Chapter 2:

Introduction
to Ethics

1-1
Chapter Overview

• Introduction
• Review of nine ethical theories
• Comparing workable ethical theories
• Morality of breaking the law

1-2
1-2
2.1 Introduction

1-3
1-3
2.2 Subjective Relativism

1-4
1-4
What Is Relativism?

• Relativism
– No universal norms of right and wrong
– One person can say “X is right,” another
can say “X is wrong,” and both can be right
• Subjective relativism
– Each person decides right and wrong for
himself or herself
– “What’s right for you may not be right for
me”
1-5
1-5
Case for Subjective Relativism

• Well-meaning and intelligent people

disagree on moral issues
• Ethical debates are disagreeable and
pointless

1-6
1-6
Case Against Subjective Relativism

• Blurs line between doing what you think is

right and doing what you want to do
• Makes no moral distinction between the
actions of different people
• SR and tolerance are two different things
• Decisions may not be based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory

1-7
1-7
2.3 Cultural Relativism

1-8
1-8
Cultural Relativism in a Nutshell

• What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon

a society’s actual moral guidelines
• These guidelines vary from place to place
and from time to time
• A particular action may be right in one
society at one time and wrong in other
society or at another time

1-9
1-9
Case for Cultural Relativism

• Different social contexts demand different

moral guidelines
• It is arrogant for one society to judge
another

1-10
1-10
Case Against Cultural Relativism

• Because two societies do have different moral views

doesn’t mean they ought to have different views
• It doesn’t explain how moral guidelines are determined
• What if there are no cultural norms?
• It doesn’t account for evolution of moral guidelines.
• It provides no way out for cultures in conflict
• Existence of many acceptable practices does not imply
all practices are acceptable (many/any fallacy)
• Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
• Only indirectly based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory
1-11
1-11
2.4 Divine Command Theory

1-12
1-12
Overview of Divine Command Theory

• Good actions: those aligned with God’s

will
• Bad actions: those contrary to God’s will
• Holy books reveal God’s will
• We should use holy books as moral
decision-making guides

1-13
1-13
Divine Command Theory in Action

1-14
1-14
Case for Divine Command Theory

• We owe obedience to our Creator

• God is all-good and all-knowing
• God is the ultimate authority

1-15
1-15
Case Against Divine Command Theory

• Different holy books disagree on certain

teachings
• Society is multicultural, secular
• Some modern moral problems not directly
addressed in scripture
• “The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence fallacy)
• Based on obedience, not reason
• Not a workable ethical theory for our purposes

1-16
1-16
2.5 Ethical Egoism

1-17
1-17
Definition of Ethical Egoism

• Each person should focus exclusively on

his or her self-interest
• Morally right action: that action that
provides self with maximum long-term
benefit
• Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and
Atlas Shrugged, espoused a theory akin to
ethical egoism
1-18
1-18
Case for Ethical Egoism

• It is practical since we are already inclined to do

what’s best for ourselves
• It is better to let other people take care of
themselves
• The community can benefit when individuals put
their well-being first
• Other moral principles are rooted in the principle
of self-interest

1-19
1-19
Case Against Ethical Egoism

• An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral

philosophy
• We know a lot about what is good for someone else
• Self-interest can lead to blatantly immoral behavior
• Other moral principles are superior to principle of self-
interest
• People who take the good of others into account lead
happier lives
• By definition, does not respect the ethical point of view
• Not a workable ethical theory
1-20
1-20
2.6 Kantianism

1-21
1-21
Critical Importance of Good Will

• Good will: the desire to do the right thing

• Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world that
is good without qualification is a good will
• Reason should cultivate desire to do right
thing

1-22
1-22
Categorical Imperative (1st Formulation)

Act only from moral rules that you can at the

same time will to be universal moral laws.

1-23
1-23
Illustration of 1st Formulation
• Question: Can a person in dire straits make a promise
with the intention of breaking it later?
• Proposed rule: “I may make promises with the intention
of later breaking them.”
• The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed
so he can get what he needs.
• Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break
promises
• Everyone breaking promises would make promises
unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise
believed
• The rule is flawed. The answer is “No.”
1-24
1-24
A Quick Check

• When evaluating a proposed action,

reverse roles
• What would you think if that person did the
same thing to you?
• Negative reaction evidence that your will
to do that action violates the Categorical
Imperative

1-25
1-25
Categorical Imperative (2nd Formulation)

Act so that you treat both yourself

and other people as ends in themselves
and never only as a means to an end.

This is usually an easier formulation to work

with than the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative.

1-26
1-26
Kant: Wrong to Use Another Person
Solely as a Means to an End

1-27
1-27
Plagiarism Scenario

• Carla
– Single mother
– Works full time
– Takes two evening courses/semester
• History class
– Requires more work than normal
– Carla earning an “A” on all work so far
– Carla doesn’t have time to write final report
• Carla purchases report; submits it as her own work

1-28
1-28
Kantian Evaluation (1st Formulation)

• Carla wants credit for plagiarized report

• Rule: “You may claim credit for work performed
by someone else”
• If rule universalized, reports would no longer be
credible indicator’s of student’s knowledge, and
professors would not give credit for reports
• Proposal moral rule is self-defeating
• It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report

1-29
1-29
Kantian Evaluation (2nd Formulation)

• Carla submitted another person’s work as

her own
• She attempted to deceive professor
• She treated professor as a means to an
end
– End: passing the course
– Means: manipulate professor
• What Carla did was wrong
1-30
1-30
Case for Kantianism

• Aligns with common moral concern: “What

if everyone acted that way?”
• Produces universal moral guidelines
• Treats all persons as moral equals

1-31
1-31
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

• Perfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill without

exception
– Example: Telling the truth
• Imperfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill in
general but not in every instance
– Example: Helping others

1-32
1-32
Case Against Kantianism
• Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an
action
• Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict
between rules
– In a conflict between a perfect duty and an imperfect
duty, perfect duty prevails
– In a conflict between two perfect duties, no solution
• Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect
duties
• Despite weaknesses, a workable ethical theory
1-33
1-33
2.7 Act Utilitarianism

1-34
1-34
Principle of Utility
• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
• An action is good if its benefits exceeds its harms
• An action is bad if its harms exceed its benefits
• Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or
prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community
• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure
• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain

1-35
1-35
Principle of Utility
(Greatest Happiness Principle)

An action is right (or wrong) to the extent

that it increases (or decreases) the
total happiness of the affected parties.

1-36
1-36
Principle of Utility

1-37
1-37
Act Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism
– Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent
– Focuses on the consequences
– A consequentialist theory
• Act utilitarianism
– Add up change in happiness of all affected beings
– Sum > 0, action is good
– Sum < 0, action is bad
– Right action to take: one that maximizes the sum
1-38
1-38