Ethical Studies

LSHM N243/LSH 2343

Instructor: Susan Bainbridge

Where does ethics come from?

Philosophers have several answers to this question: God and religion Human conscience and intuition a rational moral cost-benefit analysis of actions and their effects the example of good human beings a desire for the best for people in each unique situation political power
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

God-based ethics supernaturalism

Supernatualism makes ethics inseparable from religion. It teaches that the only source of moral rules is God. So, something is good because God says it is, and the way to lead a good life is to do what God wants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Intuitionism
Intuitionists think that good and bad are real objective properties that can't be broken down into component parts. Something is good because it's good; its goodness doesn't need justifying or proving.

Intuitionists think that goodness or badness can be detected by adults

they say that human beings have an intuitive moral sense that enables them to detect real moral truths.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Intuitionism contd

They think that basic moral truths of what is good and bad are self-evident to a person who directs their mind towards moral issues. So good things are the things that a sensible person realises are good if they spend some time pondering the subject. Don't get confused. For the intuitionist: moral truths are not discovered by rational argument moral truths are not discovered by having a hunch moral truths are not discovered by having a feeling It's more a sort of moral 'aha' moment - a realisation of the truth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Consequentialism
This is the ethical theory that most non-religious people think they use every day. It bases morality on the consequences of human actions and not on the actions themselves.

Consequentialism teaches that people should do whatever produces the greatest amount of good consequences. One famous way of putting this is 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'.
The most common forms of consequentialism are the various versions of utilitarianism, which favour actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

consequentialism contd

Despite its obvious common-sense appeal, consequentialism turns out to be a complicated theory, and doesn't provide a complete solution to all ethical problems.

Two problems with consequentialism are: it can lead to the conclusion that some quite dreadful acts are good predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very difficult http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/ (good link)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Non-consequentialism or deontological ethics

Non-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the consequences. It's the theory that people are using when they refer to "the principle of the thing". It teaches that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences, and people should act accordingly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Virtue ethics
Virtue Ethics looks at virtue or moral character, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of actions - indeed some philosophers of this school deny that there can be such things as universal ethical rules.

Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the way individuals live their lives, and less concerned in assessing particular actions. It develops the idea of good actions by looking at the way virtuous people express their inner goodness in the things that they do.
To put it very simply, virtue ethics teaches that an action is right if and only if it is an action that a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances, and that a virtuous person is someone who has a particularly good character.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Situation ethics
Situation ethics rejects prescriptive rules and argues that individual ethical decisions should be made according to the unique situation. Rather than following rules the decision maker should follow a desire to seek the best for the people involved. There are no moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Ethics and ideology

Some philosophers teach that ethics is the codification of political ideology, and that the function of ethics is to state, enforce and preserve particular political beliefs. They usually go on to say that ethics is used by the dominant political elite as a tool to control everyone else. More cynical writers suggest that power elites enforce an ethical code on other people that helps them control those people, but do not apply this code to their own behaviour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Are there universal moral rules?

One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging moral rules that apply in all cultures and at all times.

Cultures often have different attitudes towards war.

Moral absolutism
Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone.

This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone. Immoral acts - acts that break these moral rules - are wrong in themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of those acts. Absolutism takes a universal view of humanity - there is one set of rules for everyone - which enables the drafting of universal rules - such as the Declaration of Human Rights.
Religious views of ethics tend to be absolutist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Why people disagree with moral absolutism:

Many people feel that the consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant to whether that act is good or bad Some people think that absolutism doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Moral relativism
Moral relativists say that if you look at different cultures or different periods in history you'll find that they have different moral rules. Therefore it makes sense to say that "good" refers to the things that a particular group of people approve of. Moral relativists think that that's just fine, and dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable 'super-rules' that all cultures ought to obey. They believe that relativism respects the diversity of human societies and responds to the different circumstances surrounding human acts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Why people disagree with moral relativism:

Many people feel that moral rules have more to them than the general agreement of a group of people - that morality is more than a super-charged form of etiquette Many of us think we can be good without conforming to all the rules of society Moral relativism has a problem with arguing against the majority view: if most people in a society agree with particular rules, that's the end of the matter. Many of the improvements in the world have come about because people opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral relativists are forced to regard such people as behaving "badly Any choice of social grouping as the foundation of ethics is bound to be arbitrary Moral relativism doesn't provide any way to deal with moral differences between societies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

Moral somewhere-in-between-ism
Most non-philosophers think that both of the above theories have some good points and think that there are a few absolute ethical rules

but a lot of ethical rules depend on the culture

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml