Chapter One

Understanding Civics and Ethics

1.1. Defining Civics, Ethics and Morality
1.1.1. Civic Education

The most cited definition of civic education is an education that studies about the rights and
responsibilities of citizens of a politically organized group of people. Different writers define it
in many ways. For instance, Patrick (1986) defines civic education as the knowledge of the
constitutions, the principles, values, history and application to contemporary life. Citizenship
education can be understood as the knowledge, means, and activities designed to encourage
students to participate actively in democratic life, accepting and exercising their rights and
responsibilities. United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2004) defines civic education
as a way of learning for effective participation in a democratic and development process. On his
part, Aggarwal (1982) linked civic education to the development of ideas, habits, behaviors and
useful attitudes in the individual which enables him to be a useful member of the society. Still the
subject matter can be also defined as the process of helping young people acquire and learn to
use the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will prepare them to be competent and responsible
citizens throughout their lives.

Actually, these different concepts and meanings were used to differentiate between a maximal
and a minimal civic education. The minimal concept of civic education is content-led, teacher-
based, whole-class teaching and examination-based assessment. However, the maximal concept
of civic education is comprised of knowledge, values and skills, and aims to prepare students for
active, responsible participation. Unlike narrow minimalist civic education, it extends learning
beyond the curriculum and classroom to all activities inside and outside school. In addition, it is
highly dependent on interactive teaching, which requires discussion, debate and the creation of
many opportunities for students to participate effectively.

1.1.2. The Definition and Nature of Ethics and Morality

A. What Ethics is?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand people‘s moral beliefs and actions.
Ethics, or moral philosophy, considers theories about what human beings are capable of doing,
alongside accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an ethically good life. Ethics also

1
explores the meaning and the ranking of different ethical values, such as honesty, autonomy,
equality and justice, and it considers ethical quandaries that human beings face in the course of
living their own independent but, also, socially interdependent lives.

When we speak of moral problems then, we generally refer to specific problems, such as - Is
lying ever right? Or - Is stealing always wrong? in contrast, we can look at ethical problems as
being more general and theoretical. Thus, what makes any act, such as lying or stealing, right or
wrong? And - what makes any entity good? are ethical problems. In short, morality refers to the
degree to which an action conforms to a standard or norm of human conduct. Ethics refers to
the philosophical study of values and of what constitute good and bad human conduct.

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason that is, to do what there
are the best reasons for doing while giving equal weight to the interest of each individual who
will be affected by one‘s conduct. It is important that in countries like Ethiopia, morality is
shared as a common goal to ensure harmony and integrity.

Morality is:

1. Those principles and values that actually guide, for better or worse, an individual‘s personal
conduct (Guy, 2001)

2. Morality is the informal system of rational beings by which they govern their behavior in
order to lesson harm or evil and do good, this system, although informal, enjoys amazing
agreement across time and cultures concerning moral rules, moral ideas and moral virtues
(Madden, 2000)

3. Morality, whatever else may be said about it, is about things over which we have control that
lead to bettering human life. It is different in every society, and is a convenient term for socially
approved habits.

Ethics Morality

Is philosophical study of the code, standards Refers to the code of conduct one follows
or norm of human conduct and it is more while ethics is the study of moral conduct or
theoretical and general one. the study of the code that one follows

Ethics establish the standards, norms, or Is the conformity of human behavior to the

2
 codes to be followed by human beings are established code of conduct. If an action
the study of morality, moral principles, and conform to the established code, it is called
moral decision making. moral ,if not immoral

Is the development of reasonable standards refers to the effort to guide one‘s conduct by
and procedures for ethical decision-making? reason while giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual who will be
affected by one‘s conduct

Is a set of normative rules of conduct, a Has to do with what one should do, all things
code, a standards that govern what one ought considered, not what, in fact, any of us will
to do when the well-being, or duties to so in a particular instance
oneself, others or institutions is at stake.

1.2. Ethics and Law

As against morals and ethics, laws are norms, formally approved by state, power or national or
international political bodies. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well-being, resolve
conflicts of interest, and promote social harmony. However, there are several reasons why ethics
is not law. First, some actions that are illegal may not be unethical. Speeding is illegal, but one
might have an ethical obligation to break the speed limit in order to transport someone to a
hospital in an emergency. Second, some actions that are unethical may not be illegal. Most
people would agree that lying is unethical but lying is only illegal under certain conditions, e.g.
lying on an income tax return, lying when giving sworn testimony, etc. Third, laws can be
unethical or immoral. The United States had laws permitting slavery in the 1800s but most
people today would say that those laws were unethical or immoral. Although we have moral and
ethical obligations to obey the law, civil disobedience can be justified when immoral or unethical
laws exist. Since we can appeal to morality and ethics to justify or criticize laws, many writers
maintain that the main function of a legal system is to enforce a society‘s moral and ethical
consensus. Fourth, we use different kinds of mechanisms to express, teach, inculcate, and
enforce laws and ethics. Laws are expressed publicly in statutes, penal codes, court rulings,
government regulations, and so forth. Although ethics and morals are sometimes made explicit in
religious texts, professional codes of conduct, or philosophical writings, many ethical and moral
standards are implicit. Finally, we use the coercive power of government to enforce laws. People
who break certain laws can be fined, imprisoned, or executed. People who violate ethical or
moral standards do not face these kinds of punishments unless their actions also violate laws.

3
Often we - punish people who disobey moral or ethical obligations by simply expressing our
disapproval or by condemning the behavior.

1.3. The Importance/Goal of Moral and Civic Education

In higher educational institutions of Ethiopia, civics and ethics/moral education is given with the
aim of educating students about democratic culture, ethical values and principles, supremacy of
constitution, the rule of law, rights and duties of citizens. These elements are imperative in the
process of producing self-confident citizens who decides on issues based on reason. It is also
aimed at creating a generation who has the capability to shoulder family and national
responsibility. Generally, the necessity of delivering the course emanates from:

1) The need to instill citizens about their rights and duties: The two phrases rights and duties
co-exist with each other (they are termed as the two sides of the same coin) that regulate the
values and behavioral patterns of an individual. For instance, the State has the obligation to
provide health care services because citizens have the right to access that service. However, the
State will be unable to ensure that citizens led a healthy life unless citizens themselves act
responsibly with respect to their own health, in terms of a healthy diet, exercise, and the
consumption of liquor and tobacco. Similarly, the state will be unable to meet the needs of
children, the elderly or the disabled, if citizens do not agree to share this responsibility by
providing some care for their relatives; the state cannot protect the environment if citizens are
unwilling to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste byproducts in their own homes; and attempts to
create a fairer society will flounder if citizens are chronically intolerant of difference and
generally lacking in what Rawls (1971) calls a sense of justice. In short, we need a fuller, richer
and yet more subtle understanding and practice of citizenship, because what the ideal society
needs and wants to be cannot be secured by coercion, but only through its members (citizens)
who have a balanced understanding of rights and duties.

Sastry et al. (2011) presented four issues to look into the interplay between rights and duties.
First, one's right implies the other's duty. This means every right of an individual automatically
imposes a duty on others. For example, the right to freedom of movement imposes a duty on
others not to interfere with the right of movement of any body, except regulated by law.

4
Second, one's right implies one's duty to recognize similar rights of others. This implies that
every exercise of right is subject to restrictions. For example, one has the freedom of speech and
expression, but, at the same time, the practitioner has to bear in mind that the exercise of free
speech and expression in no way affects the rights of others.

Third, one should exercise his rights for the promotion of social good. If any person tries to
misuse the rights, which affect the rights of others or of the society or state, the Government has
a duty to take appropriate legal action to prevent such acts. For example, if a person tries to
abuse his right to freedom of speech and expression, the State can take legal action. Any such
action by the State is justified.

Fourth, the State being a nucleus organ needs to take care of the social and legal interests of all
its individuals. From this point of view, the State has the obligation to discharge duties towards
its citizens. As the State guarantees and protects the rights of everybody, one has a duty to
support the State in its legal endeavors. Therefore, there is no doubt that there must be a balance
between citizenship rights and obligations. For this reason, civics and ethics course provides to
citizens to ensure that each individual become an informed citizen capable of thinking effectively
as well as responsibly in carrying out their duties and observing rights.

2) The Need for Participant Political Culture: According to the International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences (1961) political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments which
give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and
rules that govern behavior in the political system. Taylor (1999) describes political culture as the
norms of conduct both of and between the various political actors operating in society, together
with the concomitant expectations and understandings of the rights and responsibilities of
citizens, representatives, public servants and so on. Political culture shapes what people expect of
their political system, what they see as possibilities for their own action, and what rights and
responsibilities the various actors are perceived to have. Generally, political culture defines the
roles which an individual may play in the political process.

Almond and Verba (1963) construct three political cultures: parochial cultures, subject cultures,
and participant cultures. In parochial cultures citizens have low cognitive, affective, and
evaluative orientation regarding the political systems, government powers and functions and

5
even their privileges and duties. In such political culture, the role of citizens in the political
sphere of their countries is insignificant since individuals thinks of their families advantage as
the only goal to pursue. In subject cultures, there is high cognitive, affective, and evaluative
orientation towards the political system and policy outputs, but orientations towards input objects
(like political parties) and the self as active participants are minimal. Thus, orientation towards
the system and its outputs is channeled via a relatively detached, passive relationship on the part
of the citizen. Subject cultures are most compatible with centralized, authoritarian political
structures. In participant cultures, members of society have high cognitive, affective, and
evaluative orientation to the political system, the input objects, the policy outputs, and recognize
the self as an active participant in the polity. Largely, participant cultures are most compatible
with democratic political structures because the qualities and attitudes of citizens determine the
health and stability of a country‘s democracy. Democracy can only thrive when citizens
understand and participate actively in civic and political life from the perspective that
participation is important, but informed and educated participation is more important.

However, there are many factors challenging the democracy and democratization process of
countries including Ethiopia. For instance, individual interests seem to be more important and
dominant in the socio-economic and political structure of a given State. Apparently, many
citizens lack the competences and knowledge to deal with the tensions between individually and
socially centered norms and obligations. Besides, small parts of the population support the norm
that a citizen should be politically active. That is, although many modes of political participation
are available, most citizens still rely on voting only. But, it is clear that democratic political
activities cannot be restricted to visiting a ballot box every five years. Likewise, the self-
understanding of people as recipients/consumers instead of active citizens seems to be important
challenges in the democratization process.

That's why people in a democratic country are supposed to have in-depth understanding on
democratic behavior and able to behave democratically: individuals sense of identity and their
ability to tolerate and work together with others who are different from themselves; their desire
to participate in the political process in order to promote the public good and hold political
authorities accountable; their willingness to show self-restraint and exercise personal
responsibility in their economic demands and in personal choices-which affect their health and

6
the environment. Without citizens who possess these qualities, democracies become difficult to
govern, even unstable. For this reason, civics and ethics has been given to inculcate these
competencies upon learners and, in turn, advance and strengthen the democratization process.

In active citizenship, also, participation is not restricted simply to the political dimension rather it
also includes socio-cultural and environmental activities. This understanding of active
citizenship is ethically-driven where activities should support the community and should not
contravene the principles of human rights and the rule of law. The role to be played by civics and
ethics is, therefore, acculturation learners with the attributes of active citizenship, democracy and
equip them with the skills of participation in civil society, community and/or political life to
ensure that the young possesses a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values at their
disposal. So that they can develop and practice civic skills, offering opportunities for open
discussions about political and social issues, fully discharges their role as citizens, and make
informed and educated decisions about candidates and public policy. Generally, the subject plays
undeniable role in democratization process through solving societal problems, socializing and re-
socializing individuals by instilling desired values, helping individuals develop feeling of respect
to others, develop a sense of belongingness and patriotism, and the like.

3) The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes: Relevant knowledge is a
type of knowledge which is useful in dealing with a particular problem at a period of time.
However, knowledge would remain inert knowledge unless it is functional or put into practice to
achieve a certain goal. Still knowledge would remain infirm if the person is not equipped with
right attitudes and requisite skills which are basic to enable him/her perform his/her role as a
credible member of a society. Hence, the State in question will do better in its bid for
development if most of her citizens are skillful in one field or the other and also demonstrate
positive attitudes at the work place. Right attitudes are very essential ingredients needed to
ensure harmony and peaceful co-existence among people. It is reasonable to claim that skillful
manpower is a pre-requisite for every nation that wishes to develop but a skillful manpower
without positive attitudes to work is likely to result in counter production because vices like
corruption, bribery, abuse of power, lateness to and work absenteeism among others will pop
their ugly heads. For this reason, civics and ethics is acknowledged as an essential subject from
the perception that it can be a useful cure for the ‗social ills‘ often associated with young people:

7
that is, tendencies for anti-social behavior and political apathy among young people, or, what
Osler and Starkey (2006: 437) describe as youth deficit‘. At the local community level, it is
assumed that social and environmental problems can best be resolved through an understanding
of what it means to be a citizen.

4) The issue of fostering intercultural societies: The recognition of cultural diversity is certainly
meritorious, but civics and ethics education could move a step forward by appealing to the notion
of inter-culturalism, which explicitly asserts the need for relationship, dialogue, reciprocity and
interdependence. Beyond differences of semantics, civics and ethics education is a useful
instrument not only towards tolerating or celebrating each other, but also about nurturing
dynamic exchanges based on interaction, openness and effective solidarity. The subject helps to
integrate the best traditions of multicultural and intercultural education to develop political and
pedagogical strategies that contribute to overcome discrimination and to nurture genuine,
inclusive dialogue among cultural groups.

The issue of inclusiveness: By framing a universal concept of citizenship constructed on the

attributes/identities and practices of male subjects, gendered relations and the private sphere have
been neglected. Civics and ethics as a subject is thought to nurture new and inclusive relations
and practices in both public and private spaces that recognize gender differences while ensuring
inclusiveness and equity. It should also go beyond the idea of quotas for women in formal
politics, or strategies to empower women to play male politics. Hence, promoting democracy and
inclusiveness in public spaces as well as in families, workplaces, unions, and other institutions
become the area of focus of civics and ethics.

5) The issue of peace-building: in an environment characterized by increasing militarization,

terrorism, civil wars and genocidal acts, it is urgent for citizenship education to advance
pedagogical strategies to promote cooperation, dialogue, and a sustainable peace that is based on
justice. It is obvious that civics and ethics alone cannot bring peace to our planet, yet it can make
a valuable contribution to create the subjective conditions for more peaceful situations. This
includes the development of competencies for peacemaking, conflict resolution, healing,
reconciliation and reconstruction. It also includes an understanding of nonviolent civil
disobedience philosophies, strategies and skills. A peace-oriented citizenship education can
foster the development of values, attitudes and skills to nurture peace within ourselves and in our

8
personal relationships, and to create the conditions for peace in our own communities and in the
global community.

The aim of moral/ethical and civic education is to provide people to make decisions by their free
wills. You can teach norms easily, but you cannot teach easily to obey these rules unless you
teach ethics. Therefore, teaching ethics has an important and necessary place in education.
Students who graduated from universities may be well educated persons in their professions but
it is not enough. Aristotle also says, ―Educating the mind without educating the heart is no
education at all.

Moral and Civics Education is based on and seeks to promote in students core moral, ethical,
democratic, and educational values, such as:

 Respect for life

 Respect for reasoning
 Fairness
 Concern for the welfare of others
 Respect for diversity
 Peaceful resolution of conflict

In sum the goals of teaching civics and ethics at any level of educational institutions is to
produce competent, high moral standard society and responsible citizens who can ask and use
their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the laws of their respective country.

Democracy doesn‘t deserve its name without citizens‘ participation. Ever since Pericles this
claim has been defended and discussed. The question is not whether citizens should be involved
in democratic decision-making processes, but how much engagement and participation is
required for a vibrant democracy. Citizens‘ involvement, however, cannot be taken for granted
but depends heavily on resources, motivations, and social contacts. Orientations and activities of
citizens that strengthen democracy and which, in turn, are strengthened by democratic
experiences are summarized under the label active citizenship. Citizens cannot fulfill these
ambitious tasks adequately without specific competences; that is, citizens need to have ―a
combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values‖ at their disposal enabling them ―to
become an active citizen‖ (Hoskins et al., 2011).

9
In the last ten to fifteen years we have witnessed some remarkable efforts to revise or revitalize
‘the tradition of citizenship education within schools and education systems. There have even
been demands to reinvent or revitalize civic education. Often they deplored the still existing
neglect and disregard in the field of citizenship education and asked for a new and specified form
of - democratic citizenship education‖ beyond just - civics, for a new way of - teaching
democracy beyond teaching institutional political settings or a new - education of, for and
through democracy beyond mere teacher-centered instruction in politics (Lange, 2013).

Chapter Summary

Different authors define civic education in different ways. But the most cited definition of civic
education is an education that studies about the rights and responsibilities of citizens of a
politically organized group of people. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the
rightness and wrongness of human actions. In this regard, Ethics is the study of morality.
Whereas morality is defined as a set of personal and social values, rules, beliefs, laws, emotions,
and ideologies collectively governing and arbitrating the rightness and wrongness of human
actions. In higher institutions of Ethiopia, civics and ethics is given with the aim of educating
students about democratic culture, ethical values and principles, supremacy of constitution, the
rule of law, rights and duties of citizens. The major goal of civics and ethics is producing good
citizens, citizens who obey the law; respect the authority; contribute to society; love their
country; believe in doing what is right; stand up for the right of others; tries to serve the interest
of others before oneself. It is also aimed at creating a generation who has the capability to
shoulder family and national responsibility.

Thus, in conclusion, it is important to state that the normative value of ethics in life explores
what is our origin as human beings. It takes into consideration the fact ‗the unexamined life is
not worth living;‘ to quote the ancient sage, Socrates. Without the fundamental factors of self-
critique, of the ethical questioning and practical engagement, of the fundamental factors of
tradition – something lived out in the present that proposes and gives its reasons – the youth
would remain fragile, doubtful and skeptical. Exposure to life‘s experiences which is achieved
beyond the classroom is risky. But it helps the student to become authentic, standing on one‘s
own feet and daring the current. This is not the domain of Ethics in Higher education but the

10
normative value of ethics and life. It is confrontation with man‘s real identity and the questions
of contradictions of life, yet tackled beyond doubt.

The context of a new vision for education which calls for mindset shift from reading and writing
to skills acquisition with relevance for daily life and society becomes imperative. Ethics
education is opportunity for a new value orientation. Such education ensures the training of both
the teacher and the student, develops new technologies and conclusively allows a new vision, a
new policy, a new market, new resources and a new system. The normative value of this kind of
education is the emergence of a new humanity of responsible leaders driven by values and
virtues and knowledgeable enough to transform their environment and serve entire humanity in a
new society yearning for ethical and fair-minded leaders.

Chapter Two
Approaches to Ethics
This Chapter aim to introduce you to various ethical theories.
2.1. Normative Ethics
 Its concern is to guide us in the making of decisions and judgments about actions in

particular situations.
 A main concern, of course, is to guide us in our capacity as agents trying to decide what
we should do in this case and in that. But we want to know more than just what we
should do in situations before us.
 We also wish to make judgments about what others should do, especially if they ask us
about what we or they should have done, about whether what we or someone else did was
right or wrong, and so on. We are not just agents in morality; we are also spectators,
advisers, instructors, judges, and critics.
 Still, in all of these capacities our primary question is this: how may or should we decide
or determine what is morally right for a certain agent (oneself or another, possibly a
group or a whole society) to do, or what he morally ought to do, in a certain situation?
Normative Ethics;
 Offers theories or accounts of the best way to live. 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.

11
  Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics,
principlism, narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
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?
2.1.1. Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)
 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. Which means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral
depending on what happens because of it.
 One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but if the result,
moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act.
 The standard of right and wrong cannot be simply the prevailing set of moral rules;
moral philosophers offered a variety of alternative standards.
 In general their views have been of two sorts: (1) deontological theories and (2)
teleological ones.
 For teleological theory the ultimate criterion/standard of what is morally right, wrong,
obligatory, etc., is the non-moral value that is brought into being. The final appeal,
directly or indirectly, must be to the comparative amount of good produced, or rather to
the comparative balance of good over evil produced.
 Thus, an act is right if and only if it or the rule under which it falls produces, will
probably produce, or is intended to produce at least as great a balance of good over evil
as any available alternative; an act is wrong if and only if it does not do so.
 An act ought to be done if and only if it or the rule under which it falls produces, will
probably produce, or is intended to produce a greater balance of good over evil than any
available alternative.
 Teleological theories, then, make the right, the obligatory, and the morally good
dependent on the non-morally good.

12
  Accordingly, they also make the theory of moral obligation and moral value dependent,
in a sense, on the theory of non-moral value.
 In order to know whether something is right, ought to be done, or is morally good, one
must first know what is good in the non-moral sense and whether the thing in question
promotes or is intended to promote what is good in this sense.
 However, teleologists may hold various views about what is good in the non-moral
sense.
 Teleologists have often been hedonists, identifying the good with pleasure and evil with
pain, and concluding that the right course or rule of action is that which produces at least
as great a balance of pleasure over pain as any alternative would.
 But they may be and have sometimes been non-hedonists, identifying the good with
power, knowledge, self-realization, perfection etc. This fact must not be forgotten when
we are evaluating the teleological theory of obligation.
Deontological Theories

 Deny what teleological theories affirm.

 They deny that the right, the obligatory, and the morally good are wholly, whether
directly or indirectly, a function of what is non-morally good or of what promotes the
greatest balance of good over evil for self, one's society, or the world as a whole.
 They assert that there are other considerations that may make an action or rule right or
obligatory besides the goodness or badness of its consequences.
 Certain features of the act itself other than the value it brings into existence, for example,
the fact that it keeps a promise, is just, or is commanded by God or by the state.
 Teleologists believe that there is one and only one basic or ultimate right-making
characteristic, namely, the comparative value (non-moral) of what is, probably will be,
or is intended to be brought into being.
 For deontologists, the principle of maximizing the balance of good over evil, no matter
for whom, is either not a moral criterion or standard at all, or, at least, it is not the only
basic or ultimate one.
 They contends that, it is possible for an action or rule of action to be morally right or
obligatory one even if it does not promote the greatest possible balance of good over evil
for self, society, or universe.

13
 It may be right or obligatory simply because of some other fact about it or because of its
own nature.
 It follows that a deontologist may also adopt any kind of a view about what is good or
bad in the non-moral sense.
 Teleologists differ on the question of whose good it is that one ought to try to promote.
 Ethical egoism holds that one is always to do what will promote his own greatest good --
that an act or rule of action is right if and only if it promotes at least as great a balance of
good over evil for him in the long run as any alternative would, and wrong if it does not.
 This view was held by Epicurus, Hobbes, and Nietzsche, among others.
 Ethical universalism (utilitarianism), takes that the ultimate end is the greatest general
good -- that an act or rule of action is right if and only if it is, or probably is, conducive to
at least as great a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole as any alternative
would be, wrong if it is not, and obligatory if it is or probably is conducive to the greatest
possible balance of good over evil in the universe.
 The so-called utilitarians, for example, J. Bentham and J. S. Mill, have usually been
hedonists in their view about what is good, asserting that the moral end is the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain.
 But some utilitarians are not hedonists, for example, G. E. Moore and Hastings
Rashdall, and so have been called "Ideal" utilitarians. That is, utilitarianism is a certain
kind of teleological theory of obligation and does not entail any particular theory of
value, although a utilitarian must accept some particular theory of value.
 It would also be possible, of course, to adopt teleological theories intermediate between
ethical egoism and utilitarianism, example, theories that say the right act or rule is one
conducive to the greatest balance of good over evil for a certain group- one's nation,
class, family, or race.
 A pure ethical altruist might even contend that the right act or rule is the one that most
promotes the good of other people.
2.1.2. Egoism: Ethical and Psychological Egoism
2.1.2.1. Ethical Egoism

14
  We usually assume that moral behavior, or being ethical, has to do with not being overly
concerned with oneself. In other words, selfishness is assumed to be unacceptable
attitude.
 Even among scholars, there is disagreement about what constitutes ethical behavior.
Since very early in western intellectual history, the view point that humans are not built
to look out for other people’s interests has surfaced regularly. Some scholars even hold
that proper moral conduct consist of - looking out for number one, period. These
viewpoints are known as psychological egoism and ethical egoism respectively.
The central view of ethical egoism includes;

 As to N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) that if the end is to maintain political power for one self,
one’s king or ones political party, then this will justify any means that one might use for
that propose, such as force, surveillance, or even deceit.
 Ethical egoism is one of the famous theory of consequentialist, it does not qualify as
utilitarian, because it doesn‘t have the common good as its ultimate end.
 The consequences that ethical egoism stipulates are good consequences for the person taking the
action.
 It simply suggests that one should do what will be of long term benefit to one self, such as
exercising, eating healthy food, avoiding repetitive argumentative situations, abstaining
from over eating, and so forth.
 If you might advance your own interests by helping others, then by all means help others
but only if you are the main beneficiary.
The following are some method to apply the principle of ethical egoism to a particular situation.
 List the possible acts
 For each act, see how much net good it would do for you.
 Identify the act that does the most net good for you

Some important things to notice about ethical egoism:

 It does not just say that, from the moral point of view, one‘s own welfare counts as well as
that of others. Rather, it says that, from the moral point of view, only one‘s own welfare
counts, and others’ does not, when one is making a moral decision about how to act.

15
 Ethical egoism does not forbid one to help others, or require one to harm others. It just says
that whatever moral reason you have to help others, or not harm them, must ultimately stem
for the way in which helping them or not harming them helps you.
 Ethical egoism does not say that one ought always to do what is most pleasurable, or
enjoyable. It acknowledges that one‘s own self–interest may occasionally require pain or
sacrifice.
2.1.2.2. Psychological Egoism
 The main argument that has been used as a basis for ethical egoism is a psychological
one, an argument from human nature.
 We are all so constituted, it is said, that one always seeks one's own advantage or welfare,
or always does what he thinks will give him the greatest balance of good over evil.
 In Butler's terms, this means that "self-love" is the only basic "principle" in human
nature; in one set of contemporary terms, it means that "ego-satisfaction" is the final aim
of all activity or that "the pleasure principle" is the basic "drive" in every individual.
 If this is so, the argument continues, we must recognize this fact in our moral theory and
infer that our basic ethical principle must be that of self-love, albeit cool self-love. To
hold anything else is to fly in the face of the facts.
 It is usual here to object that one cannot logically infer an ethical conclusion from a
psychological premise in this way. But the egoist may not be doing this.
 He may only be contending that, if human nature is as he describes it, it is simply
unrealistic and even unreasonable to propose that we ought basically to do anything but
what is for our own greatest good. For, in a sense, we cannot do anything but this, except
by mistake, and, as a famous dictum has it. Ought to implies - can.
 Thus understood, the psychological argument for ethical egoism is at least reasonable,
even if it is not logically compelling.
 Thus, ethical egoism has generally presupposed what is called psychological egoism, that
each of us is always seeking his own greatest good, whether this is conceived of as
pleasure, happiness, knowledge, power, self-realization, or a mixed life.
 The question is not whether egoism is strong in human nature but whether we ever have
any concern or desire for the welfare of others except as a means to our own, any concern

16
 for or interest in their welfare for its own sake, which is not derived from our concern for
our own welfare. In dealing with this ethical theory;
(1) That the desire for one's own good presupposes or builds upon the existence of more basic
desires for food, fame, sex, etc. If we did not have any of these "primary appetites," we would
not have any good to be concerned about; our welfare consists of the satisfaction of such desires.

(2) It follows, that the object of these basic desires is not one's own welfare; it is food, fame, sex, etc., as
the case may be. One's own good is not the object of all of one's desires but only of one of them, self-
love.

(3) That in some cases the object of a basic desire is something for oneself, for example, food or the
eating of food. But there is no necessity about this; the object may be something for someone else, for
example, enjoying the sight of the ocean. In other words, there may be altruistic impulses. There may also
be a desire to do the right as such. Whether there are such desires or not is a question of empirical fact.

(4) As a matter of fact, there are such altruistic interests in the welfare of others (sheer malevolence, if it
exists, is a desire that another experience pain for its own sake), as well as a desire to do the right as such.

 At this point it is usual for the psychological egoist to say, "Yes, we do things for others,
but we get satisfaction out of doing them, and this satisfaction is our end in doing them.
Doing them is only a means to this satisfaction. Hence, even in doing 'altruistic' things for
others, like taking them to see the ocean, we are seeking our own good."
 Generally, Egoistic and particularistic consequentialism only takes into consideration
how the consequences of an act will affect oneself or a given group e.g. one‘s family,
fellow citizens/compatriots, class or race. Moral rightness depends on the consequences
for an individual agent or a limited group.
2.1.3. Utilitarianism: Producing the Best Consequences
 That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers
(GHGN).
2.2.2.1. Classic Utilitarianism
 In our normal lives we use utilitarian reasoning all the time.
 As a formal ethical theory, it was sewn by Epicurus1 (342–270 BCE), who stated that,
pleasure is the goal that nature has ordained for us.

1
the ancient Greek philosopher

17
  It is also the standard by which we judge everything good. According to this view,
rightness and wrongness are determined by pleasure or pain that something produces.
 Epicurus‘s theory focused largely on the individual‘s personal experience of pleasure
and pain, and to that extent he advocated a version of ethical egoism.
 Nevertheless, Epicurus inspired a series of 18th c philosophers who emphasized the notion
of general happiness that is, the pleasing consequences of actions that impact others and
not just the individual.
 The classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the writings of
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).
2.2.2.2. Jeremy Bentham: Quantity over Quality
There are two main features of utilitarianism both of which are articulated by Jeremy
Bentham:
A. The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect): states that the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow
from it. It is the end, not the means that counts; the end justifies the means. and
B. The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect): states that the only thing that is good
in itself is some specific type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness, welfare).
Hedonistic utilitarianism:-
 Views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil.
 An act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an
act is wrong if it either brings about more pain than pleasure or prevents pleasure from
occurring.
 Bentham invented a scheme for measuring pleasure and pain that he called the hedonic
calculus: The quantitative score for any pleasure or pain experience is obtained by
summing the seven aspects of a pleasurable or painful experience: its intensity,
duration, certainty, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, and extent. Adding up the amounts of
pleasure and pain for each possible act and then comparing the scores would enable us
to decide which act to perform.
 There is something appealing about Bentham‘s utilitarianism. It is simple in that there
is only one principle to apply: Maximize pleasure and minimize suffering.

18
  It is scientific: Simply make quantitative measurements and apply the principle
impartially, giving no special treatment to ourselves or to anyone else because of
race, gender, personal relationship, or religion.
2.2.2.3. John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity
 Bentham‘s successor, Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from mere sensual pleasure.
 His version of the theory is often called eudaimonistic utilitarianism (from the Greek
eudaimonia, meaning happiness).
 He defines happiness in terms of certain types of higher order pleasures or satisfactions
such as intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments, as well as in terms of minimal
suffering.
 That is, there are two types of pleasures. The lower, or elementary, include eating,
drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation. The higher include high culture,
scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity. Although the lower pleasures are
more intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged in.
 The higher pleasures tend to be more long term, continuous, and gradual.
 Mill argued that the higher, or more refined, pleasures are superior to the lower ones.
The point is not merely that humans wouldn‘t be satisfied with what satisfies a pig but
that somehow the quality of the higher pleasures is better.
 Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the concept of - pleasure by emphasizing higher
qualities such as knowledge, intelligence, freedom, friendship, love, and health.
 In fact, one might even say that his litmus test for happiness really has little to do with
actual pleasure and more to do with a non-hedonic cultivated state of mind.
2.2.2.4. Act- And Rule-Utilitarianism
There are two classical types of utilitarianism: act (AU) and rule - utilitarianism (RU).

 AU (Bentham), say that ideally we ought to apply the principle to all of the alternatives
open to us at any given moment.
 AU argues that an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any
available alternative.
 One practical problem with AU is that we cannot do the necessary calculations to
determine which act is the correct one in each case, for often we must act
spontaneously and quickly.

19
  So rules of thumb are of practical importance for example, In general, don‘t lie, and -
Generally, keep your promises. However, the right act is still that alternative that
results in the most utility.
 A second problem with AU is that it seems to fly in the face of fundamental
intuitions about minimally correct behavior.
 RU (Mill), the alternative to AU.
 An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set
of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any
available alternative.
 Human beings are rule following creatures. We learn by adhering to the rules of a
given subject.
 We want to have a set of action guiding rules by which to live.
 The AU rule, to do the act that maximizes utility, is too general for most
purposes.
 Often, we don‘t have time to decide whether lying will produce more utility than
truth telling, so we need a more specific rule prescribing truthfulness that passes
the test of rational scrutiny.
The Strengths of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism has three very positive features (strengths).

 First it is a single principle, an absolute system with a potential answer for every
situation: Do what will promote the most utility!
 Second utilitarianism seems to get to the substance of morality. It is not merely a formal
system that simply sets guidelines for choosing principles but offers no principles like
guideline; Do whatever you can universalize. The other virtue appeals to our sense that
morality is made for people and that morality is not so much about rules. As such,
utilitarianism seems commonsensical.
 Third utilitarianism is well suited to address the problem of posterity namely, why we
should preserve scarce natural resources for the betterment of future generations that do
not yet exist. Why should I care about posterity? However, utilitarians have one overriding
duty: to maximize general happiness.

20
  Generally, utilitarianism is a moral theory which takes into account how the
consequences of an act will affect all the parties involved.
 Moral rightness depends on the consequences for all affected people or sentient beings.
The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility:
The principle of utility

 Morally right action is the one that produces the best overall consequences to all affected
parties.
 J. Bentham‘s slogan: The right act or policy is the one that causes the greatest happiness
of the greatest number that is, maximize the total utility/welfare of the majority of all the
affected parties.
2.2.2.5. Altruism
Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people‘s pleasure. They act for the sake of
someone else even if it decreases their own pleasure and causes themselves pain. Altruism:-

 An action is right if the consequences of that action are favorable to all except the actor.
 Butler argued that we have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to
others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our
actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.
 Psychological altruism holds that all human action is necessarily other centered and other
motivated.
 A parallel analysis of psychological altruism results in opposing conclusions to
psychological egoism, and again arguably the theory is just as closed as psychological
egoism.
 We can differentiate egoistic and altruistic desires in the following way: One‘s desire is
egoistic if (and only if) it concerns (what one perceives to be) the benefit of oneself and not
anyone else. In the contrary, one‘s desire is altruistic if (and only if) it concerns (what one
perceives to be) the benefit of at least someone other than oneself.
 Altruists reject the theory of psychological egoism and argue instead that humans are
instinctively benevolent. And instinctive benevolence, they argue, is the feature of our
human nature which is the basis of our altruistic moral obligations
2.1.4. Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialist)
 It is diametrically the opposite of utilitarianism

21
  Referred as the means justifies the end.
 It is coined as deontics. The rightness or wrongness of moral action is determined, at
least partly with reference to formal rules of conduct.
 It is an emphasis on the intentions, motives, moral principles or performance of duty.
 It is a duty based theory.
Performance of One’s Own Duty
 Samuel Pufendorf2, classified duties i n t o three headings: duties to God, duties to
oneself and duties to others!
 Duties towards God: - here there are two kinds: (1) a theoretical duty to know the
existence and nature of God, and (2) a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly
worship God.
 Duties towards oneself; these are also of two sorts: (1) duties of the soul, which
involve developing one's skills and talents, and (2) duties of the body, which
involve not harming our bodies, as we might through gluttony or drunkenness, and not
killing oneself.
 Duties towards others; again divided into absolute duties, which are universally
binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts between
people. Absolute duties are of three sorts: (1) avoid wronging others; (2) treat
people as equals, and (3) promote the good of others. Conditional duties involve
various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty is to keep one's
promises.
2.2.2.4.1. The Divine Command Theory
 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:
A. Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God.
B. Moral rightness simply means- willed by God and moral wrongness means- being
against the will of God.

2
The 17th century German philosopher

22
 C. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing
reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary.
There are two problems with DCT that need to be faced by those who hold it.

1. DCT would seem to make the attribution of goodness to God redundant. When we say God
is good, we think we are ascribing a property to God; but if good simply means, what God
commands or wills, then we are not attributing any property to God. Our statement, God is
good merely means God does whatever he wills to do or God practices what he preaches,
and the statement God commands us to do what is good merely is logically empty
statement God commands us to do what God commands us to do.
2. DCT is that it seems to make morality into something arbitrary. If God‘s decree is the sole
arbiter of right and wrong, it would seem to be logically possible for such heinous acts as
rape, killing of the innocent for the fun of it, and gratuitous cruelty to become morally good
actions if God suddenly decided to command us to do these things
2.2.2.4.2. Rights Theory
 It is a second duty based approach to ethics.
 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 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, 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.

23
  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.
2.2.2.4.3. Kant’s Categorical Imperative
 Opposed the concept that “outcome determines moral worth”.
 Intention of the person determines
 Correctness of the action not possible benefits
 Absolute binding moral obligations
Categorical Imperatives (CI)

 Duty based theory

 Emphasizes single self-evident principles of duty/good intention
 Mandates an action irrespective of one’s desires
 Reason ( moral duties to one self and others
 Focuses on intent and action than end
 Will- is unique human capacity to act
 Will- could be good when the maxim becomes universal law
 Good will- acting in accordance with nature’s law
 All commands of duty derives from universal command
 Gives three versions or formulations of CI
 Is deontological theory (based on the idea that- there are certain objective ethical rules in
the world).
 All people are fundamentally capable of reasoning in the same manner and on the same
level
 Focuses on intent and action than end
Hypothetical Imperatives (HI)

 Tell us which means best achieves our ends. They do not however tell us which ends we
should choose.
 Kant, considered right superior to good (good morally irrelevant)
 Right/moral cannot be decided by empirical means rather by pure practical reason (prior)
 Pure practical reason- what ought to be done? Without reference to empirical factors
 Kant- theory, hinged by his beliefs autonomy and CI
@Autonomy- independent/one’s own beliefs
@Heteronomy- acting under influence
 Each individual is capable and rational to make choice
A. Principle of Universality
 States that, we should choose our “Codes of conduct” only if they were perfect/imperfect
duty and are good for all
 Act….should become universal law
 There are two duties.

24
  Perfect:
 Basic requirement;
 Needs no contradiction Ex. Avoidance of suicide.
 Suicide is end of life,
 self-love…improvement of life.
 Imperfect (not constant, rather temporary):
 Conditional /circumstantial,
 Based on reasons,
 Morally binding but not strong like perfect duty
B. Principle of humanity as end never means
 Humanity as end not means
 People as rational beings are ends in themselves. Ex. Slavery is degrading humanity
 Free will is source of all rational action
 Treating people in dignity , never as instrument
C. Principles of Autonomy
 We should consider ourselves to be members in the universe
 Autonomous will is only subject to laws that it makes for itself
 Hypothetical kingdom of ends –considering oneself as both ends and means
The Problem of CI- is Rigidity. Ex. A crazed axe- murderer

2.2.2.4.4. Sir William David Ross’s (1877 -1971) Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
 Usually 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.
 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.
 The term "duty" in "prima facie duty" is slightly misleading. The prima facie duties are
understood as guidelines, not rules without exception.
 If an action does not correspond to a specific guideline, one is not necessarily violating a
rule that one ought to follow. However, not following the rule one ought to follow in a
particular case is failing to do one's (actual) duty.
 In such cases it makes sense to talk about violating a rule. The rule might be the same in
words as a prima facie duty (minus the phrase "unless other moral considerations

25
 override"), but it would no longer be merely a guideline because it describes what one
concretely should do.
 Ross argues that our duties are part of the fundamental nature of the universe.
However, Ross‘s list the following categories of prima facie duties is much shorter,
which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:
 Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation not to lie.
 Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. It
is the duty to compensate others when we harm them. "Resting on a previous wrongful act".
 Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us.
 Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one distributes
benefits and burdens fairly.
 Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others. The duty to do good to
others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, or happiness.
 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, etc
 Duties of Non-maleficence: The duty of non-injury (also known as non-maleficence) is
the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their health, security,
intelligence, character, or happiness. We are obliged to avoid hurting others physically, emotionally
and psychologically.
2.1.5. Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics: Challenging the adequacy of rule-based theories

 Virtue ethics is a technical term in contemporary Western analytical moral philosophy

 Used to distinguish a normative ethical theory focused on the virtues, or moral character,
from others such as deontology (or contractarianism) and consequentialism.
 A deontologist will emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be acting in accordance
with a moral rule or principle such as - Do unto others as you would be done by;
 a consequentialist will point out that the consequences of helping will maximize well-being;
and
 A virtue ethicist will emphasize the fact that providing help would be charitable or
benevolent - charity and benevolence being virtues.
2.1.5.1. Aristotle’s Ethics

26
  Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.) first wrote a detailed discussion of virtue morality in the
Nichomachean Ethics.
 He understood Virtus’ as strength. Correspondingly, specific virtues are seen as
strengths of character. But, many years after Aristotle‘s death, virtue theory came to be
over-shadowed by the development of utilitarianism and deontology.
 In the past fifty years, however, virtue theory has resurfaced as a major moral theory.
But why is that so?
 Virtue ethics has been restated and reinvigorated in the years since 1958 by philosophers
such as Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre and Elizabeth Anscombe.
 They and many others became disillusioned with the promises of mainstream theories.
They argue that how we ought to live could be much more adequately answered by a
virtue-based theory than in terms of calculating consequences or obeying rules.
 With respect to the good, right, happiness, the good is not a disposition. The
good involves a teleological system that involves actions.
A. Good is that which all things aim. Something is good if it performs its proper function.
E.g., a good coffee cup or a good red oak.
 A right action is that which is conducive to the good, and different goods correspond to the
differing sciences and arts.
 "The god" or best good is that which is desired for its own sake and for the sake which we
desire all other ends or goods. For human beings, eudaemonia is activity of the soul in
accordance with arete (excellence, virtue, or what it's good for). Eudaemonia is living well
and doing well in the affairs of the world.
B. The good of human beings cannot be answered with the exactitude of a mathematical
problem since mathematics starts with general principles and argues to conclusions.
 Ethics starts with actual moral judgments before the formulation of general
principles.
 Aristotle presupposes natural tendencies in people.
C. Aristotle distinguishes between happiness (eudaemonia) and moral virtue:
 Moral virtue is not the end of life for it can go with inactivity, misery, and unhappiness
 Happiness, the end of life, that to which all aims, is activity in accordance with
reason (reason is the arete or peculiar excellence of persons).
 Happiness is an activity involving both moral and intellectual arete.
 Some external goods are necessary in order to exercise that activity.

27
2.2. Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-Ethics
2.2.1. What is Meta-ethics?
 In metaethics, we are concerned not with questions which are the province of normative
ethics like 'Should I give to famine relief?' or 'Should I return the wallet I found in the
street?' but with questions about questions like these. 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, concerned with questions about the following:
a) Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is the function of moral
discourse to state facts, or does it have some other non-fact-stating role?
b) Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are they like? Are they
identical or reducible to some other type of fact (or property) or are they irreducible and
sui generis?
c) Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral knowledge? How can we
know whether our moral judgments are true or false? How can we ever justify our claims
to moral knowledge?
d) Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the experience of an agent
making a moral judgment? Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?
e) Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational state of someone making a
moral judgment? What sort of connection is there between making a moral judgment and
being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes
f) Objectivity: can moral judgments really be correct or incorrect? Can we work towards
finding out the moral truth?
 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.
 The idea that meta-ethics is exclusively about language was no doubt due to the more
general idea that philosophy as a whole has no function other than the study of ordinary
language and that' philosophical problems' only arise from the application of words out
of the contexts in which they are ordinarily used. Fortunately, this 'ordinary language'
conception of philosophy has long since ceased to hold sway, and the list of meta-ethical
concerns – in metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology and moral psychology, as well

28
 as in semantics and the theory of meaning – bears this out. Positions in meta-ethics can
be defined in terms of the answers they give to these sorts of question.
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.

29