Velasquez Reading - Concept Log

(Summarised by Deepshikha Sharma for

KCCS 132: Ethics
SIAS, Krea University)

Concept Elaboration Page

Morality ● Morality consists of the standards held by individuals/groups 432

+ regarding what is right or wrong; good or evil
Ethics
● Ethics is the study of morality; reflecting on whether such
moral standards are supported by reasonable assumptions

Ethics = ● Ethical absolutism: Only a single correct morality exists. 434 -

Universal in nature i.e. applicable everywhere and valid for 436
Relative/Absolute? everyone

● Ethical relativism: Different moral standards exist. Morality

differs as per one’s socio-cultural context

○ Criticism:
■ No standard to refer to in case of conflicts
within society/culture
■ Implies conformity, not reflection
■ Despite differences, not necessary that no
moral standard is correct
■ Even if practices differ, societies share moral
values for survival

Consequentialism: ● Consequentialist theories: The morally right action is that 437 -

which results in more good and fewer bad consequences. 2 446
Egoism kinds:

& ● Egoism: The morally right action is that which results in

more good and less bad consequences for oneself. While
Utilitarianism many egoists are hedonists, not all subscribe to hedonism
(which regards the good as pleasure). Some egoists regard
consequences that produce knowledge/ power/
self-realisation as good.

○ Criticism:
■ No way to resolve what is morally right in
case of conflicts
■ Allows inconsistent moral counsel
■ Undermines the moral point of view where a
person should be unbiased without favouring
the interests of an individual/ a group
 ● Utilitarianism: The morally right action is that which results
in more good and less bad consequences for everyone (or the
majority), than any other action. Classical Utilitarianism
(formulated by Bentham & Mill) equates good with
happiness and pleasure, which are said to have intrinsic
worth. Ideal Utilitarianism (proposed by modern theorists
like Moore & Rashdall) says that besides
pleasure/happiness, things like power, knowledge, beauty
have intrinsic worth. 2 types:

○ Act Utilitarianism: A morally right action is that

which maximises the good in that specific situation.

■ Criticism: Is it ethical to sacrifice one for

more utility for the majority?

○ Rule Utilitarianism: The morally right action is that

which follows moral rules that lead to the greater
good. For instance, a rule would state that sacrificing
innocent individuals for maximising the good is
unethical.

■ Criticism:
● Places heavy burden of information
gathering on the agent - cannot
accurately predetermine the
consequences of choosing one rule
over the other
● While allowing exceptions to the
rules (when required) may help
produce more pleasure and less pain,
it may result in the same loopholes
of act utilitarianism

Non-consequentialist ● Non-consequentialist theory: The morality of an action 447 -

theories: depends on factors other than consequences 467

(Single-rule) ● Divine Command Theory: The morally right action is that

which follows the will or the commands of God. 2 types:
Divine Command
Theory, ○ Scriptural Divine Command Theories: A morally
right action is the will of God which manifests as
Categorical Imperative scriptural commandments. Such commands are
universally binding and eternally true, irrespective of
& individual beliefs or social customs.

(Multiple-rule) ■ Criticism:
● With conflicting scriptures, difficult
Buddhist Ethics to know which one expresses the
 true divine will
● Can’t explain why God commands
something - Circular reasoning to
justify the legitimacy of a script
through the assertion that the script
is legitimate
● How do these commands help a
non-believer?

○ Natural Law Ethics: The morally right action is that

which aligns with one’s human nature, as it is God
who created these inclinations.

■ Criticism:
● Ambiguity in which kind of and
how many goods to incline towards
● Conflicts in deciding between
fundamental goods. Action of choice
may sometimes lead to multiple
results which may not all be
positive, or sometimes destroy a
good (Doctrine of Double Effect). If
necessary, how can one keep
themself from destroying the other
good?
● No specified moral obligations to
follow natural tendencies - logically
possible to be required to curb such
inclinations as they may not always
produce good results.

● Kant’s Categorical Imperative: The morally right action is

that which arises from a good will i.e. an action which arises
from the ability to act freely in order to do the right thing, for
its own sake. Such actions are grounded in reason and are
unconditional. They are duties one ought to carry out
regardless of circumstances. For instance, “I ought not to
lie.” Can be broken down to:
○ One ought to only act in a way which could be
implemented as a universal law.
○ Every human being has fundamental dignity and
ought to be treated as an end in themselves, and not
only as a means.

■ Criticism:
● No way to resolve conflicts within
duties
● Duty-bound ethics are rigid and
always condemn certain actions
(like lying). However, should I tell
 the truth even when a murderer asks
me about where my best friend
Is?

● Buddhist Ethics: The morally right action is that which is

volitional, as it determines one’s destiny due to karmic
(action-accrued) forces, and is in tandem with wisdom.
Hence, such actions should lead to the possibility of nirvāna
(enlightenment), after the realisation of the Four Noble
Truths :
○ There is suffering
○ Suffering stems from desire
○ Cessation of desires release one from suffering
○ Desires can be ended through the Eightfold Path:
■ Right Understanding
■ Right Thought
■ Right Speech
■ Right Conduct
■ Right Livelihood
■ Right Effort
■ Right Mindfulness
■ Right Concentration

● The Buddhist ethical Ideal is a self-reliant person who ceases

to do evil, learns to do good, and yearns to purify their mind.

● Familiarizing oneself with the following five precepts can

further help one develop their mind, and control their
damage-inducing tendencies:
○ Harm no living being
○ Do not take what is not given
○ Do not misuse the senses
○ Refrain from wrong speech
○ Refrain from consuming food/drinks that cloud one’s
mind

● For lessons in promoting good, Buddhism encourages

“wholesome states”, such as:
○ Dāna: The virtue of generosity. Unlike philanthropy,
it is the gradual development of one's willingness to
give in times of need.
○ Mettā: The virtue of empathetic concern. Also called
“loving kindness”
○ Transference of credit: By virtue of which good
actions contribute to the well-being of the entire
humanity and not just oneself.

Virtue Ethics: ● Virtue Ethics: Ethics should centre around being morally 469 -
good people rather than doing morally right actions. 473,
Aristotelian Virtue Emphasises on the role of character, importance of the
Ethics community, and draws the attention to important aspects of 476 -
being human such as care and concern. 2 kinds mentioned: 481
&
○ Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: A morally good human
Care Ethics being is a virtuous one, that is s/he who aims at
happiness and operates with reason. Virtue is
acquired through repeated action and with
temperance, shaping one’s moral character which in
turn influences one’s moral actions. Hence, to act
morally is to cultivate a moral character, which acts
reasonably and in moderation, practising the mean
between two extremes. For instance, courage is a
virtue in between the extremes of cowardice and
rashness. Calls true friendship the act of seeing
goodness in the other; with love being based on
friendship.
■ Criticism:
● Offers no guidance for what one
should do

○ Care Ethics: A morally good human being is a caring

one. Formulated by Gillligan in response to
Kohlberg’s assertion that women are morally
underdeveloped. Gilligan argued that women’s
morality develops differently centering around
interpersonal relationships and care rather than
abstract principles and rules. And while care ethicists
have tempered their views to agree that even men
can approach morality in terms of care, women do so
instinctively.
■ Criticism:
● Reinforces sexist stereotypes of
women as mere “carers”
● No way to resolve moral issues
involving individuals one doesn’t
have a personal relationship with.

Resolving Moral ● Theories listed above identify certain markers such as 484
Quandaries autonomy, consequences, happiness etc. one needs to take &
into consideration when making moral decisions. However, 492
none of them can cover all aspects that constitute complex
moral issues.
● Each theory sheds light on different considerations to keep in
mind when analysing moral issues situated in a context.

Excusability ● Conditions for ethical excusability: 494

& ○ Moral agent ignorant of circumstances or -
Moral Responsibility consequences of the act (only when not deliberately 497
used)
 ○ Moral agent was forced to act in a certain way
(internal and external constraints)
○ Circumstances beyond the agent’s control (such as
illness, accidents, unexpected events)
○ Lack of ability or opportunity to act otherwise

● Moral Responsibility: The debate is split into three camps:

○ Determinism: The view that a rigid causality is
evident in the physical universe where actions are
caused by previous events. Hence, people cannot be
held morally responsible for their actions.
○ Libertarianism: The view that humans are exempt
from causal laws or chains, and can choose to act
freely. Hence, people should be held responsible for
their moral decisions.
○ Compatibilism: The view that humans cannot go
against their individual characters yet are free
enough to choose in the absence of external
restraints. Such a reconciliation of predetermined
dispositions and intrinsic freedom, preserves the
argument for moral responsibility, to an extent.