DAY 77 - Ready to Recap Ethics?

So here is what you've done with Ethics so far....

From Chapter 13   You have studied and taken notes on all of the main schools of thought and philosophers from Ethics (see previous blog entries for details).

Step 1:

Now, your first task is to explain the 11 major schools of thoughts on the question of living a good life.  For each (Buddhism, Confucianism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Thomists, Existentialism, Divine Command Theory, Utilitarianism, Egoism, Intuitionism, Post-modernism) school of thought make an organizer in your notes with the sub-headings below.  If you want to work with a buddy on this, no problem.

• Name the School of Thought
•  Brief History
•  Main proponents (philosophers)
•  Summary of  the School's Response
•  Strengths of the Response (your opinion)
• Weaknesses of the Response (your opinion)

Step 2:  Please complete the chart below: most philosophers address all the questions, some do not.
How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?
Socrates: 
Epicurus: 
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard:
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre:
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill:
Immanuel Kant:
Ayn Rand:


Why Do the Right Thing?
Socrates:
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard:
Friedrich Nietzsche: 
Jean Paul Sartre:
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill:
Immanuel Kant:
Ayn Rand:

Can People Be Good Without Religion?
Socrates:
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard: 
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre: 
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill: 
Immanuel Kant: 
Ayn Rand:

How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?
Socrates: 
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas: 
Søren Kierkegaard: 
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre: 
Jeremy Bentham: 
John Stuart Mill: 
Immanuel Kant: 
Ayn Rand:  

DAY 72 - Ethical Advice Column Assignment

Here's your next assignment - due on Tuesday, May 27.

Ethics Advice Column Assignment
Ethics Advice Column Marking Sheet

Please upload your work to turnitin.com - ALL of the information you need to do that is in the upper right corner of the blog home page.

DAY 71 - Ethical Normative Systems cont'd. CONSEQUENTIALIST Ethics

Consequentialist Ethics

The theory of normative ethics takes the approach that what makes an act good is not the doer (virtue) or the act itself (duty), but the outcome of the act. The right act is one that leads to good outcomes. This is known as consequentialism, as it is concerned only with the consequences of our actions as a guide to determining how we should act. Of course, there are many varieties of consequentialism.

1. Rational Self-Interest

This ethical theory (also called Ethical Egoism), states that one should act in a manner that will benefit oneself:

"Good things are those that are good for me. Of course, I must use my sense of reason to determine what is in my best interest, and I may conclude that what is best in the long run is not what is best in the short run."

For example, it might be an advantage for me to lie to you right now, as it would give me an advantage over you or assist me in avoiding bad outcomes. But in the long run, I should be smart enough to know that eventually the habit of telling lies will catch up with me, and I would lose the trust of those close to me, and my life would be friendless, cold, and empty. Thus, it is not in my best interest to tell lies.

Ayn Rand, smoking a cigarette and considering what is best for her.

One of the chief proponents of rational self-interest was 20th century American Ayn Rand. She wrote several best-selling novels, such as Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, as well as works on philosophy, the most notable being The Virtue of Selfishness. She called her theory of rational self-interest Objectivism (not to be confused with the Objectivism associated with Realism).

Objectivist ethics argues that people are their own ends, their own highest purposes. Thus, doing what is best for you is good, and only each of us can decide for ourselves what this is. Central to Rand's theory is reason, which she views as a necessity to understanding our best interest. Other virtues include justice, honesty, and integrity.

Rand tended towards supporting an economic system of laissez-faire capitalism, in which individuals competed in a virtually uncontrolled marketplace. She saw government regulation as a great evil, and the heroes of Rand's novels were independent-minded rebels who struggled to do what was right in the face of opposition from narrow-mindedness and less talented people. She viewed relations between individuals on the basis of an exchange, or trade, which was in the best interests of each, a sort of reciprocity of mutual self-interest.

Utilitarianism

Utility refers to how useful something is. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions on how useful they are to bringing about good, which is defined by utilitarians in terms of pleasure or happiness. The basic tenet of Utilitarianism is that a system of ethics should bring about "the greatest good for the greatest number". Actions that lead to this are good; actions that take away from the general happiness are bad.

An early founder of utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham, an 18^th century English philosopher. Bentham was a materialist and an empiricist, strongly influenced by Hume (who actually coined the term utilitarian). Bentham did not believe in things that could not be physically proven. He argued that human nature had made pleasure and pain our standard by which to measure good and bad: pleasure is good and pain is bad. Right actions are those that increase pleasure and wrong actions are those that create pain. This does not mean that my happiness alone determines what is right and wrong, but that I must consider the general happiness, as my interests are bound inextricably with everyone else's. Thus, the test of right and wrong actions is whether they promote everyone's happiness, not just mine.

Bentham developed what is called the Hedonic Calculus. This rated all actions by how "happy-making" they were. To calculate the rightness or wrongness of a particular action, you need only do the math, weighing out the pleasure and pain it would create according to criteria such as how intense the pleasure or pain would be, how long it would last, and how many other people would be affected by it. This system is known as Act Utilitarianism, since it looks at the effects of each action taken on its own.

For an example of the Hedonic Calculus in action, click here:

A major flaw with Bentham's simple cost/benefit approach is that it takes a quantitative, mathematical view of morality: a small number of people suffering is acceptable if many people are made happy. It can become a moral "tyranny of the majority". For example, it would be morally right under Bentham's system to have a small number of people living in terrible conditions, working to produce cheap clothing that would bring a reasonable amount of pleasure to many people. According to the Hedonic Calculus, this would be okay. Torture, slavery, and injustice of all varieties could be viewed as morally acceptable, so long as the numbers crunched correctly.

John Stuart Mill, Bentham's godson, created a more refined version of the theory, described in his 1863 book, Utilitarianism. Called Rule Utilitarianism, it corrected two major flaws with Bentham's simple Hedonic Calculus approach. Firstly, it did not look at acts in isolation, but considered general rules of moral behaviour. For example, Mill's system is not concerned with a question like "is stealing the car wrong?", but with more general principles such as "is stealing wrong?" If it can be shown that stealing, in general, tends to decrease the general level of happiness, then stealing is wrong in general and in particular. Once proven, the rules are binding.

Secondly, Bentham's system did not distinguish between different varieties of pleasures. He was noted for saying that "pushpin is as good as opera". (Pushpin is a simple child's game.) Bentham implied that there were no differences between the qualities of different experiences. But is this accurate? For example, my grief over the death of a pet fish may be extreme, but is it in the same league as your grief over the death of a parent? Similarly, a long, dull pleasure could be viewed as more desirable than a brief intense pleasure. Mill disagreed that all pleasures are equal: there are 'simpler pleasures' and 'higher pleasures'. Simple pleasures tended to be sensual, while higher tended to be mental, requiring a greater education and refinement to appreciate. As Mill argued:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

Jeremy Bentham, Practical Ethics, edited by Peter Singer. Cambridge University Press (1993), p. 108.

According to Mill, pushpin is not as good as opera and human pleasures are superior to porcine.

Utilitiarian views are widespread and common today. While most modern utilitarians have moved away from using pleasure alone as a standard to measure right and wrong acts, the idea of minimizing harm and maximizing benefit as a guiding principle is strong.

Utilitarianism's great strengths are its flexibility, its decision-making process, and its focus on outcomes. Its great criticism is that just because something makes many people happy, it isn't necessarily right.

Existentialist Ethics

Existentialism argues that there is no objective meaning in the world, that the world is essentially void of meaning, and that we must create the meaning of all things, subjectively, as we live. Existentialists are thus faced with moral nihilism: if I alone decide the value of my actions, how is an existential morality possible, as it would have no reference to other humans?

Jean-Paul Sartre, the leading figure of the existential movement, argued that an existential morality is possible, based on the notion of radical freedom. This is the idea that each of us is responsible for all our actions, a responsibility we cannot avoid. To avoid this responsibility is called "bad faith", pretending that we are not responsible for our decisions. For example, to argue, "I had to do something because it was expected of me. I was forced into it" is bad faith because the decision to act was made and responsibility must be taken for the actions.

Jean Paul Sartre,
taking responsibility
for his own actions.

How then do I decide what to do? I make it up. Sartre uses the example of a young man, a former student of his, in occupied France during the Second World War. His older brother was killed by the German invasion; he was all his mother had left. He wanted to avenge his brother, to leave France and join the Free French forces in England, but he knows it would break his mother's heart if he did. What should he do? How should he decide? Sartre advised him to follow his instincts and do what his heart told him. However, one must be careful to follow your authentic instincts and avoid choices based on what you think others might want you to do. If you are true to yourself, you are acting rightly.

This idea is similar to the idea of Intuitionism, with the difference that existentialism is based on the individual, not on all people. Actions that are right for you may not be right for me, and my moral compass may point in different directions than yours.

DAY 71 - Ethical Normative Systems, VIRTUE Ethics, DUTY Ethics

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule assumes that people, by nature, don't like dishonesty, being robbed, or having their life imperiled, which is a pretty safe assumption. It is based on the ideas of empathy and of self-interest, and it encourages people to examine the consequences and implications of their actions. You can extend this simple idea to cover a wide range of situations.

Ethical normative systems can be based on simple principles, such as the Golden Rule. However, life can be more complex and situations not as straightforward as the three examples above. Normative systems provide more depth and a wider range of principles than a single simple statement.

As in most things philosophical, there is more than one answer to the question: What should I do?

Ethical normative systems can be divided into three broad categories: virtue ethics, duty ethics, and consequential ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Virtues are desirable qualities that a person should possess such as honesty, courage, kindness, and loyalty. Ethical systems based on virtue emphasize the moral character of the individual arguing that a person who possesses virtues will act virtuously, that is, goodly. People need to work at developing habits of good behaviour, meaning training their moral sense much as an athlete would train for a sport. Education and 'practical wisdom' are key in virtue ethics.

1. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics in the western tradition traces its roots to Aristotle. His ideas about virtue were based in the notion that all things have a proper function; the proper function of humans is their faculty of reason. If you perform your proper function well, you will find satisfaction and happiness, called eudaemonia. There is no notion of an 'afterlife' in which you are rewarded for your good deeds; the reward comes from the satisfaction you will get from fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed.

Doing the right thing would be acting in accordance with good habits, virtues, which you have acquired by applying your sense of reason to practical moral situations. There are no 'guidelines' for moral action that tell you what to do for a particular situation: a virtuous person will automatically choose the right action. It is almost the same as having a trained 'moral reflex'.

But how do you acquire these habitual virtues? In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle set out a system known as the Golden Mean. He analyzed 11 human vices, arranging them in pairs, such as cowardice and foolhardiness, and stinginess and extravagance. The vices consist of extremes consisting of too much or too little of the desirable action. For example, when a charitable group asks for your help, it is not good to be stingy and refuse to help them; on the other hand, it is not good to give away all that you have. What you should do is act according to the situation, that is, do what is appropriate for the situation. The Golden Mean is a sort of 'steer between the ditches' approach to morality, meaning the vices lie on either side of your path and you must find the best course. The 'middle path' between cowardice and foolhardiness is courage; between stinginess and extravagance, generosity.

But how much generosity is appropriate? The virtuous person will know what to do based on study, reason, and the practical wisdom that comes from experience. There is no guidebook or internet site which you can consult to tell you what to do in every situation (duty theory). There is no calculation of pros and cons (consequentialism). Virtuous people will know what is best because they are virtuous.

Incidentally, according to Aristotle, women cannot be virtuous because they lack the ability to reason. (The Ancient Greeks tended towards misogyny.) Modern virtue ethicists have built on Aristotle's ideas, and most would argue that women are capable of higher thinking functions.

2. Thomistic Ethics

St. Thomas Aquinas was an influential, though controversial, Christian scholar of the 13^th century. His great work was the Summa Theologica, addressed many of the great questions about Christianity, such as the existence of God and the nature of truth.

Aquinas based his ethical system on Aristotle's concepts of human rationality, purpose, and eudaemonia. However, some of Aristotle's ideas contradicted Christian beliefs. Aquinas integrated Christian ideas into an Aristotelian scheme. Aquinas argued that the ultimate purpose of humans is to return to God: all good actions tend towards this goal. Humans use their faculties of reason to determine what are proper behaviours, using an innate sense of goodness provided them by the Supreme Being. To come closer to God, people should cultivate virtuous behaviours, particularly the Four Cardinal Virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and courage. These are not the only virtues one should cultivate, but they are the most critical, for other virtues rely on them. If one develops virtuous habits, one will take the right action and be a good person, fulfilling the purpose for which one was designed-to get back to God. Of course, if one doesn't act in accordance with these virtues... well, bad things will happen.

3. Buddhism

The eight-spoked Dharmachakra.
The eight spokes represent
the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.

This is an example of a non-Western virtue ethics system. This philosophical tradition developed in India in the 6th century BCE. One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is 'The Four Noble Truths' based on the idea that life is a cycle of suffering. How does one break the cycle? Buddhists follow theNoble Eightfold Path, a statement of virtues related to proper conduct. As with Aristotle's ethics, education and wisdom are required to know the right action to take. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is somewhat more explicit in telling you what to do and what not to do. The end result of following the Noble Eightfold Path is Nirvana; the state of release from the suffering of this world.

4. Confucianism

Confucianism developed in China about the same time as Buddhism in India several centuries before Aristotle. Confucianism has no afterlife or other-worldly dimension. Confucianism is a humanistic philosophy, and its ethical system revolves about relationships between people in society.

The goal of Confucian ethics is to promote harmony in society. Everyone has a place and a proper way of behaving towards others, based on the relationships between individuals: parent to child, ruler to subject, husband to wife. Each of these individuals has a role, with obligations towards the others. If all people perform their roles properly, then social harmony will result, which is good. If, on the other hand, people decide to act outside their proper roles, social chaos will result, which is not good. The individual is less important than the community, and acting selfishly, acting to increase your own happiness without considering the wider social ramifications, will lead to bad results for the community. The highest good is social harmony, and a virtuous person will always act to promote it: recall that Confucianism uses the Golden Rule as a basis of its morality.

How does one know how to behave properly? Study of ancient wisdom based on the teachings of sages will allow one to cultivate virtues to guide proper behaviour. This will take time. A good person will need to acquire three important virtues:

• Jen: humanity, kindness, goodness
• Li: propriety, respect for others, acknowledging proper social relations
• Yi: right action, duty, to do what is fitting

A person who cultivates their moral senses properly will be able to determine the right action to take. Confucianism is often seen as advocating a rigid social system intolerant of change or unconventional thinking, but Confucianism allows for someone who is virtuous to challenge the existing social order, particularly in the realm of politics, as moral thinking may be superior to what is currently in place. However, the key good of Confucianism is social harmony, and all actions have to be seen in this context.

Duty Ethics

The requirement that one should follow a specified set of rules is known as duty ethics, or deontology. Deontological systems are based on a set of principles that one applies to each situation. The nature of right and wrong comes from outside the individual. This contrasts with virtue ethics, which is based on a sense of what is right and wrong. In addition, duty is something one is obliged to do: it is your "should do". Not doing your duty means committing wrong acts. As well, the outcome of the action is irrelevant, and duty ethics focuses on the spirit in which the action is done-right intention. This is where duty ethics differs from consequentialism.

1. Theistic Normative Ethics

Theistic Normative Ethics developed from the Divine Command theories of meta-ethics, where the source of right and wrong is the Divine. They are based on the notion of an objective source of right and wrong, in this case, a Supreme Being, who indicates what humans should and should not do. All actions are judged in accordance of how closely they match God's will.

These systems provide simple criteria for determining right and wrong, such as in the Ten Commandments, which were discussed in activity 2. The same difficulties arise:

• there may be variant interpretations of what the Divine Creator wishes humans to do, and
• the guidelines are of little interest to non-believers.

2. Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant's system of ethics is usually known as the Categorical Imperative. It is based on the notion that there are rules of right and wrong that can be found, and that right behaviour requires that a person always follow these rules. The rules set out situations, courses of action, and reasons for these courses of action. For example: 

"When faced with the situation of telling the truth or telling a lite, always tell the truth because it will lead to greater trust and honesty in the world, which is a desirable outcome.

How does one arrive at the rules? Through reason, one can develop a set of rules, maxims, to guide behaviour. These maxims need to take into account possible situations, courses of action available, and the outcome that is desirable. Based on reason, these maxims will be universal to all persons who think about problems hard enough, and, in fact, will be self-evident. As the maxims are arrived at through reason, they cannot be wrong and are not open to interpretation. They are categorical. A rational basis also makes them a duty that you are bound to carry out imperative. Thus, we arrive at the categorical imperative, a set of rules that are binding on everyone, always.

This is usually summarized in the statement:

"Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law."

This means that if you feel it is wrong to lie, then you believe it is wrong for everyone to lie, no exceptions. You know this because you arrived at your maxim through vigorous reasoning, so it can't be wrong. If you allowed exceptions to your rule, such as "It is okay to lie when no one will be hurt by my lies", you open the possibility that anyone could lie whenever they judged the lie to be harmless. The potential result of this could lead to a lot of lying. Moral chaos and disorder would result if each person decided for themselves when lying was okay and when it was not okay. As well, if you decided it was okay for you to lie, then it would be okay for anyone else to lie. Again, moral chaos would result.

What is important in determining the rightness or wrongness of actions is their intention, the spirit in which they are done. A good act is one that is done for the right reasons-duty. There should be no consideration of a 'good outcome', and one's personal benefit or harm (or that of others) is irrelevant: regardless of what will happen, you must do what you must do.

The purpose of following these categorical imperatives is to promote the highest good for humanity, which will lead to great happiness for all. This is associated with Kant's ideas about the afterlife and the Divine, which he considered necessary as metaphysical guarantors of reality. The categorical imperative can also be expressed in this way, which takes into account the notion of the Highest Good:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always as an end and never as a means."

This sounds similar to the Golden Rule. It requires you to think about others, and not just your own interest. It requires that you take an objective view of yourself and arrive at decisions about morality impartially.

DAY 70 - Ethical Subjectivism - Emotivism, Relativism

Ethical Subjectivism

This is the view that holds that there are no moral facts, although there can be moral values. But if there are no such things as moral facts, where do our ideas about morality come from? Clearly, they must come from somewhere.

1. Emotivism

David Hume, looking smug.

The origin of this theory is often associated with 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume reacted against rationalism, the belief that all human actions are directed by our reason. In this view, all that we do is thought out, at least to some extent. He also argued against the kind of "self-interest" that Hobbes proposed, pointing out that people often do things contrary to their own interest. Hume argued that moral judgments are not the product of reason, but of "sentiment" (passion). The actions one takes are then merely expressions of emotion, rather than reason. If this emotion has rational elements, well and good, but it is still essentially emotional. Right and wrong, then, are just feelings. Morality is like love, it is deeply felt, but it is not meaningful to examine these feelings in any great detail.

Hume's ideas about ethics gained popularity in the 20^th century. One of emotivism's strongest advocates was AJ Ayer. He was part of a movement known as Logical Positivism, which attempted to evaluate all philosophical statements in terms of their "verfiability". If a statement could not be proven empirically (or observed) as true (e.g.--"It is raining") or was true by definition (e.g.-2+2=4), then it was considered nonsense, at least in a logical, philosophical way. Since many arguments in philosophy are difficult to prove, the Logical Positivists threw out much of philosophy. This included ethics, as it is difficult to prove what is good using mathematical equations. Ayer argued that moral statements express only approval or disapproval, and a statement such as "charity is good" had no more meaning than "hooray for charity!"

Logical Positivists differed from the Intuitionists, who argued that good exists, though it cannot be defined; "charity is good" is true, but you can't explain why it is true. For a Logical Positivist, if you couldn't explain something, it was simply nonsense. This theory has the advantage of being very "logical" and scientific, but the flaw of not being able to explain why people do feel that "charity is good" and that it means more to them than "hooray!"

2. Relativism

According to relativists, moral values do exist and are meaningful, but values are not universal and eternal and change from person to person and place to place and time to time. Ethical judgments about right and wrong, in this view, are matters of custom and habit, and not natural truths. They reflect and shape the values of the people who hold them. Thus, it is quite possible that something considered wrong in one place (or by one person), could be considered right in another place (or by another person). This works well at explaining how things once considered right (such as slavery) are now considered wrong. Relativism accepts that in a moral dilemma there will be more than one "right" answer and that there can be more than one morality.

Relativism can be individual or cultural. Individual relativism is the position that each person must create their own moral rules, based on their own, personal criteria. Friederich Nietzsche, for instance, argued that a truly free person must create his/her own moral rules. A truly free person would not be bound by rules set by others, but would be able to rise above the common morality and create their own rules, based on their own truths. The problem with individual relativism is that it might be hard for individuals to agree on any moral common ground. For example, if one person argued "In my opinion, lying is wrong", and listed many reasons, another person might agree with the reasons and still disagree with the opinion. According to individual relativism, they'd both be right. Whose right would be right?

Cultural relativism is similar, but argues that for each social or cultural group certain acts are right, but only for that group and only for reasons related to that group. The actions of the individual are judged by the set of moral values of the group. For example, in a society that approves of polygamy and slavery, I would be morally wrong if I opposed slavery or polygamy. In a different society, one that disapproved of polygamy and slavery, I would be right when I opposed those practices. The values of the individual are judged in context of the society, and each society will have its own rules. Since they are different societies, the moral values of each do not conflict-this is the true "When in Rome" approach to ethics.

The great strength of relativism is its tolerance for other cultures, other ways of doing things. Relativism accepts differences. It is broad-minded, understanding that there can be several approaches to moral dilemmas. And, in many cases, most human societies do agree on right and wrong.

However, the great weakness of relativism is that it denies that there can be a single set of moral values by which all actions should be judged, regardless of where they take place. Are right and wrong relative to time and place? For example, take these issues:

1. Is torture wrong? In Canada, yes, in Syria, no.
2. Is capital punishment wrong? In Canada, yes, in the United States, no.

Can we really stand in judgement of other culture's practices and say "they are wrong"? The relativist would argue no. But this can have some disturbing implications. For example, consider the case of an act considered in Canada so morally reprehensible that its commission warranted a lengthy jail term. If a Canadian were to travel to a country with a different moral (and legal) code, which permitted this act, would this act no longer be morally reprehensible? Should the Canadian be held accountable for it? A relativist might argue that "When in Rome...". However, in regards to international child sex tourism, the Canadian government has taken a different view.

In this case, it might of course be argued that, to paraphrase the old saying, "You can take the Canadian out of Canada, but you can't take the Canada out of the Canadian."

DAY 69 Origins of Ethics - Divine Command, Moral Naturalism, Ethical Intuitionism

When in Rome do as the Romans! The above saying is a common bit of wisdom that applies well to travelling. You need to adapt to the local customs, such as when to eat or what to eat, how to catch a bus, how to greet people, or how to act respectfully towards other religions. That is one of the pleasures of travel: experiencing the differences between 'heres' and 'theres'. You don't want to be offending the locals-after all, it's their country. "Doing as the Romans do" is good advice for getting along in a strange land. It's a tolerance thing. But what about when these differences extend to our moral values? Are moral values-human rights, for instance-fundamental and basic to all societies, or do they apply only case by case? For example, if you traveled to a country where slavery was acceptable, would you accept slavery as a quaint local custom and agree that while slavery is not right in Canada, it may be right in the society it is practiced in? Is slavery wrong everywhere, or is it just wrong in places like Canada? How far should the idea of tolerance for other cultural practices extend?

Is there such a thing as a "moral fact"?

We all have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. But where does this sense come from? Are our values based on objective "facts"--moral truths--or are they based on subjective opinions?

1. Moral Realists or Ethical Objectivists

Some philosophers argue that a moral fact is something that is objectively true. That is, it is not a matter of opinion but something that is true, always, everywhere, and for everyone. For example, the statement "torturing animals is wrong" would be true for everyone at all times, not just in certain places or at certain times. In terms of logic, such a statement would be equivalent to the statement "I live on Mulberry Street". Both statements are either true or false. A moral fact exists independently of humans, is part of the nature of the universe, and it is there for us to discover. Actions are thus right or wrong, always and everywhere. Philosophers who hold this view are called moral realists or ethical objectivists.

2. Anti-realism or Subjectivism

Not surprisingly, many philosophers hold a contrary view. They argue that there are moral values, but no moral facts. Moral values exist and should guide your behaviour, but these moral values are subjective and will vary. They may vary for each person-you have your morals and I have mine-or they may vary by cultures-we have these values and your culture has yours. This view holds that actions can be right or wrong, but not always or everywhere, necessarily. This view is known as anti-realism or subjectivism.

3. Skepticism or Nihilism

Some philosophers argue that morality does not exist because people have no free will. Without free will-the ability to make choices-you cannot be held responsible for what you do. You are like a robot, or a computer, carrying out pre-programmed instructions without any real control over what you might do next. This programming can be the result of your genetic inheritance ("nature"), your upbringing ("nurture"), or the will of a Supreme Being who guides and controls all human actions. If humans are not free, morality is not possible. Philosophers who hold this view are called determinists.

Still other philosophers argue that any discussion of moral values is meaningless, and that moral values are merely opinions and that to hold the view that moral values are more than opinions is to make an error. In this view, there can be moral values, but they are personal and of no real interest: you believe what you want to believe. This view is known as skepticism or nihilism.

Moral Realism

If moral facts are real, where do they come from? Moral realism can be divided into several approaches:

1. Divine Command Theory

This theory argues that all matters of right and wrong have been decided by a supranatural Supreme Being. This Being created the universe and set out the moral rules. Just as there are certain physical laws-for example, the speed of light, gravity, the boiling point of water-there are ethical laws and they were Divinely created. For humans, then, moral values are those given by the Creator, who has decided what is right and what is wrong. Our should-ing consists of following the rules laid out by the Supreme Being, which have been revealed to us in sources like the Bible or the Koran. Doing right consists of "Doing what you've been told".

This theory has the great advantage of simplicity, but there are several difficulties with it:

1. Clearly, it requires belief in a Supreme Being. Atheists have trouble with it at this point.
2. There are many versions of commandments from the Supreme Being and not all of them agree. This leads to the question "Whose version of Divine Truth is the one we should follow?" For instance, the Bible and the Koran disagree on certain major points. In fact, even within religious traditions not everyone agrees on what the Revealed Truth tells us to do.
3. There is the "Euthyphro Problem", perhaps the most challenging for this theory.

Read some of it here - The Euthyphro Problem.

2. Moral Naturalism

St. Thomas Aquinas

This theory can appeal both to those who believe in a Supreme Being and to those who do not. It relies on "human nature" and what is "natural" for humans as a guide to what is right and wrong. Basic to this belief is that certain actions have the quality of "rightness" or "goodness", just as objects might have the quality of "yellowness" or "squareness". The moral quality of an action is thus innate in the action itself. Right and wrong are discoverable-- "the truth is out there". A religious moral naturalist might look at how humans were created by a Supreme Being and find moral guidance there. For example, if a good Supreme Being created humans, we can assume that humans would be basically good and would be drawn to do good things: it is in our nature to do so. Thus, we will be able to know moral facts, as created by the Supreme Being, because it is part of our nature. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a good God created the universe, that our purpose is thus good, and that our faculty of reason-given us by God-gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Of course, this could be viewed as a variant of the Divine Command Theory. However, it is more subtle-the commandments are not so explicit and the more complex of them require considerable human thought and interpretation of the Divine Order.

Thomas Hobbes, looking not particularly evil.

A non-religious naturalist might look to human psychology to find out what is naturally right and wrong. The 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that humans are basically egoistic and evil. In a "state of nature" there would be "a war of every man against every man", as each would try to dominate the others, killing and stealing. This would be a perilous situation for everyone, and it would be in everyone's best self-interest to try and control the mayhem. So, using their faculty of reason, people would recognize certain truths which are in their best self-interest. Thus keeping the peace (and the moral laws that work to keep the peace-for example "killing other humans is wrong") will be seen by all as a "law of nature". It will be "natural" that we would all agree that such moral rules work to benefit us all, and these would be the "obvious" steps necessary for survival. Thus the moral rules necessary to our survival are recognizable by all humans.

Joseph Butler, contemplating human goodness.

Joseph Butler, an 18th century English critic of Hobbes, argued that humans were basically altruistic and benevolent. While we do have egoistic qualities and motivations, we also have an innate desire to do good and to help each other. An altruistic naturalist would argue that humans, by nature, are generally good, would naturally be drawn to that which is right and good, and be repelled by that which is wrong and bad. Our moral values, then are based on our innate goodness, inherent in our human nature.

Some naturalists look to the non-human world to see how it operates and try to discover if it operates on any "moral" basis. In common parlance there is the phrase "law of the jungle", that describes a natural world where all animals are struggling with each other. But is this an accurate description of the natural world? Is nature a struggle for survival with self-interest the only rule?

Many observations contradict this view. For example, in some species of monkey, individual monkeys will sacrifice their own lives to warn others about predators, when keeping quiet would be more in their self-interest. Are these monkeys altruistic? Do all animals have a sense of "right" and "wrong" behaviour? Is the non-human world ruled by moral codes? Can humans learn anything from animals about how to behave? If this is the case, studying animals might help us understand our own moral systems.

Socio-biologists argue that "natural selection" has shaped not just human physical evolution, but moral evolution as well. In the same way that physical traits that promote survival will be passed down to descendants, so will moral traits. For instance, if the trait of altruism is a useful tool for an individual (or species) survival, then altruistic individuals will survive. Their descendants will thus be altruistic "by nature", due to the "weeding out" process of natural selection. Thus, the moral values we recognize as good are based on the natural process of heredity and those who do right will be more likely to survive than those who do wrong.

In all the types of naturalism cited above, the basic premise is that moral facts exist and can be discovered by humans, either through observation or through reason.

3. Ethical Intuitionism

This variety of moral objectivism argues that there are moral facts, but that we can't "know" them through reason. We feel them, intuitively, using a "moral sense" or a "moral compass". In short, we just know what is right and what is wrong. It's our human nature.

GE Moore, a 20^th century British philosopher, argued against naturalism. He claimed that it confused the definition of moral qualities, such as good, with the quality itself. For instance, whenever anyone tries to define "good" in terms of one quality (for instance, truthfulness), the question can always be asked, "But is that good?" ("Is telling the truth the same as goodness?"). The answer is always no, since the concept of "good" is much more than any one thing. Moore argued that good can never be defined, as more and more things are added to the definition, and none of those things correctly and fully defines good: this is called the Open Question Argument. "Good" thus resists definition, even though people can recognize it.

Good, according to Moore, is non-natural, and cannot be known rationally or empirically: you just know it. You recognize goodness and badness and have a series of "hunches" about what you should do. Moral is thus following your instinct, your "inner GPS" of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, this argument has the major problem that, while Moore argued there were objective moral facts that could be felt intuitively, why do different people (and cultures) have different intuitions about right and wrong? If Moore was right, shouldn't all people see things the same way? They don't. However, his theory has many advantages, including that it works: in the end, many people "just know" what is right and wrong and how they should act and this knowledge of right and wrong is difficult to pick apart and analyze. It just is.

DAY 68 Ethics Cont'd

Some Ethical Terms

1. Right and Wrong

You can make a right turn and go the wrong way and still have done nothing right or wrong, in an ethical sense. In ethics, right is defined as the act that you should do, according to the rules of normative ethics. Wrong, then, is the act you should not do, the opposite of right.

2. Good and Bad

A good act is one that should be done and a bad act is one that should not be done. But how is this different from right and wrong? This is a confusing question and some philosophers argue there is no difference between these sets of terms. On the other hand, some would argue that right actions will bring about good, while wrong actions will not. The good is thus an end and right is a means to it: the right thing to do is the act that brings about the good. It is the same as what you want and how you get it.

However, sometimes acts usually considered wrong can be considered good. For example, killing is wrong, and in normal society it is severely punished. But when Canada fielded large armies in both World Wars, Canadian soldiers killed enemy troops and civilians. Some of them did it so efficiently they received high praise, medals, and were honoured by having streets and schools named after them. Clearly then, killing is wrong only some of the time, and can be deemed to be not wrong in some contexts.

Can a wrong act bring about a good result? Likewise, can a right action bring about bad results? Or do acts need to be taken in isolation, rather than in terms of their outcomes?

3. Moral, Immoral, and Amoral

These terms describe people or actions. A moral person acts according to the ethical norms of society, behaving in the way that one should behave. A moral act is one that is in accordance with these norms. For example, a person who is scrupulously honest is considered moral; the act of being honest is a moral act. Immoral means the opposite.

Amoral, on the other hand, concerns acts or people not covered by moral norms. For example, stealing candy from a baby would be considered immoral, while stealing candy from a squirrel would not be. In fact, the act of taking candy from a squirrel would not even be considered stealing in the normal sense of the term. What is the difference? Babies are within the "moral community" and people owe them moral obligations, whereas squirrels are not owed obligations. Acts towards them are considered neither moral nor immoral.

Of course, some philosophers would argue that we do have moral obligations to squirrels...

4. Duties and Obligations and the Moral Community

The 'moral community' is defined as the group to which you owe duties and obligations, which are the "shoulds" of ethical behaviour. For example, most people would agree that the moral community includes other humans, and that we have an obligation to act morally towards them, not to lie or steal from them.

But consider animals: some would argue that animals should be members of the human 'moral community' and are owed obligations. This is especially the case with pet animals. For example, do you have moral obligations to your pet dog? Would it be immoral to tell your dog a lie or to steal from her in the same way it would be immoral to do the same to your brother? If you feel that lying to your dog is immoral, then perhaps you are including your dog in the group to whom you owe moral obligations.

On the other hand, some ethical normative systems exclude humans who do not belong to the group that follows the system, thus putting these humans outside the moral community. An example would be societies practicing slavery. In this case, human slaves are regarded as being outside the moral community. Some religious ethical systems set out different moral obligations owed to believers and non-believers.

5. Egoism and Altruism

Egoism is acting to benefit one's self. It is also known as 'self-interest' or 'selfishness'. An egoist always looks out for him or herself. The opposite of this is altruism, or 'selflessness'. Altruistic behaviour takes into account the needs of others and an altruist might sacrifice him or herself to help others. An example of this is someone jumping into an ice-choked river to save a child who is drowning. Some philosophers argue that people are by nature egoistic, even if they appear to be acting altruistically. In this example, it could be argued that the rescuer was behaving egoistically, and their motive was an expectation that they would receive praise for their heroism, or, if not that, a knowledge that if they didn't attempt the rescue they would feel guilty and awful forever. On the other hand, maybe they were acting altruistically. Some philosophers argue that altruism is a defining characteristic of being human and that helping others is the right thing to do, by nature.

6. Right, Legal, and Just

Codes of law and codes of ethics both aim to provide guidance for one's behaviour. However, law is the attempt to codify and enforce moral behaviour, and often includes exceptions to the rule. The law will be concerned if you physically harm your little brother without good cause, but not if you scare the day lights out of him with that story about the monster under his bed. Morally, both acts are wrong. Lying is a central concern of Ethics, but usually not of law.

In addition, law is a tool for social policy. As such, laws change over time in response to changing social norms. For example, in Canada, women were not considered legal 'persons' in the full sense until 1929. In Ontario, slavery was legal until 1833 with the passing of the 1833 British Imperial Act. In 1968 the federal government of Canada decriminalized homosexual behaviour between adults. Thus it can be seen that laws change, but when a law changes does it mean that something once immoral is now moral?

Just laws are those that are fair to everyone. Unjust laws by comparison are those that are not fair or right, in the ethical sense. If slavery is legal, does that make it right? The Holocaust was legal, but did that make it right? Many would argue that we have the right—even the obligation—of fighting unjust laws.

One of America's best known 19th century writers, Henry David Thoreau, argued there were times when people needed to resist the law and choose a course of civil disobedience. Thus it was morally right to disobey the government under certain circumstances.

DAY 67 - Ashley Article

Step 1
Please take 5 minutes to respond to this question:
How do we determine the rightness or wrongness of an action?


Step 2
Please choose ONE option from each category for your future unborn child and write an explanation about why you chose that option.  Two minutes for each choice, total of five minutes!

Physical Features
Make my child beautiful
Make my child athletic
Make my child tall
        
Health
Remove all genes for inherited diseases
Add a gene strengthening my child's immune system
        
Intelligence
Make my child shrewd in business
Make my child a musical prodigy
Make my child an artistic genius
        
Emotions 
Remove the gene for feeling emotional pain
Remove the genes for lying, cheating, and stealing
Add a gene for honesty
    
Social Skills  
Make my child the life of the party
Make my child compassionate
Make my child confident


Step 3
Please read the Ashley Article handout.  

And check out the family's suggestion for the ethical treatment of patients in Ashley's condition Ashley Treatment Summary.

Please answer these Ashley Article Questions fully in your notebook:

1.  Who is the moral agent who exhibited the virtues or extremes of behaviour?

2.  Describe the moral agent's behaviour.

3.  Do you think the moral agent's actions were morally right or morally wrong?  Why?

4.  Draw a continuum similar to the one show in Fig 12.2 on p. 245 of your text.  Label it with a virtue exhibited (or not exhibited) by the moral agent and add the extremes at either end.  Locate the moral agent on the continuum .  Please comment on what you've drawn.

5.  Were the actions of the moral agent good?  Were they right?  Explain the difference.

6.  Please comment, using quotes, on what two different philosophers might say about the situation in which Ashley and her family find themselves.  Pick one philosopher who would agree with the hospital's actions when they operated on Ashley and one philosopher who would oppose that action.  Add your own commentary about why you agree with one of those philosophers and why you disagree with the other and explain fully why you take that position.

We'll take these up tomorrow.

DAY 64 - Expanding your Ethics Thinking

What you will aim to do is get people to identify the main ethical idea, perhaps a theory, and perhaps even a philosopher (other than the one who made the statement) who would agree or disagree with the statement and we'll see where the discussions go.  I'm really hoping that QUESTIONS arise from our discussions.

1. (Albert Einstein)  Relativity applies to physics, not ethics. 

2. (Salman Rushdie)  I hate admitting that my enemies have a point.. 

3. (Thomas Edison) Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. 

4. (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn't the will to do what is right. 

5. (Elvin Stackman) Science cannot stop while ethics catches up.     


6. (Potter Stewart) Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. 

7. (George Bernard Shaw) Liberty means responsibility. That is why most people dread it.  

8. (H.A. Pritchard) Right action is that which is morally suitable to the situation in which an individual finds herself.

9. (Plato)  Is something holy beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods?  

10. (Jeremy Bentham) Nature has placed people under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.

JACK. (Aristotle) Intellectual virtue owes its strength to teaching, while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit. 

QUEEN. (Isaac Asimov)  Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right.

KING. (Elie Wiesel)  If one is indifferent, one dies before one actually dies.  


Step 2: Next we'll go through some Ethics Vocabulary.

Please respond in 5 minutes to this question:

Can People Be Good Without Religious Involvement?  Who determines this?




Step 4: Read pp. 248 - 259 in the text and take notes on the main ideas, the philosophers and their theories.  You should consider the questions you come across in the text too.  These need to be completed before tomorrow's class.