Ethical, Moral and Political Synthesis
Isabella Valeria Bensamer Correa
Research support, consultation and synthesis writing Martin Carnoy SHIPS (PhD): Educational Policy
Eamonn Callan SHIPS (PhD): Philosophy of Education
Graduate School of Education Faculty of Educational Sciences Stanford University May 2019
2
Faculty of Educational Sciences PROGRAM AFFILIATIONS
SHIPS (PhD): Philosophy of Education SHIPS (PhD): Social Sciences in Education (MA) POLS (MA) MA/MBA (MA) STEP
Graduate School of Education PROGRAM AFFILIATIONS SHIPS (PhD): Philosophy of Education SHIPS (PhD): Social Sciences in Education (MA) POLS
3
Table of contents
CSET ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Faculty of Educational Sciences ………………………………………………………………… 2 PROGRAM AFFILIATIONS ………………………………………………………….... 2 Graduate School of Education …………………………………………………………………... 2 PROGRAM AFFILIATIONS ………………………………………………………….... 2 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………... 4 The problem of ethics ………………………………………………………………………….... 5 What's the difference between ethics and morals? ……………………………………… 5 What are the main models of ethics based on philosophical theory? …………………… 6 Is it possible that different codes of ethics and regulations drawn up by ethics committees within the political and public sectors contribute to the construction of a civil ethic? ….. 8 Can man realize himself as a human being and a person in situations of injustice and domination? ……………………………………………………………………………... 9 Politics ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Why does corruption harm politics? ……………………………………………………. 10 Why should politics be ethical? ………………………………………………………… 12 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………. 15
4
Introduction
Human action can be explained as the implementation of decisions that can be catalogued or judged differently depending on the socio-cultural context in which they are developed and executed. We could affirm that all human action is in charge of morality, that is, that human actions reflect the presence or absence of values and ethical and moral principles that are the foundation of society and culture. All action has an intention and both the intention and the action have a moral character. Human action has led us to affirm the importance of freedom and autonomy in the actions that human beings take and assume in their lives. In this sense man reflects on the only reality of his life determining how to act under the ethical precepts of his morality in the situations he performs daily, as part of the essence in society. These situations lead us to philosophically reflect on the application of ethical and moral concepts in political and cultural performance, so to speak, in ethics applied in the social context. This application of ethics and morality developed in this work allowed us to differentiate and establish criteria of ethics and morality, as an essential part of philosophy.
5
The problem of ethics
What's the difference between ethics and morals? Ethical. Etymologically the term ethics comes from the Greek ethos, which means custom. That is why many define it as the doctrine of customs. In fact, ethics is concerned with customs, morals, the search for a sense of oneself. It also investigates, questions and conceptualizes the systematic study of morality. For this reason he also defines it as the theory of morality, as the science that deals with moral objects in their various forms. Consequently, we could also refer to it as a moral philosophy. In this sense ethics is located at the theoretical level. The foregoing considerations allow us to affirm that the object and purpose of ethics is philosophical reflection on customs. Moral. It can be understood as a custom derived from the Latin word mos. A nd, unlike ethics, it can be understood as that which opposes the physical in man as politics and art the set of principles, criteria,
norms and values that guide our behavior. Morality makes us act in a certain way and allows us to know what to do in a specific situation. It's like a kind of compass that guides us, tells us which way to go, directs our actions in a certain direction. The compass shows us the way. In life you have to try not to lose your way. The use of the word ethics and the word moral is subject to different conventions and that each author, epoch or philosophical current uses them in different ways. But in order to distinguish it will be necessary to name the characteristics of each of these words as well as their similarities and differences. 1. Characteristics of morality. Morality is the real fact that we find in all societies, it is a set of rules to know that are transmitted from generation to generation, evolve over time and have strong differences with respect to the rules of another society and another historical era, these rules are used to guide the conduct of members of that society.
6
2. Characteristics of ethics. It is the real fact that occurs in the mentality of some people, is a set of rules namely, principle and reasons that a subject has made and established as a guideline for his own conduct. 3. Similarities and differences between ethics and morals. The points where they meet are as follows: ●
In both cases it's about rules, perceptions, it must be.
●
Morality is a set of rules that a society is responsible for transmitting of
●
generation in generation and ethics is a set of norms that a subject has clarified and adopted in his or her own mentality.
What are the main models of ethics based on philosophical theory? In the first place, one can speak of descriptive and prescriptive ethics. With regard to descriptive ethics, it can be mentioned that they are all those that conceive the ethical phenomenon as something that occurs and that therefore must be studied, described and analyzed from its events; while, on the contrary, prescriptive ethics conceive reflection as normative, that is, as a set of contents that must be recommended and followed. Secondly, there are naturalistic and non-naturalistic ethics. These two differ in that naturalistic ethics conceive morality as that which seeks the happiness, pleasure or enjoyment of the human being, while non-naturalistic ethics understand morality as a reality that cannot be reduced to any other realm or factor. On the other hand, there are cognitivist and non-cognitivist ethics. Cognitivists conceive morality as a reality that can be known by man and, therefore, can be defined as true or false, as the case may be. Non-cognitivists, on the other hand, understand that morality cannot be known by man and is neither true nor false. Another classification is material and formal ethics. Material ethics affirm that the criteria of morality that launch judgments on actions are explained according to the contents, since they recognize the existence of a good. The formal ones, on the other hand, do not understand the
7
moral good as dependent on the contents but on the form of the mandates. Formal ethics do not tell us what we should do, but what our rules should be like. Thus, an action is not morally correct or wrong because of it follow good consequences (pleasure, happiness), but because its source or motivation is to act according to our sense of duty. For this reason, formal ethics are autonomous, that is to say, they do not depend on any authority, but it is the subject (or the community of subjects) who gives himself his own norms rationally, not moved by desires or passions. We can also say that formal ethics, since they do not depend on the characteristics and desires of people, are universal, that is to say, valid for all and in any circumstance. There are also substantial and procedural ethics. Procedural ethics recognize that it is not the task of ethics to recommend moral content but to discover the procedures that make the day-to-day rules legitimate or not. The Substantialists on their part affirm that one cannot speak of correctness of norms if it is not for the conception one has of the good life. Teleological ethics consider that the correctness or incorrectness of man's actions depends on the positive or negative consequences to which they lead. On the other hand, deontological ethics are radically opposed to affirming that actions can be catalogued as correct or incorrect regardless of the consequences. Kantian ethics is called formal ethics, and is opposed to material ethics. It has three main characteristics: ●
Propose a criterion of legitimacy of the exclusively formal maximum,
●
Defend the autonomy of the will in the moral experience and
●
Maintain that good actions are only those that have been done out of duty. Discursive ethics constitutes a theoretical model aimed at substantiating the validity of
statements and moral judgments through the examination of the presuppositions of discourse. It aspires to found a moral principle that is not based on intuitions or understandings of a particular time or culture, but that has universal validity. For the ethical theory of values, or axiology, exposed and defended by Max Scheler, main exponent of this current, values are qualities that possess certain objects or actions, by virtue of
8
which those actions or objects are morally desirable. For example, helping someone in need is a desirable action. What value does that action represent? Solidarity. Thus, this would translate into a moral norm: "we must be in solidarity with others. Finally, we can talk about the ethics of maximums and minimums. The minimums are concerned with those duties of justice which must be demanded of all rational beings and which, therefore, must constitute minimum requirements. The maximums, on the other hand, offer ideals of good life, in which the goods that man can enjoy are presented in a hierarchical form, according to the happiness that they can produce.
Is it possible that different codes of ethics and regulations drawn up by ethics committees within the political and public sectors contribute to the construction of a civil ethic? From the conceptions and definitions provided by Adela Cortina it could be mentioned that in general terms it is possible that the different ethical codes and regulations contribute to form a civil ethics inasmuch as they can function as a rational base that generates a deep reflection with respect to what ethics should be and the adequate or inadequate way of acting of man. Cortina mentioned in his work "ethics" that ethical reflection, although it is more typical of philosophers, can also be generated from the reflection of those who do not classify between such recognition, for this reason if a proposal is offered that is recognized as a guide with respect to the way people act, a critical questioning can be produced that leads us to draw our own conclusions about such rules and codes. This ethic seeks to open a space to create civil society, to respond to a new society under construction, which emerges from an absence of human rationality in citizen procedures, from the prevalence of force over conscience and dignity and of the individual good over the common good. Therefore it can be said that this ethics that is called civil or citizen ethics is a contemporary proposal that has been defined by one of its most egregious exponents, Adela Cortina, as "Set of values and norms shared by a morally pluralistic society that allows different groups, not only
9
coexist and coexist, but build a life together through shared projects. Therefore, if it can be affirmed that these regulatory codes contribute to the construction of a civil ethics, because by common sense these codes and regulations are always aimed at the welfare and happiness of the human being, even if they are modified, new codes are created. Civil Ethics is presented as a new attempt to build a universal ethic. This proposal thus aims to seek ethical minimums shared between men and women. It presupposes: a) the confessionalism of society, b) the possibility of a purely rational ethic, c) that humans live their ethics of happiness and we cannot expect them to be shared. Civil Ethics aims to ensure ethical minimums shared by all, which are the basis for our legislation. It does not pretend to be an ethics independent of other ethics, but assumes them, since men and women live in their reality, their ethics of happiness or of maximums. An example of this question can be found in the film "Until the Last Man". In it we can note that the protagonist had already faced different codes and parameters that regulated the good behavior of a man, in his personal life, and surely also those that regulated the good behavior of a soldier, in his military life. These regulations served as a basis for him to be able to create an ethical standard and his own morality, according to what he considered valid or invalid of each one. In the case of military rules, surely they recognized that a good soldier was the one who could win the battle and therefore defeat his enemy, but we can see that the protagonist even meets one of his enemies who is wounded and instead of killing him or letting him die decides to help him. In this case he did not consider those rules as valid and drew his own rules, according to what he considered morally good.
Can man realize himself as a human being and a person in situations of injustice and domination?
In situations where man is confronted with injustice and domination one can say, in general terms, that it is more difficult for him to achieve full realization as a human being and as a person, because this situation demands of him a greater effort to attain the characteristics that
10
make us full persons and men. Generally when man is confronted with the strongest emotions that can arise in his life, his reactions can be indeterminate and very diverse, ranging from anger and the desire for revenge to forgiveness, transformation and sublimation. It is by virtue of man's many ways of reacting that mention is made of the fact that situations of injustice and domination may provide a time for man to realize and plan, or, on the contrary, for him to dehumanize himself with hatred and rancor. However, it is clear that it is possible to reach such a state of plenitude in such circumstances and this is thanks to the freedom that man possesses, so that despite the circumstances he is always free to choose as he sees fit, so he can decide to seek a transformation from peace and ethical attitudes, even if they have been denied to him. Over the years we have realized what a human being can be capable of, but do we really know what a human being is? The confusion between person and human being is very common, even if we think a little further. Shortly after a new millennium for humanity, human beings have not yet been able to limit their desires. Human beings find it difficult to make sacrifices and deprivations, because modernity and progress have made moderation disappear. If human beings do not learn to firmly limit their desires and demands, to subordinate their interests to moral criteria, humanity can be destroyed as long as the worst aspects of human nature continue to be accentuated. Contemporary Russian philosopher Nikolai Lossky warns; if a personality does not orient itself to values higher than its own being, corruption and decadence will inevitably take over.
Politics
Why does corruption harm politics? The neoliberal school considers corruption as one of the manifestations of black markets caused by excessive state interventionism. Corruption has acquired a disturbing relevance, gaining an alarming presence in various sectors of society. In such circumstances, it is insufficient to analyze
11
this phenomenon from a legal-moral position: it is necessary to study corruption taking into account the political-social context, with an interdisciplinary perspective. It is necessary to contemplate that the main causes of corruption are the crisis of a political system, the lack of transparency and the absence of solid institutions that supervise and control the organization of the governmental apparatus of a State. It is evident in the levels of corruption, when public officials tend to use their positions for their own benefit or to return favours to people who collaborated in their political campaigns. Also, there is a lack of transparency in almost all political decisions. It is therefore necessary for citizens to have a political culture and to know how it is constituted. Corruption harms politics mainly because it directly violates ethics and is a denial of ethics. As studied in the present units policy and ethics must go hand in hand as one sustains and gives meaning to the other. Politics refers to the way in which the city or "polis" is administered, and this is directly linked to the union or set of human beings that inhabit a city or nation, that is, it is a conglomerate of people who stand out for their actions and works. In this sense, if the police is a group of people, it is understood that for a healthy coexistence there must be a healthy ethics and morals that govern the daily behavior of the inhabitants, in order not to fall into a prejudicial subjectivism where each person does what he wants and considers convenient no matter what happens or affects others. All this is due to the lack of honesty from home that has been lost every time, by the lack of example of our parents. But, if this disease is growing more and more, then because government agencies have not done everything possible to stop it? The answer is very simple, because they are the main culprits that serve them not to finish it, they are the ones who incite society to make corrupt, to sell their principles that have been inculcated from home, they are the culprits, because from schools, colleges and universities has been gradually removing the area of ethics and values. But neither should we throw all the dirty water to the government, we are also guilty, because we ourselves accept this disease, we are the antidote to stop this disease, but we are guilty for not putting it into practice, because we do not think beyond, for thinking that I am well
12
and I do not touch, unfortunately we settle for the media to put some series to distract us, We care more about a football game, than our welfare, we do not complain about what is happening in our country, we care if our team or selection wins or loses, but we do not care how the corrupt government sells our natural wealth, we care even more about the welfare of animals (I am not against protecting and caring for animals) placing them above their own lives, ie we hurt animal abuse and not child abuse. Unfortunately we have become a corrupt people, an insensitive people, a people that we get used to electing our leaders for a tamale, an eternit leaf or fifty thousand pesos, selling our principles. Because we have become a miserable people, a lazy people, an indolent people, a corrupt people. As Carlos Gaviria Díaz, a Colombian political scientist, says, "he who pays to arrive arrives to steal".
Why should politics be ethical? Politics must be ethical because it seeks, ultimately, the good administration of the city or nation and the correct coexistence among all citizens. As politics necessarily implies the set of citizens, that is, of people, it also demands the set of virtues and ethical values of each individual so that coexistence can be carried out in a healthy and harmonious way, so individual ethics is indispensable to achieve a collective ethics in the city. Ethics and politics are the eyes of the same face; politics cannot operate properly without ethics. In classical Roman culture, those who exercised politics with ethics were said to have "decorum"; having "decorum" was a guarantee of being an honest, discreet politician who would act correctly and fairly. In his work Vidas paralelas Plutarco affirmed that "man is the cruelest of all beasts, when passions are joined by power without virtue". And Cicero, in his risky and courageous attack in his "verrinas" against the corruption of the tyrant Verres of Sicily: "When politicians are not governed by ethics, they are like hyenas on the hunt for power. Ethics is fundamental in politics in that the latter must take into account the former in order to guide the well-being of citizens. Politics seeks the good life for those members of the nation, so it must first reflect on what that good life consists of and what the elements are to achieve
13
happiness in man, so that he can direct his actions towards it. In Aristotle's words we could mention that "the able legislator has to consider how the city, the human race and every other community will be able to participate in the virtuous life and happiness that is possible for all of them" (Aristotle, Politics; 281).
14
Conclusions
To put into practice concepts of ethics and morals, determines the position of the culture that possesses a society that converges in good and evil, in right and wrong, therefore the study of ethics has served the world, where the first Greek philosophers manifested their idea as Aristotle say that the consequence of an action generates happiness. Beyond the precepts of society, ethics is understood as the customs that man handles in his daily life, but moreover, morality implies the way of acting or the just and unjust conduct determined by man knowing that he is a conscious reason for his acts. Today, life is governed by ethics and the various codes that have been the consequence of the value of humanity in order to live in a more complex society without some prejudices, so ethics and morals play a very important role in both political and social institutions. Ethics seeks to open spaces to create a civil society, to respond to a new society under construction, which emerges from an absence of human rationality in citizen procedures, from the prevalence of force over conscience and dignity and the individual good over the common good.
15
Bibliography Cortina, A., Orts, A. C., & Navarro, E. M. (1998). Ethics (Vol. 4). AKAL Editions. Pages 9 -29 and 105 -121. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_HtC1_tTjfUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=Moral +y+%C3%A9tica:+el+fen%C3%B3meno+social+y+la+teor%C3%ADa+filos%C3%B3fica .+&ots=hDkL5LV5HG&sig=xMu-lLZeqCku-gUBtjxmI704LG4 Thread. (2016). The first peace building. Portfolio. Retrieved Torres-Oviedo, J. M. (2014). The conception of right, morality and politics in the Theory of Communicative Action by Jürgen Habermas. (English). Thought And Culture, 17( 1), 113-137. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1974) Structural Anthropology. Editorial paidos. Buenos Aires. (Pp. 7595). Retrieved fromhttp://monoskop.org/images/6/67/Levi-Strauss_Claude_Antropologia_estructural_197 8.pdf Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1974) Structural Anthropology. Editorial paidos. Buenos Aires. (Pp. 109-120). Retrieved fromhttp://monoskop.org/images/6/67/Levi-Strauss_Claude_Antropologia_estructural_197 8.pdf Anscombe, Elizabeth, 1958, “Modern Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy, 33(124): 1–19. Aquinas, Thomas, c.1270, Summa Theologiae. Baier, Kurt, 1958, The Moral Point of View, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Bentham, Jeremy, 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988.
16
Brink, David, 1997, “Kantian Rationalism: Inescapability, Authority, and Supremacy”, in Ethics and Practical Reason, G. Cullity and B. Gaut (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–291. Cooper, Neil, 1966, “Two Concepts of Morality”, Philosophy, 41(155): 19–33. Darwall, Stephen, 2005, The Second-person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. De Waal, Frans, 1996, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dworkin, Ronald, 1986, Law’s Empire (Legal Theory), Belknap Press. Finnis, John, 1980, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foot, Philippa, 1958a, “Moral Beliefs”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59: 83–104. –––, 1958b, “Moral Arguments”, Mind, 67(268): 502–513. –––, 1972, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”, Philosophical Review, 81: 305–16. Frankena, William, 1963, “Recent Conceptions of Morality”, in G. Nakhnikian and H. Castañeda (eds.), Morality and the Language of Conduct, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 1–24. –––, 1973, Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. –––, 1980, Thinking about Morality, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gert, Bernard, 2005, Morality: Its Nature and Justification, Revised Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
17
Gibbard, Allan, 1990, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goldman, Alan, 2009, Reasons from Within: Desires and Values, New York: Oxford University Press. Haidt, Jonathan, 2006, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, New York: Basic Books. Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2003, “The Emotional Depravity of Psychopaths and Culpability”, Legal Theory, 9(1): 63–82. Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals, New York: Oxford University Press. –––, 1963, Freedom and Reason, New York: Oxford University Press. –––, 1981, Moral Thinking, New York: Oxford University Press. Harman, Gilbert, 1975, “Moral Relativism Defended”, Philosophical Review, 84: 3–22. Hauser, Marc, 2006, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, New York: Harper Collins. Hobbes, Thomas, 1660 [1994], Leviathan, edited by Edwin Curly, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994. –––, 1658 and 1651 [1991], Man and Citizen, (translations of six chapters of De Homine (1658) and all of De Cive (1651)), edited by Bernard Gert, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1991. Hooker, Brad, 2001, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule Consequentialist theory of Morality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
18
Hume, David, 1751 [1975], Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd edition revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Kant, Immanuel, 1785 and 1797 [1993], Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: with On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns, 3rd edition, translated by J. Ellington, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. Levy, Neil, 2007, “The Responsibility of the Psychopath Revisited”, Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 14(2): 129–138. MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1957, “What Morality is Not”, Philosophy, 32(123): 325–35. –––, 1999, Dependent Rational Animals, Chicago: Open Court. Mill, John Stuart, 1861 [2002], Utilitarianism, edited by G. Sher, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002. Moore, G.E., 1912, Ethics, New York: H. Holt. –––, 1903, Principia Ethica, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Prinz, Jesse, 2007, The Emotional Construction of Morals, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Scanlon, T.M., 1982, “Contractualism and Utilitarianism”, in A. Sen and B. Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–28. –––, 1998, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––, 2011, “What is Morality?” in J. Shephard, S. Kosslyn, and E. Hammonds (eds.), The Harvard Sampler: Liberal Education for the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 243–66.
19
Sidgwick, Henry, 1874, Methods of Ethics, Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1981. Singer, Peter, 1993, Practical Ethics, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.), 2008, Moral Psychology Volume 1, The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Skorupski, John, 1993, “The Definition of Morality”, in A. Phillips Griffiths (ed.), 1993, Ethics: Philosophy Supplement 35, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–44. Smart, J.J.C., 1956, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism”, Philosophical Quarterly, 6(25): 344–354. Sprigge, Timothy, 1964, “Definition of a Moral Judgment”, Philosophy, 39(150): 301–322. Strawson, Peter, 1961, “Social Morality and Individual Ideal”, Philosophy, 36(136): 1–17. Thomson, J.J. and G. Dworkin (eds.), 1968, Ethics, New York: Harper & Row. Toumlin, Stephen, 1950, An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace, G. and A.D.M. Walker (eds.), 1970, The Definition of Morality, London: Methuen. Warnock, Geoffrey, 1971, The Object of Morality, London: Methuen. Westermarck, Edward, 1960, Ethical Relativity, Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams. Whiteley, C.H., 1959, “On Defining ‘Morality’”, Analysis, 20(6): 141–4. Williams, Bernard, 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, London: Fontana. Wong, David, 1984, Moral Relativity, Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
20
–––, 2006, Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism, New York: Oxford University Press. Wren, T.E. (ed.), 1990, The Moral Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Discussion Between Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
