Handout: An Introduction to ethics

by admin2015

August 7, 2009

Introduction to Ethics

In this handout the key introductory ideas in the study of ethics are discussed, with technical terms introduced as necessary. All technical terms are contained in the Glossary on the website, and the terms are also underlined with a dotted line. Scroll over these and the definition comes up.

What is ethics?

The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethikos meaning character, and concerns “no small matter, but how we ought to live” (Socrates).
In the study of ethics we ask a number of questions:

• What makes an action good or bad?
• What makes a person’s character good or bad?
• What do we mean by saying “stealing is wrong”?

Consider three ways we might answer the first question: what makes an action good or bad? We might answer that it has bad consequences, such as it produces unhappiness or pain. Or we might say “it makes me feel bad”, it affects my conscience. Or we might say “I have a rule: never steal, and you mustn’t ever break it”.

These three ideas: rules, feelings and consequences provide us with a starting point from which we can analyse certain situations and see what we think.

Rules

Consequences Emotions

Fig. 1 Three moral sources

This triad of possibilities spells the word REC, so we can recce the situations below and hopefully remember this basis for judgement.

They also correspond to three major theories we will be looking at:

Kantian ethics is an ethics of rules.
Utilitarian ethics is an ethics of consequences.
Intuitionism is an ethics of emotions.

Exercise: you will be given a number of moral dilemmas on cards. Fill in the sheet which goes with them saying what you would do, and giving a reason.

Two film clips

Film 1: (Cinderella Man scene 2).

Russell Crowe plays Jim Braddock, an American boxer who lived in the 1920s. he hits hard times when he breaks a hand and so cannot fight properly, so finds himself out of work with 15 million other Americans in the period known as the Great Depression (1929-1939). In this clip we see his twelve year old son making a choice, and we see Jim Braddock’s reaction to it.

What is the choice the son makes?
Why do you think he makes it?
What is Jim’s reaction?
Why does Jim react as he does?
Describe Jim’s character

Which of the three possible reasons for judging an action right or wrong mentioned above has Jim followed?

Film 2: Lawrence of Arabia Scene 20, 21 and 28

This is also available on the website as an extract from T.E. Lawrence’s book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. (Click here)

T.E.Lawrence has been sent by the British Government to organise an Arab revolt during the First World War against the Turks in Palestine. He unites previously hostile tribes and leads them in a campaign across the desert towards the city of Akabah. Then one night an Arab called Gasim shoots a member of the other tribe to settle an old blood fued. How can Lawrence prevent a general tit for tat retaliation between the tribes, which could place his whole mission in peril?

What does Lawrence decide to do?
How does this prevent the blood feud?
Which of the three sources of moral decision-making (above) does Lawrence employ?
Was Lawrence right to do what he did?

Is morality absolute or relative?

The two film clips illustrate a basic distinction in ethics between relative and absolute morality. An absolute moral view holds that a rule applies everywhere and can have no exceptions. A relative view holds that rules, customs and beliefs about right and wrong are relative to time and place, and so no rule can possibly apply everywhere. What is right and wrong will depend on the situation.

Suppose for a moment we believe in absolutes like “thou shalt not kill”, and that they apply everywhere and in every situation. This raises an interesting question: where do these absolutes come from? Here are some possible answers.

God says so. We call this Divine Command Theory. It says that rules are good because God says so.
Reason suggests it is a good rule. The philosopher Immanuel Kant (17724-1804) argued that we could derive these general rules (he calls them “maxims”) using reason alone, and they hold good irrespective of circumstances.
The purpose of human beings, and the things most people want to pursue, confirms that we need the rule in order to flourish and be happy. This is a natural law view put forward by Aristotle (384-322BCE) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
My parents brought me up with this rule. This is a more psychological explanation for morality, which Freud argued was the source for our conscience and hence the rules we follow as adults.

On this site you can find a detailed explanation of moral relativism, which distinguishes between cultural relativism, which is a descriptive theory of the variety of moral systems in the world, and normative relativism such as argued by J.L.Mackie which holds that there are no objective truths.

Before we consider further the subjective/objective distinction in ethics, we need to clarify an important distinction between deontological and teleological theories.

Activity: Are you a relativist? Click on the link below and do the survey.

Deontological / teleological theories

The word deon is Greek for duty. So deontological theories are theories of duty. In practice these theories create absolute rules to live by, deriving them from the nature of the act itself or the intention of the person.
Consider stealing as an example. A deontological theorist like Immanuel Kant argues that stealing is wrong absolutely because it is impossible to want a society where everyone steals. So if I universalise my action, and say “what if everyone does what I do and steals”, I would never agree to this, because it means I have to agree that it’s okay to steal from me. And that’s something I would never want. So, says Kant we have a duty not to steal.

The word telos in Greek means end or purpose. So goodness here is linked to the consequences of an action. If my stealing the sausage in our film clip of Cinderella Man increases happiness, it is okay, if it doesn’t, then it’s wrong. One such theory which is teleological is utilitarianism, because it links goodness to the happiness which results. The purpose or end is maximising happiness.

We can set up a number of contrasts between these two approaches (this table is in fact an over-simplification, as we shall discover during the course – but it makes the point that we can examine issues in different ways).

Deontological Teleological

Knowledge A priori A posteriori

Goodness Intrinsic Extrinsic

Truth (nature) Absolute Relative

Truth (source) Objective Subjective (?)

Means/ends Ends don’t justify means Ends justify means

These contrasts are important, because they show a very deep difference in outlook between deontological and teleological theorists. For example, Kant argued that moral knowledge can be grasped a priori meaning prior to experience, whereas Mill, a utilitarian, argues that we know a posteriori, after experience whether an action is right or wrong depending on the likely happiness produced (and we build up an understanding of likely consequences the more we experience life).

Exercise: can you name some goals that you have in life (be specific, don’t just say “to be happy”)?

Write down one duty you think you are obliged to perform to someone.

Subjective or objective?

It sounds a bit strange to describe a value (goodness) as objective, existing out there like my ipod or like a table. This implies we can discover the value (goodness) by observation (like the table) or by reason alone (like the truth 2+2 = 4). One of the objections philosophers like A.J.Ayer made of ethics is that the truth claims of a moral statement don’t seem to fit the claim that a table exists, or that 2+2=4, so must be meaningless.

Yet many philosophers have argued for the objective truth of ethics.

Thomas Aquinas believed that the natural law of ethics mirrored the objective eternal law of God. God had set the universe up in such a way that we could observe what is good.
Kant believed that moral truth existed in the world of ideas, what he calls the noumenal realm, a bit like the truths of mathematics except moral truths could be experienced in action and behaviour. So Kant argues for a priori (literally before experience) moral truth that is objective and holds good for all time and for different ages.

Not everyone would agree. How can there be objective morality, argues J.L.Mackie, when we can’t agree on what these principles which hold good everywhere might be?

Consequentialist philosophers like J.S.Mill (rule utilitarianism) and Jeremy Bentham (act utlitarianism) wanted to find a secure, irrefutable and objective basis for morality. They were deeply suspicious of moral theories which did not do this, especially when it seemed they were arbitrary and subjective (as they felt faith-based moralities were). Judging actions to be right or wrong on the basis of the amount of happiness produced, seemed to allow Bentham and Mill (and other utilitarians) to objectify morality. In other words, they could actually see that doing x would lead to y outcome, rather than be told that this or that might or could happen.

Exercise: can you think of any moral rule or principle which would hold good everywhere, in any age or culture?

The Golden Rule

Some have argued that the Golden Rule is an example of a universal, absolute truth, because (as a descriptive fact) it’s present in all major world religions and quite a number of ethical theories. In Jesus’ words:

“Do to others as you would do have them do to you” (Matthew 7:13)

Here’s a link you can go to to compare this with the other world religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

The golden rule is a form of impartiality principle. It asks us to stand back and be reasonable, to step outside our own subjective world and use our imagination. But it’s worth asking whether all variants of this principle are quite the same. Here are some taken from philosophers.

“So act that your action can be willed as a universal law” Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Others argue for a negative golden rule, like this one expressed by the Chinese philosopher Confucius. For an entertatining discussion of the merits of a negative golden rule by a relativist calling himself “the Happy Iconoclast (= joyous smasher of idols), click here.

“What you do not like when done to yourself do not do to others” Confucius

“Be happy with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself” Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Even the utilitarian John Stuart Mill (1806-73) invoked the golden rule in support of the greatest happiness principle.

Mill argued that it is your love for your neighbour that allows your altruism and self-sacrifice to take place, “in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of ethics of utility” (Mill 1987:218).

Exercise: write your own version of the golden rule.

Do you think the golden rule is a universal, absolute truth about morality?