Why Study Ethics?

(Originally written January 31, 2006)

Book Notes

Moral Choices: Preface Ch. 1

Publishers Preface

Ethics and morality are increasingly difficult to teach in the 21st century.

Chapter 1

Why Study Ethics?

If there were no consequences would a person want to be moral? "Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart form any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid" (11).

"One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God" (11).

Being moral is inherently good because it is part of the foundation of a person's ability to success.

It is unlikely that a civilization could continue without moral values like fairness, justice, truthfulness and compassion.

Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies.

Today there is a breakdown in morality among young people and students.

Moral questions are at the root of all of life's most important issues.

Morality is concerned with the questions of right and wrong; the ability to discern between them and justify the choice.

Moral choices are faced every day

Ethics provide the basis on which to make moral choices.

"The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves" (12).

Big topics of debate stem from the fundamental differences opinion on where ultimate moral authority comes from. Some believe it is a man made institution while others hold that moral authority stems from a higher power.

Society has a sense of bewilderment over some moral issues.

Many of these are due to technology's advancement outpacing society's ability to determine the moral parameters of them.

More people are taking an interest in Ethics today than ever for a number of reasons:
1) Technology's creation of issues
2) Declining morals in society
3) The lack of business ethics and scandals
4) The failure of value-neutral education. "Some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible" (13).

Rae believes that morality comes from the character of God.

God provides these morality laws:
1) In the Bible (special revelation)
2) Out of the Bible (general revelation)

Morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, whereas ethics is the process of determining what is right and wrong.

4 Categories of ethics:
1) Descriptive ethics - sociological discipline that attempts to describe the morals of society
2) Normative ethics - discipline that attempts to produce moral norms or rules. Basically it prescribes moral behavior
3) Metaethics - discipline that investigates the meaning of moral language. Also considers the justification of ethical theories and judgments
4) Aretaic ethics - category of ethics that focuses on the virtues produced in people, not the morality of specific acts.

Making a moral judgment involves four considerations:
1) The action itself
2) The motive behind the action
3) The consequence of the action
4) The character of who performs the action

Character - the tendency of a person to act in a predictable way over time

Two types of Ethical systems:
1) Action-oriented systems
2) Virtue-based systems

Under these two major divisions there are three subcategories
1) Deontological systems
2) Teleological systems
3) Relativism

Deontological systems - are systems based on principles in which actions, or character, or intentions are inherently right or wrong. Three types:
1) Divine command theory
2) Natural Law
3) Ethical rationalism

Teleological systems (ends justify the means) - are systems based on the end result produced by an action. If the action produces more beneficial consequences than harmful ones then it is moral. If not, then it is immoral. The primary form of teleological ethics is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism holds that the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest numbers is the moral action.

Ethical egoism - another form of teleological ethics which maintains that the moral act is whatever is in a person's own best interest.

Relativism is an ethical system in which right and wrong are not absolute and unchanging but they are relative to one's culture or one's own personal preferences.

Social and Person Ethics: "The nature of Morality

Definition of ethics:
1) Individual character, including what it means to be a good person
2) The social rules that govern and limit our conduct, especially morality.

Definition of morality: the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong

Morality refers to what is right and wrong, good and bad; ethics is the study and assessment of those standards.

Moral standards are different than other standards because they concern behavior that is of serious consequence to human welfare.

Moral standards take priority over other standards. We take moral standards, judgments as more conclusive when put up against non-moral standards.

Moral standards' soundness depends on the adequacy of the reasons that justify them.

Unlike other standards, moral standards are not decided by an authoritative body.

Etiquette - The norms of correct conduct in polite society.

In etiquette the terms, "good, wrong, right and bad" are judgments, not ethics.

The terms legal and moral are not interchangeable.
1) An action can be illegal, but morally right
2) An action that is legal can be immoral.

Professional codes are ethical codes within a given field or profession.

These codes are not an end all scope of morality and some of the ethics of that code are not moral standards. Some of the ethics of the code are not necessarily morally right.

Our moral principles come from many different sources: upbringing, our surrounding people, behavior, explicit and implicit standards of our culture, our own experiences and our critical reflection on those experiences all shape what we see as moral.

The philosophical goal of finding the origin of morals is to see if a moral standard can stand up to critical tests.

Some say morals are synonymous with religion while others argue for the doctrine of ethical relativism.

All religions provide its believers with certain moral instructions, values and commitments.

Religion involves not only formal systems of worship, but also prescriptions for social relationships.

An example of this is the Golden Rule, which is found in all the great religions of the world:
Hinduism - "Good people proceed while considering that what is best for others is best for themselves" (Hitopadehsa)
Judaism - "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus)
Christianity - Matthew 7:12, What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others
Confucianism: Analects 15:23
Islam - "No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" (Traditions)

Although these religious ideals are very inspiring, they are difficult to translate into precise policy instructions.

Religious bodies occasionally articulate positions on more specific political, educational, economic and medical issues. These help mold public opinion on matters as diverse as abortion, euthanasia, nuclear weapons and national defense.

"Morality needn't rest on religion" (8)

Many people believe that morality must be based on religion for two reasons:
1) Without religion people would have no incentive to be moral
2) Only religion can provide moral guidance
3) Morality is based on the commands of God

Often people act morally simply because they are accustomed to acting that way or because it is in their character to act so.

"We are often motivated to do what is morally right out of concern for others or just because it is right" (8) [Untrue, humanity is very selfish by nature]

Other reasons for acting or living morally good lives include:
1) approval of peers
2) the need to appease our conscience
3) drive to avoid punishment

"Atheist generally live lives as moral and upright as those of believers" [Sad but true]

The moral instruction of the world's great religions are general and imprecise.

The divine command theory states that if something is wrong it is only wrong because God commands us not to do it. (Most philosophers and theologians reject this view)

It is impossible to justify a moral principle by only appealing to religion.

Ethical relativism does not hold that religion supplies moral principles. They are supplied by what a particular society believes.

This creates an atmosphere that allows for something to be right in one place and wrong in another.

There is no moral absolute outside of cultural context in ethical relativism.

There is no and can be no non-ethnocentric standard by which to judge actions in ethical relativism.

Ethical relativism undermines any moral criticism of other societies as long as their actions conform to their own standards.

There is no such thing as ethical progress in ethical relativism. Morality changes, but it does not get better or worse.

It is impossible for people to criticize principles or practices accepted in their own society in ethical relativism. All that can happen is people can be criticized for not living up to the moral standards of their society.

Ethical relativism makes reformers of society immoral persons for calling out injustices.

The more ethical relativism is examined, the more obvious it becomes that it is flawed.

Accepting and practicing on a moral principle involves consideration of a desire to follow that principle for its own sake, the likelihood of feeling guilty of not following it, and a tendency to evaluate the conduct of others according to that principle.

It would be difficult to believe that a person held a moral principle if they continue to violate that principle with no ill effects on their conscience.

Conscience is a complex psychological development of people internalizing moral values that were instilled in them as young children.

The problem with conscience is it is not always morally right.

Sometimes doing what is morally right and doing what is in your base interest come into conflict.

"Morality serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires so we can all live together" (12).

Normally following our own moral principles is in our best interest, however if following moral principles is motivated by expecting a payoff is not really moral.

Deciding to follow your self-interest or deciding to follow your moral principles when they come into conflict depend on the strength of those entities.

The paradox of hedonism is that people who always follow their own self-interest principles tend to live less happy and less fulfilling lives.