Why study Ethics? I think the best reasons are:
1. To recognize moral issues
2. To clarify your own values.
3. To act upon your personal values as per # 1 & 2 above rather than to act upon values you have inherited or have been conditioned to accept.
4. To be able to communicate your decisions and actions.
Some have suggested that Moral Choices are Not Possible.
Nihilism is a school of thought whereby moral truths do not exist because not everyone can agree on the morality of anything – there are no universal truths when it comes to morality (Gorgias also argued that nothing exists, or at least that because we use words and symbols to think about things they cannot exist with certainty, thus knowledge, and moral truths, cannot every be known universally. Others also said similar things – Determinists like Darwin, Newton, Freud – all said similar things, that nature does not care whether something is right or wrong, it just is (e.g. our brains are made of atoms arranged in a particular way so it’s that structure that is our biology which determines our thoughts. This, however, leaves little or no room for “nurture” or “experience” in the nature/nurture debate.
BIG QUESTION: Can People Be Good Without God?
_
What are some possible answers?
Humanists would say that Ethics is so deeply ingrained in human culture that even we all adhere to common values.
Social Peace is always a goal in societies throughout time - and the way societies reach that goal is through the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, rational moral inquiry, etc. and both Religious and Non-Religious people can and do share these values.
For You to Do:
List 3 Reasons to "Do the Right Thing".
Possible answers include:
1. To avoid getting caught and punished. But what if you were invisible, would you still be virtuous?
2. To earn trust and respect from others. But what if no-one knew of you being virtuous?
3. Golden Rule.
These answers to these questions suggest that the outcome - security, peace, justice, etc. - are inherently good things, so this is a somewhat circular argument.
Two schools of thought on Ethics.
Ethical Absolutists - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. They think that everyone, regardless of consequences, circumstances, culture, etc. should observe this moral code.
Ethical Universalitsts - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. But, they believe that it's ok for the code to be broken in certain circumstances, so that the ethical code is universal but not absolute.
Sophie's Choice film clip - What would an Ethical Absolutist say about the choice that Sophie made? What would an Ethical Universalist say?
Absolutists and Universalists are at one end of the Ethical spectrum. AT the other end are Ethical Relativists - reject the idea of a universal moral code. Rather they say that all values are relative to time, place, persons and situations. They believe that all rules about ethics and moral are acceptable because we cannot judge between them - they are subject to time, place, persons and situations..
The underlying point to Ethical Relativism is that morality depends on social customs. E.g. in 13 American states the death penalty is legal, presumably because those societies agree with it, but in the other 37 states it is not legal, presumably, for the same reason. Same with Canada - society as a whole does not think that capital punishment is just (i.e. moral or ethical) therefore in Canada capital punishment is not ethical.
The idea that some moral rules are absolute while others are relative is important in a democracy like Canada. In fact we think it just (moral, ethical) to recognize the cultures of peoples from around the world and are, as a result, a very "relativist" society, while some ethics are absolute.
I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year. This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer. For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago). So for these people that is one universal moral law. Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed. The Golden Rule also came up in discussion. The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.
Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.
I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year. This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer. For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago). So for these people that is one universal moral law. Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed. The Golden Rule also came up in discussion. The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.
Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment