Shaikh Muhammad Ali

Introduction to Philosophy and Critical thinking

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS AND THEORIES OF ETHICS IN PHILOSOPHY

Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and
bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral
values or principles.

How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of
beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what
of the more particular questions that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we
justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? Is going to war
justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone a
human being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if any,
to the generations of humans who will come after us and to the nonhuman animals with whom
we share the planet?

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of
practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the
standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.

The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to ethical judgments
or to ethical principles where it once would have been more accurate to speak of moral
judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In
earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of
inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral
philosophy.

The 20th century existentialist philosopher Albert Camus stated that “A man without ethics is a
wild beast loosed upon this world.”

THEORIES OF ETHICS IN PHILOSOPHY

The concept, deontological ethics, is associated with the father of modern deontology, Immanuel
Kant. He was known for the ‘Categorical Imperative’ that looks for transcendent principles that
apply to all humans. Deontological is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or
wrongness of actions themselves, instead of examining its consequences or any other
considerations. Thus, this is a non-consequential theory as the decision of whether an act is good
or bad does not depend on its consequence. Here, action drives the moral decision. The idea is
that “human beings should be treated with dignity and respect because they have rights.” Put
another way, it could be argued that in deontological ethics “people have a duty to respect other
people’s rights and treat them accordingly.” The core concept behind this is that there are
objective obligations, or duties, that are required of all people. When faced with an ethical
situation, then, the process is simply one of identifying one’s duty and making the appropriate
decision.

The challenges to this perspective, however, include

1) conflicts that arise when there is not an agreement about the principals involved in the
decision;

2) the implications of making a “right” choice that has bad consequences.

3) what decisions should be made when duties conflict. These challenges are definitely ones that
should be considered when relying on this as an ethical system.

There are many philosophers who reject the entire teleological agenda by arguing that moral
goodness has nothing to do with the pleasure, happiness, and or consequences. Deontological
theories are by definition duty-based. That is to say, that morality, according to deontology,
consists in the fulfillment of moral obligations, or duties. Duties, in the deontological tradition,
are most often associated with obeying absolute moral rules. Hence, human beings are morally
required to do (or not to do) certain acts in order to uphold a rule or law. The rightness or
wrongness of a moral rule is determined independent of its consequences or how happiness or
pleasure is distributed.

The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their obligations
and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. This means
that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because
upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist
will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who adheres to
deontological theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the
individual’s set duties. For example, suppose your friend has given you a gift, but you hate this
gift. She or he wants to know whether you like this. If you believe that lying is always bad no
matter the consequences, you would tell the truth, i.e., that you hate it, even if the outcome of
your action bad (in this case, hurting your friend). Here, you are demonstrating a deontological
position.

Rights
In ethical theories based on rights, the rights established by a society are protected and
given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a
large population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they
have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may
borrow her laptop for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the
laptop now has a right to the laptop in the afternoon.

2- Teleological ethics:

Teleological ethics is a theory according to which the rightness of an act is determined by its
outcome. In fact, the word teleological comes from Greek telos, meaning end or goal, and logos
meaning science. Thus, teleological theories focus on the consequences of actions; in other
words, this theorizes that our actions being morally right or wrong depends on the good or evil
generated.

All teleological ethical theories locate moral goodness in the consequences of our actions.
According to teleological (or consequentialist) moral theory, all rational human actions are
teleological in the sense that we reason about the means of achieving certain ends. Moral
behavior, therefore, is goal goal-directed. I have ice in my gutters right now. I am deliberating
about when and how to get that ice out in order to prevent water damage inside the house.

There are many strategies (means) that I might employ. Should send my oldest son, Eli, up on
the icy roof today? After careful deliberation I finally decided not send him on the roof because
it is slippery and he might fall. How did I decide? Well, I took into account the possible
consequences. There is nothing inherently wrong with climbing on the roof.

What made roof climbing the wrong thing to do at this particular time and place were the
possible consequences. So from the teleological point of view, human actions are neither right
nor wrong in and of themselves. What matters is what happening as a consequence of those
actions. Thus, it is the consequences that make actions, good or bad, right or wrong.

From a teleological standpoint, stealing, for example, would be deemed right or wrong
depending on the consequences. Suppose I were contemplating stealing a loaf of bread from the
neighborhood grocery store. My motive alone would have nothing to do with the rightness or
wrongness of the act. What really matters lies in the potential short-term and long-term
consequences.

If my children were starving, and if stealing a loaf of bread would immediately prevent them
from starving, then I might seriously consider stealing. But I’d have to know if the consequences
would significantly harm the grocery store? What would be the odds of getting caught? If I got
caught, what would happen to me? Would I go to jail? Get fined? If I went to jail, who would
take care of my children?

Therefore, even if my motive (preventing my children from starving) was praiseworthy, the act
of stealing might still be wrong because other actions might be more cost-effective in bringing
about the desired consequences. Perhaps I’d be better signing up for food stamps or asking the
storeowner to give me day-old bread. On the other hand, suppose that there were no other
options and that I invented a foolproof system for stealing bread. Would I be wrong for doing it?
The key difference between teleological and deontological ethics is that the teleological ethics
determines the goodness or badness of an action by examining its consequences whereas
deontological ethics determines the goodness or badness of the action by examining the
action itself.

Teleological and deontological ethics are two opposing ethical theories that determine the moral
goodness or badness of an action. The difference between teleological and deontological ethics is
that the teleological view is a consequent-based view introduced by Jeremy Bentham while the
deontological view is a rule-based view introduced by Immanuel Kant.