This document discusses several approaches to ethics including normative ethics, non-normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics. It then examines specific normative ethical theories like deontological ethics, consequentialist or teleological ethics including utilitarianism, egoism, and altruism. Key aspects and examples of each theory are provided.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views30 pages
Chapter Two
This document discusses several approaches to ethics including normative ethics, non-normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics. It then examines specific normative ethical theories like deontological ethics, consequentialist or teleological ethics including utilitarianism, egoism, and altruism. Key aspects and examples of each theory are provided.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 30
Chapter Two: Approaches to Ethics
This Chapter aim to introduce you to various ethical theories
What is theory? The Greek word theoria literally means “a way of seeing.” - Moral theories attempt “to see” or “view” moral phenomena, and hence understand morality, from a comprehensive perspective. Main branches of the philosophical study of ethics Normative ethics Non-normative/Meta-ethics Applied ethics Normative ethics :- is the study of what makes actions right or wrong, what makes situations or events good or bad and what makes people virtues or vicious - These theories evaluate actions in a systematic way, i.e., they may focus on outcomes or duties or motivation as a means of justifying human conduct. - Normative ethics poses questions of the following kind: • Are there general principles or rules that we could follow which distinguish between right and wrong? Or: • Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can nurture, in order to behave well? In the history of ethics, two major viewpoints emerge: the consequentialist (based on or concerned with consequences) and the non-consequentialist (not based on or concerned with consequences). • Traditionally these have been called the “teleological” and “deontological” theories, respectively, Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist ethics) What is teleological/Consequentialist ethics? • It is referred as “the end justifies the means”. • It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it stress that the consequences of an action determines the morality or immorality of a given action. • if Abebe wants to save his daughter’s life that happen due to lack of health service and if he lacks money, stolen certain amount of money in one of his rich neighbor, his act is might be right. Because he stolen money for the sake of saving his daughters. and if saves his daughter life by bring her to medical center by the money he stolen, he is right because his action is evaluated in terms of the end (saving his daughter’s life). what is the best consequence? • Consequentialist ethical theories are Egoism: Ethical and psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism • The ethical egoist essentially says that human beings ought to act in their own self-interest, • Read the following cases Some years ago, a Good Samaritan stopped to help a man whose car had broken down on the freeway. The man shot and killed the Samaritan, stole his car, and proceeded to lead the police, on a high-speed chase. Eventually he ran out of gas and began a shoot-out with the police, who subsequently killed him. This, of course, didn’t bring the Samaritan back to life. Although most people would admire the Good Samaritan for what he did and although we may deplore the fact that few people now would be inclined to follow his example, • The ethical egoist would say that, the Samaritan did the wrong thing. • For ethical egoism there is only one rule. Look after yourself you have no business stopping for anybody on the freeway; indeed, the ethical egoist would say, if you do stop you are throwing your life away. • This theory is called ethical egoism simply because it is an ethical theory, a normative theory about how we ought to behave. • It suggests that other people’s interests are of no importance. If you might advance your own interests by helping others, then by all means help others but only if you are the main beneficiary. Psychological Egoism • According to Psychological Egoism, every human action is motivated entirely by self-interest. • Psychological Egoists say that behind every action that appears to be altruistic there is really a selfish motive. • People help others because they believe it will get them into heaven, or because it will bring them public recognition, or because they enjoy the gratitude of those they help, etc. For example, suppose that Fred runs into his neighbors burning house to save a child trapped there. Fred succeeds, and when asked why he did it, says “It was the right thing to do. I couldn’t stand by while a little girl died.” • But the Psychological Egoist doesn’t take Fred’s explanation at face value. Perhaps Fred did it because of the positive attention he would get afterwards; perhaps he did it because he knew he would feel good about himself. Fred may tell us (and himself) that he was motivated by a moral judgment and concern for the life of the child, but in reality his motives are entirely selfish. Ethical egoism VS psychological egoism • Unlike ethical egoism, psychological egoism is merely an empirical claim about what kinds of motive we have, not what they ought to be. So, while the ethical egoist claims that being self-interested in this way is moral, the psychological egoist merely holds that this is how we are. • Psychological Egoism is a descriptive theory, according to which each person in fact pursues only his or her own self-interest. • Ethical Egoism is a prescriptive (or “normative”) theory, according to which each person ought to pursue only his or her own self-interest. • The main difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that psychological egoism emphasizes the fact that people act primarily out of self-interest while ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for their self- interest. Utilitarianism • Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism. • Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. • It calls for the maximization of goodness in society—that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest number—and not merely the good of the agent. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one. • • There are two classical types of utilitarianism: act- and rule- utilitarianism I. Act Utilitarianism - the right act is still that alternative that results in the most utility • Act utilitarianism essentially says that everyone should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good over bad for everyone affected by the act. • Its advocates do not believe in setting up rules for action because they feel that each situation and each person are different/ the act utilitarian believes that one cannot establish rules in advance to cover all situations and people because they are all different. • Each individual, then, must assess the situation he or she is involved in and try to figure out which act would bring about the greatest amount of good consequences with the least amount of bad consequences, not just for himself or herself, as in egoism, but for everyone involved in the situation • In assessing the situation, the agent (the person who will be acting or is acting) must decide whether, for example, telling the truth is the right thing to do in this situation at this time. • It does not matter that most people believe that telling the truth is generally a good thing to do; the act utilitarian must decide with regard to the particular situation he or she is in at the moment whether or not it is right to tell the truth. • For act utilitarianism there can be no absolute rules against killing, stealing, lying, and so on, because every situation is different and all people are different. • Therefore, all of those acts that may, in general, be considered immoral would be considered moral or immoral by the act utilitarian only in relation to whether they would or would not bring about the greatest good over bad for everyone in a particular situation. ii. Rule Utilitarianism • It was to provide an answer, to many of the act utilitarian’s problems that rule utilitarianism was established. • Rule utilitarianism states that everyone always should follow the rule or rules that will bring about the greatest number of good consequences for all concerned. • The rule utilitarian believes that there are enough similar human motives, actions, and situations to justify setting up rules that will apply to all human beings and situations • For example, rather than trying to figure out whether one should or should not kill someone else in each situation where this problem might arise, rule utilitarian’s might form the rule Never kill except in self-defense. • Their assumption in stating this rule is that except when it is done in self-defense, killing will bring about more bad consequences than good for all concerned, both now and probably in the long run. • The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility: Altruism • In altruism an action is right if the consequences of that action are favorable to all except the actor. • Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people’s pleasure. • They will act for the sake of someone else even if it decreases their own pleasure and causes themselves pain. Suppose, for example, that Abel, who is not good at swimming, saves a child from drawing in Lake Tana. What ultimately motivated him to do this? It would be odd to suggest that it’s ultimately his own benefit that Abel is seeking. After all, he is risking his own life in the process. Non- Consequentialist (Deontological Ethics ) • Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. • For deontologists, it is not consequences which determine the rightness or wrongness of an act, but, rather, the intention of the person who carries out the act • Deontology is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. • Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” • Deontology is simple to apply. • It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. • This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical. • Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. • This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to follow set rules. • Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die. • So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong. The most obvious example of such a theory is the Divine Command Theory The Divine Command Theory • If one believes that there is a God, goddess, or gods, and that He/She or they have set up a series of moral commands, then an action is right and people are good if, and only if, they obey commands supposedly given to them by a divine being, regardless of consequences. • ethical principles are simply the commands of God. • They derive their validity from God’s commanding them, and they mean “commanded by God.” • Without God, there would be no universally valid morality. We can analyze the DCT into three separate theses: • Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God. • Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and moral wrongness means “being against the will of God.” • Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary. According to DCT 1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the command of God. 2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is commanded by God. 3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is permitted by the command of God. 4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong, required, or permitted. Rights Theory Most generally, a "right" is a justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of another person For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. • For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness • Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. • First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. • Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. • Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. • Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery. Kant’s Duty Ethics - Another famous rule nonconsequentialist theory, often called “Duty Ethics,” was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724– 1804) and contains several ethical principles. - THE GOOD WILL. (KINDNESS) - Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except a good will, and - what is will? he defined will as the unique human ability to act in accordance with moral rules, laws, or principles regardless of interests or consequences. • After establishing good will as the most important human attribute, Kant then argued that reason was the second most important human attribute and that it therefore was possible to set up valid absolute moral rules on a basis of reason alone, not by reference to any supernatural being or by empirical evidence but by the same kind of logical reasoning that establishes such indisputable truths in mathematics and logic as 2+ 2= 4, “No circles are squares,” and “All triangles are three-sided.” • Kant’s first requirement for an absolute moral truth is that it must be logically consistent; that is, it cannot be self-contradictory as the statement “A circle is a square” would be. • Second, the truth must be universalizable; that is, it must be able to be stated so as to apply to everything without exception, not just to some or perhaps even most things. • This is exemplified by the statement “All triangles are three-sided,” for which there are no exceptions. • Triangles may be of different sizes and shapes, but they are by definition indisputably and universally three-sided. • If moral rules could indeed be established in this same manner, as Kant thought, then they too would be indisputable and therefore logically and morally binding upon all human beings. • Of course, some people might disobey these rules, but we could clearly brand such people as immoral. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. The Categorical Imperative may be stated in several ways, but basically it asserts that an act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all human beings to follow. • This means that whenever someone is about to make a moral decision, he or she must, according to Kant, ask first, “What is the rule authorizing this act I am about to perform?” and, second, “Can it become a universal rule for all human beings to follow?” • For example, if a lazy person is thinking, “Why should I work hard in order to live; why don’t I just steal from everyone else?” and if this person is aware of Kant’s requirement, he or she will have to ask himself or herself what the rule is for this contemplated action. • The rule would have to be, “I shall never work, but steal what I need from other human beings.” If the person attempts to universalize this statement, then it will read: • “No human being should ever work, but all human beings should steal what they need from each other.” But if no one worked, there would be nothing to steal. • How then would human beings live? Who would there be to steal from? It is obvious that some human beings can steal from others, but that not all human beings can do so. • According to Kant, stealing must therefore be immoral because it cannot be applied to all human beings. Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines • A more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher William David Ross (1877 – 1971), which emphasizes prima facie duties. • The term prima facie means “at a first sight” or “on the surface.” • By prima facie duties, Ross means duties that dictate what we should do when other moral factors are not considered. • Stated another way, prima facie duties are duties that generally obligate us; that is, they ordinarily impose a moral obligation but may not in a particular case because of circumstances. • An actual duty is the action that one ought to perform after considering and weighing all the prima facie duties involved. • Duties of Self-improvement: The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to promote one’s own good, i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, virtue, intelligence and happiness. • Duties of Non-maleficence: The duty of non-injury (also known as non- maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically, emotionally and psychologically: to avoid harming others health, security, intelligence, character, or happiness Virtue Ethics • Virtue Ethics is not a new theory, having had its beginnings with the Greeks and especially Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., although its origins in Chinese philosophy are even more ancient. • It has become significant to many contemporary ethicists. • Virtue is defined as “moral excellence, righteousness, responsibility, or other exemplary qualities considered meritorious.” • Emphasis is on the good or virtuous character of human beings themselves, rather than on their acts, consequences, feelings, or rules The virtues are dispositions both to act and to feel in particular ways, and one must create virtuous feelings within oneself, not merely act virtuously. • By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honourable and moral character. • According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges. The Good Character • People have a natural capacity for good character, and it is developed through practice. The capacity does not come first--it's developed through practice • The sequence of human behavior raises the question of which is preeminent--acts or dispositions. Their interaction is broken by Aristotle's distinction between acts which create good dispositions and acts which flow from the good disposition once it has been created. • Arete is a disposition developed out of a capacity by the proper exercise of that capacity • Virtue, arete, or excellence is defined as a mean between two extremes of excess and defect in regard to a feeling or action as the practically wise person would determine it. The mean cannot be calculated a priori. • In the ontological dimension, virtue is a mean; in the axiological dimension, it is an extreme or excellence. E.g., Hartmann's Diagram
• Phronesis or practical wisdom is the ability to see the right thing
to do in the circumstances. • Friendship: a person's relationship to a friend is the same as the relation to oneself. The friend can be thought of as a second self. • The Contemplative Faculty--the exercise of perfect happiness in intellectual or philosophic activity. • A summary of Aristotle's ethics clarifies several important distinctions between happiness and pleasure. eudaemonia implies leisure and self-sufficiency as an environment for contemplation. Eudaimonia: the state of personal wellbeing, having self-worth; exhibiting a zest for life; radiating energy; achieving happiness, "good spirit," or self-presence - The good person, the one who has attained eudemonia, is the standard as to what is truly pleasant or unpleasant. Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics • Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as: – What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean? – What makes something good or right? – Is moral realism true? – Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding? – Do intrinsic values exist? • [Meta ethics] is not about what people ought to do. It is about what they are doing when they talk about what they ought to do. • Some examples of meta ethical theories are moral realism, non-cognitivism, error-theory and moral anti-realism. Generally, Meta-ethics: • Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts and the relationships between these concepts. • Explores where moral values, such as ‘personhood’ and ‘autonomy’, come from. • Considers the difference between moral values and other kinds of values. • Examines the way in which moral claims are justified. Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following kind: • What do we mean by the claim, ‘life is sacred’? • Are moral claims a matter of personal view, religious belief or social standard, or, are they objective in some sense? • If they are objective, what make them so? • Is there a link between human psychology and the moral claims that humans make? • Quiz 10% 1.List the main branches of philosophical study of ethics 2. List down at least three theories of consequentialist Quiz 10% 1. ___________ are people who act so as to increase other people’s pleasure by decreasing their own pleasure and causes themselves pain 2. list down Consequentialist ethical theories Quiz • What is etymological definition of theory? • List main branches of the philosophical study of ethics