Chapter 1 | Ethics and Ethical Reasoning

Philosophical study of ethics

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. It is also called moral philosophy. The study of ethics helps a
person to look at his own life critically and to evaluate his actions/choices/decisions. It assists a
person in knowing what he/she really is and what is best for him/her and what he/she has to do in
order to attain it. Study of moral philosophy can help us to think better about morality.

We study "ethics" because society cannot function without a series of commonly-accepted moral
codes that define boundaries of acceptable behavior. We also study ethics because there is not
always a consensus on what types of behavior are acceptable.

Ethics is a system of principles that helps us tell right from wrong, good from bad. Ethics can
give real and practical guidance to our lives. Ethical values (i.e. honesty, trustworthiness,
responsibility) help guide us along a pathway to deal more effectively with ethical dilemmas by
eliminating those behaviors that do not conform to our sense of right and wrong – our best rational
interests – without sacrificing others.

Ethics is all about the choices we make. We constantly face choices that affect the quality of our
lives. We are aware that the choices that we make have consequences, both for ourselves and
others. We are aware of the responsibility we have for our actions.

Ethics is about character -- the sum of qualities that defines a person. These qualities include a
person’s intellect, thoughts, ideas, motives, intentions, temperament, judgment, behavior,
imagination, perception, emotions, loves, and hates.

Difference between normative and descriptive claims

A descriptive claim is a claim that asserts that such-and-such is the case. A normative claim, on
the other hand, is a claim that asserts that such-and-such ought to be the case. A descriptive
statement gives an account of how the world is without saying whether that's good or bad. A
normative statement expresses an evaluation, saying that something is good or bad, better or
worse, relative to some standard or alternative.

Intuitionism, emotivism, objectivism, and subjectivism

Intuitionism explains how we can get into a situation from which we know we are just right,
without any means to justify it. The ability to understand something immediately, without the need
for conscious reasoning. Emotivism explains why we cannot accurately define good and bad, it
explains why we have moral disagreements. Emotivism offers an explanation of moral knowledge
that is subjective, with moral judgments resting upon subjective experience. Subjectivism holds
that truth, in effect, resides only in the mind. For a subjectivist, a particular statement can be true
for one person and false for another, based solely on one's mental choices, subjective processing,
or emotions. Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge (an
understanding of meaning) – that there is an objective right and wrong.

Difference between metaethics and normative ethics

The main difference between metaethics and normative ethics is that metaethics is the study of
the nature of ethics, whereas normative ethics is the study of ethical action. Metaethics is
the branch of ethics that focuses on the basic nature of ethics, its status, foundations, properties,
etc. Normative ethics, on the other hand, focuses on what is morally right and wrong and analyses
the moral behavior of people.
While metaethics focuses on determining the meaning and objectivity of moral concepts of good
and bad, or right and wrong, normative ethics attempts to determine which character traits are
good and bad, which actions are right and wrong. The third main branch of ethics is applied ethics,
which is basically the application of normative ethics to particular issues.

Naturalistic explanations of ethics commit the naturalistic fallacy (mistaken belief)

The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy (misconception) which argues that if something
is 'natural' it must be good. The is/ought fallacy is when statements of fact (or 'is') jump to
statements of value (or 'ought'), without explanation.

Naturalistic fallacy appeals to how things are done by non-human animals or by groups of humans
that we would consider to be "primitive," and certainly outside of our own tradition. Examples:
"Tigers eat meat, so vegetarians must just be wrong."

Differentiate between instrumental and intrinsic values

Intrinsic value is the value that an entity has in itself, for what it is, or as an end. For instance, a
world containing natural beauty is more valuable than a world without beauty, even if there is no
one there to experience it. To some philosophers, these things are all valuable in and of
themselves. However, many philosophers would say that it makes no sense to talk about things
being valuable in themselves unless they are actually valued by someone. Even pleasure or
happiness are only intrinsically valuable because they are experienced by someone.

Instrumental value is the value that something has as a means to a desired or valued end.
Instrumental value is always derivative on the value of something else, and it is always conditional.
For instance, you value a washing machine that works—purely for its useful function, or
instrumental value.

Distinguish consequentialist from nonconsequentialist approaches to ethics

A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the
consequences that action has. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if
telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do. Two
examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. Utilitarianism judges consequences
by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says
something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.

Consequentialism or teleological ethics is based on the premise that the morality of an

action is contingent with the outcome of that action. This implies that morally right action
produces good outcome and morally wrong produces bad outcome. The consequences
are the effects caused by an action and the quality of these consequences depend on how
much good they contain. Motives are the causes and the consequences are the effect. The
consequences are defined by various theories such as Utilitarianism (an action is right if it
leads to the most happiness for greatest number of people); hedonism {pleasure is the
most important pursuit of the humankind so individuals should strive to maximise the total
pleasure (net of sufferings and pains)}; egoism (an action is right if it maximises the good
for the self. In other words, Egoism gives a license to actions which are good to one
individual but may be detrimental to others); asceticism (abstinence from egoistic
pleasures to achieve spiritual goals); altruism (to live for others and not caring for self).
A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on
properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences. The most famous version of
non-consequentialism is deontology, which holds that one has an absolute duty to obey certain
rules. “Never kill an innocent person” or “never lie” are examples of such rules.

The non-consequentialist approach or deontological approach or the duty ethics

focuses on the rightness and wrongness of the actions themselves and not the
consequences of those actions. There are several variants of non-consequentialist
approaches such as Divine Command Theory; Natural Rights Theory etc. Divine
Command Theory says that an action is right if it has been sanctioned / decreed by God
that it is right. Thus, the moral obligations arise from the command of God. Natural Rights
Theory, developed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbe says that absolute and natural
rights which are inherent in the nature of ethics and are not contingent upon human actions.
This theory developed into Human Rights later.

Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their
consequences for human welfare. Deontology is a theory that suggests actions are good or bad
according to a clear set of rules. Its name comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Actions
that obey these rules are ethical, while actions that do not, are not.

Natural law is the idea that there are forms of law that exist by themselves in nature, regardless of
whether people exist or recognize them or not. Unlike other forms of law(called positive laws) that
have been agreed on by society, such laws would be given to all, and would not be possible to go
against. A well-accepted example of natural law in our society is that it is wrong for one person to
kill another person.

Ethical reasoning and arguments

Evaluating and Making Good Arguments. A good argument is a sound or valid argument. An
ethical argument always involves some claim about values—for example, that saving a life is good.
Ethical arguments also involve conceptual and factual matters. Ethical arguments often also rely
on factual claims.

Ethical theory, principle, and judgment

A theory is a plausible (persuasive or seeming reasonable) hypothesis that is supported by a
considerable amount of evidence, while a principle is a scientific law that has been proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
An ethical theory is a systematic exposition of a particular view about what is the nature and basis
of good or right. The theory provides reasons or norms for judging acts to be right or wrong; it
provides a justification for these norms. These norms can then be used as a guide for action.

Ethical principles are part of a normative theory that justifies or defends moral rules and/or moral
judgments; they are not dependent on one's subjective viewpoints. A principle is a scientific law
that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ethical judgment is reasoning about the possible actions in the situation and judging which action
is most ethical. A person making an ethical judgment uses reason to decide what the best solution
or decision is to a problem.

Note the different types of reasons given for the judgments.

Other types of ethical theories

The moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral norms derive their normative force from
the idea of contract or mutual agreement. Thus, individuals are not taken to be motivated by
self-interest but rather by a commitment to publicly justify the standards of morality to which each
will be held.

Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the
person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of
particular actions. A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives the
virtues. "Virtues" are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in
ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty,
courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all
examples of virtues.

Feminist ethics is an approach to ethics that builds on the belief that traditionally ethical theorizing
has undervalued and/or underappreciated women's moral experience, which is largely
male-dominated, and it, therefore, chooses to reimagine this through a holistic feminist approach to
transform it. Feminist Ethics aims “to understand, criticize, and correct” how gender operates within
our moral beliefs and practices and our methodological approaches to ethical theory.

Can ethics be taught?

Does this requirement stem from a belief that a course in ethics or moral philosophy can actually
make people good?

- END -