philosophy is referred to as
hedonism.

3.2.4 Diogenes’ Ethics

Diogenes (c.400–325) He practised extreme asceticism, rid himself of all
conventions. He moved to Athens and criticized many cultural conventions
of the city. He modelled himself on the example of Heracles, and believed
that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory. He used his simple
life-style and behaviour to criticize the social values and institutions of
what he saw as a corrupt, confused society. His ethics is that the world is
fundamentally evil, so in order to live a good life one must withdraw from
participation in it. This ethical theory argues that if we trust our happiness
to the possession of worldly things, we may find ourselves betrayed.
Diogenes, therefore, shocked the establishment by breaking with
conventions, quitting society, and living according to an ascetic ideal. His
ethical philosophy is referred to as cynicism.

12
3.2.5 Zeno’s Ethics
Zeno of Citium (335–265), is said to have lectured in the third century BC.
He and his followers were very unhappy about the collapse of the Greek
city state and the Alexandrian empire. They felt that social reconstruction
was not possible. As a result, they devised an ethics of advising people to
attain personal salvation. The emphasis of this ethics is for one to learn to
be indifferent to external influences. Zeno‘s followers were initially called
Zenonians, but they later came to be known with the name ‗Stoics‘ because
it was Zeno‘s practice to lecture in the Stoa or ‗painted colonnade,‘ a
prominent public building in the city centre. As a teacher and Athenian
resident, Zeno was held in very high esteem, especially for his strength of
mind and indifference to ordinary valuables and comforts. His ethical
philosophy is referred to as Stoicism.

3.2.6 Religious Ethics

Some conceptions of religion assert that a feature, such as a focus on a
transcendent reality or a nonconceptualizable type of being, is at least a
necessary condition of any ―cultural system‖ that could be considered
religious. Religions search for the good in light of limits and possibilities of
the real, what is supremely good or most important. William Christian Sr.
says that religions are concerned with what is ―more important than
anything else in the universe‖ (1964:60). One is not religious if one merely
believes that ―some things are more important than other things. To be
religious, one must hold that something is ―more important than everything
else and must relate that something (for example, God) to everything else in
some sort of ―pattern of subordination‖ (Christian, 1964, 67-70). A
religious world-view, therefore, is a vision of the sacred: ―By sacred is
meant here a quality of mysterious and awesome power other than man and
yet related to him, which is believed to reside in certain objects of
experience‖ (Peter, 1969:25).
Religions have an ethical component. It frequently emanates from
supernatural revelations or guidance. Some assert that religion is necessary
to live ethically. Simon Blackburn (2001:90) states that there are those who
―would say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social
order, cemented by common adherence to a particular religious tradition‖.
On this note, religious ethics stem from the divine beliefs of the society on
the power of God. The belief in God had led people to accept the prophets

13
who were found in different societies at different times. Those prophets
came with revelation from God. In those revelations were commands,
instructions, warnings and so on. It is through those commands that the
good life is pursued. The commands are regarded as objective and infallible
guide to correct behaviour.

3.2.7 Spinoza’s Ethics

Spinoza (1632-1677) is regarded as one of the greatest writers on morals in
the European tradition since the Greeks. He has a flexible but honest
attempt to discover the ‗good life‘. However, Spinoza is a rigid determinist.
He says that ‗all things which come to pass do so according to the eternal
order and fixed laws of nature‘. In holding to this view, he was in the
metaphysical tradition of the stoics. It means that no one is free to act
capriciously or by chance; all actions are determined by past experience, by
physical and mental constitution, and by state of the laws on nature at the
moment.
Spinoza is also a relativist. He holds that noting is good or bad in itself, but
it is only so in relation to someone. His unfinished treatise, On the
Improvement of the Understanding, shows the undogmatic and honest
attempt to discover the good life. His ethics is interpreted as offering
guidance which, if followed will enable people to avoid fear, anxiety and
unhappiness.

3.2.8 Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics is said to have been advocated by Francis Hudson in 1775.
But the most popular exponents of this ethics are Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-1873). Bentham was extremely shy and
sensitive. He always felt insecure in the company of strangers. However, he
became the head of a group of reformers in England called the
‗Philosophical Radicals‘. This group was to a great extent responsible for
social and political changes in the country. The British criminal code was
said to be significantly improved by them. Mill‘s father was a student of
Bentham, and was influenced by the Benthamite doctrine that a man‘s
character and intellect can be completely determined by his education. The
utilitarians conceived their ethics as an attempt to lay down an objective
principle for determining when a given action was right or wrong. This is a
maxim which they call the principle of utility. According to this principle,
―an action is right in so far as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for
the greatest number.‖ Bentham and Mills have all interpreted this principle
as a form of hedonism because it identifies pleasure with happiness. But

14
 many modern utilitarians have are not hedonists. They hold the view that
the force of utilitarianism is to the fact that it lays stress upon the effects of
an action. If it produces surplus beneficial effects over harmful ones, then it
is right, if not, then it is wrong.

3.2.9 Kant’s Ethics

Kant (1724- 1804) believed that ethics was the most important subject in
philosophy. It was Kant that used ethical arguments to establish the
existence of God. His argument is that the moral law requires that people be
rewarded proportionately to their virtue. Kant‘s ethical theory was designed
to answer one main question asked in various ways: What is morality? To
put this question in another way, one can say: What is a moral action as
against a non-moral action? Or to ask: What is the difference between the
person who acts morally and one who does not? Kant believed that these
set of questions could be answered and that the key to it lay in
distinguishing between acts from inclination and acts done from a sense of
duty. Inclination is to be distinguished from obligation. An obligation is
that which one ought to do despite one‘s inclination to do otherwise. Kant
feels that a person is acting morally only when he supresses his feelings and
inclination and does that which he is obliged to do.

4.0 Conclusion
This unit has introduced us to the origin of ethics and ethical theories. We
discussed that the early theories are characterised by their efforts to answer two
questions: ‗What is the good life for people?‘ and, ‗How ought people have to
behave?‘ By examining these questions, we interpreted them as request for advice
by people of different cultures and periods who were baffled by certain
characteristics of daily living. The various answers which the early and later
philosophers provided can be regarded as statements of advice to the individuals
for a good and praiseworthy life.

5.0 Summary
This unit has discussed the following ideas about the origin of ethics:
i. The stage of development when people discovered that some actions are
good and some are bad or wrong;
ii. Ethics, therefore, originated from people asking questions and wondering
about the activities around them;
iii. The raw materials on which ethical theories are made are found in
reflections which originate from everyday life;

15
iv. The difference between the reflections of the ordinary person and those of
the philosopher is that those of the philosopher are often more organized;
v. Philosophers‘ contemplation, when developed, usually forms ethical
theories;
vi. Ethical theories are products of their own time. They arise because people
are not satisfied either with their personal lives or with the world in which
they live;
vii. Philosophical ethics began to develop with Plato (c.429-347 BC), who held
the view that if a person knows what the good life is, he or she will not act
immorally;
viii. Aristotle (c.384-322 BC) adopts a scientific or an empirical approach to
ethics. His answer to what is the good life for a man is ―It is a life of
happiness. His ethical philosophy is referred to as virtue ethics;
ix. Epicurus (c.341-271 BC) was the advocate of a type of ethics which is said
to be inconsistent; it consists mainly of the advice for living moderately but
pleasurably. He considered ‗pleasure‘ as the goal in life and virtue as a
means not as a goal. His ethical philosophy is referred to as hedonism;
x. Diogenes (c.400–325) practised extreme asceticism. His philosophy is that
the world is fundamentally evil, so in order to live a good life one must
withdraw from participation in it. His ethical philosophy is referred to as
cynicism;
xi. Zeno (335–265) and his followers felt that social reconstruction was not
possible. As a result, they devised an ethics of advising people to attain
personal salvation. His ethical philosophy is referred to as Stoicism;
xii. Religions have an ethical component that some assert that religion is
necessary to live ethically. religious ethics stem from the divine beliefs of
the society on the power of God who commands how the good life is
pursued;
xiii. Spinoza (1632-1677) holds that noting is good or bad in itself, but it is only
so in relations to someone. His ethics is interpreted as offering guidance
which, if followed will enable people to avoid fear, anxiety and
unhappiness;
xiv. Utilitarian Ethics is said to have been advocated by Francis Hudson in 1775
and promoted by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-
1873). According to this principle, an action is right in so far as it tends to
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number; and
xv. Kant (1724- 1804) believed that the moral law requires that people be
rewarded proportionately to their virtue. His ethical philosophy is that a
person is acting morally only when he supresses his feelings and inclination
and does that which he is obliged to do.

16
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Briefly explain the origin of ethics.
2. What is Plato‘s idea of a good society?

7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

1. Why do societies need an ethical guidance?
2. Explain Plato‘s idea of good life.
3. How did Aristotle‘s observation of ordinary men influence his ethics?
4. ―A society can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social order,
cemented by common adherence to a particular religious tradition‖. Discuss.
5. How would you explain Benthamite doctrine that ―a man‘s character and
intellect can be completely determined by his education‖?

8.0 References/Further Reading

Brentano, Franz (2009). The Origin of our Knowledge of Right and Wrong, Oxon:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Christian, William A. Sr. (1964). Meaning and Truth in Religion., New Jersey,
Princeton University Press.

Christian, William A. Sr. (1972). Oppositions of Religious Doctrines: A Study in

the Logic of Dialogue among Religions. New York: Herder and Herder.

Dimensions of ethics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuESiZAalgo

Ethics in Religion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion

Introduction to Ethics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_t4obUc51A

Introduction to Ethics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_t4obUc51A&t=265s

Johansen, K. F. (1998). A History of Ancient Philosophy from the Beginnings to

Augustine, London, Routledge.

Origins of ethics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSfpL3TVY8k

Popkin, R. H. and Stroll, A. (1993). Philosophy. Oxford, Made Simple Books.

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

17
UNIT 2: Definition of Ethics

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Definition of Ethics
3.1.1 Etymology
3.1.2 Definition of Ethics
3.1.3 Philosophers‘ Role in Defining Ethics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction

The previous unit discussed the origin of ethics. In this one, the attention is on the
definition of ethics. This could be easily captured by first looking at the etymology of
the word. For its definition, ethics is nothing if not a judgment about motives and their
consequences. Furthermore, because these motives development and occur in given
contexts, that is, within and through actions and language-in-use, there is the
possibility that rhetorical action produces (or causes to be produced) the linking of
and negotiation between one order of motives and another. It is the identification of
certain definitions with the needs of other definitions that makes possible an
assessment of ethical actions and languages. As such, ethics deals with distinction
between right and wrong and the moral consequences of human action. In this light,
every human action has its defined ethics. As a result, there is character ethics, which
is person centred; there is research ethics, which is subject centred; professional ethics
which is job centred, etc.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you would be able to:

18
  explain the root of the word ‗ethics‘;
 define the word ‗ethics‘; and
 explain philosophers‘ role in defining ethics
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Definition of Ethics
3.1.1 Etymology
Ethics in Greek is êthikos, literally meaning something concerned with
êthos (Greek, character), which in turn is connected with ethos (social
custom, habit).

3.1.2 Definition of Ethics

Thomas Nagel (2005:379) defines ethics as the philosophy that tries to
understand a familiar type of evaluation: the moral evaluation of people‘s
character traits, their conduct, and their institutions. It is concerned with
what bothers us about good and bad, the morally right and the morally
wrong thing to do, just or unjust regimes or law, how things ought and
ought not to be, and how people should live.

Simon Blackburn (2008:121) defines ethics as the study of the concept

involved in practical reasoning: good, right, duty, obligation, virtue,
freedom, rationality, choice. It is also the second order study of the
objectivity, subjectivity, relativism, or scepticism that may attend claims
made in these terms.

Ethics has two parts: metaethics and normative ethics. The first part,
metaethics, is concerned with what ethical judgement means, what, if
anything, are they about, whether they can be true or false, and if so, what
makes them true or false. The second part, normative ethics, is concerned
with the content of those judgements. For instance, what features make an
action right or wrong; what is good life; what are the characteristics of a
good society?

A central aspect of ethics is ―the good life‖, the life worth living or life that
is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more
important than traditional moral conduct. But there is a variety of
terminologies: plain ‗ethics‘ is used for what we can call ‗morals‘
(‗normative ethics‘ is another term used for this); and there are the more
guarded terms ‗the logic of ethics‘, ‗metaethics‘, ‗theoretical ethics‘,
‗philosophical ethics‘, and so on.

In defining ethics, it will be significant to define other ideas closely

attached to it. These include ethical constructivism, ethical formalism,
ethical naturalism, ethical objectivism and ethical relativism.
19
Ethical constructivism is the anti-realists view of ethics that supposes the
existence of ethical truth. It argues that these ethical truths are somehow
constituted by human practices. Examples of the practices are human
emotions and reactions, human policies and cultural habits.

Ethical formalism is the view that the form of maxim or value of an action
can be inhibited sufficiently by public conditions to yield substantial ethical
orders. It is a view largely associated with Immanuel Kant, whose ethics we
explained in unit 1 of this module.

Ethical naturalism is the idea of placing ethical properties and ethical

thoughts in the natural world. It includes any belief that the nature of ethical
thinking is exhaustibly understood in terms of natural propensities of
human beings, without mysterious institutions, or operations of conscience,
or divine help.

Ethical objectivism is the view that the claims of ethics are objectively true.
They are not relative to a subject or a culture, nor are they purely objective
in their nature. This opposes the error theories, scepticism, and relativism.
The central problem, however, is finding the source of the required
objectivism.

Ethical relativism is the view that the truth of ethical claims is relative to
the claim to the culture or way of life of those who hold them. It therefore
generalizes to all of ethics what may reasonably be supposed true of all
matters of etiquette. This is summed up in the proverb ―when in Rome, do
as the Romans do‖. The doctrine is not easy to formulate although its spirit
appeals especially to people afraid of the imperial ambitions which they
detect in Western liberalism.

3.1.3 Philosophers’ Role in Defining Ethics

Ethics, is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with studying and/or
building up a coherent set of ‗rules‘ or principles by which people should
strive to live. It is a systematic approach to analysing, understanding and
distinguishing matters of right and wrong, good and bad, and admirable and
deplorable as they relate to the relationships and the well-being of societies.
Many people do not consider it necessary to have a theoretical study of
ethics in order for them to conduct their everyday activities. Instead, most
people carry around a useful set of day-to-day ‗rules of thumb‘ that
influence and govern their behaviour in place of systematically examined
ethical frameworks. Common among the rules include; ‗it is wrong to
steal‘, ‗it is right to help people in need‘, and so on.

20
 But due the changes and difficulties of life, these simple rules are
sometimes put to the test. Consider the thumb rule that it is wrong to kill.
Our definition of ethics in philosophy raises a series of questions on this
rule. These include; is it wrong to have capital punishment? Is it wrong to
kill animals? Is it wrong to kill in self-defence? Is the termination of
pregnancy wrong? Is euthanasia wrong? Straightforward answers may not
always be forthcoming if we try to apply our everyday notions of right and
wrong to these questions. We need to examine these questions in more
detail; and we need theoretical frameworks that can help us to analyse
complex problems and to find rational, coherent solutions to those
problems. Whilst some people attempt to do this work individually, for
themselves, philosophers attempt to find general answers that can be used
by everyone in society.

That attempt by the philosophers is ethics in theory. They do this because

when ethics is involved ethical determinations are applied through the use
of formal theories, approaches, and codes of conduct. Ethics is an active
process rather than static condition; as such some philosophers use the
words ‗doing ethics.‘ When people are doing ethics, therefore, they need to
support their assertions and belief with sound reasoning. Definition of
ethics then entails that even if people believe that ethics is subjective, they
must be able to justify their position through theoretical and logically based
arguments.

4.0 Conclusion
After explaining the derivation of the word ‗ethics‘, this unit looked at various
definitions of ethics. The concept involved in practical reasoning: good, right, duty,
obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, choice. Two parts of the concept, metaethics
and normative ethics, were discussed. We also have shown what ethics is in its
theoretical sense, and the philosophers attempt to provide formal theories and
approaches where straightforward answers are not imminent.

5.0 Summary
This unit has discussed the following ideas about the origin of ethics:
i. Ethics is derived from the Greek word êthikos, meaning something concerned
with character, social custom, or habit;
ii. Ethics is the philosophy that tries to understand a familiar type of evaluation of
people‘s character;
iii. Ethics has two parts: metaethics and normative ethics. While metaethics, is
concerned with what ethical judgement means, normative ethics, is concerned
with the content of those judgements;

21
 iv. In defining ethics, it will be significant to define other ideas closely attached to
it. These include ethical constructivism, ethical formalism, ethical naturalism,
ethical objectivism and ethical relativism;
v. Many people do not consider it necessary to have a theoretical study of ethics
in order for them to conduct their everyday activities; and
vi. Philosophers attempt to find general answers that can be used by everyone in
society by using theoretical and logically based arguments to justify their
position through.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Explain the etymology of the word ‗ethics.
2. Define metaethics and normative ethics.

7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

1. Define ethics from your own understanding.
2. What kinds of questions are raised by normative ethics?
3. Define any two ideologies closely attached to ethics.
4. Why do you think ‗rules of thumb‘ are not sufficient in defining ethics?
5. Discuss why ethical questions are critically examined.

8.0 References/Further Reading

Blackburn, S. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Nagel, Thomas, (2005). ‗Ethics‘, in Donald M. Borchert, ed. Encyclopaedia of

Philosophy, Vol. 3, 2nd Edition, New York: Thomson Gale Corporation.

The nature of ethics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXRd6MuveI

What is ethics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_t4obUc51A

Zeuscner, RB. (2001). Classical Ethics East and West: in Ethics from comparative
perspective. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

22
 UNIT: 3 Divisions of Ethics

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main content
3.1 Meta-Ethics
3.1.1 Realism
3.1.2 Intuitionism
3.1.3 Naturalism
3.1.4 Subjectivism
3.1.5 Relativism
3.1.6 Cognitivism
3.1.7 Non-Cognitivism
3.1.8 Universal prescriptivism
3.2 Normative Ethics
3.2.1 Consequentialism
3.2.2 Deontology
3.2.3 Virtue Theories
3.3 Applied Ethics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
Ethics have been divided using different criteria. Such could be historical,
geographical, by approach, etc. This unit shall adopt the more favoured method of

23
 current division. It is in three general subject areas, namely metaethics, normative
ethics and applied ethics. This is how philosophers today usually divide ethical
theories. The target of this unit is to unveil the essential attributes of each of the
aforementioned division of ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical
principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do
they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Met ethical
answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God,
the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms
themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at
moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve
articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should
follow, or the consequences of our behaviour on others. Finally, applied
ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion,
infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, capital punishment, nuclear
war, etc.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcome

By the end of this unit, you would be able to state and explain the following:
 division of ethics;
 metaethics;
 realism;
 intuitionism;
 naturalism;
 subjectivism;
 relativism;
 cognitivism;
 non cognitivism;
 universal prescriptivism;
 normative ethics;
 consequentialism;
 deontology;
 virtue theory; and
 applied ethics;

3.0 Main content

3.1 Meta-Ethics
The term meta means beyond or after. So, metaethics means beyond ethics.
Singer (1993:xiv) says that, the term metaethics suggests that we are not
engaged in ethics, but are looking at it and considering what exactly ethics
is, what rules of arguments can apply to it, in what way it is possible for
ethical judgement to be true or false, and what (if anything) can provide a
grounding for them. It is also an attempt to understand the metaphysical,

24
epistemological, semantic and psychological presuppositions and
commitments of moral thought, talk and practice (Sayre-McCord, 2014).
Accordingly, meta-ethical theories are united in the contention that the
substantive issue of morality is not their concern rather they merely stand
back and analyse the activities as those engaged in the substantive
enterprise. The implication of this, therefore, is that metaethics does not
prescribe moral precepts and has no practical effects. Some key aspects of
metaethics are realism, intuitionism, naturalism, subjectivism, relativism,
universal prescriptivism, cognitivism and non-cognitivism.

3.1.1 Realism
Realism is objectivistic because it supposes something independent of the
perceivers. To claim that something is objective means that it exists
whether its existence is held to be true or not (Audi, 1999:244). Realism in
the context of ethics is thus the view that morality is objective. The
essential attributes of realism have been outlined as follows: realism
connotes that moral questions are correct by objective moral facts, that
moral facts are determined by circumstances and that, by moralizing we can
discover what these objective moral facts are (Smith, 1993:401).
Furthermore, realism has both metaphysical and psychological implication.
Metaphysically, there are distinctive moral facts and, psychologically,
moral judgements are expressions of our beliefs about the way these moral
facts are (Smith 1993:401). Some notable proponents of ethical realism are
David Brink, John Finns, Geoffrey Sayre-McCardle, Nicholas sturgeon,
G.E Moore, Thomas Nagel, John M. Dowell, Derek Perfot and Peter
Railton. Intuitionism and naturalism are closely related to realism.

3.1.2 Intuitionism
Simply put, intuitionism is the view that moral claims can be true or false
independent of the person making the claim and intuition is what leads to
the knowledge of such truth or falsity. Intuition basically is a direct and
immediate knowledge of values without the need to define the notion, to
justify a conclusion or to build up inferences (Strumpet and Fieser, 2003,
4). Intuitive knowledge is self-evident (Dancy, 1993, 411). Accordingly,
intuitionism in ethics maintains that basic moral propositions are self-
evident, that is evident in and of themselves and so can be known without
the need of any argument (Stratton-lake, 2016, para 3). Sidgwick argues
that self-evident proposition is different from obvious truth. For a
proposition to be self-evident he sustained that (1) it must be clear and
distinct (2) be ascertained by careful reflection (3) be consistent with other
self-evident truths (4) attract general consensus (Sidgwick, 1967 338).
Another feature of intuitionism is that moral properties are indefinable and
non-natural because they are simply put differently; they deny that moral

25
properties can be defined wholly in terms of psychological, sociological or
biological properties. Even though some intuitionists like Sidgwick and
Ewing hold that goodness can be defined in terms of rightness while others
like early Moore agree that rightness can be defined in terms of goodness,
but they are all of the view that at least one of these moral properties is
simple or indefinable (Stratton, 2016, para 57). Some of the proponents of
intuitionism are G.E Moore, A.C Ewin, Henry Sidgwick, Robert Audi,
Jonathan Dancy, David Enoch, Michael Huemer, David McNaughton and
Russ Shutter Landau.

3.1.3 Naturalism
Naturalism agrees with intuitionism that moral judgements are propositions
which can be true or false. However, it dismisses the view that moral fact or
properties are not simple but can always be reduced to, or identified with
other properties such as needs, wants or pleasure for instance. Naturalists
maintain that goodness can be further analysed or explained, reduced to
something else or identified with some other properties. It is against this
background that naturalists believe that goodness is a unique property
which does not exist. Same view holds for badness, rightness, and
wrongness (Pidgem, 1993:422). Moore considers this naturalist disposition
a logical error which he called ‗naturalistic fallacy‘ since for him the moral
property good, cannot be reduced to non-ethical natural quality such as
pleasure or desirability but can only be known through an intellectual
intuition. Proponents of ethical naturalism are Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill.

3.1.4 Subjectivism
Ethical subjectivism denies that moral properties are objective in nature.
Rather, what gives grounds to moral truth is the individual in question. Put
differently, morality is subjective. This implies that no moral opinion is
superior to the other. Subjectivism is usually applied by philosophers to a
range of ethical theories which hold that moral inquiry cannot yield
objective truths rather such depends on the approval or disapproval of the
person making the inquiry (Rachels, 1993:435). This view which ties
ethical statement to the expression of one‘s approval or disapproval is also
described as emotivism. Some proponents are A.J Ayer, C.L Stevenson.

3.1.5 Relativism
This is subjectivism at the social or cultural level. It claims that the society
shoulders the duty to determine what counts as morally right or morally
wrong. This logically leads to the conclusion that different things are right
for people in different societies and in different periods in history (Rachels,
2015:1). A branch of metaethics also called descriptive ethics; relativism

26
 studies the actual moral beliefs or rules that guide conduct in different
society (Airoboman 2016, 33). Relativism, thereby denies universal truths
(Wong, 1993:442).

3.1.6 Cognitivism
This is a concept which holds that ethical propositions are meaningful and
they can be true or false. Both naturalism and intuitionism are forms of
cognitivism.

3.1.7 Non-cognitivism
Non-cognitivism claims that ethical statement does not express proposition,
they are meaningless and can neither be true nor false. Subjectivism is a
form of non-cognitive theory.

3.1.8 Universal Prescriptivism

This is an ethical theory championed by Richard M. Hare who argues that if
one judges a particular action to be wrong, one must also judge any
relevantly similar action to be wrong in any situation where such obtains.
He submits that universality here is not to be confused for generality. Since
his moral principles do not have to be as general as ‗never tell lies‘ of Kant.
They can be more specific like ‗never tell lies except when it is necessary in
order to save an innocent life …‘ (Hare, 1981:457).

3.2 Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is a branch of ethics that prescribes moral principles
which should regulate people‘s conducts. It is unlike metaethics, which is
concerned with the analysis and systematization of ethical theories.
Normative ethics is substantive because it tells what counts as morally right
or morally wrong. It is against this backdrop that it is defined as ―that part
of moral philosophy or ethics, concerned with the criteria of what is
morally right or wrong.‖ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016). It includes the
formulation of moral rules that have direct implication for both human
actions, institutions and how ways of life should look like. The Golden
Rule which is to the effect that neighbours should be loved as oneself is a
good example of normative ethics. For Kagan (1992:223), normative ethics
involves the attempt to state and defend the basic principles of morality.
Theories under normative ethics can be broadly categorized as
consequentialist theories, deontology theories and virtue theories (Fieser,
Nd: parag13).

3.2.1 Consequentialism

27
 This is also known as telegony, it is the view that the result produced by an
action is what determines whether or not such action is moral or not. Thus,
the end justifies the means. Fieser submits that consequentialism requires
that the consequence of an action, both the good and the bad, be checked.
Second, it should be determined whether the total good consequences
outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good is greater, then the action
is morally right if otherwise, the action is morally improper (Petit,
2000:230-241). Some consequentialist theories are utilitarianism, egoism
and altruism. Utilitarianism is the view that action is right if it produces
good or happiness to the greatest number. Philosophers advocating this
aspect are Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick. Egoism
claims that a morally right action is one which is favourable only to the
agent performing the action. In other words, rational behaviour requires
attempting to maximise self-interest. Altruism holds that an action is
morally right if the consequences are favourable to others even if they are
not favourable to the agent. The term is said to have been coined by
Auguste Comte (Blackburn, 2008:12).

3.2.2 Deontology
Deontology is otherwise referred to as non-consequentialism. They are
ethical theories which state that the rightness or wrongness of an action is
inherent in the action, which is independent of the result it produces. Such
theories identify duty or obligation as the foundation of our moral conduct.
Deontology is from the Greek word ‗deon’ which means duty. Kant‘s duty
ethics places emphasis on categorical imperative and leaves no room for
personal desires in ethical matters. Another good example of a non-
consequentialist theory is W.D Ross ‗prima facie duties.‘ These duties are:
fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self- improvement and
so on (Davis, 2000:213).

3.2.3 Virtue Theories

These are theories that place emphasis on the learning of well-defined
ethical norms and following them accordingly. Virtue theories stress on the
development of good habit or character and putting them to action. Through
this way morality thus becomes a habit. For example, Plato identifies four
cardinal virtues namely; wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Not only
must we acquire good character, but bad character must also be avoided.
Aristotle and Alasdair Macintyre are some of the proponents of virtue
ethics (Pence, 2000:249-259).

3.3 Applied Ethics

28
 Applied ethics is the subject that applies ethics to actual practical problems.
It discusses issues such as euthanasia, treatment of animals, abortion, and
other political, legal and social problems (Blackburn, 2008:121). It is like
normative ethics in process. Applied ethics has gained attention in the
contemporary world. Some hotly debated issues in applied ethics are world
poverty, environmental ethics, sex, business ethics, crime and judgement,
equality, discrimination and preferential treatment, politics and the problem
of war and peace, and so on.
According to Fieser for an issue to qualify as an ―applied ethical issue‖ it
must possess two characteristics, namely:
i. It must be controversial in the sense that there are significant
groups of people both for and against it; and
ii. It must be a distinctly moral issue and not just any topical issue
(Fieser, Nd: parags 33, 34).
4.0 Conclusion
The foregoing has shown that ethics can be viewed from various perspectives. The
divisions of ethics discussed in this unit are by no means exhaustive, but essential
identified the key features of ethics. The different divisions submitted by Popkin
and Stroll are important because they help not only to organize the various types
of doctrines into groupings which make them simpler to understand but also
because they help direct our attention to certain theories which are distinctive.
Finally, it goes without saying that out of all philosophical theories, none is
immune from criticisms. Even the theories grouped together often antagonize one
another.

5.0 Summary
This unit has discussed the following ideas about the divisions of ethics:
i. Ethics as a sub-branch of philosophy concerned with what counts as right conduct
and wrong conduct has been divided along different divisions;
ii. The most recognized divisions are meta-ethics which is concerned with the
metaphysical, epistemological, and meaningfulness of ethical propositions;
Normative ethics which is prescriptive deals with the ‗oughtfulness‘ of moral
conducts; and applied ethics which deals with ethical principles as they apply to
real life scenario;
iii. The various sub-divisions were also explained as:
 Meta-ethics, which has the following as its sub-divisions: Realism which
supposes something is as independent as the perceiver; Intuitionism, which
states that moral claims can be true or false independent of the person
making the claim; Naturalism which states that moral facts or properties
can be known intuitively; Subjectivism, which denies that moral properties
are objective in nature, but rather, moral truth depends on the individual in
question; Relativism, which claims that the society is what determines what
counts as morally right or wrong; Cognitivism, which holds that ethical

29
 propositions are meaningful and they can either be true or false; Non-
cognitivism which claims that ethical statement does not express
preposition, they are meaningless and can neither be true nor false; and
Universal prescriptivism, which states that in judging a particular action to
be wrong, one also judges any relevantly similar action to be wrong in any
situation where such obtains.

 Normative ethics, which has the following as its sub-division;

consequentialism, which is the view that the result produced by an action
determines whether or not such action is moral or not; Deontology which
states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is inherent in the action
independent of the result it produces; Virtue theories which place emphases
on the learning of well-defined ethical norms and following them
accordingly.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Briefly state and explain the three divisions of ethics
2. What is your understanding of the term ‗normative ethics‘?

7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

1. The term metaethics suggests that we are not engaged in ethics, but ________.
a) many meanings of morality.
b) are looking at it and considering what exactly ethics is.
c) making a suggestion about life.
d) are looking at it and considering what is morality.

2. Realism is objectivistic because __________________.

a) it supposes something independent of the perceivers.
b) it supposes something independent of morality.
c) it supposes something independent of the perception.
d) it supposes something independent of measurement.

3. Intuitionism is the view that moral claims can be true or false _____________.
a) when they are logical.
b) independent of the person making the claim.
c) independent of the theory of the claim.
d) if they are scientific.

4. Ethical subjectivism denies that moral properties are _____________________.

a) ethical properties.
b) subjective in nature.
c) general properties.
d) objective in nature.

30
 5. Subjectivism claims that the society shoulders the duty to _____________.
a) determine morality.
b) organise social justice.
c) determine leadership structure.
d) organise ethical studies.

6. Normative ethics prescribes moral principles which should ____________.

a) regulate people‘s senses.
b) regulate people‘s ideas.
c) regulate people‘s concepts.
d) regulate people‘s conducts.

7. Normative ethics includes the formulation of moral rules that ___________.

a) have no implication for human actions.
b) have direct impact for human person.
c) have little implication for human actions.
d) have direct implication for human actions.

8. In consequentialism, the end justifies the _____________.

a) beginning.
b) means.
c) problem.
d) solution.

9. Plato identifies four cardinal virtues namely;

a) wisdom, manners, temperance and justice.
b) wisdom, courage, temperature and justice.
c) willing, courage, temperance and justice.
d) wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.

10. Applied ethics is the subject that applies ethics to ________________.

a) accounted practical problems.
b) actual people‘s complaints.
c) actual practical problems.
d) actual practical ideas.

8.0 References/ Further reading

Blackburn, S. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York, Oxford University

Press

31
Brink, D. (1997). "Self-love and Altruism,‖ in Social Philosophy and Policy, 14: 122–
157.

Burgess-Jackson, K. (2013). ―Taking Egoism Seriously,‖ in Ethical Theory and Moral

Practice, 16: 529–42.

Dancy, Jonathan (2000). ‗Intuitionism‘ in Peter Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics,

Oxford, Blackwell.

Davis, N.A. (2000). ‗Contemporary Deontology‘ Peter Singer (ed.) A Companion to

Ethics, Oxford, Blackwell.

Fieser, James (Nd) Ethics internet encyclopaedia of philosophy ISSN 2161 – 0002
retrieved on July 29, 2019 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

On Applied Ethics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWRL0x5OLdc

On Egoism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpHggd-3_rM

On Meta-Ethics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sETnOF5_ghg

On Normative Ethics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWGoww1JmXY

Pedgen, Charles R. (1993). ‗Naturalism‘ in Peter Singer (Ed.), A Companion to Ethics

Oxford, Blackwell.

Pence, G. (2000). ―Virtue theory‖ in Peter Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, Oxford,
Blackwell.

Petit, P. (2000). ―Consequentialism‖ in Peter Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, Oxford,

Blackwell.

Pojman, L.P. And James Fieser, J (2009). Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong, Belmont,
USA, Wadsworth Ltd.

Robert Audi (1999). (Ed) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge

University Press.

Sayre-McCord, Geoff, "Metaethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer

2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/metaethics/>.

32
Sidgwick, H. (1967). The methods of ethics (7th ed) London: Macmillan

Singer, Peter (1993). ―Explanatory note on the nature as ethics‖. in Peter Singer (ed) A
Companion to Ethics Oxford.

Stratton Lake Philip (2016). Intuition in Ethics: the Stanford Encyclopaedia of

Philosophy (winter 2016 edition) Edward N Zalta (Ed) Retrieved on August 1,2019 from
https://plato.stanstanford.edu archives/winzo16entries intuition ethics.

Strumpet Samuel Enoch and Fieser James (2000). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A
history of philosophy (7th ed) New York: McGraw Hill

UNIT 4: Methodologies of Ethics

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Methodologies of Ethics
3.1.1 Egoism
3.1.2 Intuitionism
3.1.3 Utilitarianism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Readings
1.0 Introduction
Ethics is a sector of the theory or study of practice. It is the study of what ought to be,
so far as this depends upon the voluntary action of individuals. In deciding what they
ought to do, men naturally proceed on different principles, and by different methods.

33
 By methods of ethics, it roughly means any type of general theory which claims to
unify our general ethical judgement into coherent system of some principles which are
claimed to be self-evident (Broad, 1967:148). But there are two prima facie rational
ends in any of the methods an individual wants to use; perfection and happiness: of
which the latter at least may be sought for oneself or universally. It is also commonly
thought that certain rules are prescribed without reference to hidden consequences.
The methods corresponding to these different principles reduce themselves in the
main to three, intuitionism, egoism and utilitarianism. In this unit, we shall examine
these methods separately, conceptualizing them from ordinary thought as precisely
and consistently as possible.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)

By the end of this unit, you would be able to:
 Define the concept of methodology;
 Enumerate the methods of ethics;
 Explain the intuitionist method;
 Explain the egoist method; and
 Explain the utilitarianist method.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Methodologies of Ethics
While method is an approach to solve a philosophical problem, methodology is
the general study of the approach in the field of enquiry. The fact remains that
any field can be approached more or less successfully and more or less
intelligently. It is tempting then to suppose that there is only one right approach
of investigation. Therefore, it is fundamentally important to recognise, at the
outset of Ethical inquiry, that there is a diversity of methods applied in
ordinary practical thought. The more modest task of methodology, therefore, is
to examine the methods that are adapted to various stages of investigation into
different areas. This is done not with the aim to criticise, but for synthesising
the propositions of a particular field at a particular time (Blackburn, 2008:232-
233)
It is obviously one question to ask ―What are the most basic principles of
morality?‖ It seems to be entirely another question to ask ―What is the method
or procedure, if any, for determining the answer to the first question?‖ We
might describe the second question as being about the appropriate method of
ethics. We may remember that in the last unit, we discussed metaethics and

34
normative ethics. Now, this inquiry into the proper method of ethics is not
simply, by definition, that field of study which philosophers call ―metaethics,‖
where this term refers to the linguistic investigation of moral discourse. But the
question of method is clearly a question for normative ethics, because an
investigation into metaethics is not sufficient in determining the appropriate
method of ethics (Snare, 1975:100). If a man accepts any end as ultimate and
paramount, he accepts implicitly as his method of ethics, whatever process of
reasoning enables him to determine the actions most conducive to this end.
For this level of our study, we shall concentrate on the methods corresponding
to these different principles of examining ethics, which are concepts we came
across in unit one while discussing the origin of ethics. These are egoism,
intuitionism, and utilitarianism.
3.1.1 Intuitionism
Intuitionism is the method of ethics associated with G. E. Moore. It identifies
ethical propositions as true or false, different in content from any empirical or
other kind of judgement, and known by a special faculty of intuition
(Blackburn, 2008:190). Intuitionists are of the view that there are a number of
fairly concrete ethical axioms of the general form: Any action of such and
such a kind, done in such and such a kind of situation, would be right (or
wrong) no matter whether its consequences were good, bad, or indifferent
(Broad, 1967:148). For instance, our common sense would tell us that any
action which was an instance of deliberate ingratitude to a benefactor would
instantly be wrong, and that this can be seen by direct inspection without any
consideration of the consequences of the action or of the prevalence of similar
action (Broad, 1967:148).

In the intuitionist method, so long as people confine their attention to fairly

normal cases and do not try to analyse their terms very carefully, there is a
great deal of agreement about what ought and what ought not to be done in
given types of situation, and people‘s duties seem self-evident. Philosophers
like Sidgwick are of the opinion that every other method of ethics must
involve, at least, one intuition. This is for the fact that, at any rates the
judgement that we ought to aim at so and so as an ultimate end must be
intuitive (Broad, 1967:151).

Intuitionism takes cognizance of common sense. It takes in turn those types of

actions which seems to common-sense to be self-evidently right (or wrong)
without regards to consequences in certain type of situation. But at this stage
of our studies, we should note that the current contrast between, ‗intuitive‘, or
what you might have read in epistemology as ‗a priori‘ and ‗inductive‘ or ‗a
posteriori‘ morality commonly involves a certain confusion of thought. For
what the ‗inductive‘ moralist professes to know by induction, is commonly not

35
the same thing as what the ‗intuitive‘ moralist professes to know by intuition.
In the former case it is the conduciveness to pleasure of certain kinds of action
that is methodically ascertained: in the latter case, their rightness: there is
therefore no proper opposition. There are, however, three phases of
Intuitionism and we may term them respectively as Perceptional, Dogmatic,
and Philosophical.

3.1.2 Egoism
As a method of determining reasonable conduct, egoism is a term equivalent
to Egoistic Hedonism, and it implies the adoption of own greatest happiness as
the ultimate end of each individual‘s actions. The egoist finds it self-evident
that an individual ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for
himself, and that, if necessary, he ought to be ready to sacrifice any amount of
other people‘s happiness in order to produce the slightest net increase in his
own (Broad, 1967:148). However, there are strong grounds for holding that a
system of morality, satisfactory to the moral consciousness of mankind in
general, cannot be constructed on the basis of simple Egoism. But it seems
sufficient to point to the wide acceptance of the principle that it is reasonable
for a man to act in the manner most conducive to his own happiness. Bentham,
although he puts forward the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the
―true standard of right and wrong‖, yet regards it as ―right and proper‖ that
each individual should aim at his own greatest happiness (Sidgwick,
1962:119). And Butler is equally prepared to grant ―that our ideas of happiness
and misery are of all our ideas the nearest and most important to us . . .‖ that,
though virtue or moral rectitude does indeed consist in affection to and pursuit
of what is right and good as such; yet, when we sit down in a cool hour, ―we
can neither justify to ourselves this or any other pursuit till we are convinced
that it will be for our happiness, or at least not contrary to it.‖ (Sidgwick,
1962:119-120).
We must, therefore, understand by an Egoist a man who when two or more
courses of action are open to him, ascertains as accurately as he can the
amounts of pleasure and pain that are likely to result from each, and chooses
the one which he thinks will yield him the greatest surplus of pleasure over
pain.
It must, however, be pointed out that the adoption of the fundamental principle
of Egoism, as just explained, by no means necessarily implies the ordinary
empirical method of seeking one‘s own pleasure or happiness. A man may aim
at the greatest happiness within his reach, and yet not attempt to ascertain
empirically what amount of pleasure and pain is likely to attend any given
course of action; believing that he has some surer, deductive method for
determining the conduct which will make him most happy in the long-run. At

36
any rate, it would seem, therefore, that the obvious method of Egoistic
Hedonism is that which we may call Empirical-reflective: and it is this that is
commonly used in egoistic deliberation.
There is a fundamental assumption, in relation to the empirical method of
Egoistic Hedonism, which is the very conception of ‗Greatest Happiness‘ as an
end of action. How do we commensurate the Pleasures and Pains the attempt
to achieve such happiness? We must assume the pleasures sought and the
pains shunned having determinate quantitative relations to each other. If not
so, they cannot be conceived as possible elements of a total which we are to
seek to make as great as possible. However, the utilitarian method addressed
this issue.
3.1.3 Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, as explained in unit one, is a consequential ethical theory which
holds that the right action is the one that produces the most benefit, greatest
good for greatest number. The utilitarian method is that each person ought to
aim at the maximum balance of happiness for all sentient beings present and
future, and that if necessary, he ought to be ready to sacrifice any amount of
his own happiness provided that he will thereby produce the slightest net
increase in the general happiness (Broad, 1967:148). As such, morally right
action is the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Hence, it includes any moral theory which claims that actions are good only
insofar as they increase the amount of happiness (and decreases the amount of
suffering) in the world (Driver 2014). Utilitarians believe that actions ought to
be performed according to the ―principles of utility,‖ which is ―to do the action
which provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number.‖ Thus, what
make a good action good, according to utilitarians, are its consequences.
Utilitarianism is a kind of teleological ethics. Both the number of people
happily affected and the amount of happiness each one gets are important in
determining the right course of action in any given situation. The principle of
utility always accompanies a principle of equality –in other words, one
person‘s unit of happiness (a ―utile‖) is always considered equal to anyone‘s
unit of happiness. Thus, the theory is distinguished by impartiality and agent-
neutrality (Solomon and Greene, 1999:474). The earliest and simplest form of
utilitarianism, therefore, is a form of ‗act utilitarianism.‘ To decide what to do
in any given situation, then, one should assess the consequences of each course
of action.

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive methods to

normative ethics in the history of philosophy. The Classical Utilitarians,
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so,
like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. Mill at a latter period revised
utilitarianism considerably; however he maintained some form or other of the

37
 principle of utility. It was his revision that resulted in the emergence of ‗rule
utilitarianism‘. In this approach, the principle of utility applies to rules, not
individual acts. What this implies is that ‗people should obey the rules which
provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number.‘ For example, a rule
utilitarian may say that in the course of history, more people have been made
happier by obeying the Ten Commandments than would have been if they had
not obeyed them.

The foremost development in utilitarianism over the years has not been as a
theory, but in interest in its application as a method. This new concern is
entirely beneficial, first of all because applying relatively well considered
principles, instead of ill ones, to our problems must be an improvement. But,
second, because applications constitute the best possible test for normative
theory. There is no quicker way to show up a normative principle as efficient
or inefficient than to confront it with real life. In fact, the pay-off so far has
been mostly for methodology, if we have not yet got many good practical
answers, we have got some very good theoretical questions, many of which are
important to utilitarianism.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, our discussion centred on the methodology of ethics. It is shown
that in deciding what they ought to do, men naturally proceed on different
principles, and by different methods. These methods are any type of general
theory which claims to unify our general ethical judgement into coherent
system of some principle which is claimed to be self-evident. For this level of
our studies, we concentrated of three of the methods corresponding to these
different principles of examining ethics. These are intuitionism, egoism and
utilitarianism.
5.0 Summary
Below is the summary of some of the things we have discussed in this unit.
i. While method is an approach to solve a philosophical problem, methodology is
the general study of the approach in the field of enquiry. The fact remains that
any field can be approached more or less successfully and more or less
intelligently;
ii. The more modest task of methodology, therefore, is to examine the methods
that are adapted to various stages of investigation into different areas. This is
done not with the aim to criticise, but for synthesising the propositions of a
particular field at a particular time;
iii. The question of method is clearly a question for normative ethics, because an
investigation into metaethics is not sufficient in determining the appropriate
method of ethics;

38
 iv. If a man accepts any end as ultimate and paramount, he accepts implicitly as
his method of ethics, whatever process of reasoning enables him to determine
the actions most conducive to this end;
v. This unit concentrated on the methods corresponding to three different
principles of examining ethics; egoism, intuitionism, utilitarianism;
vi. Intuitionism is the method of ethics which identifies ethical propositions as
true or false, different in content from any empirical or other kind of
judgement, and known by a special faculty of intuition;
vii. Intuitionists are of the view that there are a number of fairly concrete ethical
axioms of the general form: Any action of such and such a kind, done in such
and such a kind of situation would be right (or wrong) no matter whether its
consequences were good, bad, or indifferent;
viii. Egoism is a term equivalent to Egoistic Hedonism. As a method, it implies
the adoption of own greatest happiness as the ultimate end of each individual‘s
actions;
ix. An Egoist is a man who when two or more courses of action are open to him,
ascertains as accurately as he can the amounts of pleasure and pain that are
likely to result from each, and chooses the one which he thinks will yield him
the greatest surplus of pleasure over pain;
x. Utilitarianism is a consequential ethical theory which holds that the right action
is the one that produces the most benefit, greatest good for greatest number;
xi. As a methodology of ethics, it points that each person ought to aim at the
maximum balance of happiness for all sentient beings present and future, and
that if necessary, he ought to be ready to sacrifice any amount of his own
happiness provided that he will thereby produce the slightest net increase in the
general happiness; and
xii. Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive methods to
normative ethics in the history of philosophy because it is always confronted
with real life.
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. What do you understand by the term ―Method of ethics‖?
2. in your opinion, why should there be any methodology of ethics?
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. Clearly define the concept of methodology.
2. Method is an approach to solve a philosophical problem, but methodology is
a. the general study of the appraisal in the field of enquiry.
b. the general study of the approach in the field of enquiry.
c. the general system of the approach in the field of enquiry.

39
 d. the general style of the approach in the field of enquiry.
2. Why is the question of method clearly a question for normative ethics?
3. Philosophers are of the opinion that every other method of ethics must involve____
a. at least, one theory.
b. at least, one ideology.
c. at least, one perspective.
d. at least, one intuition.
4. The egoist finds it self-evident that an individual ____________
a. ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for his wife.
b. ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for his friend.
c. ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for himself.
d. ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for his team.
5. Utilitarianism claims that actions are good only ____________
a. if they increase the amount of happiness and decrease the amount of suffering.
b. if they decrease the amount of happiness and increase the amount of suffering.
c. if they increase the amount of suffering and decrease the amount of happiness.
d. if they increase the amount of heath and decrease the amount of suffering.

8.0 References/ Further Readings

Blackburn, S. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Broad, C.D. (1930 and 1967). Five Types of Ethical Theories. London, Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd.

Sidgwick, H. (1902). Philosophy, its Scope and Relations, London.

——, (1962). The Methods of Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

——, (1998). Practical Ethics: A Collection of Addresses and Essays, (with

Introduction by Sissela Bok), Oxford University Press.

40
 ——, (2000). Essays on Ethics and Method, Singer, M. G. (ed.) Clarendon Press,
Oxford.

Kant on Categorical Imperative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw

Snare, Frank. (1975). ‗John Rawls and the Methods of Ethics‘ in Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Vol. 36, No. 1 pp. 100-112, International
Phenomenological Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2107116
Accessed: 25-06-2019

Solomon, R.C. and Greene, J.K., (1999). Morality and the Good Life, New York:
McGraw-Hill.

MODULE 2
UNIT 1: The Value of Ethics
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 On Ethics and Morality
3.2 Values of Ethics
3.2.1 The inevitability of Ethics
3.2.2 Development of Argumentative Skills
3.2.3 Elevation of humanity
4.0 Conclusion

41
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
In this unit, you will learn the values – or, rather, the importance – of studying ethics.
Alongside this knowledge, you will learn the differences, and similarities, between ethics
and morality. Further, you will discover that ethics‘ role as a regulator of human
conducts is what confers on it the values it has. And, of course, you will notice that ethics
differs from, say, law, religion, and traditions, for instance – which are themselves modes
of regulating human conduct – because of its method, which is rational and critical. This,
alongside the other ‗values‘ that will be listed in this unit, constitute its worth/importance
to human society.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit you would be able to:
 attempt a further definition of ethics;
 discuss the relationship between ethics and morality; and
 list the values of ethics.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 On Ethics and Morality
The philosophical discourse on morality studies the grounds and nature of rightness and
wrongness of our actions. Hence, morality and ethics are used interchangeably, but in
general terms, the former is said to be the subject matter of the latter which is taken as a
sub-disciplinary area of philosophy. From our definition of ethics in Module 1 Unit 2,
we may understand it as a field of discourse committed to the systematic examination of
human characters (and customs), conducts and systems of values instantiated in the lives
of particular persons as well as groups of persons.
The philosophical discourse on morality – ethics – seeks to offer us what sort of character
we can imbibe in order for us all to lead the so-called ‗good life‘. It does this by offering
rational and logically consistent system of principles (theory) which it invites all rational
beings to follow. Thus, William Frankena (19954) sees ethics as the ―philosophical
thinking about morality, moral problems and moral judgments‖. T. R. Machan, in
Wallace (1997:149) similarly holds the position that ethics serves the purpose of
providing rational justification for our moral actions. According to Machan:
Ethics is the study of whether there are any values each and every
person should pursue, whether there is a set of virtues or code of
principles of conduct for everyone and what these are if they do
exist (Wallace, 1997:149).
By this, it is implied that ethics performs the function of fashioning out an acceptable
framework for appraising our moral judgments and for allocating praises and blames to

42
 our actions. Ethics, in this respect, may be construed as an umpire who sees to it that
‗moral principles‘ are not violated. It, thus, takes into cognizance all our conducts as
these have social bearings.
From the above, it can be safely asserted that ethics is a serious enterprise. It is, perhaps,
in line with this assessment that Socrates, in Plato‘s dialogue, The Republic, is quoted to
have said: ―We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live‖. Now, this
Socratic position above, in the use of ‗ought‘, implies that the discourse of ethics is
normative. A possible justification of this is the presupposition of ethics that we are all
rational. If this is the case, it follows that no singular person or group of persons can force
us into living in one particular way. And as such, ethics invites all of us to rationally
reflect on the principles it offers for human beings to follow. Moral questions largely
have to do with what is right and what is wrong as against the wider ethical questions
about good and evil, ultimate sources of value, or means of justification (Arendt,
1994:750). Moreover, the study of ethics involves the question of ―why‖ certain actions
are accepted as right/good while others are condemned as wrong/bad. This goes to show
that in the study of ethics there is the need for justification. So, in philosophy ethics refers
to the theory behind our moral pronouncements and how they are justified.
The preceding has suggested to us the method of ethics which is logical reasoning and the
rigor of argumentation in order to persuade us to live in certain ways. Herein lays the
major difference between ethics and other normative fields of enquiry like religion, law,
and etiquette. Thus,
…morality (ethics) distinguishes itself from law and etiquette by
going deeper into the essence of rational existence. It distinguishes
itself from religion in that it seeks reasons, rather than authority, to
justify its principles. The central purpose of moral philosophy is to
secure valid principles of conducts and values that can be
instrumental in guiding human actions and producing good
character. As such, it is the most important activity known to
humans, for it has to do with how we are to live (Pojman, 1997:6).

3.2 Values of Ethics

3.2.1 The inevitability of Ethics
Morality arises in social contexts. Studies have shown that no two persons are the same.
Human beings‘ social natures and individual uniqueness are twin facts that bring up its
own challenges. One may call these inter-subjective frictions. There is therefore the need
to mediate or arbitrate in these frictions. Hence, ethics aims to do this via its normative
and analytic theories and prescriptions. Without ethics, therefore, human society risks
collapsing.
3.2.2 Development of Argumentative Skills
The philosophical enterprise places great premium on persuasion, not coercion, in staking
any claim or position. And ethics, being a branch of this (philosophical) enterprise would

43
 logically share in this nature. Ethical studies, thus, impresses on its students the need to
argue out clearly their views on any, and every, (moral) issue that cannot but crop up in
daily living. By implication, it also teaches people how to argue out their cases without
resorting to vehemence or bullish speeches, as is now rampant in contemporary societies.
Any ferocious argument is likely to cause chaos and rancour. However, skilful
arguments, as developed by ethical theories, are avenues of calmly convincing the
listener to a logical conclusion.
3.2.3 Elevation of humanity
Another important value of ethics is its commitment to elevating human beings to higher
ideals and standards. English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), in his book The
Leviathan, advanced a very interesting description of humans while they lived in what he
called the ‗state of nature‘ (Hobbes, 1651:88-98). By the way, this state of nature was
Hobbes‘ state of human living before the origin of society in the modern sense of that
word. According to him, the actual nature of humans, unlimited by the strictures of civil
society, was primarily one dictated by their ‗appetites‘, ‗aversions‘ and ‗passions‘.
Humans, in the ‗state of nature‘, Hobbes adds, under these preceding influences, acts,
essentially, from a ‗self-interested‘ perspective and are constantly trying to maximize
their ‗profit‘ or gain in every situation (Hobbes, 1651:64).
The preceding view, by Hobbes, has been tagged psychological egoism for it purports to
describe what the ‗facts‘ are about human behaviours. Now, if Hobbes‘ views of human
nature is true, then life indeed – and as he attests – would be ―solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short‖ (Hobbes, 1651:78). The interesting climax of Hobbes‘ thinking in this
wise is that human beings later came to conclude that they ought to put aside their
―natural‖ dispositions to be able to avoid these nasty realities. Hence, given this
connection between ethics and human ―civil‖ society, morality and ethics emerged and
eventually civil society. Otherwise put, without ethics, there cannot be human society. An
evident value of ethical studies here is that it helps to promote social amity and order,
without which human flourishing and happiness cannot be possible.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have discussed the values of studying ethics. The discussions included
other side-benefits. We mentioned, for instance, the meaning of ethics and how it relates
with morality. While moral questions largely have to do with what is right and what is
wrong, ethics have wider philosophical questions about good and evil, ultimate sources of
value, or means of justification. We also discussed the principal difference between
ethics‘ quest to regulate human behaviour and other areas of moral inquiry (religion, law
and tradition) in helping to regulate human conduct. Ethics distinguishes itself from
religion, law and tradition in that it seeks reasons, rather than authority, to justify its
principles. Its value therefore is seen in its inevitability because of the need to mediate on
human differences. It is also valuable for developing argumentative skills, and elevating
human beings to higher ideals and standards.

44
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have discussed the following key points thus:
i. The definition of ethics as a branch of philosophy that is committed to the systematic
examination of human characters, conducts, and systems of values instantiated in the
lives of particular person as well as group of persons;
ii. Ethics and its relationship with morality, and the differences between ethics and other
human values that guide conduct, such as; religion, etiquettes, and law;
iii. The nature of ethics cantered on the regulation of human conduct vis-à-vis other areas of
human endeavours; and
iv. Three values of studying ethics: inevitability of ethics, development of argumentative
skill, and elevation of humanity.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Discuss the importance of studying ethics.
2. Give a critically explanation of how ethics can elevate humanity
7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment
1. List the values of ethics and explain any one of them.
2. Ethics seeks to offer us what sort of character we can imbibe in order for us all to
lead the so-called ‗good life‘
a) good friend
b) good thought
c) good job
d) good life
3. Ethics offers _______ and ________ consistent system of principles.
a) rational and logically
b) rational and notionally
c) national and logically
d) rational and nationally

4. How do ethics distinguish itself from law and tradition?

a) it seeks relativism, rather than authority,
b) it seeks research, rather than authority,
c) it seeks reasons, rather than authority
d) it seeks reading, rather than authority,
5. Ethics is valuable for _____________
a) mediate on human development, developing argumentative skills, and elevating
human beings to higher ideals and standards.
b) mediate on human differences, developing argumentative skills, and elevating
human beings to higher ideals and standards.
c) mediate on human differences, developing linguistic skills, and elevating
human beings to higher ideals and standards.
d) mediate on human differences, developing argumentative skills, and elevating
human nature to higher legal and standards.

45
8.0 References/Further Reading

Arendt, H. (1994). ―Some Questions of Moral Philosophy‖. Social Research, Vol. 61,
No. 4, p. 750
Crisp, Roger. (2000). ―Ethics and Meta-Ethics‖ in Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. London: Routledge Publishers.
Frankena, William K. (1995). Ethics. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hobbes, Thomas. (1651). Leviathan: The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-wealth
Ecclesiasticall and Civill, London: Green Dragon.
Ozumba, Godfrey O. (2001). A Course Text on Ethics. Onitsha: O.O.P. Publishers
Limited.
Pojman, Louis P. (1997). Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application.
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
The Importance of Ethics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8juebyo_Z4
Wallace, William. (1997). The Element of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers
and Theologians. New York: Alba House.
Why Do Ethics Matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yesE4mcv4CM

UNIT 2: Human Values

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What are (Human) Values?
3.2 A Taxonomy of Values
3.2.1 Aesthetic Values
3.2.2 Religious Values
3.2.3 Socio-political Values
3.2.4 Economic Values
3.2.5 Ethical/Moral Values

46
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
The guiding question we will be trying to find an answer to in this unit is: What are
human values? Put simply, what are values? Recall, in the last unit, you came across the
word ‗value‘ – though in relation with another word, ethics. It was taken for granted, in
that unit, that values and the term ‗importance‘ are synonymous. In the present unit, you
will be told a slightly different thing. Values, you will be taught, are more seriously used,
in the field of ethics, to mean things that are good or worth having. And as you should
have probably have internalized by now, ethics deals with evaluating human actions – to
find out whether they are good or bad. Those actions that are good are termed valuable in
ethics, while the latter are labelled vicious (from vice). You may labour in vain to search
for an analysis of vice in this unit, but it should suffice for you to note that what will soon
emerge from our analysis of values can be appropriated as the rough opposite of vice.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

By the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Attempt a definition of values;
 Explain the various types of values;
 Identify the major types of human values; and
 Identify the classification of values.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 What are (human) Values?
Values have to do with appropriateness and rightness—that is, what is good. The preceding is
what Christopher Agulanna has in mind when he says that values ―refer to traits or qualities that
we consider useful, beneficial or worthwhile‖ (Agulanna, 2010:6). In other words, values are
things that are ‗good‘. Implicit in the preceding conceptualization of values are two points. First,
values are immaterial since they are ―traits‖ which, presumably, are behavioural features (of
humans—at least in this context). Related to this is the second point: since values are
behavioural traits and behaviours are imbibed and exhibited in the midst of other humans, it
means they are culture bound. Because values are ‗culture-bound‘, they are not exactly amenable
to empirical analysis.
3.1.1 Personal values
From the above, you should note that values may be personal as well cultural. Personal values
provide an internal point of reference as per what is good and worth pursuing by an individual
(Rokeach, 1973). Here, values are the reference points that individuals evolve in their respective
life-times, primarily induced by their subjective experiences. Precisely, of personal values‘

47
subjective natures, they do not make for social cohesion and amity; hence, ethics, which has to
do with promoting the latter, will find it hard to make use of these.
3.1.2 Cultural values
Cultural values, on the other hand, refer to the ideals shared by a people. One can often identify
the values of a society by noting which people receive honour or respect. In Nigeria, for
example, a quick observation often tempts one to conclude that Nigerians generally value
physical talents above intellectual talents, for example. A clear way to exemplify the foregoing is
to take a look at the grave disparity in the earnings of footballers and academics.
3.1.3 Values relating to the norms of a culture
Values relate to the norms of a culture. Norms provide rules for behaviour in specific situations,
while values identify what should be judged as good or evil. While norms are standards,
patterns, rules and guides of expected behaviour, values are abstract concepts of what is
important and worthwhile. Flying the national flag on a holiday is a norm, but it reflects the
value of patriotism. Different cultures reflect values differently and to different levels of
emphasis.
Members of a society take part in a culture even if each member's personal values do not entirely
agree with some of the normative values sanctioned in that culture. This reflects an individual's
ability to synthesize and extract aspects valuable to them, from the multiple subcultures they
belong to. If a group member expresses a value that seriously conflicts with the group‘s norms,
the group's authority may carry out various ways of encouraging conformity or stigmatizing
the non-conforming behaviour of that member. For example, imprisonment can result from
conflict with social norms that the state has established as law.
Values are generally received through cultural means, especially transmission from parents to
children. Parents in different cultures have different values (Day, 2013). For example, parents in
a hunter–gatherer society or surviving through subsistence agriculture value practical survival
skills from a young age. Many such cultures may begin teaching babies to use sharp tools,
including knives, before their first birthdays (ibid.). The reception of values can be regarded as a
part of socialization.
3.1.4 Relative and Absolute Values
Values may be relative or absolute. When relative, values are understood to vary across societies
and time epochs. An extreme version of value relativism is subjectivism—the view that
individual values vary, as well. Whilst this is not the place to debate the very polemical ‗jaw-
war‘ that still subsist in the literature on this subject, it is worthy of note to state, here, that we
reject the thesis of subjectivism. We also do not wholly subscribe to the counter-theses of value
relativism, just briefly described above, and value absolutism—the position that there are ideals,
worth pursuing (hence, ‗valuable‘) by and independent of individual and cultural views, as well
as independent of whether it is known or apprehended or not.
3.1.5 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values
Additionally, there are intrinsic and extrinsic values. An extrinsic or instrumental value is worth
having as a means towards getting something else that is good (for example, a radio is
instrumentally good in order to listen to music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth for

48
 itself, not as a means to something else. It is giving value intrinsic and extrinsic properties.
Intrinsic and instrumental goods are not mutually exclusive categories (Riukas, 2016). Some
objects are both good in themselves, and also good for getting other objects that are good.
Understanding science may be such a good thing, being both worthwhile in and of itself, and as
a means of achieving other goods. In these cases, the sum of instrumental (specifically the all
instrumental value) and intrinsic value of an object may be used when putting that object
in value systems, which is a set of consistent values and measures.
Values, thus, and as prefaced above, are the ‗trunk‘ that prop-up the society. Ideals and
phenomena—like individual behaviours, protocols, and customs, ethics, rules and governing
relationships of socially situated individuals—cannot make any social-wide sense outside
presence of values.
3.2 A Taxonomy of Values
3.2.1 Aesthetic Values
These have to do with what people consider to be artistically appealing. Aesthetics has to do to
with beauty in artworks and the likes of artefacts. Here, values are concerned with how best to
evaluate works of arts as beautifully appealing. For example, how beautiful is a painting, how
nice is a piece of music, how thrilling is a film and so forth.
3.2.2 Religious Values
These have to do with those things that people pursue as a form of belief. Things that appeal to
people‘s spiritual loyalty and which they consider as supra-rational deity of worship. Reverence
to God is one important religious value that is commonplace in all religions. Offering prayers,
offering sacrifices, visit to holy places, fasting in certain days, are among many any other
religious values.
3.2.3 Socio-political Values
These are related to ethical values: justice, liberty, human rights, and others alike that are ‗gains‘
afforded, and required, by a ‗civil society‘, as opposed to the previous ‗state of nature‘ where life
was invariably solitary, nasty, brutish and short, as in the words of Thomas Hobbes. We should
clearly understand that socio-political values are the responsibilities of both the government and
the governed. Take the issue of justice, for example, the citizens must practice it between
themselves for the society to be stable. One must not wait for the government to be just to his or
her friend in their relationship. However, the government plays the most critical role in ensuring
stable society by protecting the socio-political values.
3.2.4 Economic Values
They are those values that afford individuals to achieve at least a minimum level of material
well-being to the end of attaining, and sustaining, the ‗good-life‘, at least in the material sphere.
3.2.5 Ethical/Moral Values
As you may have noticed, this class of values was deliberately discussed last. The reason is
simple enough: it has the most bearing on the focus of this unit, module and even course
material! Moral values are those qualities, like veracity, honesty, generosity, among others, that
are necessary for smooth human relations.

49
 What are ethical values? You may not get a comprehensive answer to this question in the present
unit. But you will at least be told right now that the question is only answerable depending on
the ethical school or theory you subscribe to. These, were however discussed in Module 1 Unit
3, Divisions of Ethics. Some ethicists, for example, reason that (ethical) values are to be sought
for in the outcomes that emerge from our actions. These ethicists are known as consequentialists
(Utilitarianism, egoism, altruism, etc. are examples of consequentialist theories). Some others
think that values in ethics are what rational individuals, in a contract party, would negotiate as
valuable. This position is known as contractualism. T. M. Scanlon and David Gauthier are two
notables contractualism theorists, among others here. There are also deontologists like Immanuel
Kant, for example, who assert that ethical values are intrinsic properties; hence, acts are
good/valuable and bad/vicious in themselves. What the ethicist should do, therefore, according
to deontologists, is to identify these ethical universals that are worth having in order to attain a
morally upstanding world.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have discussed the meaning of values. Our discussion about values was
on two major fronts: a general analysis and a more ‗personal‘ one. Values, as we have
now seen, are those things worth having. But the things worth having are quite numerous.
If ethics has something to do with values, does it mean that ethics has to do with
everything? To avoid the seemingly ‗repugnant conclusion‘ that an uncritical affirmation
of this question will bring, you were told that ethics strives for its own ‗unique‘ brand of
values. Although how ethicists construe value seems to be quite divergent, one point on
which they all converge is that they all are in the same quest to offer rationally grounded
outlines towards a stable society.

5.0 Summary
The following is the summary of what we have discussed in this unit:
i. The definition of human values, which refer to traits or qualities that we consider
useful, beneficial or worthwhile;
ii. A discussion of the two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic values;
iii. An intrinsically valuable thing is worth for itself, not as a means to something
else;
iv. An extrinsic or instrumental value is worth having as a means towards getting
something else that is good;
v. A description of the five major classes of human values and with particular
emphasis on ethical/moral ones;
vi. Values may be relative or absolute; and
vii. A Taxonomy of Values shows that there are Aesthetic Values, Religious Values,
Socio-political Values, Economic Values, and Moral Values.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. What are human values, in relation to ethics?
2. Attempt a brief description of the five classes of values discussed in this unit.

7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment

1. Define human value. How is it relevant to ethical studies?

50
 2. Do a critical evaluation of personal and cultural values.
3. Personal values provide an _______________________________
a) internal point of reference as per what is good and worth preventing by an
individual
b) internal point of reference as per what is good and worth pursuing by an
individual
c) internal point of reference as per what is good and worth permitting by an
individual
d) internal point of reference as per what is good and worth projecting by an
individual

4. Religious Values are ________________________________________

a) things that people pursue because they appeal to their spiritual loyalty.
b) things that people frame because they appeal to their spiritual loyalty.
c) things that people pursue because they appeal to their sensual loyalty.
d) things that people prevent because they appeal to their spiritual loyalty.

5. Economic values are ________________________________________

a) values that afford individuals to achieve a maximum level of material well-
being.
b) values that afford individuals to achieve a minimum level of material love.
c) values that afford individuals to achieve a minimum level of material well-
being.
d) values that afford individuals to achieve a minimum level of material well-
being.

8.0 References/Further Reading

Agulanna, Christopher. 2010. ―Personal Moral Values and Economic Development. The
Development Philosophy of Emmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe: Economic
Existence, Awareness and Responsibility. Vol. 3. Dipo Irele and Adebola B. Ekanola. Eds.
Ibadan: Hope Publications Ltd.

Day, Nicholas. 2013. ―Parental Ethno-theories and how Parents in America Differ from Parents
Everywhere Else. Retrieved august 6th 2019 on
https://slate.com/blogs/how_babies_work/2013/04/10/parental_ethnotheories_and_parents_in_a
merica_differ_from_parents_elsewhere.html.

Frankena, William K. 1995. Ethics. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Human Values and its
Importance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgwicMPCHyU
Ozumba, Godfrey O. 2001. A Course Text on Ethics. Onitsha: O.O.P. Publishers Limited.
Pojman, Louis P. 1997. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application.
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Riukas, Stanley. 2016. Inherent and instrumental values in ethics. Retrieved August 6th 2019 at
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Valu/ValuRiuk.htm.

51
 Ten Most Important Human Values https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJu1vj_BVk

Rokeach Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.

Wallace, William. 1997. The Element of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers

and Theologians. New York: Alba House.

UNIT 3: The Nature of Human Conduct

Contents
9.0 Introduction
10.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
11.0 Main Content
11.1 The Nature of Human Conduct
11.2 Factors influencing human conduct
11.2.1 External factors
11.2.1.1 Society

52
 11.2.1.2 Custom
11.2.1.3 Law
11.2.1.4 Religion
11.2.2 Internal factors
11.2.2.1 Intellect
11.2.2.2 Habit
12.0 Conclusion
13.0 Summary
14.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
15.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
16.0 References/ Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
In this unit, we shall look at the nature of human conduct. In doing this we shall look at
what the concept human conduct is. We shall also examine that factors the influence
human conduct. Philosophers argued that for human needs to matter in practical
deliberation, we must have already acquired the full range of character traits that are
imparted by an ethical upbringing (McDowell, 1998:185). Since our upbringings can
diverge considerably, his argument makes trouble for any Aristotelian ethical naturalism
that wants to support a single set of moral virtues. Another argument, therefore, is that
there is a story to be told about the normal course of human life according to which it is
no coincidence that there is agreement on the virtues. Because we are creatures who
arrive at personhood only by learning from others in a relation of dependency, we cannot
help but see ourselves as creatures for whom non-instrumental rationality is the norm
(McDowell, 1998:413). Those norms which define our conduct as humans are the focus
of our discussion here,
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
By the end of this unit, you would be able to:
 Define the meaning of the concept ―human conduct‖;
 Enumerate some of the factors that influence human conduct;
 Classify the factors that influence human conduct; and
 Explain how each of the factors influences human conduct.
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Nature of Human Conduct
Human conduct has to do with the behavioural attributes of human being, that is, the way
people behave toward others. Human behaviour is what the field of study called
psychology always interrogate. However, the interrogation of this behaviour is not
limited to that field. From antiquity through ethics, philosophy, which is regarded as the
mother of all studies, has made human conduct as part of its scope of evaluation. The
dimension of philosophical study of nature of human conduct is a bit different from the
psychological study of it. Philosophical study is a normative study usually refers to as the
study of the human act, which is a moral evaluation of the rational actions of human

53
 being. The psychological study is a descriptive analysis of factors, both internal and
external, that influence human behaviours. Philosophers also put to consideration the
external factors, but the major concern to them is the internal factors, which the actor has
control over. They do critical analysis of the internal factors, visa-vis human actions in
order to prescribe the best conduct. From the foregoing, we can say that human conduct
is in two categories – moral and behavioural. In this unit, we shall do more of the
psychological aspect.
3.2 Factors influencing human conduct
Human being is a complex machine, from the Cartesian point of view, woven together.
Rene Descartes, then, divided the human person into two major categories – mental and
physical. His position is difficult to explain till date, the relationship between the physical
and mental remain unclear. Notwithstanding the difficulty, in our time, psychologists
agree with Descartes that ―much of behaviour can be understood as reactions to outside
events: The environment poses a question and the organism answers it‖ (Gleitman,
1981:17).
Accordingly, human conduct, which comprises of the total behaviour and actions of
human being, is being influenced by such things like the environment, culture, impulses
such as desires, instincts, wishes, wants, and so on (Fullerton, 2002:19). The factors
influencing human conduct could be classified into two: internal and external. The
internal factors are the things within the will of the person. In other words, the internal
factors are the impulses that develop from the nervous cells or the central nervous-
system. While the external are the social norms like the environment, law, etiquette,
religion and so on.
Psychological impulses influencing human conducts can be group into two categories –
positive and negative. Positive impulses motivate actions and include enthusiasm,
interest, joy, love, satisfaction, and so on. While negative impulses do create fear and
unmotivated, they include such things as: anxiety, distress, apathy, hostility, and so on.
All these are kinds of motives that direct human behaviour (Gleitman, 1981:55). All these
impulses, because they are mental and produced by the brain, they are grouped as
intellect. And because they repeatedly influence human conduct, they are called habit. It
should be noted that there are debate in the philosophy of mind that all mental activities
are not the product of the brain; however, we shall leave that out for now. Therefore, in
looking at the internal factors, we shall consider the intellect and habit as factors.
3.2.1 External factors
3.2.1.1 Society
Human by nature are social being, to live, therefore, is to live in the community of a
human. In order to checkmate social unrest in such a society, that would turn the society
to the Hobbesian state of nature, there is the development of principles that guide and
guard individual conducts. The principles are in forms of law, norms, code of conduct,
etiquette, and they influence individual conduct. The society and social order, in which
individuals grow-up or are nurtured, to a large extent, would determine his conduct
(Fullerton, 2002:24). Whatsoever the society values will be what individuals value. In
this sense, hardly does individual owns a personal conduct. In other words, nobody has
the monopoly of a conduct, it is societal. As John Dewey puts it, ―neutrality is non-
54
existent. Conduct is always shared; this is the difference between it and a psychological
process. If it is not an ethical ―ought‖ that conduct should be social. It is social ―whether
bad or good‖ (Dewey, 1922:12). Now, let us examine the tools society use to influence
human conduct. This shall be examined under custom, law and religion
3.2.1.2 Custom
Through the society, custom is developed. All the involving acts and practices of the
society over the years then become influencing factors to people‘s conduct. Custom
involves the entire way of life of a people. Their wants becomes the wants every
individual must subscribe to. Deviation from the cultural elements means that the person
is tampering with the social order and harmony of such a society. This might likely
receive condemnation, rejection, denunciation for the defiance to the society.
3.2.1.3 Law
Law is another thing developed in the society to guide human conduct. The law specifies
the dos and don‘ts in the society. Law is to aid the common good in the society. But
without the understanding of what the common good is, the nature and function of law in
directing human acts cannot be cherished. The common good is different from individual
personal good, the latter being the good of only one person, to the elimination of its being
possessed by any other. The common good is universal and distributive in nature; it is
being shared to all without becoming any person private good. Therefore, the law is to
safeguard all individuals in the society, without special preference to individual. In this
sense, there are two kinds of law; natural and civil. They both direct the affairs of the
public, and are no property of any individual.
The ―natural law‖ is an unwritten law that guard the orderliness of things in nature.
Natural law is clearly a fundamental principle for directing human acts. In the ancient and
medieval periods, the natural law is seen as the ―absolute moral order‖ (Lawhead,
2002:222) which are natural not created by man. Therefore, they have no special
consideration of preference to individuals. The law is universal and fundamental
preferences of human nature. It is available to reasoning which all humans have, thus;
everyone ought to know almost all the universal precepts expressed in natural law.
The civil law is another kind of law that guide human conduct. This law is what Cicero
and other ancient philosophers termed ―man-made law‖. It is a law that human made to
govern the society. The law could, then, be defined as what promotes the common good.
Generally, law is to be the regulation of reason by the authority to direct the political
society and its members to the common good, which is primed on peace and order. The
primary aim of civil law is not to make human beings virtuous or moral, though it does
command certain acts that make human to be virtuous and prevent acts that are vices.
Civil law commands obedience with the use of stiff penalties. This made civil or man-
made law to be different from natural law. This can be expressed as Antiphon, the
sophist, would say: ―Most of the things which are just by the law are hostile to
nature…..and the advantages which accrue from law are chains upon nature, whereas
those which accrue from nature are free‖ (Lawhead, 2002:32).
3.2.1.4 Religion

55
Religion plays significant roles in human conduct. From ancient time till now, the
dominant religion determines the acceptable behaviour of such a society. Some society
are trying to make the major religion‘s rules and laws as the state or civil law, this shows
how forcefully, religion is in human social interaction. Religious people believe that there
are laws that are divinely given that guide religious devotions and all their other
activities. The divine law and other are at times regarded as the law of nature. It is also
differentiated from law of nature, and even seen to be more fundamental than natural law,
in which natural law derivate from. Advocates of divine law would argue that God
created the whole things in the universe, and made laws that direct their affairs.
3.2.2 Internal factors
The internal factors are the inbuilt capacity in the bio-chemical make-up of an individual
that influence his or her conduct. Arguably, the internal factors could have external
influences, but such influences are not pronounced or dominant. For instance, human
habit or temperament, or will might be shaped by the religion he or she subscribe to, the
culture he or she was brought up, but such influence is not directly available data at the
point of performing an act.
3.2.2.1 Intellect
The intellect is a major factor influencing human conduct. It serves as the memory bank
of both consciously and unconsciously built in compelling factors influencing conduct.
From childhood, individuals in the society reserve the societal acceptable conduct in the
brain. Apart from the societal shaping, the intellect is also the major tool for the natural
instinct. The presence of the intellect in human is the basis of philosophical antagonizing
mere psychological or biological explanation of the conduct of human being. Because it
is assumed that it is responsible to organize human habit in a coherent manner. The
intellect play significant role in the willingness, desire, intention motive of an action. The
will, desire, motive, and intention carry moral evaluation. They are the focus of moral
evaluation of human conduct. You shall learn more on this in the next unit. If we accept
the power of the intellect: knowing, thinking and reasoning, which cannot be denied,
then, human conduct would need moral evaluation.
3.2.2.2 Habit
Habits as internal principles of human acts can be said to be a disposing of power to act
in a determinate way. Naturally, human beings are capable of diverse acts, but without
the habitual nature of human, most of human conducts would be done arbitrarily.
Therefore, habit develops to strengthen human power, enabling the power to operate
more effectively and with more capability.
Habits are not personal property of individual organisms and minds. They include
dispassionate factors as Dewey would say that ―honesty, chastity, malice, peevishness,
courage, triviality, industry, irresponsibility are not private possessions of a person. They
are working adaptations of personal capacities with environing forces. All virtues and
vices are habits which incorporate objective forces (Dewey, 1922:16).
So habits are inbuilt in human nature generally, not in a particular person, and they are
developed in individuals through the environment he or she is to help in perfecting

56
individual acts. For the reason stated above, habits produce consistency in operation and
facilitate an act to be done more speedily and effectively, they make human action
pleasurable in procedure.
3.2.2.2.1 Virtuous and Vicious habits
Habits are usually divided into two categories – virtue and vice; virtues are the good ones
while the bad ones are regarded as vices. Habits are meant to help human to do better
than he or she would have done. The classification of habits as good or bad is a moral
consideration, and it is different from the psychological point that shows how habits are
being developed. In other words, the distinction between virtue as a good habit and vice
as a bad habit is based on whether the habit produces acts favourable to encouraging
human's moral good or evil. Virtuous acts are those that are appropriate to human nature;
that is, they are habitual acts performed according to the moral norms and principle.
Vicious acts are seen to be against human nature, just as they are believed to be against
the moral norms and principle.
Virtue, then, could be defined in the Aristotelian way as a habit predisposing one to
choose the mean between the extremes of excess and defect. Vice, as the contrary habit,
would predispose one to choose either of the extremes of both morally evil. Thomas
Aquinas holds that the name of a virtue expresses its mode. The mode of a virtue is its
distinctive manner of realizing the good at stake in some specific area of human life. It is
the most proper component of any moral virtue and its major defining feature, which is
precisely why it is normally expressed by the virtue‘s name (cf. Austin, 2017:4).
Virtue is divided into two: moral and intellectual. This division is because it is believed
that human being is being guarded by two principles: the intellect and the appetite. The
intellect virtue comprises of perfect thinking, knowledge and understanding, wisdom, and
science and art. The appetite virtue include; courage, generosity, honesty, modesty,
prudence, justice, temperance and right disposition of the intellect virtues. Appetite virtue
is also moral. All the virtues mentioned above have corresponding vices, which are their
contrary habits.
Apart from the classical virtues mentioned above, there are some religious virtues, the
Christian for instance argue that there are theological virtues, such as: faith, hope, and
charity, which are part of the principles of human acts. The argument in support of this
claim could be captured thus:
The need of such virtues for human arises from the fact that
human happiness, the goal of all his actions, is twofold: a
happiness proportionate to human nature and obtainable by
means of natural principles including the moral and
intellectual virtues; a happiness surpassing human nature
and obtainable by and through God‘s power alone. Since
the natural virtues cannot suffice to direct human to
supernatural happiness, human has need for additional
principles of action in order to be directed to attaining
supernatural happiness. Such principles are the theological
virtues, which are infused by God, in which respect they

57
 are not wholly intrinsic principles of human action
(Catholic Encyclopedia).
There are other internal factors like will, desire, motive and intention, but they would not
ne discuss here. We shall analyse their influence on human conduct in the next unit.
4.0 Conclusion
In our discussion on the nature of human conduct in this unit, we have limited ourselves
to the psychological or behavioural analysis of the concept. Out of curiosity, it would be
asked: where is the place of ethics or morality, which is the focus of every discussion in
this course? Response to this yearning is that, this unit is an offshoot of the next unit,
where moral or philosophical analysis on human conduct shall be discussed under the
heading ―Human Act‖, for good understanding, therefore, you would be very kind to
yourself if this unit has been studied diligently.
5.0 Summary
Below is the summary of some of the things you must have learnt in this unit.
xiii. The social elements influencing human conduct – culture, law, religion;
xiv. The psychological impulses influencing human conduct; and
xv. The division of all what influences human conduct into two – external and internal.
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Discuss the concept ―human conduct‖

7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment

1. Discuss the ways human conduct is being influenced by external factors.
2. Critically examine the social elements that affect human conduct.
3. Do a critique of the term ―civil law‖

8.0 References/Further Reading

―Human Act.‖ New Catholic Encyclopedia. . Encyclopedia.com. 6 Aug. 2019
https://www.encyclopedia.com.
Austin, Nicholas. 2017. Aquinas on Virtue: A Causal reading. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Dewey, John. 1922. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology.
New York: Modern Library.
Fullerton, George Stuart. 2002. A Handbook of Ethical Theory Blackmask e-book.
Gleitman, Henry. 1981. Biological Basis of Behavior. Motivation. In W.W. Norton and
Company Inc., Psychology. New York, NY: University of Pennsylvania, 1981. 15-95.
Hacker-Wright, John. (2009). Human Nature, Personhood, and Ethical Naturalism,
Philosophy, Vol. 84, No. 329 (Jul.,), pp. 413-427. Cambridge University Press on behalf
of Royal Institute of Philosophy Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20533208
Accessed: 04-08-2019 13:18 UTC

58
 Lawhead, W.F. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy,
Second Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Group.
McDowell, John. (1998) Two Sorts of Naturalism. in Mind, Value, and Reality,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
On Codes of Human Conduct https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-OcP5pHgs

UNIT 4: Human Act

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Human Act

59
 3.2 The Factors Defining Human Act
3.2.1 Instinct
3.2.2 Intention
3.2.2.1 Units of Intention
3.2.2.2 Kinds of Intention
3.2.3 Motive
3.2.3.1 Categories of motive
3.3 Moral Appraisal of Human Act
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 References/ Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
In this unit, we shall do a descriptive analysis of human act. We shall examine if all human
actions are human acts or not. In doing this we shall look at the defining factors or distinctive
features of human act.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
At the end of this unit, you would be able to:
 Explain what constitute human act;
 Identify and explain the factors that define every human act; and
 Do a moral appraisal of human act.
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Human Act
The term, ―human act‖, refers to actions that are done by human beings deliberately; that
is actions that are performed willingly without any form of coercion. Human act is based
on reason; it proceeds from the intellect and the free-will decision of human person. It is
an act which the actor is responsible for; he or she should be blamed or praised because
he or she is the master, either as the initiator or executor of the act. Human act is said to
be free if the actor carry out the action freely within his or her volitions, desires and
choices (Lund, 2003:132). Human acts transmit moral qualities to the person who
performs them. It is usually differentiated from related terms that are called ―acts of a
human.‖ Acts of human are regarded as acts performed by people who lack the use of
proper reason or whose freedom is totally repressed or curtained as in sleep or under
anaesthesia. For instance if someone who is deeply asleep farted, his or her action is not
classified as human act, rather it is called act of human.
Human acts are good or bad, right or wrong depending on whether they are in line with or
against the norms, principles, codes of morality. Moral principles are universal and
objective in nature, and are purely theoretical approaches to guide human act in the right
direction. Practically, all deliberate actions are instrumentally done as a means to an end.
In other words, virtually all human acts are means to certain objective. To this end, the
aim, motive and intention behind an action is morally good or bad, right or wrong. It

60
 should be noted that the last above does not solely determines the moral status of an
action, certain actions are considered bad and wrong no matter the intention behind it.
Also, the means employed regardless of the motive or intention to achieve an end carries
moral value. Before we delve deeply on the moral value or judgment of human act, let us
look at the ―driving force‖ of human act.

3.2 The Factors Defining Human Act

Human acts are being driven by certain factors that could be regarded as the ―driving
forces‖. We call these factors forces, not because they are outside the control of human
beings but because they are what influence people, persuasively, to act in the way they
would act. In other word, the factors are what define an action as human act. These
factors are numerous, but here we shall discuss few, such as instinct, intention, and
motive, among others.

3.2.1 Instinct
One of the major factors influencing human act is instinct. Like most animals, a human
being has instinct which is a natural innate biological trait. It makes human, like other
animals, to act or react ―in a particular manner when placed in a certain situation‖
(Omoregbe, 1993:72). Instinct is in different degrees in human and other animals; beasts
have more natural instinct, which is mostly for survival, while human instinct is minimal
but added advantage to human instinct is the availability to ratiocinate. Disputably,
animal might have this capability, but such cannot be compared with human level of
reason. We shall return to the necessity of rationality later. Now, instinct – either in
human or other animals – is geared towards something, the greatest of which is survival.
Self-preservation is the strongest instinct. Another thing we do have instinct for is
pleasure – instinct for pleasure is best demonstrated in sexual pleasure. This could be the
reason the Cyrenaics (who were the first advocate of hedonism) named sex as one of the
three things that gives pleasure (cf. Graham, 2004:41). There are other kinds of instinct,
such as; instinct of acquisition, instinct of curiosity, instinct of self-assertion, instinct of
gregarious, and so on. However, all the other instincts can be grouped under the former
two. In order words the instinct of acquisition, instinct of social, instinct of self-assertion,
and instinct of curiosity could be for pleasure, they could also be for survival.

3.2.2 Intention
Another factor influencing human act is intention. The intention of an act is the
calculated end result that the actor foresees. It is the aimed or desired outcome the actor
hoped to achieve before doing such an action. According to Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy, intention is the ―state of mind that is favourably directed towards bringing
about (or maintaining, or avoiding) some state of affairs.‖ Intention is synonymous with
volition, wish and desire; however, it has slight differences with them. The major
difference is that in wish and desire, the actor might not necessarily be the initiator of the
act, but just anticipated and end. While in intention, the actor initiate or set in motion the
action and anticipate a certain end. Intention could be good or bad, which can be known
from the consequence of the action. From the foregoing, it is obvious that not all human
acts are intentional. Some acts are voluntary while some are behavioural.

61
3.2.2.1 Units of intention
There are two units of intention – immediate intention and remote intention. The former
is the first aim that someone wants to achieve through an action, while the latter is the
successive aim the person wants to achieve. For instance, a student immediate intention
to read might be to know such a course, and the remote intention might be to have good
grade in the result after examination. It should be noted that either of this immediate
intention and remote intention might be rated higher depending on the action and the
actor. In other words the quality and quantity of the intention does is independent of
being either immediate intention or remote intention. Rather, it depends on the action and
the person that has such intention.

3.2.2.2 Kinds of Intention

Intentional actions are of two kinds: direct intention and indirect intention. The former is
a kind of acts that is its end is anticipated or calculated to be so. The latter happens to be
the derivative outcome that accompanied the anticipated or calculated end of an action.
This derivative result is inseparable and acceptable part of the anticipated end. Joseph
Omoregbe illustrates how indirect intention happens thus:

During a war, a commander may order the bombing of a military

base of the enemy. The commander foresees that some innocent
civilians will surely be affected by the bombing and will lose their
lives. This in itself is undesired and foreseen as a necessary by-
product of the action of bombing and destroying the military base
of the enemy, but it is allowed to happen since it is inseparably
connected with the desired goal. In this case, the killing of some
innocent civilians along with the soldiers in the military base of the
enemy is the indirect intention of the action (Omoregbe, 1993: 71).

3.2.3 Motive
Motive is another factor that influence human act. Motive is the reason or state of the
mind that makes a person to perform an action. Arnold defines motive as ―a want that
leads to action, that is, a goal appraised as good for action without further deliberation; it
includes effective and deliberate action tendencies‖ (cf. Bunnin and Yu, 2004:450)
Motive is close related to intention, in the sense that, it is the underlining factor that
drives human mind to form an intention. Motive is also necessary to know if an action is
intended or not. The motive behind an action determines the manner, method, or system
of executing such an action. Each of the following could be a motivating factor of an
action: love, sympathy, empathy, hatred, ambition, greediness, nepotism, patriotism,
enthusiasm. The motive behind an action determines the intention of such an action. For
instance, if love is the motive behind an action, the intention of such an action would be
different from the intention of that same action if hatred is the motive behind it.

3.2.3.1 Categories of Motive

Motives are of two categories, they are: positive motives and negative motives. Positive
motives bring about good intentions which make actions right. Negative motives bring
about bad intentions that make actions wrong. Motives, such as love, enthusiasm,

62
 patriotism, sympathy, empathy are positive motives, while motives such as greediness,
hatred, nepotism are negative motives. Ambition could be both positive motive and
negative motive. Ordinarily, to be ambitious is positive, but over ambition could be a
kind of greediness, hence, in that process it has turn to negative motive. Let us illustrate
how positive motive and negative motive result to good and bad intentions respectively
and how the corresponding actions that follow are right and wrong.

If a person with positive motives of patriotism, love for his society, sympathy for
citizen, and enthusiasm is made the leader of the country or head of a sector in the
country economy, his or her intention would be a good one. Such good intention would
drive him to perform right actions that are capable to bring development to his country,
eradicate the suffering, promote dignity of every citizen; celebrate merit, and so on. On
the other hand, if someone with negative motives like greediness, hatred and nepotism
occupied same position, his intention would be bad and wrong actions would be
performed. Such actions that would division among citizens, celebrate mediocre,
embezzlement of public fund, mismanagement of public properties, and so on would
rampage.

3.3 Moral Appraisal of Human Act

Thus far, we have examined the major issues that characterized human act. We said
earlier that human act goes with responsibility, that is, it carries moral worth. Critical
examinations of the factors that define human act would show that intention and motive
could carry moral evaluation, because it is within the actor capability, there is no external
influence on him or her to perform the actions. However, on the case of instinct, it could
be argued that actions performed are not strictly within the actor capability, because
instinct is inbuilt in human nature, therefore, there is a kind of external influence behind
such actions. We said earlier that human instinct, unlike other animals, is guided with the
ability to ratiocinate. Rationality is what makes human instinct different from other
animals instinct, and it is the same rationality that makes human to be responsible for
actions perform under instinct.

The point we are establishing is that only one of these defining factors might not
guarantee that an action is human act, because an action could be accidental that could be
classified as human deed, act of human, or behavioural. And any actions in the latter
categories mentioned might not carry moral worth. Therefore, for an action to carry
moral worth, it must first be a human act. Human act might then start or develop as
instinct, the availability of rationality in human would help to translate such instinct to
motive, and motive would thereafter generate intention that will push human to do the
action. When actions pass through these conscious stages, they could no longer be termed
as act of human or mere deed; they have moral worth which the actor must be
responsible.

Some ethical theories believe that some actions are by their nature human act. They
accept as true that actions such as; murder, adultery, theft, and so on are not done without
passing through all the stages above, and to them, such actions are intrinsically bad and
wrong. Classical Virtue Theory and Deontological school of thought: Divine Command

63
 Theory and Kantianism are known for this position. The position concerning murder
could be express thus: ―taking human life, we feel is an act of such significance that one
cannot elide its description into a term which denotes its consequence or an end to which
it was a means, unless that term makes clear that this was the means used‖ (D'Arcy,
1963:18-19). Kant moved further to argue that the intention and motive or will behind an
action is essential for its moral worth. The question is: when will intention or motive
makes an action good? Kant says it is when the action is performed only from duty
without inclination (Kant 1998:7). Hence, when someone from sense of duty devoid of
inclination, he or she has good intention, motive or will which then guarantee the positive
moral status of the action. Under divine command theory, human acts would either be
good or bad, right or wrong based on if they fulfil the conditions required by the law of
God.

Teleological theories do not look at the mere intention or will behind an action but the
consequence of the action. This is because it is difficult, most cases, to know the motive
and intention behind an action. The actor could lie or deny the motive and intention
behind if we are to find out that from him or her. Therefore, if an action produces good
result, such an action is good and if the result is bad, such an action is bad. Therefore, the
moral worth of an action depends on the circumstances and the situations. Utilitarianism
for instance would base the moral worth on the numbers of people affected by the
consequences. While Joseph Fletcher‘s Situation Ethics would base it on the on the
situation that is guided by love.

Some other schools of thought believe that actions have no moral worth than our
expressions of emotion. Their position is what we dislike, we say ―it is not good‖, and
what will like, we say ―it is good.‖ This position known as emotivism is well expressed
by one of the major proponent A.J. Ayer thus:

The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds

nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone,
―You acted wrongly in stealing that money,‖ I am not
stating anything more than if I had simply said, ―You stole
that money.‖ In adding that this action is wrong I am not
making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing
my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said ―You stole
that money‖ in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with
the addition of some special exclamation marks (Ayer,
1936:107).

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, you should have learnt what characterized an action that could be called
human act. The unit claimed that not all human actions are human act, and that only
human actions carry moral responsibility and moral worth. Instinct, motive and intention
are major characteristic of human act, however, it is often common to hear people, after
they have done something that seems obvious wrong, saying, in other to escape moral
condemnation, ―it is not intentional‖ or ―that is not my motive‖. To know the motive and

64
 intention behind an action, therefore, becomes a herculean task. This has prompted
alternative moral evaluation to the traditional virtue and deontological ethical theories.
5.0 Summary
This unit has discussed the following ideas about human act:
viii. The definition of human act as actions performed willing without any
form of coercion, which in turn transfers responsibility on the doer;
ix. The moral worth of actions: good or bad, right or wrong are based their
conformity with moral codes, norms and principles; and
x. Instinct, intention, and motive are some of the factors that define human act.
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Critically examine the differences between human act and act of man
2. Do a comprehensive analysis of intention as regard the concept ―human act.‖
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. Explain the factors that define every human act.
2. Discuss the relationship between instinct and motive.
3. Explain the influence of instinct on human act is.
4. Mention three types of intention and explain any one of them.
5. Differentiate between positive motive and negative motive.

8.0 Reference and Further Reading

Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz.

Blackburn, Simon. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Second edition revised. New York:
Oxford University Press

Bunnin, Nicholas and Yu, Jiyuan. (2004) The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy.
Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

D'Arcy, Eric. (1963) Human Acts: An Essay in Their Moral Evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

Graham, Gordon. (2004). Eight Theories of Ethics. London, New York: Routledge Publishers

Kant, Immanuel. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by
Mary Gregor; with an introduction by Christine M. Korsgaard. Cambridge: University Press.

Lund, David. (2003). Making Sense of if All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd
Edition. New Jersey: RR Donnelly

Omoregbe, Joseph I. (1993). Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Jota Educational
and Research Publishers Ltd.

65
 MODULE 3

UNIT 1: Relationship between ethics and morality

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

66
3.0 Main content
3.1 Ethics
3.2 Moralities
3.3 Relationship between Ethics and Morality
3.3.1 Differences between Ethics and Morality
3.3.2 Similarities between Ethics and Morality
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment
8.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
This unit is based on the discussion on ethics as that which seeks to resolve
questions of human morality by defending concepts such as good and bad, right
and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. It also discusses morality as a
system of principles and values concerning people‘s behaviour, which is generally
accepted by a society or a particular group of people. It then further discusses the
relationship between Ethics and Morality, by showing the differences and the
similarities which are inherent in the two concepts, (ethics and morality).
Consequently, it shall show the fact that morality is the basis of ethics. However,
before dwelling deep into the relationships between the two concepts, the two
concepts would be discussed simultaneously.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcome

By the end of this unit, it is expected that you should be able to:
 Explain briefly what ethics is;
 Explain what morality implies;
 Explain the similarities and differences between ethics and morality; and
 Discuss the relationship between ethics and morality.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Ethics
Ethics has morality of human actions and conducts as its subject matter. Its major
concern includes the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human
actions can be judged right or wrong [Uduma 2000:99]. Ethics further shows that
there are certain actions which are inherently morally wrong and which ought not
to be done by any individual, for example, stealing, killing, adultery, dishonesty,
among others. Even when these actions are being done by any individual,
naturally, it is known that they are actions which nobody ought to perform. On the
other hand, there are also certain kinds of actions which would be considered as
morally right, for instance, learning, teaching, giving of alms, fidelity to one‘s
duties, respect for human life, and so on.

67
 There are some kinds of actions which opinions about them differs. While some
consider such actions to be morally right, others consider them to be morally
wrong. Examples are contraception, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, and so on.
[Omoregbe 1993:3]. Hence, ethics, works as a guiding principle as to decide what
is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person. It is the
attempt to formulate the theoretical principles lying in or behind the evaluation of
conduct. Ethical principles can be seen in various aspects of human endeavours as
a means of regulating and analysing human‘s moral life-style. Hence, ethics comes
in various forms which are recognized today.
Meta-ethics: It is about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral
propositions and how their truth value can be determined.
Normative ethics: It concerns the practical ways of determining and arriving at
moral standards that regulate right and wrong conducts.
Applied ethics: It deals with the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues
such as abortion, animal rights, and so on.

3.2 Morality
Generally speaking, morality can be a body of standards or principles derived
from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can
be derived from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality in
most cases is specifically synonymous with ‗goodness‘ or ‗rightness‘ (Stanford
2019).
Furthermore, it can be seen as a set of rules, feeling or a kind of behaviour which
entails compliance with the principles of good, moral or virtuous conduct. It is
expected that every rational being should have a sense of morality and as a result
be able to make moral judgments from time to time. Morality can also be seen as
man‘s attempt to harmonize conflicting interests [Ndubuisi 2010].
Morality denotes not any kind of evaluated conduct, but a body of ‗accepted‘
conduct. Morality implies a standard of conduct. There are many different kinds of
moralities and they include:
i. Christian morality is conduct sanctioned by the principles of Christianity;
Islamic morality, which is a moral kind of teaching from the traditions of
the Muslim Qur‘an;
ii. Confucian morality is conduct sanctioned by Confucius, and so on.
[Morals, Morality, and Ethics 1928:453]. Morality has immorality,
amorality and non-morality as terms which are related to it;
iii. Conventional morality is that body of conduct which is sanctioned by the
custom or habit of the group of which the individual is a member.

However, it is important to indicate that morality is said to be used in two distinct

broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. Descriptively to refer to
certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion),
68
or accepted by an individual for his or her own behaviour, Normatively to refer to
a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, which would be put forward by
all rational persons.

The two broad senses of morality are crucial when it comes to the discussion on
morality. If one uses ‗morality‘ in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to
refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one
will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all
human beings. The descriptive use of ‗morality‘ is the one used by anthropologists
when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some
comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt and Kasebir 2006) have taken
morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human
animals: primarily, but not exclusively, other primates.

Any definition of ‗morality‘ in the descriptive sense will need to specify which of
the codes put forward by a society or group count as moral. Even in small
homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are sometimes
made between morality, etiquette, law, and religion. And in larger and more
complex societies these distinctions are often sharply marked. So ―morality‖
cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society.

In the normative sense, ‗morality‘ refers to a code of conduct that would be

accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions,
almost always including the condition of being rational. That a person meets these
conditions is typically expressed by saying that the person counts as a moral
agent. However, merely showing that a certain code would be accepted by any
moral agent is not enough to show that the code is the moral code. It might well be
that all moral agents would also accept a code of prudence or rationality, but this
would not by itself show that prudence was part of morality.

As we have just seen not all codes that are put forward by societies or groups are
moral codes in the descriptive sense of morality, and not all codes that would be
accepted by all moral agents are moral codes in the normative sense of morality.
So any definition of morality in either sense will require further criteria. Still, each
of these two very brief descriptions of codes might be regarded as offering some
features of morality that would be included in any adequate definition. In that way
they might be taken to be offering some definitional features of morality, in each
of its two senses. When one has specified enough definitional features to allow
one to classify all the relevant moral theories as theories of a common subject, one
might then be taken to have given a definition of morality. This is the sense of
definition we are concerned with in this discussion. Morality has immorality,
amorality and non-morality as terms which are related to it.

69
 Immorality is the violation of moral laws, norms, or standards. It is normally
applied to people or behaviours, or in a broader sense, it can be applied to groups
or corporate bodies. Ronald Dmitri however sees immoral behaviour as that which
does not merely consist in the performance of morally wrong acts, for morally
wrong acts are not always blameworthy and immoral behaviour is blameworthy.
Aristotle distinguishes between two types of immorality and they are: wickedness
and weakness. He compares the morally weak person to a state that has good laws
but fails to apply them and the wicked person to a state that applies its laws even
though the laws are bad.

Amoral means having no moral sense, or being indifferent to right and wrong.
This term can be applied to very few people. And there are a few human beings
who, despite moral education, have remained or become amoral. Such people tend
to be found among certain types of criminal who cannot seem to realize they have
done anything wrong. They tend not to have any remorse, regret, or concern for
what they have done. Children, an insane person, a terminally ill person and so on
fall under the amoral individuals.

The term ‗Non-moral‘, means out of realm of morality altogether. For example,
inanimate objects such as cars and guns are neither moral nor immoral. A person
using the car or gun may use it immorally, but the things themselves are non-
moral. Many areas of study for instance, mathematics, astronomy, and physics are
in themselves non-moral, but because human beings are involved in these areas,
morality may also be involved.

Non-moral behaviour constitutes a great deal of the behaviour we see and perform
everyday of our lives. We must, however, always be aware that our non-moral
behaviour can have moral implications. For instance, typing a letter is, in itself
non-moral, but if typing and mailing it will result in someone‘s death, then
morality must certainly enter into the picture.

3.3 Relationships between Ethics and Morality

3.3.1 Differences between Ethics and Morality

The first thing to note is that the two terms share a mix-up in their origins and
sometimes, they are being used interchangeably even though they are not the same
historically. Hannah Arendt says that the fact that we use ‗ethical‘ and ‗moral‘ to
address questions of right and wrong, good and bad is indicative of our confusion
in this area. What she is referring to is that etymologically ethical and moral
70
simply refer to customs or habits. ‗Ethical‘ was used in a phrase referring to
excellence in habits or customs. Similarly, the Latin derived ‗moral‘ was the
modifier of a word meaning virtue or strength. Ironically, the subordinate words,
ethical and moral, were retained for articulating a code of right and wrong while
the important ideas of excellence and strength were eclipsed (Hannah 1979).
In view of the above therefore, etymologically, the English word ―ethics‖ comes
from Greek word ethos. The ethos of a society or culture deals with its
foundational philosophy, its concepts of values, and its system of understanding
how the world fits together. On the other hand, morals have to do with the
customs, habits, and normal forms of behaviour that are found within a given
culture. Having shown the differences in the two philosophical concepts
etymologically, the following discussion, however, shows the main differences
inherent in the concepts (ethics and morality).
As ethics is the rules for deciding proper conduct it is absolutely timeless. Ethical
principles change very little with ages. Morality is the standards for behaviour
that exist at some point in time. Compared to ethics, morality undergoes changes
frequently. It is more like a snapshot taken of something moving. Since the
principles of ethics are more fundamental and stable, ethics is bigger than
morality. Ethics is able to call morality - the existing standards for conduct - into
question, and cause morality to change. Let us consider slavery for an
example. Once it was considered moral to own slaves. Over time, ethics called
the morality of slavery into question and the eventual result was that slavery was
no longer considered moral.
According to Baker (2008), the fundamental indicators of ethics are ―should and
ought‖ in life. However, ethics are also related to the values of acceptable and
unacceptable behaviour. The term ‗ethics‘ is not just a phrase. It refers to
understanding and adopting moral values in our daily life. There are many
different types of ethics and virtues that differ from one situation to another.
Aristotle pointed to two within our soul. The first engages in reasoning and the
second is that which ―cannot itself reason‖ (Kraut, 2010). However, in order to
become ―virtuous and practically wise‖ we must go through two stages: develop
proper habits in childhood and gain ―practical wisdom‖ in adulthood (Kraut,
2010). And it is only when the two found in a person that the ethical virtues are
fully developed. Ethics are an integral part of our social laws and politics. In
normative ethics, the action of right and wrong is derived and defined. Descriptive
ethics examines concepts of protocol and aesthetics (Dan, 2001). Applied ethics
investigates the success or failure of ethical theory of everyday situations.
Morals on the other hand, according to Baker, are ethical principles that are
always the same. Morality can also be descriptive nd normative. It is descriptive
where it is used in examining our societies‘ conduct, but normative when it is used
in attaching specific conditions to logical beings (Gert, 2008). Morality unlike

71
ethics is more of an ambiguous term, because it is often distinguished from
etiquette, law, and religion which are codes of conduct proposed by a society. The
descriptive sense of morality is also being used in reference to principal attitudes
of individuals (Gert, 2008). It can differ extensively in content and foundation
within societies. Its primary concern can be purity or sanctity as oppose to
normative account of morality that is based on avoiding damage, hurt or injury.
However, both the descriptive and the normative refer to guides that in part ―avoid
and prevent harm to some other‖ (Gert, 2008).
Ethics and morality define our own character; ethics dictates the inner working of
a social system. That is because ethics are based on moral codes adopted by
members of a given group. The difference between ethics and morality is often a
fine line that differs between our global communities (Gert, 2008). Furthermore,
ethics study the norms, standard by which things are measured and evaluated.
While morality describes the way things operate.
Ethics is concerned with ‗ought-ness‘ and morality is concerned with ‗is-ness‘.
This is because the former deals with how someone ought to behave and the later
describes what someone is actually doing in a particular society. Hence ethics
takes its primary occupation to what is right and morality takes its own primary
occupation to be what is accepted.
Morality is a general guideline framed by the culture, or religion of a society. For
instance, we should speak the truth at all times. Conversely, ethics are a response
to particular situation. For instance, it is ethical to say the truth in a particular
situation? Morals may vary from society to society and culture to culture. This is
in contrast to ethics, which remains same regardless of any culture, religion and
society.
Morality has been in existence for a long time; even before ethics come into
existence, man already have a sense of moral judgments without taking any
principles or ethical considerations. Hence, serves as the basis for ethics. Ethics is
a term usually used by philosophers to be a philosophical study of morality.
Morality is said to be a set of social rules, principles, norms that guide or are
intended to guide the conduct of the people in a society. Morality is the subject
matter of ethics however it is used most times interchangeable with ethics.
Through critical analyses and arguments, Ethics is used as philosophical
instrument to explain and clarify the conceptual issues regarding morality.

3.3.2 Similarities between Ethics and Morality

It is very easy to point out some among our everyday judgments, with the truth of
which ethics is undoubtedly concerned. Whenever we say, so and so is a good
man, or that fellow is a villain; whenever we ask what ought I to do? or is it wrong
for me to do this?; whenever we hazard such remarks as temperance is a virtue and
drunkenness a vice, it is undoubtedly the business of ethics to discuss such

72
questions and such statements; to argue what is the true answer when we ask what
is right to do, and to give reasons for thinking that our statements about the
character of persons or the morality of actions are true or false. In the vast majority
of cases, where we make statements involving any of the terms virtue, vice, duty,
right, ought, good, bad, we are making ethical judgments; and if we wish to
discuss their truth, we shall be discussing a point of ethics.

If we take such examples as those given above, we shall not be far from right in
saying that they are all concerned with the question of conducts of human being.
They are concerned with the questions of what is good and what is bad, what is
right, and what is wrong. For when we say that a man is good, we commonly
mean that he acts rightly; when we say that drunkenness is a vice, we commonly
mean that to get drunk is a wrong or wicked action. And this discussion of human
conduct is, in fact, that with which the name ‗ethics‘ is most intimately associated.
It is so associated by derivation; and conduct is undoubtedly by far the commonest
and most generally interesting object of ethical judgments.

Accordingly, we find that many ethical philosophers are disposed to accept as an

adequate definition of ethics the statement that it deals with the question what is
good or bad in human conduct. They hold that its enquiries are properly confined
to conducts and behaviours. Ethics is undoubtedly concerned with the question
what good conduct is; but, being concerned with this, it obviously does not start at
the beginning, unless it is prepared to tell us what is good as well as what is
conduct. Good conduct is a complex notion, because not every conduct is good.

In the same vein, morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and

actions between those that are ‗good‘ and those that are ‗bad‘. The philosophy of
morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality and a moral is any one
practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically
synonymous with ‗goodness‘ or ‗rightness.‘ Immorality is the active opposition to
morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference
toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. An example of a
moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, ―One should treat others as one
would like others to treat oneself.‖

Hence, both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the
difference between ‗good and bad‘ or ‗right and wrong.‘ Many people think of
morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the
standards of ‘good and bad’ distinguished by a certain community or social
setting. For example, your local community may think adultery is immoral, and
you personally may agree with that. However, the distinction can be useful if your
local community has no strong feelings about adultery, but you consider adultery
immoral on a personal level. By these definitions of the terms, your morality

73
 would contradict the ethics of your community. In popular discourse, however, we
will often use the terms moral and immoral, ethical and unethical when talking
about issues like adultery regardless of whether it is discussed in a personal or in a
community-based situation.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have shown to which extent ethics and morality are related and
different. Also, it has been shown that the importance of morality in human
society cannot be over emphasized and, finally the role which ethics as a
philosophical tool plays when it comes to the issue of the critical analysis of moral
statements and judgments.
5.0 Summary
The following have been discussed so far in this unit:
i. Morality can be defined either descriptively or normatively. Descriptively, it is
a certain code of conduct put forwardly by a society or a group. For instance,
religion and accepted by an individual. Normatively, it is a code of conduct
that after specified conditions would be put forward by all rational individuals;
ii. Ethics is the discipline which is concerned with what is morally good and bad,
right and wrong. The three major areas of study in ethics are: meta-ethics,
normative ethics, and applied ethics;
iii. Ethics and morality both have good and bad, right and wrong and so on as their
subject matter;
iv. The words morality and ethics are sometimes used interchangeably even
though they have different etymological meanings; and
v. Morality serves as a basis for ethics, because ethics is the explicit reflection,
and systematic study of morality.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. How would you explain the relationship between ethics and morality?
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
1. Morality has been in existence among humans right form the time creation.
Discuss.
2. Ethics is a philosophical tool which is used to discuss the issues about morality.
Explain.

8. References/Further Reading

Amorality- Wikipedia. https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/immorality

Baker, A. (2008). Ethics and Social Justice: Fundamental concepts. Laureate Education,
Inc.
Dan, J. (2001) ‗A Shift in Moral Authority‘ in The Futurist. Expanded Academic ASAP.

74
Ethics:/Internet Encyclopaedia of philosophy. https:/www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Ethics-wikipedia.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethics

Gert, B. (2008). The Definition of Morality. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

Available on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ Accessed on
18:05:2019

Haidt, J., & Kasebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Linzey (eds)
Hand of Social Psychology, 5th Edition. New Jersey: Hobeken.

Immorality – Wikipedia. https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/immorality.

Joseph, Omoregbe. (1993). Ethics: A Systematic Study. Lagos: Joja press limited.
Kraut, R. (2010). Aristotle‘s Ethics. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available
online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Ndubuisi, F.N. (2010). Man and the State. Lagos. Foresight press.

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (14 March 2011). The definition of Morality.

Stanford University Retrieved 10 July, 2019.

Uduma, Oji U (2000). The Fundamentals of Philosophy Ebonyi: Willyrose and

Appleseed publishing coy.

UNIT 2: Ethics and Law

Contents
4.0 Introduction

75
5.0 Intended learning Outcomes
6.0 Main content
3.1 The meaning of Ethics
3.2 The meaning of Law
3.3 Ethics and Law
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
Aristotle was right when he agreed that man is by nature a political (social)
animal. If the aim for which society was created, namely the maximization of self-
preservation must not be defeated then concerted effort must be taken that order is
secured in the society for a meaningful development, both at the individual and
social levels. It is common knowledge that the two most effective mechanisms of
social control loosely described as the control of social behavior that is, behavior
that affect others (Akintayo and Sanni, 2006, 79), are ethics and law. An ocean
of ink has gone into the attempt by moral cum legal philosophers over the
centuries to examine whether or not there is correlation between ethics and law.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you would be able to:
 state primarily what ethics implies
 define the concept law and
 explain the relationship between ethics and law

3.0 Main Contents

3.1 The Meaning of Law

Our discussions on the meaning of ethics in Module 1 Unit 2 suffice in the present
unit. Law, however, like most other concepts, has no standard definition however,
for our purpose, it may be defined as a rule or body of rules made by institutions,
bodies and persons vested with the power to make such rules which are binding
and enforced among the members of a given state or society (Sanni, 2006, 5). That
law is enforced means that agents of government exercising public authority can
use official compulsion to give effect to legal norms just as private persons can
invoke the government coercive force to enforce their legal right (Hazard, 1995,
449).

Accordingly, law is a transaction involving at minimum, three participants: the

person whose interest is protected by norms; the person whose conduct is in

76
question under the adjudicate controversies concerning application of norm and
eventually enforce a judgment (Hazard 1995, 449, 450). Legal norms therefore
impose duties which one would fail to carryout either positively or negatively at
the risk sanctions. Law equally develop on the controversial assumption of ―inter
subjective intelligibility‖ which means that a rule written by one person can be
substantially understood by another the controversy notwithstanding, law has not
only persisted but it is flourishing.

What the foregoing shows is that whereas law and ethics are connected with the
regulation of people‘s conducts in any given society law is more effective because
it compels obedience unlike morality which is not binding. What follows is a
closes looks of the relationship between ethics and law.

3.2 Ethics and Law

In primitive societies, Pound states, religion, morals, law, customs and manners
existed as an undifferentiated whole (Pound, 1926, 26, 85). The attempt to
distinguish ethics and law, therefore, is an off short of the complex nature society
has to take. Even so the boundaries between them are hazy and ill- defined
(Hazl:tt, 1994, 62). The outstanding illustration of the fusing and separation of
ethics and law is the bickering between natural law and legal positivism (HazI: tt,
1994, 62).

Natural law is otherwise referred to as the law of nature. According to Fuller, the
law of nature in its prescriptive sense is a universal percept or command intended
by nature to regulate human behavior (Fuller, 1969, 15). Lard Lloyd equally
described the expression ―nature law‖ as a body of objective moral principles
based on the nature of the universal and discoverable by reason (Llyods, 1985,
93). According to Aquinas, the natural law is available to reason and can be
discerned from human nature by every competent thinker who is not blinded by
passion, bad habits and ignorance (Law head, 2002, 178-180).

Essentially, natural law holds that laws and legal system can be criticized on moral
grounds; that there are standards against which legal norms can be compared and
sometimes found wanting. This standard is sometimes described as ―a (the) higher
law (Bix, 2010, 211). Bix categorized natural law theories under two broad
groups, namely: traditional theories and modern theories. While the traditional
theories were generally taking a particular position on the status of morality ( that
true moral beliefs are based in a or derived from human nature or the natural
world, that they are not relative, that they are accessible to human reason, and so
on) a position which then had some implications for how legislators, judges and
citizens should act (as well as for all aspects of living a good life); the modern
natural law theories contain theories specifically about law, which hold that moral
evaluation of some sort is required in describing law, particular legal systems, or
the legal validity of individual norms ( Bix, 2010, 219). Major proponents of
77
traditional natural law theory are Cicero, Thomas Aquinas and John Finnis while
major proponents of modern natural law theory are Lon Fuller, Ronald Dwarkin,
Michael S. Moore, and Lloyd Weinrebeto.

Cicero defined true law as right reason in agreement with nature. He further held
that such law is universal, timeless and none can be freed from its obligations
(Plato, 1928, Republic III, xxii. 33, at 211). For Aquinas, genuine or just positive
law that can be considered as human law, is derived from natural law. In his words
―every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the
law of nature. But if in any point it defects from the law of nature, it is no longer a
law but a perversion of law‖ and ―unjust laws are acts of violence rather than
laws‖ (Aquinas, 1993:324). Hence natural law theory draws a necessary nexus
between law and ethics and posits that laws that are inconsistent with morality are
sub-standard.

Legal positivism dismisses the necessary connection the natural law theorist. All
legal positivists, according to Coleman and Leiter show two central beliefs: first,
that what counts as law in any particular society is fundamentally a matter of
social fact or convention (the social thesis). Second, there is no necessary
connection between laws and morality (the reparability thesis). They however,
differ among themselves over the best interpretation of these care commitments of
positivism (Coleman and Lieter, 2010, 228). Like other philosophers the label
―positivism‖ legal positivists insist that phenomena comprising the domain at issue
(for example law, science) must be accessible to human mind (16: d).

A crude version of legal positivism was stated by Ulpian (170-223 A), a roman
Jurist of train ancestry, when he averred that ―what pleases the prince has force of
law‖. In a similar vein, Austin propounded the command theory as law which
holds that law as rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an
intelligent being (the sovereign) havring power over him. The command of the
sovereign are backed with sanction in the event of non-compliance (Austin, 1975,
lectures 2-4). For Bentham, law is essentially a command issued by a sovereign to
his subordinates or by a superior being to his inferiors (Bentham, 1970, chap. 1-5).
Furthermore, Professor H.L.A Hart submits that law is a command and there is no
necessary connection between law and morals or law as it is (lex lata) and the law
as taught to be (Hart, 1958, 601, 602).

Flowing from the above, the legality of a norm is determined by its source and not
its merits. In essence, that means the source of law is what gives the grounds for
its legality But Austin argues that the office, and not the person, is the sovereign
because the office is an institution. In a nutshell legal positivism emphasises that
once a law meets the requisite technical requirement, it is a standard law without
regards to its merits or otherwise. The sources of law are created and empowered
to do so by what H.L.A Hart calls the ―Rules of Recognition‖ (1961:43).
78
4.0 Conclusion
The foregoing has shown that the debate about whether or not ethics and law are
correlated and the extent to which they are related, if at all they are, is far from
over. However, it must be conceded that in the realm of praxis, legal positivism is
having its way because what the courts interpret is not what the law ought to be
but what it is. In other words, courts do not invalidate a law which has passed
through the requisite constitutional process on the ground that it is immoral. The
fact remains that what constitutes morality or otherwise varies from society to
society and from individual to individual. So it will be difficult, pragmatically, to
draw a necessary connection between law and morality. However, as Hazard
rightly puts it, as far as behavior is concerned, there is the co-existence of legal,
moral and ethical obligation. For example, the fact that most people consider theft
and homicide to be morally wrong reinforces the strength of the legal prohibition
against such behaviours. Likewise, a legal duty that does not enjoy popular
support or which is not sustained by personal internalization, generally has
corresponding weaker force. A legal change (Change in law) can be influenced by
a strong adherence to a particular moral code but at the individual and social level
(Hazard, 1995, 448).

5.0 Summary

In this unit, we have discussed the following about ethics and law:

i. Current usage interchanges ethics for morality such that it will be safe to
speak of morality and law;
ii. While law and ethics are concerned with the regulation of human conduct
in order to secure social order, law, unlike ethics, is binding and can be
enforced;
iii. The most vivid example to drive home the delineated status of the
relationship between ethics and law is the debate between natural law,
which holds that laws that are inconsistent with ethics are not laws in the
fullest sense of the word, and legal positivism that holds that law is totally
valid irrespective of its morality;
iv. Law is static as long as it meets the requisite technical requirement; and
v. The unit concluded that through the courts agree with legal positivism,
changes in law can be influenced through strict adherence to moral codes.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Briefly explain what ethics and law means and state their relationships.

79
 2. Law and ethics are concerned with the regulation of people‘s conduct in
any given society. Discuss.

7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

1. State the two forms of law which was discussed in this unit
2. with reference to H.L.A Hart, are there any relationships between law and
morality? Discuss.

Reference/Further Readings
Beylereld, D., and Brownsward, R. (1986). Law as Moral Judgement. London: Sweet &
Maxwell.
Bix, B.H. (1993). Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy. Oxford, UK: Clarendon press.
Dickson. J. (2007). Is the Rule of Recognition Really a Conventional Rule? Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies 27: 373-402
Dwarkin, R.M. (1986). Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press
Dwarkin, R.M. (2006). Justice in Robes. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University press
Finnis, J. (2000). On the incoherence of legal positivism. Notre Dame Law Review 75:
1597 – 1611.
Finnis, J. 2007. Natural Law Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter
2016 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Retrieved on August 2, 2019 from https:// plato.
Stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/natural-law-theories>.
Hart, H.L.A. (1983). Essays on Jurisprudence and philosophy. Oxford: Clarendan press
Hart, H.L.A (1961). The concept of Law. Oxford; Clarendon press.
Plato (2002), The Republic, http://www.idph.net 18 de maio de

Raz, J (2006). The problem of Authority: Revisiting the service conception. Minnesota
Law Review 90:1003-44.

UNIT 3: Concept of Moral Law

80
Contents
7.0 Introduction
8.0 Intended learning Outcomes (ILOs)
9.0 Main content
3.1 The Concept of Moral Law
3.1.1 The Divine Command Theory
3.1.2 The Idea of Natural Law
3.1.3 Kant‘s Duty Ethics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

2.0 Introduction
Ethics is defined as the systematization, defence and recommendation of concepts
of right and wrong behaviour (Fieser, n.d. para 1). There are various schools of
thought that attempt to establish the status of morals. One view that has been
pushed is the concept of ‗moral law‘. This unit, therefore, will critically evaluate
this concept.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcome

By the end of this unit, you would be able to:
 Explain what moral law means;
 Identify the three divisions of the concept of moral law;
 Explain the divine command theory;
 Explain the idea of Natural law; and
 Explain Kant‘s Duty Ethics.

3.0 Main Contents

3.1 The concept of moral law
Morality refers to precepts that guide people‘s conduct as to what counts as good
or bad action. According to Gert and Gert, morality is a code of conduct that,
given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons (Gert and
Gert, 2017, para 2). It is one thing to submit that a particular act is morally right
and another thing to justify why it is so. Various reasons have been given as to
what make an act morally right. On one hand, such reasons are tied to the motive
behind such actions. some of such motives are: because I care for the good of
others, or for the pleasure it gives me, or from fear of punishment in this world or
the world to come, or because I believe the act to be pleasing to the Deity, or
because I have been taught to consider it as right, or habit, or because it is useful
81
to the world and to myself, or because my conscience tells me so (Thilly,
1990:229). On the other hand, the justification may be objective in which case the
result of the action is relevant. It is relevant because while some believe that
morality depends on the result or consequence of an action, others hold that
morality is an intrinsic property of an action.
In a short while, it shall be demonstrated that moral law eliminates some of the
aforementioned justifications for moral actions but it is important to make a few
comments on the notion of law. Generally, law is a rule or body of rules made by
institutions, bodies and persons vested with the power to make such rules which
are binding and enforced on the members of a given state or society (Sanni,
2006:5). This general definition however deserves some qualifications for the
purpose of the current discourse. In the realm of ethics, there are no institutions,
bodies and persons vested with the power to decide what constitute morality
although it must be pointed out that ethical relativism believes the society decides
what is moral and what is immoral. Suffice it to say that a key feature of law is
that it imposes obligation as well as duty. According to the Cambridge Dictionary
of Philosophy, the term duty is what a person is obligated or required to do. Duties
can be moral, legal, parental, occupational etc. They can also be negative or
positive. Negative duties are duties not to do certain things, such as to killing or
harming, while positive duties are duties to act in certain ways, such as to relieve
suffering or bring aid (The Cambridge Dictionary of philosophy, 1999:213). On
the other hand, an obligation is that which one ought to do despite one‘s
inclinations to do otherwise (Popkin and Stroll, 1993:42).
It is in the light of the above that Lawhead defines Moral law as precepts stated as
categorical imperatives rather than being stated in the form of hypothetical
imperative since it tells you what you ought, should, or must do, it does not
depend on any prior conditions or subjective wants and wishes and it contains no
qualifications (Lawhead, 2002,342). In a similar vein, Thilly, well before
Lawhead, submitted that moral laws do not consider the individual, as such. They
tend to regulate the relations existing between men, thereby ensuring the
possibility of social welfare (Thilly, 1900:227). The moral law commends the
individual to sacrifice his welfare to that of his fellows, wherever a conflict arises
between egoistic and altruistic impulses (ibid, 226). However, it must be pointed
out that the foregoing does not mean that egoistic actions are immoral, but simply
that they are not objects of moral reflection at all except such egoistic actions
affect the life of the society (Ibid, 237).
What the foregoing has succeeded in doing is to give a rough sketch of what the
concept of moral law connotes. Like other concepts in philosophy, the
philosophers who espouse the theories of moral law are not in agreement. This
shall be briefly discussed below.
3.1.1 The Divine Command Theory

82
As the term ‗Divine‘ denotes, this ethical theory maintains that supernatural
force(s) determines what counts as moral and what counts as immoral. The
supernatural may be the Muslim Allah or Christian God or any other supreme
being or gods recognized by other religions. The moral precepts under this school
of thought are usually found in the sacred texts of the various religions or through
the recognized intermediaries. For instance, Ockham described God as one who
decides what is moral and immoral (Lawhead, 2002m 192). An essential attribute
of divine command theory is that moral precepts are binding on all and that it is
our eternal benefit that we obey the command since to deviate from it could result
in very unpleasant consequences (Paley, 1991, 259). Divine command is otherwise
known as the supernatural theory.

3.1.2 The Idea of Natural Law

Natural law is also referred to as the law of Nature. For Fuller, the law of nature in
its prescriptive sense is a universal precept or command intended by nature to
regulate human behaviour (Fuller, 1969:15), Lord Lloyd equally described the
expression natural law as a body of objective moral principles based on the nature
of the universe and discoverable by reason (Lloyds, 1985:93). According to
Aquinas, the natural law is available to reason and can be discerned from human
nature by every competent thinker who is not blinded by passion, bad habits, and
ignorance (Lawhead, 2002:178-180).
Essentially, Natural law holds that laws and legal system can be criticized on
moral grounds; that there are standards against which legal norms can be
compared and sometimes found wanting. This standard is sometimes described as
―a (the) higher law‖ (Bix, 2010:211). Bix categorized natural law theories under
two broad groups, namely: traditional theories and modern theories. While the
traditional theories were generally taking a particular position on the status of
morality (that true moral beliefs are based in or derived from human nature or
natural world, that they are not relative, that they are accessible to human reason
and so on), a position which then had some implications for how legislators,
judges and citizens should act. It also has implication for all aspects of living a
good life.
The modern natural law theories contain theories specifically about law, which
hold that moral evaluation of some sort is required in describing law, particular
legal systems, or legal validity of individual norms (ibid, 219). For Aquinas, not
only must our individual moral lives be consistent with natural and divine law,
human positive law must be derived from natural law. Laws that are inconsistent
with natural law are no laws in the true sense of the world.
While Aquinas submits that anti-natural human laws may be obeyed if
disobedience would result in a greater evil or scandal, law inconsistent with divine
laws must be disobeyed because it is better to obey God than man. Accordingly,

83
natural law leads to man‘s natural ends, i.e. the good life on earth whereas divine
law leads to eternal happiness and what counts as moral can only be deduced from
them. The divine law is found in the Holy Scriptures according to Aquinas.
3.1.3 Kant’s Duty Ethics
Immanuel Kant‘s contribution to moral philosophy is special. Essentially, he
emphasized on duties, motives, the dignity and worth of persons and a moral law
that is absolute and unchanging (Lawhead, 2002, 340). He argues that the moral
law cannot be derived from any empirical facts or experience but only from
reason. Acting morally is thus reduced to acting rationally and acting immorally is
deduced to acting irrationally. A rational rule is one that is universal and
consistent. It is universal in that it is a rule that applies to all people at all times,
and in all circumstances. It is consistent in that it does not lead to any
contradiction (Ibid, 324).
The starting point of morality, Kant submits, is the realization that nothing in the
world can possibly be conceived which could be good without qualification except
a good will (Kant, 1959:9). The justification for this is that other good things or
qualities such as mental abilities, qualities of temperament and fortune can be used
for evil without good will. Good will for him is always good under any condition.
Actual consequence, intended consequences and feelings or inclinations are
irrelevant in identifying this good will. In his words, even if it should happen that,
by a particularly unfortunate fate or by the (Stingy) provision of step-motherly
nature, this will should be wholly lacking in power to accomplish its purpose and
if even the greatest effort would not avail it to achieve anything of its end, and if
there remained only the good will (not as mere wish but as the summoning of all
the means in our power), it would sparkle like a jewel in its own right as
something that had its full worth in itself (Ibid, 10). Actual consequences are
irrelevant because the motive behind them may not be good. Further, feelings or
inclinations are of no moment because they are unstable whereas the demand for
morality is always sacrosanct.
The only motive that gives the good will moral worth is when the moral action is
done out of a sense of duty. This was illustrated by Kant by asking us to imagine a
man who has power and the moral obligation to help others in distress but is so
clouded by his own sorrows that he is emotionally numb to the feelings of others.
Now supposed to tear himself, unsolicited by inclination, out of his dead
insensibility and to perform this action only from duty and without any inclination
– then for the first time his action has genuine moral worth (Ibid, 14).
Accordingly, a will is morally good if and only if it is moved to act on the basis of
moral duty.
For Kant, acting out of a sense of duty is not enough since one might have good
will (be well intended) but still end up doing the wrong thing. It is for this ‗reason‘
Kant sees moral law as a rule for guiding behaviour, which has as its source

84
 reason. Moral law is stated in form of categorical imperative and not hypothetical
imperative because it is not (contingent on prior conditions, subjective wants and
wishes etc. The principles governing moral conducts that must be done out of duty
in form of categorical imperative are in three versions. They are:
i. Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law (Ibid, 39)
ii. Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of
another, always as an end never as a means only (Ibid, 47). What this
means is that each person has intrinsic worth and dignity and we should not
use people or treat them as things; we should treat ourselves with respect.
iii. The third is the idea of the will of every rational being as making universal
law (Ibid, 49). This essentially means that though all moral agents are
bound by the moral law, as long as we are rational persons, we are
autonomous legislators of moral law. If all people obeyed the law of reason,
they would constitute a perfect community, which Kant calls a kingdom of
ends in which everyone would follow the same universal morality
(Lawhead, 2002:344).
In line with his Christian tradition, Kant used his moral theory to prove the
existence of God. For him, if we act out of duty there is someone who commands
such duty and that entity is God who also rewards such virtue (Popkin and Stroll,
1993:41).
4.0 Conclusion
The foregoing discussion has shown that moral law as a concept is more forceful
because it imposes an obligation on the individual to act morally according to laid
down moral precepts irrespective of the consequences or one‘s inclination. Duty
and obligation therefore run through the three ethical theories that can be
described as moral law discussed above. However, it is common knowledge that
there are certain situations that lead to awkwardness when a general rule is applied
to them. Even in law, it is commonplace that every general rule has an exception.
Moral law has thus been criticized for not being a realistic philosophy. However, a
more plausible way of viewing moral law is that suggested by Thilly who argued
that the moral law was made for man and not man for the moral law (Thilly,
1900:228). Thilly summed up his view by submitting that moral laws can differ
for different stages of society because conditions differ within the limits of a given
society. Moreover, the individuals themselves differ (Ibid, 232).
5.0 Summary
In this unit we discussed the concept of moral law with emphasis on the following:

85
 i. The concept of moral law essentially imposes a duty to act morally on all
moral agents irrespective of the consequences of such actions or their
subjective feelings or inclinations;
ii. The service of such moral precepts varies from one school of thought to the
other. While divine command theory holds that the super-natural is what
determines what is moral and what is immoral, the natural theory claims
that what counts as moral can be deduces from nature through reason;
iii. From Kant, rationality is the source of moral law; and
iv. The Kantian conceptions of moral law are too rigid for rapid changing
world and accordingly, a more realistic and flexible version should be
embraced.
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Briefly state and explain what the concept of moral law implies
2. List the divisions of concept of moral law and explain any one of them.
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
1. State the three versions of categorical imperative statements
2. Briefly explain the following.
a. The divine command theory
b. The Idea of Natural law
c. Kant‘s Duty Ethics
8.0 References
Aquinas, Thomas (1993). The Treatise of Law, R.J. Heale (Ed.). Notre Dame, University
of Notre Dame
Bix, Brian (2010). Natural Law. In Dennis Patterson (Ed.), A companion to philosophy of
law and legal theory (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Fieser, James (nd). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy, ISSN 2161 – 0002.
Retrieved on July 29, 2019 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics
Fuller, L.L. (1969). The morality of law, (rev. ed) New Haven and London: Yale
University press.
Gert, Bernard and Gert Joshua (2017). The definition of Morality. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of philosophy. (Fall 2017 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) Retrieved on
August 5, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archieve/fall/2017/entries/morality-
definition

86
Kant, Immanuel (1959). Foundations of the Meta physics of Morals, Lewis White Beck
(Trans). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, Library of Liberal Arts.
Lawhead, William F. (2002). A Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to
philosophy (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wads-worth group.
Lloyds (1985). Introduction to Jurisprudence. London: E.L.B.S.

87
UNIT 4: Principles of Justice and Conscience
Contents
10.0 Introduction
11.0 Intended learning Outcomes (ILOs)
12.0 Main content
3.1 Justice
3.1.1 Ancient Period
3.1.1.1Plato
3.1.1.2Aristotle
3.1.2 Medieval Period
3.1.2.1St. Augustine
3.1.3 Early Modernity
3.1.3.1Thomas Hobbes
3.1.4 Recent Modernity
3.1.4.1Immanuel Kant
3.1.5 Contemporary Period
3.1.5.1John Rawls
3.2 Conscience
3.2.1 Historic definition of conscience
3.2.2 Bishop Butler
3.2.3 John Stuart Mill
3.2.4 C.D Broad
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
This unit introduces us to the principles of justice and conscience. It shows how
the two concepts are interwoven, and how conscience was prior to justice.
Conscience can be conceived as our sense of duty, justice is sometimes seen by
some philosophers in terms of equity, and it is sometimes seen by others as
fairness. It is also considered as an agreement with set-down laws or principles
(Ndubuisi: 2010). According to this understanding, conscience motivates us to act
according to moral principles or beliefs we already possess, and to act in

88
 accordance to either whatever is just or unjust. This unit looks into the concept of
justice and conscience espoused by different philosophers from different
philosophical era.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

By the end of this unit, you would be able to explain how the following
philosophers discussed the principles of justice.
 Plato
 Aristotle
 St. Augustine
 Thomas Hobbes
 Immanuel Kant
 John Rawls

3.0 Main content

12.1 Justice
It is not an exaggeration to say that Socrates spent his whole life inquiring into the
meaning of justice. For Socrates, justice was minding one‘s own business
(Stanley, 1942:395-399). Justice as a concept could be seen from different
perspectives. There is hardly any definition that can exhaust the meaning of
justice. Historically, justice has regularly attracted the profound interests of
politicians, economists, sociologists, and jurists among others. Despite its
significant role in institutionalizing social institutions and designing the system of
distribution, the question what is justice has always endured the problem of
conceptual disarrays and is still unfolding demands for conceptual clarities and
interpretations. However, below are the different conceptions of the principles of
justice by leading justice thinkers from different philosophical epochs.

3.1.1 Ancient Period

From this emerged the general concept of dikaiosune, or justice, as a virtue that
might be applied to a political society.
3.1.1.1Plato
The Platonic idea of justice is expressed through the faculty of his teacher,
Socrates. In his Dialogues, Plato consistently speaks through his teacher Socrates,
who takes the main character in almost all Platonic dialogues. Plato has
specifically dealt with justice in one of his Dialogues called Republic. Book I and
II of Republic especially elaborate the Platonic concept of justice.

89
At the end of Book I, Socrates remarks that, ―And the result of the whole
discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and
therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor can I say
whether the just man is happy or unhappy‖. This observation of Socrates springs
from the long discussion between a number of high profile people attempting to
define justice mostly from three broad perspectives. First, justice was discussed as
an act of fulfilling a duty. The example taken was paying-off a debt. Socrates
exposes exceptions to this idea of justice. With the exception in place, the next
concept of justice was discussed.
Second, the discussion focused on distinguishing between justice and injustice or
just and unjust. Among a number of examples discussed, one of the representative
ideas was that being friendly, or just, to friend and being unjust to enemy was
considered as the standard of justice. However, Socrates again discounted this idea
of justice arguing that one should not be exempted from paying off the debt even
to an enemy. Third, being dissatisfied with the discussion, philosopher
Thrasymachus proposed a third idea of justice. His idea of justice was that
whatever the forms of government might be tyrannical, monarchical, or
democratic the interests of the ruler are ordered (commanded) in the form of law,
which in the final analysis is justice. Socrates also discounted the third idea of
justice proposed by Thrasymachus. A question arises, then, what Socrates means
by justice. The provisional agreement among the discussants, including Socrates,
was that, justice was virtue and wisdom, and injustice vice and ignorance.
(Benjamin: 2011). For Plato, virtue is good and advantageous; therefore, virtue is
the source of well-being. Thus, Plato draws well-being as the standard of justice
both at the individual and institutional contexts (Benjamin: 2011).
3.1.1.2Aristotle
Aristotle‘s inquiry on justice begins with a question: what is the highest of all
goods achievable by human actions? Despite various accounts, Aristotle infers that
the answer to the question for all people should be happiness. (Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, location 19714, in Aristotle‘s Collection 29 Books (W. D.
Ross Transl. Kindle Edition, 2007). As the highest achievable good, happiness
can be perceived in several ways. Among them, Aristotle finds three
interpretations of happiness: pleasure, wisdom, and virtue. Many people perceive
happiness as pleasure, which Aristotle considers as animalistic instinct. Some
people perceive happiness as honor, which Aristotle considers as the practical
wisdom or political wisdom. Few people perceive happiness in virtue, (19731-
19740) which Aristotle considers the highest form of human achievement.
Nevertheless, all types of people choose happiness for self-satisfaction and never
for the sake of something else. Pleasure, honor, and virtue are chosen for the sake
of happiness, judging by means of them one should be happy. Contrarily, no one
desires happiness only for the sake of pleasure, honour, or virtue, but for anything

90
other than itself. The question Aristotle asks: is happiness self-sufficient? Aristotle
argues that as the end of an action, where acts are pleasant to the lover of justice
and in general virtuous acts to the lover of virtue, only virtuous acts are self-
sufficient.
In Book V of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle specifically dealing on justice asks a
question that what kind of actions would champion justice. Aristotle infers, justice
is a kind of character reflected in just acts and injustice is the opposite of just acts
reflected in unjust deeds. He further explains what are just and what are unjust
acts. Aristotle powerfully argues that all lawful and fair acts are just; all unlawful
and unjust acts are unfair. In quintessence, Aristotle emphasizes that all lawful acts
are what we mean by justice.
Further, Aristotle contends that just acts are divided into two categories: lawful
and fair; likewise, unjust acts are also divided into two categories: unlawful and
unfair. This analysis of Aristotle is highly impressive, but fails to answer the
question of whether in any modern state, is a person supposed to interact with
others with both of these standards (lawful and fair) side by side? Are people free
to choose a standard conceived fair by them instead of a lawful standard? If there
is conflict between fair and lawful standards, what standards should the people and
institutions choose? These basic questions discounted by Aristotle in analysing the
concept of justice have opened a historically unsettled debate on the nature of law,
morality, and justice. On the one hand, this very concept of Aristotelian justice
presents a brilliant idea about justice and on the other hand, it also presents a
complex conceptual disorientation.
The confusion emanates from combining lawful and just acts within the
framework of justice. Should an act be lawful to be just? Or, should an act be just
to be lawful? If the answers were positive, then the division between just and
lawful or unjust and unlawful would be redundant. In other words, any act that is
not justified by law cannot be supplied as a standard of human interactions. In this
sense, the idea that law in itself is justice has been ignored under the Aristotelian
framework of justice. As a result, normative undertakings have overwhelmed the
Aristotelian discourse on justice.
The Aristotelian concept of justice as a means or an intermediate, and injustice as
an extreme, is equally thought provoking as to the idea of virtue. For Aristotle,
justice plays a commensurate role in the process of exchange and distribution. For
instance, maintaining a state of equilibrium in the process of exchange is the name
of fair distribution. In this state of equilibrium no one gets more or less
disproportionate to the value of exchange.
3.1.2 Medieval Period
3.1.2.1St. Augustine

91
The Augustinian notion of justice includes what by his day was a well-established
definition of justice of ―giving every man his due.‖ However, Augustine grounds
his application of the definition in distinctively Christian philosophical
commitments. ―Justice,‖ says Augustine, ―is love serving God only, and therefore
ruling well all else.‖ Accordingly, justice becomes the crucial distinction between
ideal political states (none of which presently exist on earth) and non-ideal
political states- the status of every political state on earth. For example, the
Roman Empire could not be synonymous with the City of God precisely because it
lacked true justice as defined above; and since, ―where there is no justice there is
no commonwealth,‖ Rome could not truly be a commonwealth, that is, an ideal
state. ―Remove justice,‖ Augustine asks rhetorically, ―and what are kingdoms but
gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty
kingdoms?‖ No earthly state can claim to possess true justice, but only some
relative justice by which one state is more just than another. Likewise, the
legitimacy of any earthly political regime can be understood only in relative
terms. The emperor and the pirate have equally legitimate domains if they are
equally unjust.
3.1.3 Early Modernity
3.1.3.1Thomas Hobbes
Whereas Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and so on, all offer accounts of justice that
represent alternatives to Sophism, Thomas Hobbes, the English radical empiricist,
can be seen as resurrecting the Sophist view that we can have no objective
knowledge of it as a moral or political absolute value.
According to Hobbes, in The State of Nature, all moral values are strictly relative
to our desires: whatever seems likely to satisfy our desires appears ―good‖ to us,
and whatever seems likely to frustrate our desires we regard as ―evil.‖ It‘s all
relative to what we imaginatively associate with our own appetites and
aversions. But as we move from this state of nature to the state of civil society by
means of the social contract, we create the rules of justice by means of the
agreements we strike with one another. Prior to the conventions of the contract,
we were morally free to try to do whatever we wished. But when a covenant is
made, then to break it is unjust. To Hobbes, however, the definition of injustice is
no other than the non-performance of covenant. What is not unjust is just in civil
society. This turns out to be the third law of nature, that, in the name of justice,
we must try to keep our agreements.
3.1.4 Recent Modernity
3.1.4.1Immanuel Kant
The philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that his retributive theories of justice
were based on logic and reason. The retributive stance on punishment states that
punishment is necessary, and indeed, justified, on the basis that the act of
committing crime deserves punishment. The strict guidelines Kant‘s theories

92
created, coupled with the very nature of retributive justice fuelled the arguments of
Kant‘s critics who claimed his approach would lead to harsh and ineffective
sentencing. Kant opined that:

judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to

promote some other good for the criminal himself or for
civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on
him only on the ground that he has committed a crime; for a
human being ought never to be manipulated merely as a
means related to another‘s purposes… First, he must be
found to be deserving of punishment before consideration
can be given to the utility of this particular punishment for
himself or for fellow citizens.(1988:114 and 643)

Upon considering the above it is clear that, in Kant‘s view, the only purpose
punishment should serve is to penalize the criminal for committing a crime.
Whether or not the punishment could have an effect on the criminal‘s propensity
to reform is therefore irrelevant. The punishment is there to punish the criminal for
the crime they have committed; nothing more, nothing less.

This leads on to the theory of ‗justice as deserts‘. This theory is now considered to
be one of the more prominent views on the subject of the punishment of criminals.
The key belief of the principle is being that offenders must deserve punishment. In
the everyday thinking about punishment, the idea of desert figures prominently.
One can see that when you ask the person on the street why a wrongdoer should be
punished, he or she is likely to say that he ‗deserves‘ it.‖

Kant advocated two principles regarding the way punishment should be meted out.
As we have established above, the first of which is that the only right and proper
grounds for punishment is that the criminal ‗deserves it‘. And so it follows that
punishing a criminal with the aim of promoting happiness, reformation or
deterrence would run contrary to the ‗categorical imperative‘ by making the
punishment a means to an end. Kant‘s categorical imperative is the universal law
that states that all people must act in a morally correct manner at all times.
Therefore one‘s own desires or wishes cannot be taken into account when making
a decision, as no one person‘s desires should be prioritized above another‘s. The
desired outcome of any action must be to avoid causing harm or inflicting damage
upon another person. In this regard, Kant defines an act as ‗morally correct‘ if it
can be applied as a universal law. For example: ―I will never tell the truth‖ would
be deemed to be immoral because it could not be applied as universal law as, in
the event of everyone having to ―never tell the truth‖ (1998:197), the truth would
lose its significance.

93
In simpler terms, when considering Kant‘s categorical imperative, the logical
approach surely dictates that we must consider that the affect our own actions will
have on others, and then to avoid carrying out actions that will harm or hinder the
rights of others. The second of Kant‘s principles regarding punishment relates to
proportionality; the sentence received should be proportionate to the crime
committed (Kant, 1988:581).

Kant‘s theories of autonomy and free decision making make up the foundations
for his view on ‗justice as deserts‘. The theory submits, first of all, that everybody
is duty bound to respect each other‘s rights. Kant goes on to suggest that adhering
to the law is a sacrifice of one‘s right to freedom of choice (674-687). Therefore,
those that commit crime gain an unfair advantage over those that do not.
Punishment is used as a means to redress the balance between the law abiding
citizens and the criminals, removing any unfairly gained advantage from the
criminals. The punishment is intended to punish no more or less than relates to the
advantage gained. It follows, therefore, that deterrence and reformation bear no
relevance to this method of sentencing.

3.1.5 Contemporary Period

3.1.5.1John Rawls
Justice as Fairness is not only a popular phrase widely used across the globe in
almost all social science disciplines under the influence of Rawls, but also
represents a deep explication of the concept of justice. Despite being influenced by
Kant, Rawls clearly departs from the Kantian conception of justice by claiming
that justice as fairness is not a metaphysical conception (a categorical imperative)
but a political conception of a liberal democracy (1999:187). As a metaphysical
concept, the idea of justice always placed priority to the laws of reason (moral
laws) over the positive laws. Rawls considers such an idea of moral laws would be
detrimental to democracy; instead, he offers how laws, including a constitution,
could incorporate the idea of justice and implement justice as a part of the rule of
law (ibid, 192). Yet, it should not be ignored that the Rawlsian conception of
justice has some roots still connected with the Kantian legacy. Rawls himself has
acknowledged that justice as fairness resembles, in a fundamental way, with the
Kantian moral conception. Despite the fact, the Kantian idea of justice and the
Rawlsian idea of justice are not the same.
A Theory of Justice is one of the most important works of John Rawls. It offers
two principles of justice. First he offers these two principles provisionally and then
with an in-depth analysis, offers the final version of the two principles, which are
also revised. The provisional version of the two principles is as follows: first, each
person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with
a similar liberty for others (ibid, 220).

94
 Second: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
(a) reasonably expected to be to everyone‘s advantage, and (b) attached to
positions and offices open to all (ibid, 226). The first principle can be called a
principle of liberty and the second principle can be called a principle of managing
inequality. However, Rawls call the first principle ‗equal liberty principle‘ and the
second he calls ‗difference principle‘. These are principles Rawls argues would be
the outcome of negotiations in the ‗original position‘. By the original position, he
means something equivalent to the state of nature where negotiations take place.
3.2 Conscience
If there is such a thing as conscience, in the sense (which we need not yet
endorse), very roughly of a piece of mental equipment which tells us
authoritatively what is the right thing to do from time to time, then moral
philosophy ought to have no other positive advice to offer than simply ‗Do what
your conscience advises,‘ ‗Always let your conscience be your guide,‘ etc. And if
moral philosophers had any practical function other than re-iterating such
exhortations, it would take the form, not of discovering what in particular
conscience would recommend, but of finding ways and means of making peoples‘
consciences clear, or of inducing people to take their consciences seriously. The
reason why philosophers, if they agreed that there were consciences in the above
sense, could not proceed to offer positive moral advice, or set up supreme moral
principles, or anything of the kind, is that to do this would be to usurp the
supposed authority of conscience to invite people to consult, not their conscience
but a philosophical theory.
What exactly do we want to know when we ask whether there is such a thing as
conscience? What seems to be required is a definition of conscience sufficiently
illuminating to enable us to have a look and see, and to identify what we see as
being or not being an authentic instance of conscience. But there is something very
odd about the thought of first writing down a definition of conscience, saying
‗This is what consciences is‘. (Hunter: 1963:309-334)
3.2.1 Historic Definitions of Conscience
Historically, systematic thought about conscience arose from attempts to unravel
the knotty problem of what was called ‗the erroneous conscience‘ If conscience
commands something which God‘s law forbids, what is the position? St
Augustine, early in the fifth century, gave a famous answer : 'The command of a
subordinate authority is not binding if it runs counter to the command of his
superior; but conscience has no authority except that which it receives as God‘s
delegate; if, therefore, conscience commands something which is against God‘s
law, we are bound not to follow it. This argument went almost unchallenged for
over 800 years. It was disposed of by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.
Augustine‘s principle would be relevant, he urged, only if one knew that the
subordinate‘s command ran counter to his superior‘s, but the person whose

95
conscience is in error does not know that it is at variance with God‘s law. A
person is to be judged, not in the light of the situation as it actually is, but in the
light of the situation as he perceives it to be; Aquinas therefore concludes, without
qualification, that it is always wrong to act against conscience.
He applies his principle with rigorous logic, and exemplifies it with two striking
cases. First, if a person believed in conscience that it was sinful to abstain from
fornication, he would sin by so abstaining. Second, if a person believed in
conscience that it was wrong to become religious, he would sin if he became one.
Hence for Aquinas, conscience is not a faculty, nor an innate perceptive skill, but a
judgment of ordinary human reason brought to bear on a moral issue. At the same
time, Aquinas holds that every normal adult is equipped with the ‗primary
precepts‘ prerequisite for making such judgments. Not matters of specific moral
principle, but some very general underlying presuppositions of value judgment.
For instance, happiness is preferable to unhappiness; life is preferable to death;
health, to sickness; pleasure, to pain; knowledge, to ignorance or error; to have
friendship and love is preferable to being without them. On one interpretation of
Aquinas, these and a few other such radical preferences or ‗natural inclinations‘
provide the implicit premises for all moral reasoning and choice. They may not be
explicitly stated in propositional form; but they are so universally taken for
granted as a value system (Eric D‘Arcy:1977:98-99). The following philosophers
also contribute to this topic.
3.2.2 Bishop Butler
Bishop Butler characterized moral conscience by two well-known and, one
supposes, deliberately paradoxical phrases: it is ―a sentiment of the
understanding,‖ and ―a perception of the heart.‖ These descriptions neatly straddle
the question as to whether conscience is a faculty of reason or a faculty of sense or
sentiment. For Butler, conscience seems to be a combination of cognitive faculty,
affording knowledge of what is right and wrong (whether intuitively or not is not
quite clear), and emotive faculty, registering feelings of obligation, remorse, etc.
How does conscience guide us? Butler answers that any man reflecting in a calm
and cool hour simply knows what is right and wrong. If he will but let his
conscience speak, it will tell him what he needs to know from a moral point of
view. However, it does not speak in general rules or formulas. Hence Butler seems
to subscribe to a form of what Henry Sidgwick has called ‗perceptual
intuitionism.‘ Why obey conscience? Because it is a law of my nature, Butler
answers. It carries its own authority with it. The question, ―Why should I obey my
con- science?‖ is virtually equivalent to the question, ―Why ought I to do what I
ought to do?‖ No further justification of the validity of conscience's dictates is
possible or necessary. Our passions may have greater power, but conscience has
supreme authority, it has strength, it has right, it has power, and it has manifest
authority that could absolutely govern the world.

96
3.2.3 John Stuart Mill
According to Mill, the internal sanction of duty, whatever our standard of duty
may be, is one and the same. Whenever we violate a duty, we have a feeling in our
mind, a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in
properly cultivated moral natures rises. This feeling, when disinterested and
connecting itself with the pure idea of duty, and not with some particular form of
it, or with any of the merely accessory circumstances, is the essence of conscience.
Apart from the often repeated criticism that Mill in general confused moral
binding force with psychological determination or moving appeal, two comments
about his particular conception of conscience are in order:
(1) Mill acknowledges, rightly, that conscience is a ―complex phenomenon‖ and
that it is difficult to extract the ―essence‖ of conscience from the ―collateral
associations‖ and ―accessory circumstances‖ with which it is incrusted and
surrounded. But this is merely another way of saying that the authentic voice of
conscience is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from other ―voices‖ be they
moral, immoral, or amoral; religious, cultural, or social. Since Mill did not appeal
to conscience as the highest tribunal of moral judgment, however, he is not
compelled, as is Butler, to resolve the difficulty at hand.
(2) Mill would have us understand that conscience is an effective response to a
deliberate willed action fulfilling or violating our duty as we conceive it to be. But
would it not be more accurate to say that conscience occasions feelings of remorse
and guilt, approval and esteem, than to say that conscience is these feelings? If
conscience is a feeling of guilt, approbation, etc., then not only is it not a faculty or
source of moral knowledge, it is not even a faculty or source of distinctively moral
sentiments. For, as Mill points out the sentiments in question are often occasioned
by or have reference to non-moral states of affairs. Finally, we might note that on
Mill‘s view conscience is merely reflexive. It has no active moral role at all. On
this account, the phrase ―dictates of conscience‖ is left with no intelligible
meaning.
3.2.4 C.D Broad
C. D. Broad asserts that conscience has a threefold nature: cognitive, affective, and
conative. According to Broad, to say that a person has a conscience means, in the
wide sense:
(1) That he has and exercises the cognitive power of reflecting on his own past and
future actions, and considering whether they are right or wrong; or reflecting on
his own motives, intentions, emotions, dispositions, and character, and considering
whether they are morally good or bad.
(2) That he has and exercises the emotional disposition to feel certain peculiar
emotions, such as remorse, feeling of guilt, moral approval, etc., towards himself

97
 and his own actions, dispositions, etc., in respect of the moral characteristics
which he believes these to have.
(3) That he has and exercises the conative disposition to seek what he believes to
be good and to shun what he believes to be bad, as such, and do what he believes
to be right and avoid what he believes to be wrong, as such.(Peter Fuss:1964:111)

4. Conclusion
This unit has introduced us to the origin of justice and different opinions of
philosophers from different philosophical epochs. It has been shown that through
our individual conscience, we become aware of our deeply held moral principles,
we are motivated to act upon them, and we assess our character, our behaviour and
ultimately ourselves against those principles. Different philosophical approaches
to justice and conscience have emphasized different aspects of this broad
awareness.
5. Summary
This unit highlighted the following about principles of justice and consciousness:
i. History of justice starting from the ancient Greek period, to the medieval
period, to the early modernity, recent modernity, contemporary period;
ii. Conscience can be conceived as our sense of duty, justice is sometimes seen
by some writers in terms of equity;
iii. Conscience is sometimes seen by others as fairness or as legitimacy that is
sometimes an agreement with set-down laws or principles;
iv. For Socrates, justice was minding one‘s own business and an act of fulfilling a
duty;
v. Justice has regularly attracted the profound interests of politicians, economists,
sociologists, and jurists among others;
vi. The Augustinian notion of justice includes what by his day was a well-
established definition of justice of ―giving every man his due.‖;
vii. According to Hobbes, the definition of injustice is no other than the not
performance of covenant;
viii. Immanuel Kant believed that his retributive theories of justice were based on
logic and reason. The retributive stance on punishment states that punishment
is necessary, and indeed, justified, on the basis that the act of committing
crime deserves punishment;
ix. Rawls clearly departs from the Kantian conception of justice by claiming that
justice as fairness is not a metaphysical conception (a categorical imperative)
but a political conception of a liberal democracy; and

98
 x. Bishop Butler characterized moral conscience by two well-known and, one
supposes, deliberately paradoxical phrases: it is ―a sentiment of the
understanding,‖ and ―a perception of the heart.‖

6. Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Explain John Rawl‘s concept of justice
2. What do you think is the idea of justice according to Hobbes?

7. Tutor Marked Exercise

1. Explain the phrase ―minding one‘s own business‖ according to Socrates view.
2. How did St. Augustine justifies ―giving every man his due‖ as justice?
3. C.D. Broad asserts that conscience has a threefold nature. Mention them and
explain any one.

References
Benjamin Jowett (2011). The Complete Works of Plato, location 22761 Kindle.

Broad, C.D. (1930 and 1967). Five Types Of Ethical Theories. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd,
London.

Eric D‘Arcy (1977). Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 2. Published by: BMJ pp. 98-
99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27715629

F.N. Ndubuisi (2010). Man and State. Foresight press, Lagos Nigeria.

(https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/immanuel-kant-retributive-theories-of-
justice-philosophy-essay.php ftn)

J. F. M. Hunter (1963). Mind, New Series. Vol. 72, No. 287. Oxford University. pp.309-
334.

Johansen, K. F. (1998). A History of Ancient Philosophy from the Beginnings to

Augustine, London, Routledge.
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W.
Wood, Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press, London.

99
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism, from a 2003 Warnock, M (ed.), Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Oxford.
Mill, J .S (1969). Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, ed. J.M. Robson, CWM, volume 10,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Mill, J .S (1984). Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. J.M. Robson, CWM, volume 21,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Peter Fuss (1964). Ethics, Vol. 74, No. 2. The University of Chicago Press. pp. 111-120
G. Stanley Whitby (1942). Ethics. Pp. 395-433.

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.

Surendra Bhandari (2014). The Ancient and Modern Thinking about Justice: An
Appraisal of the Positive Paradigm and the Influence of International Law. International
Studies Association of Ritsuneikan University.

W. D. Ross (2007). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Location 19714, In Aristotle‘s

Collection 29 Books. Kindle Edition.

100
 MODULE 4

UNIT 1: Definition of Good

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Defining Good
3.2 The functional definition of good
3.3 Philosophical definition of Good(ness)
3.3.1 Moral Objectivism
3.3.2 Moral Nihilism
3.3.3 Moral Relativism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
In the previous sections (modules), you must have learnt the nature of ethics; its
origin, definition, division, methodology, and the nature of human conduct. You
must have also learnt the relationship between ethics and some related concepts,
such as morality, law, justice and conscience. In this module, we shall examine the

101
 concept of good, right and wrong; doing good and avoiding wrong. However, in this
unit, we shall go through the definition of the concept, ‗good‘.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)

At the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Explain the philosophical definition of good; and
 Differentiate between the philosophical definition of good and functional or
ordinary language definition

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Defining Good
The word ‗good‘ is being used in many senses. Two major usages of it shall be
examined in this unit. The most common way of its usage is ‗the functional‘ or
‗ordinary language‘ usage. The other usage seems not too popular but it is
frequently used without people paying attention to its importance, it is ‗the
philosophical or moral usage‘. David Ross called it ‗the predicative use‘ of good,
(Ross, 2002: 65). Though people do not pay much attention to the differences
between the two usages mentioned, we shall examine them in this unit. Each of
these usages has the definition of good on its own.

3.2 The functional definition of good

Often times, when we speak, we do say ‗something is good.‘ For instance,
watching a football match someone might remark ‗team A is good‘; another
person might claim that team B is good also. We do also say; ‗the orange is good.‘
The above examples are attributive usage of good. Likewise, in daily conversation,
it is common to hear statements in the following manner: Samsung is a good
electronics manufacturer; Land Rover Defender is a good car, and so on. Apart
from the application of good to things, it is also being ascribed to human beings.
In this regard, we could say: ‗Samuel Peter is a good boxer.‘ ‗Sunny Ade is a good
singer.‘ These latter examples are predicative usage. Note usage in this form:
‗Akin is a good person.‘ Though, it is also a predicate usage, but different from the
previous ones. Because it is easy to find out what is meant by a ‗good singer‘ and
a ‗good boxer‘, but not the case with a ‗good person‘. The question is: what do we
mean by the word good in these expressions?
It is not difficult to define good as used in all the expressions above except the last
example, because, in ordinary language usage, the word good is used:
(i) When some of our desires are satisfied, that is when we like what we describe
as good. In other words, it is often used to show personal liking and preference.
The instance of this is seen in the attributive usages above.
(ii) When someone performs a function to a certain degree of our satisfaction.

102
 (iii) And of a thing, when it functions up to standard or more than the other things
in its category. Now, the dictionary definition of good fit into the functional
definition.
According to Webster‘s dictionary, good is ―being positive or desirable in nature‖,
―having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.‖ This
definition is adequate as to the functional definition, and it could address the
statements given as examples earlier without many challenges.
There might be disagreement between people weather a thing is good or not in the
functional or ordinary language usage of the word good, however, such
disagreement could be resolved by merely looking at the basic standards to be
fulfilled. For instance; we can examine the quality A having to be described as
good over and above B. On this note, we want to agree that the dictionary
definition is suitable for the functional usage of the word ‗good‘ but not
sufficiency to the philosophical usage of the word, which is moral in nature. If we
take the dictionary definition of good as final, the philosophical question that
would likely follow is: is good a subjective value to be determined by each
individual according to what they think desirable? Owning to this obvious the
philosophical question, we shall look at the definition of good or goodness as
defined by philosophers.

3.3. Philosophical definition of Good(ness)

Before we move on, two clarifications need to be made:

(i) Philosophical concepts are not easy to define in simple single sentence.
Philosophers define concepts through analysis, which is called conceptual
analysis.
(ii) The functional or conventional or simply put, the dictionary definition of word
or concept is taken tentatively by philosophers. In other words, the dictionary
definition of words is not taken as final by philosophers, rather, as a ‗rough guide‘
in analysing concepts.
Philosophical definitions, like other definitions, are clarifications of meanings
which are usually aimed to assist the process of definitions. But in most cases it
does this by providing or pointing at an example: this is called ‗ostensive‘
definition. Having made the above note, let us begin the philosophical definition
of good.
Now, when we say ‗a ball pointed pen is a good biro‘, we mean such a ball
pointed pen functions optimally. There is no philosophical problem in the
statement above. We have a standard of how a biro works. However, when we say
‗Musa is a good person‘; there is a philosophical problem. It is a value or moral
statement. It is a statement in the realm of ethical judgment such as: ‗pleasure is
103
good‘ or ‗knowledge is good‘. The question is: How do we measure a good
person? With what parameter do we measure human beings? A ‗good person‘ in
the statement has to do with the acts or actions or characters of the person
mention. Human actions and characters are the focus of ethics and ethical theories.
Though everyone takes action or has character, does that mean everyone knows
what is good? Out of curiosity, another question could be triggered like: what do
we mean by ―good‖? In other words, what do we call ―good‖? This question
appears simple to answer. At least, someone can give a functional or dictionary
definition to it. This would seem to remove the ambiguity, however, it would not
remove the philosophical problems that gave birth to the question. Because, the
dictionary would give an ordinary descriptive definition, and states how a word is
employed in common usage. Meanwhile, the philosophical definition is a
prescriptive definition. It states how a word is used in a certain context or system
(Williams, 1937:416).
Philosophers over the ages have attempted a definition of good, or identify what
good is, however, there are differences in their definitions and what they identified
as the ultimate good. According to Franz Brentano, to answer the question ―what
is good?‖ we must, first of all, find out ‗the origin of our concept of the good.‘ He
said the concept of good, like all other concepts, has its origin in certain intuitive
presentations (Brentano, 2009:8). Some philosophers, notably, G.E. Moore, claim
‗good‘ cannot be analysed, even if an attempt is made to analyse it, it cannot be
understood by someone who does not know it. According to Moore, ―good is
incapable of any definition‖ (Moore, 1993:10). Furthermore, Moore said good is a
simple concept like the colour yellow, just as you cannot explain to anyone who
does not already know what yellow is, you cannot explain what good is too. He
opined that we can use ‗the good‘ to term all that is good. As such, defining good
would then involve in classifying, listing, pointing out the several good things.
Many philosophers have rejected Moore‘s position. Though they agreed that the
concept of good is not easy to define philosophically, as we have in ordinary
language usage. David Ross, for instance, says; ―I can with a certain modification
accept Professor Moore‘s comparison‖ he noted that goodness is a quality that
cannot be defined in terms of anything but itself. He further opined that goodness
‗is essentially a quality of states of mind‘ (Ross, 2002: 86).
Without dwelling much on the on-going debate, let us examine what other (few)
philosophers and ethical theories have said on the subject we are defining. We
shall do this under three categories;
(i) Moral objectivism
(ii) Moral nihilism

104
(iii) Moral relativism. Each of these categories will be represented by one or two
philosophers or ethical theories.
3.3.1. Moral objectivism
The Platonic – Plato and his supporters – believe that goodness is not what
everyone can know, rather, only the intellectuals have the capacity to know.
According to Plato, there is the immutable real things, goodness included, in the
world of forms and everything we have in this world only shares attributes of the
one in the world of forms.
Like the Platonic, most philosophers believe that goodness is mental. They do not
do the definitional analysis of the concept, rather they examine the moral attitudes
that can be characterized as good. They seem to have the notion that the concept of
good in itself does not have a definition.
Aristotle in the opening paragraph of the Nicomachean Ethics opined that all
‗skills‘, ‗inquiries‘, rational ‗actions‘ and ‗choices‘ aim at good. In other words,
good is the ultimate aim of human‘s activities. (Aristotle, 2004:3). Aristotle later
distinguished between good as an end and good as a means to an end. This is what
latter philosophers discuss as intrinsic good and instrumental good – intrinsic good
is the moral values considered to be good in themselves; they are not meant to
achieve any other good, while instrumental good are the moral values considered
as means to achieve other moral goods.

3.3.2 Moral nihilism

The concept of good has no existence according to ‗moral or ethical nihilism‘.
Ethical naturalism and two major philosophers – Baruch de Spinoza and Friedrich
Nietzsche – though they belong to different worldview, (Spinoza a pantheist –
pantheism holds that God and the world are not different, and that everything in
the world is part of God; and Nietzsche an atheist – atheism denies the existence
of God), shared nihilistic view on the concept of good; with variations. The
detailed evaluation of their views could also be interpreted as relativism, however,
in this unit, we shall examine them as nihilists.
Ethical naturalism holds that all ethical statements containing the terms such as;
good, bad, evil, right, and wrong, are reducible to non-ethical statements without
loss of meaning. By doing this, the moral worth of such statements will vanish.
Accordingly, ethical statements like ―stealing are wrong‖ is reducible to
something like: ―stealing is taken another person‘s property without telling him,
and with the aim of not giving it back to him.‖
Spinoza, ‗a thorough-going determinist‘, opined that all events in the universe are
chronologically arranged and could not be otherwise. Hence, nothing is good or
evil in itself; human classification of things into good and evil or bad is based on
subjective interest and concern. Whatever we wish or desire we call it good and
105
anything we adverse, we call evil or bad. He illustrated that a thing could be good
to someone, bad to another, and indifferent to another.
In Nietzsche‘s view, what is classified as good, depends on individual social
strata. He said the history of human societies is the history of masters and slaves.
Then concerning morality, what we have is masters‘ morality and slaves‘ morality.
Every individual is governed by the will to power, so the class someone belongs to
will determine what she or he will classify as good. The masters have the strong
will to power, and their good are things like: pride, courage, power, strength and
nobility. On the other hand, the slaves have the weak will to power, and their good
are things like: humility, pity, patience, charity, compassion, modesty and so on. It
is human that infused moral values to this based on their social status, no moral
value initially.
3.3.3 Moral relativism
Moral relativism is the belief that the worth or value of an action is relative to the
situation, people or time. There is no absolute moral standard to evaluate the
goodness of an action (Lawhead, 2002:253). To the utilitarian, utility is the
defining factor of good and other moral values. According to Jeremy Bentham, the
major proponent of utilitarianism, in chapter one of his book Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation, said utility means anything that tends to
produce good, pleasure and happiness but prevent evil and pain (Bentham,
1948:14-18).
While Bentham seems to promote individualistic utilitarianism, his follower, John
Stuart Mill believes utilitarianism can be universalized. He argued that as
individuals look at the greater good – pleasure –to derive from an action, society
can look at the greater good – pleasure –for greater number of people. Based on
utilitarianism, an action has no intrinsic worth or objective moral values, the moral
value of an action is the consequence of it. In this sense, an action could be good
in a particular instance and bad in another instance. Because utilitarianism values
action based on its consequences, it has been classified as consequentialism – also
called teleological ethics.
It should be noted, however, that philosophers whose contributions were examined
are not the only major philosophers that have expressed their thoughts on the
concept of good. Rather, we examined them because of the significant of their
contribution here.
Critical examinations of the three theories discussed so far under philosophical
definition of the concept of good show that:
(i) the first group sees ‗good‘ as a purely mental, universal and objective concept.
(ii) the second group sees ‗good‘ to be non-existence, rather, the actor determines
the value of the act.

106
 (iii) the third group sees ‗good‘ to be relative to the consequence of the action. It is
an action or object based, it has nothing to do with the subject. Though the
theorists do not have the same view on the nature of good, but they all see good to
be what every human person accepted to be desirable under certain condition.
In light of the above, it seems ‗good‘ could be defined as qualities or things that
are seen to be useful, beneficial or aimed at for their own sake or for the sake of
other goods. We could also describe good as what a person or group of person
accepted to be desirable and want it done on to them even if they would not be
able to replicate it. In other words, ‗good‘ seems to be what every human person
wishes for himself and he is ready to do to others under favourable circumstances.
This definition might be classified selfishness by some people, but we want to say
it is not selfishness rather self-interest. Hence we shall distinguish between
selfishness and self-interest. In the words of Louis P. Pojman, selfishness requires
the sacrifice of other people good for personal good, even when it is unreasonable.
While self- interest entails that we are free to pursue our own good, but not
necessarily at all cost. I wish to excel, but I also recognize that at times I will fail
to do so. I accept the outcome even though it is unsatisfying. (Pojman, 2005:28)
Other philosophers and ethical theories have made contributions to the discourse
of the concept of good but were not considered because in the first instance, they
did not define the concept as such, what they did is demonstration of how to know
that an action is good, bad, right or wrong. In other words, their contributions
centred on what makes an action good or bad, right or wrong. Secondly, their
contributions one way or the other have similarities with either of the theories
examined. That is they are either objective based, nihilistic based or relativistic
based. Nonetheless their contributions shall be examined in other units in this
module.
4.0 Conclusion
Having examined the definition of good thus far, and having realized that there is
no one-sentence definition acceptable by philosophers, also that philosophers do
not have one voice regarding what can be characterized as good, the question that
comes to mind is; how can we know that an action is good or not? This question
shall be the basis of our discussions in the next unit.

5.0 Summary
Below is the summary of what has been discussed in this unit:
i. The concept of good could be defined in two major ways, which are the two
major usages of it – functional usage and philosophical usage;
ii. Functional usages do take dictionary definitions;
iii. Disputes arising from functional usage of the word ‗good‘ could be resolved
by merely looking at the basic standard to be fulfilled;

107
 iv. Philosophers do not agree on a single definition of what is good, they rather
describe what they mean whenever the word is been used;
v. Ethical theorists examine the concept of good in three categories:
objectivism, nihilism, relativism; and
vi. The category someone accepts determines or influences the way he or she
describes good.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Discuss the two usages of the concept of good according to this unit?

7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

1. Discuss the idea of good under the following headings:
a. Moral Objectivism
b. Moral Nihilism
c. Moral Relativism
2. ―Goodness is not what everyone can know.‖ Discuss
3. Discuss the differences between Spinoza‘s and Nietzsche‘s nihilistic views?

8.0 Further Reading

Aristotle, (2004). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by Roger Crisp.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, D.W. (2002). The right and the good. Edited by Philip Stratton-Lake. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Williams, Donald C. (1937). The Meaning of Good. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 46,
No. 4. 416-423. Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review.
Available on https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181104 Accessed: 06-06-2019 14:49 UTC

Brentano, Franz (2009). The Origin of our Knowledge of Right and Wrong.
Trans Roderick M.Chisholm and Elizabeth H. Schneewind. New York: Routledge.

Moore, G.E. (1993). Principia Ethica. Edited by Thomas Baldwin. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bentham, Jeremy (1948). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and

Legislation. Edited by W. Harrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pojman, Louis P. (2005). How Should We Live? An Introduction to Ethics. Belmont:

Wadsworth Group.

Lawhead, W.F. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

Philosophy, Second Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Group.

108
UNIT 2: Knowing the Good and Doing the Good

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Knowing good
3.2 Types of good
3.2.1 Intrinsic good
3.2.2 Instrumental good
3.3 How to know that an action is good
3.4 Doing good
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 Reference/Further Readings

109
1.0 Introduction
In the last unit, we examined the definition of the concept – good – in two major
ways, functional or ordinary language usage and philosophical usage. We assert that
while it is easy to define ‗good‘ in the former usage, the reverse is the case in the
latter usage. In this unit, in spite of the difficulty to define ‗good‘ philosophically, we
shall examine what makes an action good – philosophical criterion, and how to
choose and do a good action.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
At the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Explain the philosophical criteria for classifying actions to be good or bad;
 Explain why an action is good or bad; and
 Discuss the rational justification for good actions.

3.0 Main Content

3.0.1. Knowing the good
As much as it is important to define what is good, it is much more important to
know the action that is good. In other words, the major reason good (and other
terms) is defined is for someone to know and distinguish it from every other thing.
This might be one of the reasons philosophers do not spend all their time to do a
descriptive analysis of the concept of good. They rather spend enormous time to
demonstrate how to identify good actions in our daily interactions in society.
Hence, apart from the question of definition, philosophers deal with other essential
questions.
Now, we arrive at an even more fundamental question: How are we to know that a
thing (action) is good? This question is more indispensable than the question of
the definition of good. This is because the major reason we have to define, as we
mentioned earlier, is to aid recognition; such that we would be able to distinguish
a thing from others. Also, it is more essential because it is a more philosophical
question than the question of definition; ‗what is good?‘ In philosophy, the
question of ‗how‘, is normative, it deals with ‗oughtness‘ – which is the major
concern of ethics, a major branch of philosophy – it prescribes or suggests the
principle of behaviour. While the question of ‗what‘ only describe the way things
are.
3.0.2 Types of Good
Before we answer the question of how to know that an action is good, let us
examine the two main divisions of good in philosophy. Since Plato‘s assertion that
there exist two worlds – world of forms and world imitation – and Aristotle‘s
claim that we have categories of good – good as an end and good as a means to an
end, philosophers have classified good into two: intrinsic good and instrumental
good.

3.0.2.1 Intrinsic Good

110
Intrinsic good is things that are good on their own. They are not pursued because
we want to use them as a means to get other good. Things in this category are self-
sufficient. According to G.E. Moore, anything that is intrinsically good must be
objective. That is if we classified anything to have the value of intrinsic good such
a thing cannot be said to be evil or bad by other people (Moore, 1993:182-184).
Philosophers do not agree on those things (actions) that could be classified as
intrinsic good or having intrinsic value. Some philosophers like; the Hedonists,
Plato, Aristotle, Mill, claim such things are abstract in nature. They listed
happiness, pleasure, knowledge, virtues as things that have intrinsic value. Some
philosophers disputed, argue that concrete things have intrinsic values. For
instance, Elizabeth Anderson said things like laurel, job well done can be
classified as intrinsic good (Anderson, 1993:120). Also, Shelly Kagan opined that
historical significant things can be something categorized as intrinsically valuable.
He said the pen Abraham Lincoln used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation
could be said to have intrinsic value (Kagan, 1998: 285).
We shall not respond to all issues arising from the nature of intrinsic good and the
things that could be classified to have intrinsic good as mentioned above.
However, it is worthy of note that it is disputed if pleasure, happiness, joy and
knowledge are intrinsically good. It is assumed that when someone has the
knowledge it is for a purpose. For instance, having knowledge of music might be
to compose a good song, knowledge of driving might be to drive safely. In
response to this, philosophers claim there are some intrinsic good that can as well
be instrumental good. Hence, they have double values: intrinsic and instrumental,
depend on how they are being viewed.
In another case, it is claimed that some people derived pleasure or happiness when
evil happens to others. If this is true, can we say pleasure and happiness are
intrinsically good? The simple response to this has been the Kantians notion that
‗goodwill‘ is what can have intrinsic value. Therefore, any action that is not
emanating from ‗goodwill‘ is not valuable. On the Kagan‘s pen intrinsic value, it
is best to respond in line with Ben Bradley that it is not the pen that has intrinsic
value, but the state of affairs involving that pen; that is the pen was used to sign
the Emancipation Proclamation (Bradley, 2001:25).
3.0.2.2 Instrumental Good
Instrumental good is the value that something has, in virtue of being a means to an
end. In other words, instrumental good is the moral values considered as a means
to achieve other moral goods. The best way to explain instrumental good, also
called extrinsic good, is to illustrate thus: you are a student of this institution,
offering this course PHL 204: Introduction to Ethics. You got this course material
in order for you to read. You want to read so that you can know the course. You
want to know it in order to pass it. You want to pass the course in order to
graduate with a good grade. You want to have a good grade so that you will be

111
able to get a good job. You want to get a good job because you want to live
happily. Looking at the chain of actions here, it is obvious that one action leads to
the other. That is to show the antecedent is instrumental to the consequence.

3.3 How to know that an action is good

Now, we are back to the question of how to know that an action is good. In
philosophy, it is unusual to just say this particular action is good or that particular
action is bad without rational justification. And when it comes to how to know
good actions, philosophers do set the criteria or means of identifying good action.
As noted earlier that philosophers do not agree on issues, it is not different in this
case. Now we shall delve into different ethical theories criteria of knowing the
moral status of an action.

3.3.1 Hedonism
According to this theory, the human person is governed by two masters – pain and
pleasure – one is bad while the other is good. The good one – pleasure – is always
being pursued and the bad one is persistently being avoided. If we agree that
pleasure is the only ‗naturally good‘ that we must pursue and that pain is evil that
must be avoided always, then the question is: What kind of life must we live that
will amount to the greatest pleasure? In answering a question like this, the
Cyrenaics (who were the first advocate of hedonism), according to Gordon
Graham, claimed it is bodily pleasure of food, drink and sex (Graham, 2004:41).
However, it is obvious that excess food could cause obesity. Indiscriminate sex
could cause HIV/AIDS. Much drinking could cause nausea. All these instances, if
occurred, are painful. This would, therefore, mean pleasure can lead to pain. Then
the pain we try to avoid has found its way back. This seems to be a huge challenge
to bodily pleasure. In order to deal with these inadequacies, the Epicureans
(Epicurus) classified pleasure into groundless (fame, material luxuries) and
natural. He further divides the natural into unnecessary (sex, delicious food) and
necessary (for happiness: wisdom and friendship; for comfort: adequate clothing;
for life: water and plain food) (Lawhead, 2002: 91-92). Accordingly, we are to
pursue the natural and necessary pleasure.
Graham accused Epicurus and his disciples of deviating from the principle of
hedonism because of that call for moderation in seeking pleasure. Accordingly, he
said it is an obvious fact that in the pursuit of bodily pleasure it is practically
impossible to avoid bodily pains. Hedonism cannot be salvage the way Epicureans
intended to salvage it (Graham 2004:41). The question is: How do we get good
and avoid bad within Hedonism? In recent centuries, two philosophers (Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill) have these answers to the question.
Accordingly, Bentham introduced what is called hedonistic calculus as tools to
weight which action brings more pleasure and less pain. With the calculations, we

112
shall be able to know what to do and what to avoid. In chapter four of his
work; Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham listed
the following as principles to calculate pleasurable actions: (i) Intensity (ii)
Duration (iii) Certainty or Uncertainty (iv) Propinquity of Remoteness (v)
Fecundity (vi) Purity (vii) Extent.( Bentham 1948:31-34)
Based on the complex nature of human being and human actions, combined with
the difficulty and bizarre process of Bentham calculation, the process was rejected
by John Stuart Mill. Accordingly, he accused Bentham of promoting
individualistic pleasure without considering the fact that human being takes into
cognizance the society before they act. Also, he argued against Bentham
quantitative pleasure, and said that must be replaced with qualitative pleasure. But
how do we know quality pleasure? In Mill‘s view, an intelligent person knows
what is pleasurable. He argued that the same way human‘s pleasure cannot be
compared with pig‘s pleasure, Socrates pleasure cannot be compared with a fool‘s
pleasure. He stated further that the fools, like the pigs, will have a different
opinion because they know only their side of the opinion, but someone like
Socrates knows both sides, and his opinion is far better than the fool‘s opinion.
Going by Mill‘s argument, we can deduce that what makes actions good is not the
mere pleasure they give us, but something else. Then, there must be some other
good rather than pleasure; strict hedonism claims seem false.

3.3.2 Egoism
Egoism is a doctrine which holds that the good life is one in which you get what
you want. To an Egoist, therefore, the good action is one in which its
consequences are favourable to the performer. Egoism is dated back to antiquity.
In the ancient period in Philosophy, Plato through his interlocutor, Socrates
attacked the theory in his dialogues – Georgias and Republic. There, Socrates
disagreed with Calicles and Thrasymachus respectively on the notion that the good
life entails being successful or accomplishment of what you want (Graham,
2004:20-21). During the modern era, the 17th century English philosopher,
Thomas Hobbes is a major proponent of the theory. According to him, human
beings are naturally selfish, self-cantered and self-seeking. If these define human
beings, and good life is getting what we want, the question is: what is it that we
want? What are the desires that human beings wish to fulfil? If killing others is the
desire or want of a person, can that action be justified as a good one? These and
many related questions are big huddles for egoism to cross-over.

3.3.3 Virtue
This theory places emphases on the character trait of the person carrying out a
moral act. Virtue ethics focuses on the over-all traits of character, in relation to the
traits of personality. It is assumed that traits of character can in some way be

113
developed through training or education, while traits of personality are fixed in
human‘s biology (Tännsjö, 2002:92). In Aristotle‘s Nicomachean Ethics, ‗good‘ is
said to be ‗activity of the soul in harmony with virtue.‘ Thus, Aristotle‘s idea of
the good life is one in which we use our minds (our intellectual faculty) to make,
and think, and act in the best possible ways. According to Graham, Aristotle‘s
appeal to the activities of the mind does not indicate that academic inquiry makes
up the good life. But, it is intelligence in the full range of human activities that
everyone can employ in their respective tasks and occupations (Graham, 2004:57)
Furthermore, in book two of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explained that the
good is the mean between two extreme ends. For instance; coward and
recklessness are two extremes, the mean between them is courage. So, courage is a
good character. Temperate is the mean between abstinence and self-indulgence,
so, temperate is good. Aristotle further clarifies that the mean of some actions and
feelings are not accepted as good, because such actions are entirely bad. Actions
such as; ‗spite‘, ‗shamelessness‘, ‗envy‘, ‗adultery‘, ‗theft‘, ‗homicide‘ ―and others
like them‖ are said to be devoid of ―excesses or deficiencies‖, but bad (Aristotle,
2004:31). Knowing the mean require practical, which Aristotle called ‗practical
wisdom‘. The ancient Greeks put emphasis on four fundamental virtues: wisdom,
courage, temperance, justice. To these natural virtues, Christianity added three
theological virtues; faith, hope, love, and they claimed that the greatest of these is
love.

3.3.4 Kantianism
This theory focuses attention on the intention, motif or will behind an action. The
theory is associated with Immanuel Kant, the eighteenth-century German
philosopher. According to him, there is nothing in the world that ―could be
considered good without limitation except ‗goodwill‘.‖ Intelligence, wit,
judgment, wealth, health, honour, happiness, power, courage, perseverance and
resoluteness can be misused. He argued that once the ‗goodwill‘ is not in these
―gifts of nature‖ they will be used to be extremely evil and harmful. In light of
this, the consequences of some actions are being adorned without considering if
they featured pure and ‗goodwill‘, which ought not to be so (Kant 1998:7).
Consequently, actions should not be evaluated based on their consequences alone,
rather based on the motif of the actor. Therefore, the goodness of a good motive
can be what makes certain actions right. In the same way, the moral rightness of
an act is not determined by the value of the consequences that follow from it, but
by the moral value of the motives and intentions from which it is done.
Kant position can be illustrated thus: if Musa heard the screaming for help of a
baby stuck on a railway track and there is a fast approaching train, then Musa rush
to safe the baby. Though the baby was crushed before he could be saved, the

114
 intention of Musa could have moral worth when we consider the intention behind
the action. In other words, Kant opines that further exposition of Musa‘s motif
could reveal that his intention does have moral value or not.
There are multiple motifs that could be behind Musa‘s action to save the baby. He
could be moved out of pity, that is, he acted based on his emotion. He could also
be to gain popularity. He could be looking for the reward that the families of the
baby or the general populace would give him if he is successful. If any of the
above was the motif, the action has no moral worth. Then, when will intentions or
motif makes an action good? Kant says it is when the action is performed only
from duty without inclination (Kant 1998:7).
It, therefore, follows that actions and their consequences must be separated from
the will or intention for proper evaluation. Then, the question is: how do we
determine a ‗good will‘ behind an action, if we are to separate it from the
consequences of an action? To ask in another form, apart from the performer of
action, can others know the intention or will behind an action without examining
the action and its consequences, or been told of the motif by the performer? Is it
not possible that the performer could lie in order not to be blamed for the
consequences of his action, and claim to have a good intention?
According to Kant, the morally ‗goodwill‘ is in conformity with moral law
(Lawhead, 2002:341), and ‗goodwill‘ can be universalized as law which would
then be imperative (Kant, 1998: 44). Kant distinguished between two kinds of
imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical states that if you want B,
then do A. Kant rejected this because it is teleological. A real moral law he opined
comes in categorical imperative which states what someone ought to, should, must
do, without any qualification, prior condition or subjective wants or wishes
(Lawhead, 2002:341).
Based on the foregoing, Kant generates the categorical imperatives that should
guide every human action. The first one goes thus: ―act in accordance with a
maxim that can at the same time make itself a universal law.‖ (Kant, 1998:44).
Kant position here seems to be another version of the ‗golden rule‘, treat others the
way you want to be treated. The second is as follows: ―act that you use humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time
as an end, never merely as a means.‖ (Kant, 1998:38). It is important to note that
Kant believed that only rational and free human being can act in accordance with
these categorical imperatives. Perhaps, it could be best to say that Kant‘s
‗goodwill‘ depends on these imperative. If this is correct, then, the ‗goodwill‘ will
be one which must put into consideration these imperatives whenever there is a
moral duty to perform.
3.4 Doing good

115
Having examined some ethical theories relating to our discourse, it is pertinent for
us to examine ourselves, criticize the ideas we live by, or the ideas that guide our
actions on a daily basis. Obviously, every one of our actions is been motivated by
one or more of the ethical theories discussed, though we might not have prior
knowledge of this.
Being alive is something that is good; in fact, it is the greatest good without
qualification. Because without, first, being alive, there is nothing we can do. Also,
the good life is what we all desire. In order to attain a good life, everybody wishes
for what appears good to him or her. In other words, to have a good life,
everybody desires what seems desirable to him or her. But oftentimes, as G.E.
Moore would say, people do confuse desirable with desired, and end with means,
and in ethics, it is difficult to convince someone that he or she has made a mistake
and the mistake affects his or her judgments (Moore, 1993:195). The mistake in
judgment of what is good is well explained by Aristotle when he says, ―pleasure
seems to deceive them, because it looks like a good when it is not; people,
therefore, choose what is pleasant thinking it to be good, and avoid (anything they
think is capable of bringing) pain thinking it to be evil‖ (Aristotle, 2004:45).
Assuredly, in every action we take, we are always battling with two contending
issues: doing right and faring well. These two expressions constitute what we refer
to as ‗the good life‘. The former relates to ‗living as we ought‘, which could also
mean ‗the virtuous life‘, and the latter refers to ‗living as we would like to‘, that
could be called ‗the happy life‘ (Graham, 2004:124). Each of the issues raises the
question of: What should I do in this situation? How should I live my Life? In that
respective order. Correspondingly, Louis Pojman tagged the questions as the first-
order reflection and the second-order reflection. Pojman illustrates further that the
second-order reflection is based on personal interested; ―I want to know what kind
of life is likely to bring me the most fulfilment or happiness.‖ (Pojman, 2005:22-
23).
Indeed, individuals can aspire to be happy, but there are limitations. This is the
reason hedonism, and even egoism is a theory that is built to fail. In a similar
manner, utilitarianism would also fail. The limitations to individual happiness
arise from the fact that human beings by nature are social beings. Even the monks
that live in the cave still socialize on rear occasions. Every one of us has families,
friends and neighbours, and we want to live in a harmonious community with
them. Of what use is friendship if not to care about the welfare of one another
even when no immediate benefit is likely to come to oneself? If egoism is the care
about oneself, and would only care about other persons to the extent that they are
useful to him, then, egoists would find it difficult to live in a harmonious society.
In a similar vein, happiness or pleasure cannot constitute the only good thing as
the hedonists claim. Many a time, as a member of society, we must take actions

116
 that might not be pleasurable to us. We need to deny ourselves of some goodies in
order for the society to live in harmony. To buttress this point, Pojman says:
The point is that our values conflict and the pursuit of our own
happiness or continued life are not absolute values. They can be
overridden by other values (or combinations of values),
including our love of liberty and our love for our family, friends,
and nation. Many parents love their children or spouses so much
that they would rather die than see them suffer excruciating pain
or death. (Pojman, 2005:28)
Sacrificing for others here, is not in form of the greater good for the greater
numbers of people as utilitarianism would claim, rather, it is a sacrifice born out of
love and concern for others. There is no evil in the pursuit of self-interest, that is,
we could be concerned to promote our own good, but that must not be at any cost.
In our desire to succeed, we must recognize that sometimes we might fail to do so.
Then, we must accept the just outcome even though it is frustrating.
Suffice to say in David Ross‘s voice that the presumption that there is
one characteristic by virtue of which all the things that are good are good is not
valid. It would be more plausible to say that the goodness of any action depends
on its coherence with the whole system of purposes of the agent and of the society
he lives in (Rose, 2002:79). The society transcends individuals, family, tribe and
ethnicity. It comprehensively accommodates everybody living together,
irrespective of the gender or race. Any theory that prescribes what is good contrary
to this would only throw society into chaos and must not be followed. Of all the
theories we examined above, the virtue theory and Kantianism come close to
fostering a good society, even if they have some huddles. Though others too have
their good side, in the overall analysis, the others are too dangerous to humanity.
To bring this discussion to an end, we must know that doing the good is what
moves life forward and avoiding it will twist life out of control to its demise.
Therefore, our utmost actions must be aimed at good.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, you have learnt some of the criteria ethicists outlined on how to know
morally good actions. The unit dispels some of these criteria on the ground that it
promotes individuality, which is inconsistent with human nature. Because, human
beings by nature are social beings, and any form of individuality has high tendencies
of breading anarchy in society. It is not enough to know morally good actions; the
ultimate thing is to always do the morally good actions. Based on the foregoing, the
unit emphasized doing good as what everyone must prioritize.

5.0 Summary
Here are some of the things we have discussed in this unit:

117
 i. The two major categories of good: Intrinsic and instrumental;
ii. Intrinsic good are things considered to be good in themselves, while instrumental
good are things that are good because they lead to other good;
iii. Some ethical theories like hedonism, egoism, virtue, Kantianism and utilitarianism
have explained how to know morally good actions;
iv. That being alive is the greatest good, because without first being alive, there is
nothing we can do;
v. That the theory we should allow to influence our moral actions must be able to
promote healthily society, not individuality;
vi. For there to be a good society, members of the society must deny themselves, or
sacrifice some of their personal benefits; and
vii. Individuals can aspire to be happy, but there are limitations. The limitations to
individual happiness arise from the fact that human beings by nature are social
beings, so as a result of interactions, individual liberty is being curtailed.

6.0 Self-Assessment Question

1. Critically examine the reason why good moral actions should be the priority of
every member of a society

7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

1. ―An egoist will find it difficult to live in a harmonious society.‖ Discuss.
2. ―Pleasure can lead to pain.‖ Use this statement to do a critique of hedonism.
3. Explain Kant‘s ‗goodwill‘ according to your understanding.

8.0 Reference/Further Readings

D.W. Ross, (2002). The right and the good. Edited by Philip Stratton-Lake. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Brentano, Franz (2009). The Origin of our Knowledge of Right and Wrong.
Trans Roderick M. Chisholm and Elizabeth H. Schneewind. New York: Routledge.

Graham, Gordon (2004). Eight Theories of Ethics. London, New York: Routledge
Publishers.

Pojman, Louis P. (2005). How Should We Live? An Introduction to Ethics. Belmont:

Wadsworth Group.

118
UNIT 3: The Nature of Right and Wrong

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The nature of right and wrong
3.2 On the relativity or objectivity of right and wrong
3.2.1 Moral relativism
3.2.2 Moral objectivism
3.3 The theoretical approaches to right and wrong
3.3.1 Virtue ethics
3.3.2 Deontological ethics
119
 3.3.3 Divine Command Theory
3.3.4 Consequentialist ethics
3.3.5 Situation Ethics
3.3.5.1The four working principles
3.3.5.2 The six fundamental principles
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 Reference/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
The question of right and wrong action is central to morality and ethics in general. It
is so fundamental that no discourse on ethics or about morality can be meaningful
unless it takes into consideration the rightness and wrongness of human actions.
Hence, in this unit, we shall be looking at the nature of right and wrong in morality.
The following questions shall be our guide:
(i) why do people think one action is right and another wrong?
(ii) Which actions really are right or wrong, and how can we know that they are?
(iii) Does right and wrong vary from place to place, time to time, or group to group?
(iv) What do we mean when we mention the terms like ‗right‘ and ‗wrong‘? It should
be noted that these questions would not necessarily be answered directly nor in the
order they are arranged here.
Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
At the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Explain the meaning of the terms right and wrong in ethics;
 Explain the differences between the right actions and the wrong actions; and
 Explain what makes an action right and another wrong based on ethical theories
approaches.

2.0 Main Content

2.1 The nature of right and wrong.
The nature of right and wrong is the major concern of ethics for the fact that it
deals with the question of right and wrong in human action. It is majorly concerns
with the systematic study of morality. Morality itself deals with moral principles,
codes, precepts that ought to guide human behaviour at every time (Omoregbe,
1993:3-4). The word ―ought‖ in the last statement is very important, because that
is what makes ethical study a normative venture. We shall not go back to the
definitions and discussions on ethics and morality here, because you have treated
them earlier.

120
The terms right and wrong are being used in many ways in human endeavour.
They are being used in ethics, law, religion, engineering, politics, economics, and
so on. The usage of the terms might be straight forward without confusion in some
cases. But, it is always confusing in the former three ways mentioned; this is
because in those usages they are normative. They spelt out the code of conduct
expected of every member of a society. However, while legal codes are written
and they go with their sanctions, moral codes are not written and no specific
sanction stated, though they are sometimes the basis of legal codes. Like moral
codes, religious codes have no natural sanction in liberal society. The sanction is
believed to be super-natural (hell, reincarnation, karma, and so on). Though, in
some religions, members may dissociate themselves from those who violate the
codes. In this unit, our focus is on moral usage of the terms.
The term ‗right‘ is being used to describe behaviours that are judged to be
acceptable, while the term ‗wrong‘ refers to behaviours that are judged to be
unacceptable. The terms moral, good and right are used interchangeably.
Correspondingly the terms immoral, bad and wrong are used interchangeably
(Russo, 2012:253). Hence, what can be said about good could also be said about
right, the same applicable to bad and wrong (that does not mean there are no
distinctions of any kind between them). Ethical theories that discuss the moral
worth of actions are majorly into the two categories – relativism and objectivism.
Though there are ethicists that jettison the two categories and denied the existence
of morality. This position is called ethical nihilism. For now, at least in this unit,
we shall examine only the two categories – objectivism and relativism.
3.2 On the relativity or objectivity of right and wrong
3.2.1 Moral Relativism
Often times, we do say; ―that may be right for you, but that does not mean it is
right for others,‖ and ―Do not impose your values on me.‖ If at all you have not
made a statement like these, you would have heard it in one form or another.
Statements in these forms are breeds of moral relativism. Moral relativism holds
that the criteria or principles by which one makes moral judgments or assessments
are not absolute or universal, but are relative to the individual or his/her
community (Sheehy, 2006:1). It should be noted that not all relativists subscribe to
individuality, for instance, Ruth Benedict argued that moral worth of actions is
been defined by the culture or society (Benedict, 2004:45). Moral relativism, in
other words, is the ideas that right and wrong are determined by, or are relative to
time, place and people. If that is so, then, there is no right and wrong, objectively
speaking. Also, right and wrong would be determined by emotion or higher
percentage of people that like a certain action.
Moral relativism becomes problematic when we examine what makes an action
right and wrong. Assuming ninety percent of a group of people say that an action
is right or wrong, would that makes the action right or wrong? For instance, if 90

121
percent of Nigerians believe embezzlement of public fund is right, would that
makes it right? Can we say because some cultures or societies approved racism
(racial discrimination) to be right, then, it is right? Other challenges faced by
moral relativism include the logical consistency of accepting that an action is right
in a place and wrong in another place. In similar vein, the possibility of an action
hitherto said to be wrong but now accepted to be right.
3.2.2 Moral objectivism
The challenges moral relativism could not surmount were addressed by moral
objectivism. Moral objectivism holds that the criteria or principles by which one
makes moral judgments or assessments are absolute or universal. That is, what is
right or wrong in a particular society has the same status in other societies. These
principles are usually referred to as law of nature (Lewis, 2004: 71). It is also
assumed that everyone knows the ‗law of nature‘ and do not need to be taught.
Moral objectivism posits that the moral value of an action does not change; either
people acknowledge it to be so or not. For instance, if killing is wrong, either it is
accepted by a society or not, it is wrong. If we accept moral objectivism, it means
that we are not the authors of right and wrong, rather something beyond us. Also,
we are all subject to the same moral standard, which cannot be bent to suit our
whims or justify our action or ease our consciences.
Any ethical theory that discusses moral actions objectively is characterized by five
important criteria: rationality, openness, universality, impartiality, practicality
(Russo, 2012:254-255). On rationality, an ethical theory is rational if it is not
based on mere feeling, emotion, belief and preference, but grounded on reasons
which would be acceptable to sensible people. Openness entails that the theory
allows criticism that would thereby showcase its merits over other theories or its
demerits. Universality requires that the theory provides general rules of behaviour,
like ―everyone ought to do ‗y‘.‖ Then ‗everyone‘ involved must be as broad as
possible, perhaps involving humankind. Such rule should be one that can be
practical in all society. Impartiality prohibits treatment of people in different ways
on the ground that they are different individuals. On practicality, a theory must not
be so rigid that human beings would not be able to live according to its principles.
That does not mean the theory cannot be idealistic or lofty, but it must not be what
even people with high moral standard will find difficult to live according to its
principles. Moral rules, however, are for human beings not for angels or ghosts.
3.3 The theoretical approaches to right and wrong
There are many ethical theories that have shaped people‘s sense of right and
wrong, whether the people are aware or not. In our discussions here, we shall treat
few of them under the following categories: Virtue ethics, Deontological ethics,
and Consequentialist ethics. Virtue ethics and deontological ethics are also called
non-consequential ethics.
3.3.1 Virtue ethics
122
Virtue ethical theory believes that an act is morally right or wrong by looking at if
the person that perform the act is a virtuous moral character or not. According to
the theory, a virtuous person is one that has been trained and grounded in virtues
such as honesty, justice, self-control, courage, and so on. Due to his or her
training, and habitual practices of these virtues, he or she cannot acts contrary in
any situation. Therefore, a virtuous person always does what is right whenever
there are moral decisions to make. Aristotle and other virtue ethicists believe that a
virtuous person knows the right thing and will do just that at every situation. It
should be noted here that virtue ethics based right and wrong on the actor, not the
act.
3.3.2 Deontological ethics
According to deontology, an act is morally right if such an act aligns with rule that
everyone can follow. Such a rule must also be able to be universalized. While
virtue ethics look at the person that performs the act, deontology pays attention on
the action. Based on deontological principle, whatever the status of a person or his
or her antecedents he or she can still act rightly or wrongly. In principle, acts such
as lying, stealing, killing of innocent people, cheating, and so on cannot be
justified or universalized, hence, they are wrong, and whoever carries out acts in
this category, in respective of who he or she is, is wrong.
There are versions in deontology – rule deontology and act deontology; conversely
we have Divine Command Theory, W.D. Ross deontology, and Kant deontology.
We would not discuss Kant here, because we have treated the theory in previous
unit in this module. Moreover, the discussions on good can also be substituted for
right. Also, we would not discuss Ross deontology; therefore, we shall discuss
Divine Command Theory.
Rule deontology holds that an action is right or wrong in and of itself because they
conform to certain rules, not because it is an act of certain kind. Act deontology on
the other hand holds that an action is right or wrong not because it conform to
certain rules, or because of the kind of act it is, rather, it is by intuiting right or
wrong into it.
3.3.3 Divine Command Theory
Divine command theory hinges morality on the commandments of the
supernatural. This is strictly a religious view. The rightness or wrongness of an
action is based on if the action is approved or not by God. The basic thing in this
theory is that there is the existence of a ‗supernatural being‘ that issues commands.
Religious people, especially the ‗Abrahamic‘ religion – Judeo-Christian and Islam
– believe in the existence of a supreme being, who is the Almighty. He gave his
commands that all must obey. The commands, therefore, determine what is right
and what is wrong. Whoever disobey will be punished and whoever obey will be
rewarded, either ―here on earth or in the life after death‖ (Omoregbe, 1993:24).
The life after death is regarded as heaven, a rosy place for the virtuous people who

123
obey the commands, and hell, a cruel place for those who disobey the commands.
In light of this system of divine justice, a man who stole money either from
individuals or misappropriated government money but was not caught, prosecuted
and sentence, only escape human‘s actions, but he would be punished by God here
on earth of in life after death. The same thing is applicable to all offences.
There are many challenges to divine command theory. The first challenge has to
do with the existence of God. The agnostics argued that if God does not exist, then
the whole theory collapsed. While this challenge is basic, it is as well trivial.
Because it is difficult to argue that God does not exist, even if his existence has
not been proven scientifically which is what many people who argued that he does
not exist based their arguments on. The second challenge is the one raised by Plato
in his dialogue Euthyphro. Plato, through his interlocutor, Socrates, queried if
gods‘ command is what makes an action right or wrong. He poses the question
that; was the act right or wrong before gods‘ commandments? If an action is right
before God‘s commandments, it means God‘s commands are not necessary. And if
God‘s command is what makes an action right, thus, it follows that if God
commands someone to kill, killing is right.
Another challenge to Divine Command Theory has to do with the nature of the
commandments of the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religion: how same
God can give conflicting commands. These and many objections have been raised
against Divine Command Theory. The discourse on these objections is beyond the
scope of this unit. What is very clear about this theory is that is a matter of faith.
Once a person believes in God, he/she accepts the commands.
3.3.4 Consequentialist ethics
As the name imply, consequentialism focuses on the end of actions.
Consequentialist ethics is also called teleological ethics. The root word of
teleology is teleos, which is a Greek word for end. Hence the end of an action is
the sole determining factor of what is right and what is wrong. Every ethical
theory that justifies the rightness and wrongness of actions based on their
consequences are called consequentialist or teleological ethics. In this category we
have utilitarianism, hedonism, egoism and situation ethics. These theories hold
that right actions are one which the ends are more favourable. In other words,
moral rightness of an action is determined by the value of the consequences that
follow from such an action. We have discussed utilitarianism, hedonism and
egoism in the previous units, hence we shall not be discussing them here.
3.3.5 Situation Ethics
According to situation ethics, rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the
situation. Joseph Fletcher, the major proponent of the theory, spelt out the
conditions that make actions to be right and wrong, in his 1966 book Situation
Ethics. He identified there approaches to moral decision making to be; legalism,
which sees moral norm as absolute, antinomianism, which is lawless and without

124
principles, that is, rejection of all moral laws, and situationism, which sees
universal moral principles as guide in one‘s decision making (Omoregbe,
1993:257). He rejected legalism and antinomianism because they are extreme and
impracticable.
He argues against the legalistic inclinations in ethics, particularly traditional
Christian ethics, which claims that some actions are intrinsically wrong. He said
actions are not always wrong, rather the situation determines if they are wrong.
Therefore, an action which is right in one situation can be wrong in another
situation. He opined that legalism consider the letter of the law and insists on its
adherence, neglecting the spirit of the law (Fletcher, 1966: 18).
Also, Fletcher argues against legalistic positions that there are many absolute
moral norms. He said all moral norms are relative, except one, which is ―the law
of love‖. Love therefore, is the only intrinsic good. Any action that is right must be
based on love. He identified three types of love thus;
(i) Filial, which is friendly love or affection, it is the kind of love that exist
between parents and children;
(ii) Eros, which is fanatical sexual love; and
(iii) Agape, which is unconditional, Christian, Biblical love, the kind God shows to
mankind, and everyone must extend to others.
Fletcher argues that the latter love is the only genuine love that religious people
must exhibit, and it is fundamental to situation ethics. Hence, when someone
performs actions in any situation based on love, the actions are right. Conversely,
any action that is not based on love is wrong.
Fletcher gives ten principles of situation ethics, which are divided into the four
working principles and the six fundamental principles.

3.3.5.1 The four working principles:

1. Pragmatism: This states that the principle of action must be practicable or
workable.
2. Relativism: Moral right and wrong are always relative to situation.
3. Positivism: Situation ethics relies on fact and empirical approach to moral
decision.
4. Personalism: Situation ethics believes that moral laws and principles are for the
benefit of the people, they are for the well-being of humanity.
3.3.5.2 The six fundamental principles (propositions)

125
 1. Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love. Love is good always.
2. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love.
3. Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed.
4. Love wills the neighbour‘s good, whether we like him or not. Love is more than
liking.
5. Only the end justifies the means. Actions only acquire moral status as a means
to an end; therefore, the end must be the most loving result.
6. Love‘s decisions are made based on the situation.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have examined the nature of right and wrong, and how central it is
to ethics. A graphic representation of the three categories of ethical theory were
also examined. This unit will be more meaningful if you understand the previous
units in this module, and diligently study the next unit, which shall be the
application of the tools – ethical theories – to moral issues in human societies.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have discussed he following:
i. Right actions are seen as behaviours that are morally acceptable and wrong actions
are seen as behaviours that are judged to be morally unacceptable;
ii. Moral theories can be grouped into: relativism and objectivism;
iii. Moral relativism holds that there are no universal or absolute criteria to evaluate
moral actions, while moral objectivism holds that the principles or criteria for
assessing moral actions are universal and absolute;
iv. Objective ethical theories are characterized by: rationality, openness, universality,
impartiality, and practicality;
v. Deontology is an objective ethical theory, and it is divided into act deontology and
rule deontology;
vi. Act deontology holds that an action is right or wrong not because it conform to
certain rules, or because of the kind of act it is, rather, rather it is by intuiting
right or wrong into it, while rule deontology holds that an action is right or wrong
in and of itself because they conform to certain rules, not because it is an act of
certain kind.
vii. Divine command theory centres morality on the commandments of supernatural
being;
viii. Agape love is the fundamental principle of moral in Joseph Fletcher‘s Situation
ethics; and
ix. Virtue ethic focuses on person; deontology focuses on action, while
consequentialism focuses on outcome to determine the moral worth of human‘s
actions.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Assess deontological ethics as an approach to understanding right and wrong.

126
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. What are the challenges to ethical relativism?
2. What are the principles of Fletcher‘s theory, are these principles tenable?
3. Do a critical examination of the relationship between the following: legal
codes, moral codes, religion codes.
4. Explain the differences between the right actions and the wrong actions using
Virtue ethics.
5. Explain what makes an action right and another wrong based on Divine Command
theories approach.

8.0 References/Further Reading

Lewis, C.S. (2004). The moral law is from God. Ethics: Contemporary Readings. Harry
J. Gensler, Earl W. Spurgin, and James C. Swindal (eds). New York and London:
Routledge.

Copp, David (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Gensler, Harry J. Earl W. Spurgin, and James C. Swindal (eds), (2004). Ethics:
Contemporary Readings. New York and London: Routledge Publishers.

Fletcher, Joseph (1966). Situation Ethics. London: SCM Press.

Omoregbe, Joseph I. (1993). Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja
Educational and Research Publishers Ltd.

Russo, Michael S. (2012). The Problem of Philosophy. New York: SophiaOmni.

Sheehy, Paul (2006). Moral Relativism. Richmond Journal of Philosophy 13 (Autumn

2006)1-9.

Benedict, Ruth (2004). Defending cultural relativism. Ethics: Contemporary

Readings. Harry J. Gensler, Earl W. Spurgin, and James C. Swindal (eds). New York and
London: Routledge Publishers.

127
 MODULE 5

UNIT 1: Is Ethics a Science or an Art?

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is science?
3.2 The relationship between ethics and science
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment

128
8.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
By now, you probably are aware of the fact that all disciplines – in the arts and various
sciences – originated from philosophy. What you may not be sure of is what the criteria
are that qualifies any discipline, say, ethics, as one or the other. Put in other words, is the
philosophical discipline of ethics a science or an art? What is even science? In this lecture
unit, you will find out possible answers to these related questions, among other ones.

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

By the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Define science;
 Explain the two views of science with a view to determining which one aligns with
ethics; and
 Discuss the relationship, if any, between science and ethics.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 What is Science?
Science, as a concept, derives from two words: scientia – a Latin word that means
knowledge – and wis ens chaff – a German word which means systematic and organized
knowledge (Randi, 2012.). Therefore, science descriptively, is a body of systematic or
organized knowledge. The two key words here – systematic/organized and knowledge –
are very instructive. Knowledge, a somewhat natural property of human beings‘ curious
disposition is also the objective of scientific inquiries, and not surprisingly so. But unlike
other kinds of knowledge pursuits, the scientific brand of same is allegedly systematic
and organized. What makes this the case deserves a probe. But we shall have to return to
this subject much later in this discourse. In the meantime, it appears, from the foregoing
etymological analysis of science that, an early answer to our running question: whether
ethics is a science or not, must be rendered in the affirmative.
Ethics, as we have seen from previous units‘ discussions, is a systematic and organized
pursuit of knowledge in the moral realm. If ethics is thus a science, it means we can infer
that its inquiries into the field of human values and morality is conducted in such a
manner that is not different from those subjects that we are normally attuned to regarding
as scientific (think chemistry, Physics, and so on). But you also know this is not the case.
If this observation accords with reality and in line with our descriptive exercise in this
unit, it follows that we must quickly abandon our earlier assent that ethics is not a
science.
Ethics, we are saying, differs in kind to the ‗sciences‘ of Chemistry and Physics, among
others. But perhaps, there is a middle ground to this conundrum. Could ethics, in certain
aspects, be a science and in other regards be not? To do this, we may have to point out
that there are at least two conceptions of science: the maximalist and minimalist accounts.
According to the maximalist view, science, alongside being a systematic organized
knowledge edifice, is guided by a unique methodology. This methodology involves
making empirical observations about facts of reality and ultimately deducing general or
natural causal laws from these with which future events can be adequately predicted and

129
even manipulated. The minimalist view, however, is that science is any activity that
involves a methodological and coherent study of any aspect of reality.
Clearly, then, and on the maximalist view, ethics is not a science, but conversely, that is,
on the minimalist conception of science has shown that ethics is a science. It is important
for us to note, in addition to all what you have been reading thus far, that science, as it is
conceptualised today, is essentially the idea of the founders of the Royal Society of
London, the oldest organization for the advancement of science in the world, chartered in
1662. Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, and other founders were interested in the new
‗philosophy‘ or natural science that was then emerging with the experimentations and
observations of men like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Sir William Gilbert and
Johannes Kepler (Randi, 2012).
3.2 The relationship between ethics and science
Ethics and science share in the similar business of generating general laws to explain phenomena
of the physical universe and of human behaviours. One is to describe these phenomena while the
other is to prescribe how human behaviours ought to be tailored. This is why ethics is said to be
a prescriptive science unlike the ‗core‘ sciences that are descriptive. What this implies is that
whereas science tells us what is the case (and what is likely to be the case in future), ethics tells
us what ought to be the case (and, hence, what we ought to do).
These differences, notwithstanding, a plethora of similarities may be easily found in the two
vocations of ethics and science. First of all, no humanistic science is possible without adherence
to ethical strictures (Schweitzer, 1962). Although, it may not necessarily be the case that science
is anti-human. For, at first blush, the overarching aim of science is satisfying human curiosity
and making humans better able to cope with the limitations of natures. It often appears to most
sceptical people‘s minds that many of the activities of science are too impersonal, therefore anti-
human – to be left un-critiqued. And since ethics keep close tabs, more or less, to human well-
being, it means such concerns against the activities of science would necessarily occupy the
front-burner of its discourses. Therefore, there must, of necessity, be an ethical underpinning for
every scientific practice and theory (Donnant, 2003).
Conversely, ethics would benefit a lot from science. Owing to the fact that ethics is overtly
preoccupied with abstract, normative and conceptual issues vis-à-vis human conduct, the need to
get a good grip on the facts of each and every matter of ethical inquiry becomes important. Take
the ethical evaluation of certain issues in environmental science – say, the science of climate
change – for example (Attfield, 2011). How else would ethicists be able to, via their analytical
and argumentative methodology of inquiry, find out the rate of global warming? How,
furthermore, would they be able to find out the anthropogenic dimension to the latter problem
(of global warming/climate change) without relying on data being supplied by concerned
scientists working in these fields?
For science to function positively, a thorough consideration of ethical values – like autonomy,
truth, non-maleficence and beneficence – must be adhered to (Agulanna, 2010). Many – or,
rather, all – of the current and future innovations of science ought to be ethically evaluated also.
If such considerations were borne in mind, such inventions that now threaten to annihilate
humanity from the face of the planet, like nuclear bombs would have been averted or at least
better regulated. Ethical studies are imperative while considering issues of allocation of scarce
medical resources and carrying out of risky or controversial medical procedures (such as

130
 physician-assisted suicide, abortion, etc.). What this examination points up to is that although
some sceptics (perhaps, of the maximalist school of science) may be restrained in assenting to
the fact that ethics is a science, what no one may deny is the symbiotic relationship between the
two seemingly disparate disciplines – and this is what you have been impressed with in this unit.
4.0 Conclusion
We have basically discussed two things in this lecture unit. We started with an analysis of
the concept of science. Your knowledge of ethics, of course, was assumed, and rightly so.
It emerged from this first consideration that ethics, at least from the point of reference of
the minimalist view of science, is a science. It is, of course, not the case that ethics, from
the angle of the maximalist account, is a science.

Related to the first is the second task of this unit, is the nature of the relationship that
possibly exists between science and ethics. What may be surmised from the latter task is
that there is genuine reason for scientists to take cognizance of ethical theories and
submissions in their vocation. Ethicists, too, would benefit from trends and discussions
that animate the enterprise of science. The two disciplines, thus, need to complement, not
diverge from, each other.
5.0 Summary
The following is the summary of what we have discussed in this unit:
xi. Science is a systematic and organized and knowledge;
xii. Ethics is a systematic and organized pursuit of knowledge in the moral realm;
xiii. The maximalist view is that, ethics is not a science;
xiv. Conversely, the minimalist conception ethics is a science;
xv. Ethics, like science, to repeat, share in the similar business of generating general
laws to explain phenomena; and
xvi. No humanistic science is possible without adherence to ethical strictures.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Discuss the relationship between ethics and science.

7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment

1. What is science?
2. How would you answer the question: ‗is ethics a science?‘
3. Explain the relationship between ethics and science.
4. Examine the possibility of ethics being a science.

6.0 References/Further Reading

Agulanna, C. (2010). ―The Requirement of Informed Consent in Research Ethics:
Procedure for Implementing a Crucial Ethical Norm in African Communal Culture,‖ in
European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 44, No. 2

Attfield, Robin. (2011). ―Climate Change, Environmental Ethics and Biocentrism‖ in

Ved Nanda (Ed.) Climate Change and Environmental Ethics. New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers.

Donnant, Alan E. (2003). ―Science and Ethics‖, Magazine

131
 Dorff, Elliot N. (1998). Matters of Life and death: A Jewish Approach to Modern
Medical Ethics. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Frankena, William K. (1995). Ethics. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ozumba, Godfrey O. (2001). A Course Text on Ethics. Onitsha: O.O.P. Publishers

Limited.
Randi, James. (2012). ―The Scientific Method‖ Available online at
https://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/physics7?Notes_www/nodes5.html. Accessed on
August 13, 2019.

Schweitzer, Albert. (1962). Civilization and Ethics. London: Unwin Books.

Wallace, William. (1997). The Element of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers

and Theologians. New York: Alba House

UNIT 2 Assumption of Ethics

Contents
9.0 Introduction
10.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
11.0 Main Content
11.1 Assumption of ethics
11.1.1 Freedom
11.1.2 Libertarianism as a form of freedom
11.1.3 Responsibility
11.1.4 Are individuals completely free

132
 11.2 Determinism
11.2.1 Hard Determinism
11.2.2 Soft Determinism
11.2.3 Fate/Fatalism, an Extreme form of Determinism
11.2.4 Causation as a form of Determinism
12.0 Conclusion
13.0 Summary
14.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
15.0 Tutor Marked Assessment
16.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 Introduction
In this unit, we shall examine the basic presupposition of ethics. From the beginning of this
course, you should have realized, especially when we try to define ethics and morality, that
actions that have moral values are actions done voluntarily and freely. In doing such actions,
the performer is held responsible. Owing to the foregoing, we can deduce that ethics is based
on two major assumptions: freedom and responsibility.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 Explain the basic assumption of ethics;
 Discuss the concept of freedom;
 Discuss the concept of responsibility; and
 Explain determinism and its relationship with freedom and responsibility

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Assumption of ethics
Ethics is built on the basic assumption that actions that have moral values are actions
done willingly and freely, and any action performed under this condition places
responsibility on the human subject. This assumption seems simple and understandable.
However, critical examination of it would raise a number of questions: how do we act
freely and willingly? In other words, what are free or voluntary actions? What is freedom
or freewill? Are we completely free? What is responsibility?
3.1.1 Freedom
Freewill or freedom is the belief that man is free and accountable for all the decisions he
made. He must be held responsible for the consequences that arise from such decisions.
Freedom entails the capacity of ―self-determination‖ which means someone has the
capability to decide what to do and what to avoid. B. M. Laing describes freedom as the
capacity that human being possesses to initiate occurrences as against mere transmission
of occurrences (Laing, 1929:469). This means that the person has the ability to originate
an action.
John Bourke described freedom (liberty) in three different ways: Capricious freedom,
neutral freedom and rational freedom, which can be recaptures as ‗freedom from‘,
‗freedom to‘ and ‗freedom in‘ respectively. Capricious freedom does not give room to

133
choosing; nobody can predict the next action of himself or that of others. Such freedom
has neither contact nor direction. He described this type of freedom thus;
Capricious freedom” is simply that “freedom” which a
person is said to possess in virtue of which all his actions
are sheerly undetermined. It is the “freedom” of chance ….
It may be described as “freedom from”; but whether by
that is understood a freedom from this or that particular
determining cause, or from all determining causes
whatever, it is not a freedom in respect of which we could
be said to be capable of choosing (Bourke, 1938:227).
Neutral freedom‘ is the freedom to do or act within different alternatives. That is we can
express ourselves in either this or that way when we find ourselves between equal or
contrary alternatives, such as: to do good or bad, to act in the right or wrong way. This
description agrees with J.P. Sartre‘s position that freedom is to choose or not to choose
from alternatives. ―Freedom is the freedom to choose… not to choose is, in the fact, to
choose not to choose‖ (Sartre, 483).
Rational freedom, he said is freedom that brings about a result of some particular kinds.
The latter description of freedom seems to present a possibility of an absolute freedom.
The question is can we have absolute freedom at all? Is freedom possible such that we
can do what we like without any obstructions, disturbances, and interruptions?
3.1.2 Libertarianism as a form of freedom
Libertarianism is a metaphysical position which hold that human actions are not in any
way determined. Everything human being engaged in is out of his or her free will.
Libertarianism is against any form of compatibility (the position that freewill or freedom
of action can still be found in a determined world). It is an absolute concept of freedom of
action. Libertarianism position is that human beings, as agents have freewill, therefore
determinism is false. Libertarianism is used to describe free thinkers that believed that
freewill is opposed to determinism. Libertarianism is a recent view in metaphysics;
nevertheless, the position has long been postulated by philosophers from the ancient
period, although not with the name or term libertarianism. Epicurus has theorized a
similar position in the ancient period of philosophy. Recent scholars, who theorized about
libertarianism, although not all of them accepted the claim, include: Robert Nozick, Hugh
McCann, Alfred Mele, Peter van Inwagen, Carl Ginet, Roderick Chisholm, Robert Kane,
and so on.
In the ancient period, Epicurus followed the atomists and posited that everything in the
universe is made up of atoms, including man. He argued that the movement of atoms has
no deterministic tendencies. Epicurus is said to have modified his atomic theory so that
not only could atomic motion result from atoms own weight and form the impacts of
other atoms but it could also occur, spontaneously as a minimal deviation from its
existing trajectory – a swerve (cf. Furley, 1999:205). This was introduced in order to
preserve the ascription of moral responsibility.
Robert Kane and Peter van Inwagen followed Epicurus in holding an extreme position of
libertarianism. They are of the opinion that the even human ―will‖ does not have control

134
 over actions. Other libertarians posited that psychological events that prompt actions do
not have physical explanation. They believed that one‘s actions are not determined by
anything prior to a decision. The question we need to examine therefore has to do with
either human being are free absolutely or not.
3.1.3 Responsibility
A person is morally responsible for his action, if it is as a result of his conscious power.
No responsibility falls on a person whose act is compelled. That is actions from all of the
following factors: external forces, unconscious states that are inaccessible to meditations,
and the inevitable consequences of juvenile situations. Responsibility could be said to be
the admittance of the consequences of the actions someone took either praise or blame. In
other words to be responsible for a thing is for such a person to admit without resistance
that he took an action willingly and consciously; whatever the outcome may be, he or she
must be ready to accept it.
If the above description of responsibility if taken admittedly, it follows therefore that for
a person to be responsible for an action; such a person must have acted consciously and
willingly without coercion or compulsion. If this is the case, the question is do we act in
such a way that our actions are consciously taken and not determined by some
circumstances beyond our control? Is it the case that our actions are not coerced?
3.1.4 Are individuals completely free?
Affirming the question above will trigger serious implications. For instance, if we claim
that human beings are completely free, it follows therefore that; we selected our
biological parents, we decided our place of birth, and so on. Meanwhile, denial of the
question follows therefore that, there are some factors, which limit our freedom. Such
that, given those factors, we cannot but behave in line with the influences they have in
our day to day life pattern.
We shall be looking at these factors, which account for some of our actions, under two
perspectives: internal factors and external factors. It should be noted however that the
debate on internal and external factors is to argue for and against the existence of
freedom and responsibility
3.2 Determinism
Determinism is a metaphysical position which seems to hold that all actions or events in
the universe have a condition that necessitates them. Philip stokes (2003) defined
determinism as ―the view that whatever happens has to happen for every event is the
inevitable, hence necessary outcome of its specific, preceding causes, which themselves
were the necessary result of yet previous causes‖ he added that ―the chain of cause and
effect might be seen as determined by God or the laws of nature‖ (Stoke, 2003:211). In
furtherance of this Maher writes that determinism ―denote the philosophical theory which
holds, in opposition to the doctrine of free will, that all man‘s volitions are invariably
determined by pre-existing circumstances‖ (Mahar, 1908. online). Determinism
according to Bourke (1938) is ―a theory in general which denies our power of choice‖ He
went further to identify two main senses of determinism. The first one he called ―natural
determinism‖ which is the view that, determinism is external, through natural forces and
that human being has no control of it. The second sense of determinism identified by

135
Bourke is what he called internal determinism, which is like the opposite of external or
natural determinism.
There are many types of determinism, such as, ethical determinism, theological
determinism, physical determinism, psychological determinism, etc. Ethical determinism,
which is our concern here, is the belief that men‘s actions are determined by what they
see as good. That is the choices someone make are based on what such a person felt to be
good human are not free, when someone make a choice it is based on deliberation of
what we think to be good.
Thomas Aquinas, Plato and Socrates held similar view. According to them, no human
being would do something he knows to be evil, all what man would choose is what such
person thinks is good. For Aquinas, if anybody rejects a good thing, it is because such
person sees the bad aspect of such a thing. And when an individual choose what is good it
is based on the fact that such a person do not see the bad or evil aspect of such an act.
Plato and Socrates hold the belief that nobody who knows that something is bad will
choose to do such a thing. Anyone that does any bad thing is ignorant of the fact that such
a thing is bad. This seems to imply that we are not free at all; hence we ought not to be
held responsible to our action.
Prior to J.S. Mill, determinism is not strictly separated from concepts like necessary cause
and fatalism, but Mill and some philosophers after him, usually objected to such terms –
necessary cause and fatalism – because they believed that, determinism does not suggest
external compulsion as necessary cause and fatalism seems to imply, rather, motives and
volitions are the determining factors of human actions.
Philosophers all over ages have argued for one form of determinism or the other. This
they do in order to give room for human responsibility and freedom of action. While
some held that there is no chance for human freedom of action or freewill, others argued
that even in the face of determining factors man have choice to choose freely and must be
held responsible for any choice he made. The above position has paved way to the
emergence of two main trends of determinism, hard determinism and soft determinism.
3.2.1 Hard Determinism
Hard determinism is a form of determinism that denied human freedom in any action he
takes. Hard determinism like soft determinism can be derived from all the types of
determinism – ethical determinism, theological determinism, psychological determinism,
physical determinism, historical determinism, etc. According to hard determinists, man‘s
freedom is illusory. That is to say, everything man does is based on the way forces that
compelled him have decided.
Democritus, an ancient philosopher, theorized that everything in the world including man
is made up of atoms. And the behaviours of things are based on the atoms they are made
up of (Stoke, 2003:27). Therefore all actions are determined not freely, but rather by the
substance one is made up of. Zeno, another ancient philosopher, opined that there is
nothing like freedom, all what we have is absolute law of nature that governs everything
(Russell, 1948:254). Barunch Spinoza took the theological types of hard determinism. In
his view, God is the determining factor of all things. Spinoza holds that everything in the
universe is a part or extension of the nature of God. Bertrand Russell said Spinoza

136
determinism shows that, ―Only ignorance makes us think that we can alter the future;
what will be, will be, and the future is as unalterably fixed as the past‖ (Russell,
1948:574). It appears therefore that all events in the universe are chronologically
arranged by God or nature. Just as God determined all events in the universe, human
actions are not left out, because human being, are also part the universe. There are
inherent problems from Spinoza denial of any form of human freedom. In the sense that,
how and where can we position wickedness, sin and evil, since everything is part of God,
with the attributive nature of God?

3.2.2 Soft Determinism

In order to account for moral judgment and hold man responsible for his actions, in the
world of determinism, scholars theorized that there is a form of determinism that give
room to freedom of will. In other words, scholars advanced the argument that despite the
fact that actions of man are determined, there are still some volitions or choices that man
makes, which he must be responsible for. Apart from this ethical point of view that soft
determinism sprung from, soft determinism also advance some forms of theological point
of view to defend the attribute of God. In the sense that, religious leaders and scholars
argue for a kind of freedom of choice and action in order for them to explain the problem
of evil.
Owing to the foregoing, Saint Augustine of Hippo posited that although God is
omniscient, he knows every action of man before man embarked on it; nevertheless, it is
not God that pushed man to take such action. God foreknowledge is not the cause of man
action; therefore man is free to make any decision. Augustine position has a wide range
of acceptance among Christians. Another philosopher, Epictetus, in order to justifies and
make man accountable for his actions posited that, although some things are not in our
control, yet we have a lot of things in our control. He noted that things like our opinion,
desire, pursuit, aversion, our actions and so on, are in our control and we must be
responsible for them.
3.2.3 Fate/Fatalism, an Extreme form of Determinism
Fate or fatalism is the doctrine that all events are subject to inevitable necessity. Human
being has no chance of controlling any event with their action. All things have been
preordained. Fatalism does not give room for human action at all. Man has no power to
influence or control events, no initiative, no freedom; man is subject to superior force or
forces. Fatalism believes that ―what will be will be‖ because every event has been
preordained. The causes of events are outside ourselves, that whatever occurs to us does
so regardless of what we do. We cannot act, since events are beyond our control, and
there are no alternatives, therefore, deliberation is illusory.
3.2.4 Causation as a form of Determinism
Causation is a position that seems to suggest that certain thing caused the other. That is
given a certain condition; there is a necessary step that follows. Causation has a wide
spread orientation like determinism, it is also sometime refers to as determinism. In other
words causation and determinism are used interchangeably. Causation states that given a
condition A, B follows. Anytime that A occurs under that same condition B must follows.

137
 Causation is usually described in terms of cause and effect. So when one is thirsty, for
instance, what must follow is that one will have to drink water.
There are trends in the discussion of causation just as we have in determinism. Scholars
advocate for different thing to be the cause of things. Some claim that God is the cause of
all events, while some advocated for psychological causes of events. In short all the types
of determinism we have are also the types of causality. Causation or causality has been a
topic of philosophical discussion since the ancient period. As a matter of fact, we can say,
it is the beginning of Ionian philosophy. In the sense that, the Ionian philosophers‘
(Thales, Anaximander, Aneximenes) discussions about the primary substance, which
every other things were made, were in a way looking at what caused other thing to take
effect.
Aristotle also established the subject (causality) and made it prominent when he
identified four causes of things: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final
cause (Lawhead, 2002:78). These are what bring about change of things; from potential
to actuality; from matter to forms; from one substance quality to another. Donald
Davidson argues in his essay, ‗Actions, Reasons and Cause‘, for a kind of determinism
which seems to be compatible with causal determinism. He says the reasons or a purpose
for an action is taken itself as a cause for that action (Davidson, 1963:685-700). In other
words Davidson claim that when an action was carried out, the doer has a reason that
motivated or driven him/her to embark on that particular action. Therefore the reason or
the motivating factor is a causal determinism for such an action.
4.0 Conclusion
Our elaborated analysis thus far reveals to us; (1) that determinism is real. (2) Absolute
freedom is not certain. The question then is, are we responsible for our (moral) actions in
the face of this deterministic tendencies? Human actions are not determined such that
man is not responsible for them. There is no single action someone can take that does not
have alternative. Bourke put the illustration thus;
When we say of an action which we have done that we were ―free‖
to do it or that we did it freely, or again, that we chose to do it, we
do certainly mean that we were free to do it only because we were
also free not to do it, or to do something else; and again, that we
chose to do it only in the sense that we chose it in preference to
and as against one or more other possible actions, any one of
which we could equally well have chosen (Bourke, 1938:278).
Although the alternative available might be that such a person will not take any action at
all, but the fact still remains that human‘s attempt to avoid the consequences of not taking
an action would itself be a responsibility. Therefore the outcome of our actions must be
accepted. It is obvious that when we get our desired result we assumed that we are
responsible for it, but when it is the other way round we seem to suggest that we are not
responsible. This portray that we are not indifferent to praise and blame.

5.0 Summary

138
 Below is the summary of what we have discussed in this unit that:
i. The basic assumption of ethics centred on freedom and responsibility;
ii. Those actions that have moral values are actions done willingly and freely, and any
action performed under this condition places responsibility on the human subject;
iii. The concept of freedom and responsibility is been threatened with the belief that
some certain elements influence human actions;
iv. Determinism has many strands, and these are ethical determinism, theological
determinism, physical determinism, psychological determinism, etc.;
v. In the overall analysis of the concept of determinism, human beings have, at least,
freedom of choice, which places responsibility on their actions; and
vi. Fate or fatalism is the doctrine that all events are subject to inevitable necessity; as
such human being has no chance of controlling any event with their action.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. How would you argue for the opinion that human beings are not responsible for their
actions?
7.0 Tutor Marked Assessment
1. ―Determinism is reconcilable with freedom and responsibility‖ Discuss.
2. ―Only ignorance makes us think that we can alter the future.‖ Discuss.
3. Make a critique of fatalism as a form of determinism.

8.0 References/Further Readings

Bourke, John. (1938). Responsibility, Freedom and Determinism, in Journal of Philosophical
Studies, Vol. 13, No. 15. Available on http://www.jstor.org/stable/3746126. Accessed
04/11/2014, 09:05
Furley, David. (1999). Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. II, From Aristotle to Augustine.
New York: Routledge Publishers
Laing, B.M. (1929). Freedom and Determinism. In Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 4, No.
16
Lawhead, W.F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy,
Second Edition. Wadsworth
Machan, Tibor. (2004). ―A Brief Defense of Free Will.‖ in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger
(eds). Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Upper Saddle River N. J.: Pearson. pp., 33-39
Maher, M. (1908). ―Determinis‖ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Available on http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm. Accessed November 1,
2014.
Russell, Bertrand. (1948). A History of Western Philosophy and its connection with political and
social circumstances from Earliest Time to the present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Stokes, Philip. (2003). Philosophy 100 Essential Thinkers. (Enchanted Lion Books).

139
Unit 3: Some Fundamental Principles of Ethics
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
3.0 Main Content

140
 3.1 The Fundamental Principles of Ethics
3.2 Kinds Moral Principles
3.3 Four Fundamental Principles of Ethics
3.3.1 The Principle of Respect for autonomy
3.3.2 The Principle of Beneficence
3.3.3 The Principle of non-maleficence
3.3.4 The Principle of Justice
3.4 Further Reflection of Principle of Ethics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
8.0 References/ Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
It is significant to note that ethics, as a systematic study, has fundamental principles. This
is its fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief
or behaviour or for ethical chain of reasoning. In this unit, and for the purpose of this
level of our study, we shall discuss respect for the autonomy of others, beneficence, non-
maleficence and justice.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
At the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Explain the basic principles of ethics;
 Explain the kinds of moral principle;
 Discuss the importance of each of the principles for human social relation; and
 Discuss the reflections of Principle of Ethics.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Fundamental Principles of Ethics
The principles of ethics are called moral principles. They are also called fundamental
principles of moral law. The moral law is the law that guides all human beings to do what
is good and avoid what is bad. The moral law is practically based on reason. Hence, all
men that are reasonable obliged to it. The obligation comes from the conscience
(Omoregbe, 1993:59). The moral law is also refers to as ‗Natural Law‘ or ‗law of nature‘.
The laws are universal, that is to say they are applicable in all time and places. They
classified the ‗dos‘ and ‗dos not‘ human societies. These principles are different from
State laws which are man-made. According to Cicero the natural law is ―the law above
the laws‖, and man-made laws are valid if and only if they conform to the natural law
(Cf. Lawhead, 2002:98).
3.2 Kinds of Moral Principles
The moral principles are the standard measure of ethical norms that human‘s conducts
and behaviours must conform with. In other words, they are guides that stipulate the way
we should behave. In fact, they show to us what we must do and what must be avoided.

141
 There are two kinds of the moral or ethical principles, namely; the positive principles and
the negative principles.
The positive principles classify the conducts that we should do and how we should
behave. These include dignity and respect for human life, autonomy and respect for the
right the others, justice, honesty, kindness, truthfulness, altruism, hospitality, generosity,
fidelity, and so on.
Conversely, the negative principles proscribe some certain actions and behaviours that
are seen to be wrong. Such actions and behaviours as murder, adultery, suicide, hatred,
stealing, bribery, cheating, and so on are to be avoided. To be concise, all the opposing
actions to the positive principles are to be avoided because they are capable of destroying
both the performer of such actions and the society at large.
According to Immanuel Kant, in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, the
moral law is inbuilt in human‘s rational will.
3.3 Four fundamental ethical principles
All the moral principles, both positive principles and negative principles, mentioned
above are fundamental principles. However, we shall examine four principles below,
because each of the other principles can be categorized under at least one of these four
principles. The principles are: respect for the autonomy of others, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and justice.
3.3.1
3.3.1 The Principle of Respect for the autonomy of others
The word ―autonomy‖ is a Latin word which means ―self-rule‖ or independence. This
principle states that we have the obligation to respect the autonomy of other persons, that
is, to respect the decisions made by other people concerning their own lives. This
principle is also called the ―principle of human dignity‖. It restricts or limits our
interference in the affairs of human person. However, human person in this sense are
reasonable or competent or mature adults.
German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is a major proponent of the ethical principle of
autonomy, which is also referred to as ‗autonomy of the will‘ or ‗free-will.‘ According to
Kant, a rational person should act independently of any influence. The ‗will‘, he argues
must be free to operate independently of influences such as; appetite, desire, satisfaction,
happiness and so on. Also, the ‗will‘ should be free to act in accordance with its own law.
He added that the will is in line with human nature.
To this end, Andrews Reath says Kant shows that the human person should have ―not
only a capacity for choice that is motivationally independent, but a law-giving capacity
that is independent of determination by external influence and is guided by its own
internal principle–in other words, by a principle that is constitutive of lawgiving‖ (Reath
2006). Additionally, Kant argues that free-will is the foundation of the dignity of ‗human
nature‘, which is an end in itself.
This principle of humanity and in general of every rational nature, as an end in itself
(which is the supreme limiting condition of the freedom of action of every human being)

142
is not borrowed from experience. First because of its universality, since it applies to all
rational beings as such and no experience is sufficient to determine anything about them.
Second, because in it humanity is represented not as an end of human beings
(subjectively), that is, not as an object that we of ourselves actually make our end, but as
an objective end that, whatever ends we may have, ought as law to constitute the supreme
limiting condition of all subjective ends, so that the principle must arise from pure reason
(Kant, 2002:67).
To be precise, the ground of all practical lawgiving lies in firstly the objective rules that
are also universal, which makes it fit to be a law of nature. Secondly, it lies on subjective
rules, which are an end. But the subject of all ends is every rational being as an end in
itself.
3.3.2 The Principle of Beneficence
The principle of beneficence states that we have moral obligations to act for the interest
or benefit of others by helping them in preventing or removing possible evils or harms.
We have the obligation to perform actions that bring good always. In other words, we
must take the proper steps to prevent harm. The principle of beneficence aims to benefit
others and it is similar to the principle of non-maleficence. However, while the former
states that evil or harm should be prevented, the latter says one should not cause evil. On
the other way round, while no prevention of harm might make a person to violate the
latter, it makes someone to violate the former. However, adopting this corollary principle
frequently places us in direct conflict with respecting the autonomy of other persons.
3.3.3 The Principle of non-maleficence
We need to make some clarifications before we move on. The clarifications have to do
with some terms that seem related to non-maleficence but are quite different. If such
clarifications are not made, one might easily think they are the same thing. It is not ―non-
malfeasance,‖ which is a technical legal term meaning wrongful conduct by a public
official. Also, it is not ―non-malevolence,‖ which means that one did not intend to harm,
or not wishing evil to others. The principle of non-maleficence holds that we have an
obligation not to inflict harm on others. It is closely associated with the maxim primum
non nocere (first, do no harm). And do not increase the risk of harm to others. It is wrong
to waste resources that could be used for good. The principle of beneficence and the
principle of non-maleficence are close to each other, though they have difference.
However, they agreed that every of our actions must produce more good and avoid harm.
The principle of non-maleficence states that we should act in such a way that we do not
cause evil or harm to others. We should ensure that harm and all kinds of evil are
avoided. This includes avoiding the risk of harming anybody. As noted earlier, this
principle is not about intention or wish not to harm, therefore, one can violate the
principle even if he or she does not have the intention to harm them initially, but harm
others accidentally. In another way round, if someone deliberately or non-deliberately
exposed others to harm or evil or unnecessary risk, he or she has violated this principle.

3.3.4 The Principle of justice

The principle of justice is one of the most pronounced of all the ethical principles. The
principle states that we have the moral obligation to make available or give to others
143
 whatever they are owed or they deserve. The principle of justice is central to many of the
principles. In fact, it encompasses many of the principles. For instance, it entails the
principles of equality, fairness, impartiality and so on. Accordingly, Justice is cardinal to
the continued existence of humanity. Western philosophers from ancient till now devote
considerably to the concept of justice. They regard justice as the most important of all
virtues to foster social relationships and to sustain a society. The term justice involves
respecting individuals as free and rational agents.
According to Plato, justice is a virtue that gave birth to rational order. It is through justice
that each part of the society performs a proper role and not meddling with the right
performers of others. In Aristotle‘s view justice involves in the lawful, fair and equitable
distributions. For Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, justice requires the giving to all
people their due in a relational distributions or give-and-take connections. Thomas
Hobbes believed justice is a non-natural virtue that came about as a result of the
voluntary agreements of the social contract to function as necessary means of orderliness
for civil society. David Hume classified justice as services in public utility by protecting
property. For Kant, the principle of justice is related to the principle of autonomy.
Accordingly, justice is a virtue whereby we respect the freedom, autonomy, and dignity
of others by not interfering with their voluntary actions, so that their rights to think and
act from the ‗will‘ is not Violated. John Rawls Described Justice In Terms Of Supreme
Equal Liberty And Opportunity On Basic Rights And Duties For All Members Of A
Society, Were Socio-Economic Inequalities Requiring Moral Justification In Terms Of
Equal Opportunity And Beneficial Results For All (Rawls, 1999:18-26).
3.4 Further Reflection of Principle of Ethics
As noted earlier, the principles of ethics are universal and objective; however, these
features do not indicate that the principles are absolute or rigid. According to Omoregbe,
the universality of the principles of ethics means they are applicable in all ages and
societies. But to classify them as absolute or rigid would mean there is no situation or
circumstance where exception can take place. He argues that moral principles do allow
for exceptional situation. His illustrations show that when we are confronted with two or
more circumstances where we must choose one ethical principle, we must choose the
most reasonable. For instance it would be reasonable to lie in order to save a life. The
same way it would be reasonable to steal foodstuffs in order to save one‘s life from
starvation (Omoregbe, 1993:63-66). He warned that the exceptional situation should not
be misinterpreted as relativism. Relativism is an ethical term that holds that there is not
universal or objective moral principles. It claims that each society determines what is
right or good and what is bad or wrong on its own.
4.0 Conclusion
By way of conclusion, let us state categorically that the moral laws and the principles of
ethics are indispensable, universal and objective. They apply to all ages and societies.
Obeying them is necessary for the growth of the society. They are rules that are innate in
every reasonable individual. We are all familiar with them by instinct, therefore, whether
they are part of state laws or not, we ought to obey them naturally. And it would be better
if state actors allow them to be foundation of state laws.
5.0 Summary
144
 Below are summary of what we have discussed in this unit:
i. Ethical principles are also called moral principles, and they are the standard
measure of ethical norms that human‘s conducts and behaviours must conform
with;
ii. They are also called fundamental principles of moral law;
iii. The moral law is the law that guides all human beings to do what is good and
avoid doing what is bad;
iv. The moral law, also called natural law or law of nature are based on reason
v. Ethical principles could be positive or negative; the positive principles classify
the conducts that we should do and how we should behave, while the negative
principles proscribe some certain actions and behaviours that are wrong, which
we should avoid;
vi. The fundamental principles include but not limited to respect for the autonomy of
others, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice;
vii. The principle of autonomy states that we have an obligation to respect the
decision of others concerning their lives;
viii. The principle of beneficence holds that we have an obligation to prevent possible
harm on others;
ix. The principle of non-maleficence states that we have an obligation not to inflict
harm on others; and
x. The principle of justice states that we have the moral obligation to make available
or give to others whatever they are owed or they deserved.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. What do you think makes the concept of justice a fundamental principle of ethics?
7.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. Explain the fundamental principle of Ethics
2. Critically examine the positive and negative principles of ethics.
3. Evaluate the concept of autonomy as a fundamental principle of ethics.
4. Discuss the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.
8.0 References/ Further Reading
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-wealth
Ecclesiasticall and Civill, London, Green Dragon Press.
Kant, I. (2000), The Critique of Practical Reason, Blackmask Online.
Kant, I (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Edited and translated by Allen W.
Wood, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Lawhead, W.F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy,
Second Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Group.
Omoregbe, Joseph I. (1993). Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Educational
and Research Publishers Ltd.

145
Pomerleau, Wayne P. (2019). Western theories of justice. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Available online https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/ Accessed 8 August 2019
Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory Of Justice , Harvard University Press, Cambridge and Massachusetts
Reath, Andrews. (2006). Autonomy of the will as the foundation of morality. In Agency and
Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory by Andrews Reath, 121-172. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.

UNIT 4: Ethics and religion

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)

146
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The relationship between ethics and religion
3.2 The major link between ethics and religion
3.2.1 Religions expression of the Golden Rule
3.3 Existence of ethics or religion without the other
3.4 The role of ethics in religion
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/ Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
Thus far in this course, you have learnt so much about ethics and morality. In the course
of that, you must have seen some religious undertones in what ethicists said to be good,
bad, right, wrong, and what constitute the good-life. Therefore, in this unit, we shall be
looking at the relationship that exists between ethics and religion. We shall examine the
possibilities of the existence of ethics without religion and that of religion without ethics.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcome (ILO)
At the end of this unit you would be able to:
 Understand the relationship between ethics and religion;
 State explicitly the points of divergences between ethics and religion; and
 Describe the roles ethics plays in religion.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 The relationship between ethics and religion
The relationship between ethics and religion is dated back to antiquity. The one that
preceded the other is difficult to know, and there have been debates on this from time
immemorial. (For instance, Plato in ancient Greek, through Socrates, had asked
Euthyphro if morality is as a result of God‘s commands or it existed before the
commands). However, religion, like ethics, is preoccupied with the right conduct of
human beings (Omoregbe, 1993:7). Though the major concern of religion is worship of
supernatural being, but as a secondary function, it states how worshippers must relate
with their fellows and others in the society.
3.2 The major link between ethics and religion
Majority of our moral thoughts have religious undertones. Ancient society‘s codes of
conducts, from where we developed some of our ethical ideas, are deeply connected to
religious belief. For instance, most people agree that actions such as murder and adultery
are wrong irrespective of circumstances. The major world religions share these views
and incorporated them. They are in their ancient codes of conduct. These traditions really
guide social intuitions.
The major link between religion and ethics is best explained with the ―Golden
Rule‖. The Golden Rule is captured thus: ―Do unto others as you would wish them do
unto you‖. To put it in different way: treat others the way you would want to be treated.
Virtually all of the world‘s great religions contain in their religious manuscripts some

147
 correspondence of this Golden Rule. And it is the basic ethics that guides all religions. If
this is adhered to, happiness will follow. Apart from the golden rule, there are many other
teachings and practices of what is right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious, from a
religious point of view. Below is the way some of the world popular religions express the
Golden Rule.

3.2.1 Religions expression of the Golden Rule

Judaism – What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law;
all the rest is commentary (Talmud, Shabbat 3id). Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself (Leviticus 19:18)

Christianity – All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, Do ye so to

them (Matthew 7:1).

Islam – No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires
for himself (Sunnah. 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13).

Confucianism – Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will
be no resentment against you, either the family or in the state (Analects 12:2).

Buddhism – Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful (Udana Varga
5, 1). Having made oneself the example, one should neither slay nor cause to slay. . . .
As I am, so are other beings; thus let one not strike another, nor get another struck. That
is the meaning (Dhammapada).

Hinduism – This is the sum of duty, do nothing onto others what you would not have
them do unto you (Mahabharata 5, 1517). Wound not others, do no one injury by
thought or deed, utter no word to pain thy fellow creatures (The Law Code of Manu).

Taoism – Regard your neighbour‘s gain as your gain, and your neighbour‘s loss as your
own loss (Tai Shang Kan Yin P‘ien).

Zoroastrianism – That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another
whatsoever is not good for itself (Dadisten I-dinik, 94, 5).
3.3 Existence of ethics or religion without the other
Having established the links between ethics and religion, out of curiosity, the question
would be: is ethics possible without religion? In other words, can we be ethical without
being religious? This question could also be asked the other way round: can we be
religious without be ethical?
As hinted earlier that ethics and religion have been coexisting from antiquity, and which
one preceded the other is a debate, so is the existence of ethics without religion. It is
argued in some quarters that ethics cannot exist without religion. St. Augustine, Soren
Kierkegaard and many others hold this view dearly. As a matter of fact, the Plato‘s
dialogue mentioned earlier is a debate that attempted to argue from both sides. While
Plato‘s interlocutor, Socrates intended to argue for the futility of religious undertone in
ethics, thereby establishing the possibility of ethics without region, his co-discussant,

148
Euthyphro, argues that ethics is grounded in religion; it would not be possible to have
ethics without religion.
In line with Euthyphro‘s position stated above, people make important argument
concerning ethics and religion. For many people, ―morality and religious faith go hand
in hand‖ (Traer, 2009:8). Based on this claim, rather than relying on rational arguments,
some people view the rightness or wrongness of actions on the condition that they are
commanded by God. Some moral philosophers do not view the arguments based on
divine command as being rationally secure. They believe, in line with Socrates‘ position
that we can determine if an action is right or wrong through rational thinking. Therefore,
if God commands only what is right then, deductively, this makes divine commands
unnecessary. In other words, the knowledge of what is right or wrong is possible through
rational thinking without relying on any divine commandments.
However, R. Traer argues that the discussion on the divine command arguments is
relevant to ethics for numerous reasons. Firstly, there is no unanimous agreement by
people on what action is right or wrong. Therefore, it remains unclear how we can
determine what is right and wrong merely through rational thinking. Secondly, the fact
that many people in the universe make religion their ethical guidance, ―the moral
teachings of a religious tradition … to persuade the public to embrace a higher moral
standard‖ should not be undermined (Traer, 2009:9). Even though many people may
insist that ethical principles and decisions should be justified by rational arguments,
Traer argues that the contemplation of religious arguments must not be left out from the
study of ethics. Even if individual personally do not chooses to accept religious
arguments as valid within ethical discussions, it is a resolution that entails vigilant
consideration.
If ethics deals with morality, then, the view that its source is in religion is primitive, and
has much influence till now, though, many have disputed that. In an attempt to defend
the view that morality emanated from religion, J. S. Mackenzie argues that modern
thoughts have a tendency to upturn the ―relation not to proceed from the idea of God to
the idea of morality, but rather from the idea of morality to the idea of God.‖
(Mackenzie, 1900:474). Furthermore, Mackenzie argued that if we try to justify that
there can be possibility of ethics without religion, we would need to find the source of
our moral actions in the conscience. According to him, the conscience is created by God,
hence, we are back to the position we attempted to avoid.
Conscience need to be disciplined and educated, the way Aristotle said character traits
must be nurtured, in order to be reasonable. If that is the case, reason rather than
conscience would be source of morality. As such ethics would be able to stand without
religion. Reason as basis of morality is a theory the German Philosopher, Immanuel
Kant, posited. Kant had argued that every action must be subjected to thorough reason.
Accordingly, reason is primed on the ‗categorical imperatives‘: ―act in accordance with
a maxim that can at the same time make itself a universal law.‖ (Kant, 1998: 44), and
―act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.‖ (Kant, 1998:38).
Mackenzie claims that Kant attempt is not successful, thus he posed the teaser that there
is the doubt that whether reason as the ―source of moral obligation is not a somewhat dry
149
 one, whether it can of itself furnish us with any real content for the moral life.‖
(Mackenzie, 1900:475). However, the quest for the possibility of ethics without religion
is not to search for the foundation upon which ethics is built. The search for ethical
foundations has pushed those who argue that ethics cannot exist without religion to posit
that the foundation is what connects all classical ethical theories together. There might
be differences in other aspects.
The position of philosophy is not to look for foundation, but to search if a person can be
moral, even if such a person does not subscribe to any religion or believes in the
existence of God.
Obviously, if we are to look for foundation, it will be extremely difficult to bypass
religion as the foundation of ethics. The reason being that society and religion are hardly
separated. In every human society, there has been myth of creation in which
supernatural plays prominent roles. Ever since then, man has subscribed to one religion
or the other for proper ordering of the society. Doing away with foundation, then to
address the issue at hand, it is safe to say that there are many people in the society that
do not profess any religious belief and are morally upright, and live exemplary lives
(Omoregbe, 1993:7). If the above is the case, it follows that ethics can exist without
religion.
Having established the existence of ethics devoid of religion, the question is: can
religion exist without ethics? In other words, can someone be religious without being
ethical? If the argument that religion is the foundation of ethics is sustained, then it
would be good to argue that ethics is a lead way to religious perfection. This is because
God issues commandments, rules, codes of conduct or morality that would aid the
adherents of religious beliefs to perfection. Owing to the above, we can conclude that
religion cannot exist without ethics. In this sense, ethics is a watchdog to religion. It
scrutinizes worshippers actions if they are cohere with the religious beliefs. It also
scrutinizes religious beliefs if they are coherent with the attributive nature of God that
religion proclaims.
3.4 The role of ethics in religion
Though religious tenets are built on ethics, but morality is not the major concern of
religion. The major concern of religion, as noted earlier, is worship; adorations through
rites and devotions. Ethics on its own part is concerned with morality. Religion dabbles
into morality indirectly as an indispensable condition for true worshipping. Based on the
foregoing, ethics or morality is the judge of religion; it judges both religion and its
adherents. It judges religion by revealing the inherent immoral actions religion preaches
or encourages; that would make humanity to know that such religion is a false one. It
judges adherents of a religion by showing light on the numerous immoralities that many
people who belong to the religion engage in. For an illustration, if a religion that grounds
its rules or commandments on the divine should do what is obviously in contrast with the
nature of God that it professes, then such a religion must be rejected.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have examined the relationship that exists between ethics and religion. It
is observed that the relation is so robust and dated back to time immemorial, such that, it
is very difficult to separate them from each other. We realized that while it a matter of
150
 debate which of the two proceeded, their connectivity is unarguable. Apart from the fact
that religion dabbles into ethical domains by teachings and practices of what is right or
wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious, the major link of ethics and religion is the
‗golden rule‘. Virtually all the major world religions profess a version of the golden rule.
Therefore, by a way of conclusion, whichever religious belief you share, it is important
for you as a member of society to always scrutinize yourself, and all your actions with
the golden rule. This is so even if such actions emanate from religious creed, before you
carry them out.
5.0 Summary
Here is a brief summarized point of what we have discussed in this unit:
i. Majority of our moral thoughts and ideas are developed from ancient codes of
conducts and have religious undertone;
ii. The major link between ethics and religion can be best explained with the
―golden rule‖ – ―Do unto others as you would wish them do unto you‖;
iii. The major difference between ethics and religion is: while the primary role of
ethics is morality, religion‘s primary assignment is worship, it only dabbles into
morality as secondary duty;
iv. There is disagreement between scholars if either of ethics or religion can exist
without the other;
v. Arguably, while ethics can exist without religion, religion cannot exist without
ethics; and
vi. The major role ethics play in religion is a watchdog, to show the inconsistences
of religious people with the norms of their religion, and to show incoherence
within the norms and values of a religion.

6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise

1. Critically examine the roles religion play in ethics.

7.0 Tutor-Marked Assessment

1. Discuss the various religious expressions of the golden rule.
2. Discuss, according to Mackenzie, how ethics cannot exist without religion.
3. Justify the existence of ethics without religion.

8.0 References/ Further readings

Kant, Immanuel. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and
edited by Mary Gregor; with an introduction by Christine M. Korsgaard. Cambridge:
University Press.
Mackenzie, J. S. (1900). The Source of Moral Obligation. International Journal of
Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 464-478. Available on www.jstor.org/stable/2375956.
Accessed: 01-08-2019)
Müller, Denis. (2001). Why and How Can Religions and Traditions be Plausible and
Credible in Public Ethics Today? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 4, No. 4, Is
Theological Ethics Relevant Philosophers? pp. 329-348
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504207. Accessed: 20-01-2016.

151
Omoregbe, Joseph I. 1993. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja
Educational and Research Publishers Ltd.
On Ethics and Religion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE9EFZhSqR0&t=81s
On Ethics and Religion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I&t=22s
On Ethics and Religion, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisxYorDNr4
Traer, R. (2009). Doing Environmental Ethics. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

152