What is ethics by Jon Emerson

This first part contains an introduction to ethics and chapters that cover the major ethical theories. Usually, one or two important philosophers are closely related to the theory, as are a few important philosophical works. Some chapters are divided between two opposing theories, as with absolutism and relativism. At the beginning of each chapter there are lists of the key philosophers and key terms associated with the theories under scrutiny. There are also activities designed to illustrate the kind of problems that the theories address and to initiate the topic. At the ends of most chapters there are important extracts from key texts that are closely associated with the theory.

Introduction to ethics I: what is ethics? 74

By the end of this chapter you will: have explored some of the major kinds of ethical questions be familiar with the key aspects of deontological and teleological approaches to ethics, and how metaethics differs from these have begun to consider different ways of exploring ethical issues and ethical theories.

Study tip This is important background information which you may be able to use effectively in the examination even though it is not required by the specification.

Introduction One of the things that distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to make moral decisions. We deliberate before making choices. Afterwards we may feel guilt when we do things that we feel are wrong or satisfied that we did the right thing. Sometimes we are motivated to take great risks because of what we believe is right. We disagree passionately with each other over how we should live. Humans have a moral dimension. This book explores how human beings decide what is right and wrong, good and bad. It examines the ways in which different thinkers have tried to define what it means to be a good person. It also investigates some of the most prominent ethical issues of our time.

The big questions in ethics There are a number of big ethical questions that commonly interest philosophers. You will learn how different philosophers try to answer them, but consider them here for yourself: If I do a good thing for a bad reason, does it matter? Is it sometimes right to do a bad thing for a good outcome? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Is what's wrong for you necessarily wrong for me? Does the rightness or wrongness of an action vary according to the situation? Are we free to make moral choices? Is being moral about following rules? Should we use our heads or our hearts when deciding what's right? Can we have morals without religion? Should I help my father before I help a stranger? Is ethics a special kind of knowledge or are moral views just personal feelings? Does the environment have any value beyond its usefulness to human life?

Chapter 1 Introduction to ethics I: what is ethics?

Study tip In exams, bear in mind that although the theory of deontological approaches to ethics ignores the consequences of actions, in practice consequences are important. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for example, following the rules has the consequence of a life with God. Even in Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative insists that people should act as law-abiding members of a kingdom of moral ends. The right consequences are a product of the right intentions.

Ethical theories that concentrate on moral rules that can't be broken are deontological. For deontological ethics, the important thing isn't the result or consequence of the action, but the action itself. Deontological ethics is concerned with the nature of the acts themselves and it is the action which is the defining feature of importance in moral decision-making. Deontologists maintain that acts are right or wrong in themselves (they are intrinsically right or wrong) because of some absolute law perhaps laid down by God, or because they go against some duty or obligation. A deontologist might say that murder is wrong because the very act of murder is intrinsically evil. Pacifists claim that all physical violence is wrong, and many religious groups maintain that certain acts are inherently sinful. Deontologists have the advantage of being able to take strong moral positions on certain actions, as illustrated

Activities

111 Which statements show teleological thinking and which show deontological thinking?

Key tern Utilitarianism: a philosophical system concerned with consequences rather than motives and in which the happiness of the greatest number should be the result. Situation ethics: the moral theory proposed by Joseph Fletcher which requires the application of love to every unique situation. Means: in any action, we distinguish between the end result to be achieved, and the way in which it is achieved — the means. Deontological/deontological ethics: in contrast to consequential thinking — this is only concerned with the moral law, or duty, that makes a particular action right or wrong regardless of the consequences.

•

We should permit the abortion because she's too young and too poor to look after the child.

•

You should help your mother because it's your duty.

■

Do what your father says.

■

It's okay to steal if you're starving.

■

If you tell her the truth she'll be really upset.

■

Whatever you say, just tell the truth.

Now add two statements of your own to each of the two categories. El Make a list of deontological moral statements and teleological moral statements. Read them to your partner to see if he or she can correctly identify which is which.

A naval warship is in a battle. It receives a severe hit to the engineering

section and a fire breaks out. If the fire continues, the ship's munitions could explode, killing the whole crew. The captain can use a fast-acting extinguisher that would result in blasts of steam putting out the fire, but this will kill the men trapped in the engineering section. What should he do? What would a teleological thinker do? How would a deontological thinker respond?

•

Duty: the central plank of Kant's ethics. Good will's only motive is to act for the sake of duty. Duty is based on moral obligation as shown by the categorical imperative, and it must not be confused with desire.

Can you think about the sort of criteria that you would have to use to judge the ends of an action? What things would you want to consider when deciding whether or not a result or consequence was morally acceptable?

Chapter 1 Introduction to ethics I: what is ethics?

Key terms Good: in a moral sense, is used in reference to actions, consequences, situations, people, characters, choices and lifestyles.

Study tip This is important background information which you may be able to use effectively in the examination even though it is not required by the specification.

However, when we call someone a 'good' person we're saying something very different than when we call them 'tall' or 'short', or 'old' or 'young'. We may be referring to the nature of their character, the kind of things that they do or the way in which they weigh up a situation.

api

Metaethical theories By thinking about the language of ethics, we can focus on two important questions in ethics. First, how we come to moral knowledge and, second, what we think that moral knowledge is. Some moral thinkers argue that when we make moral statements we think that those statements refer to facts about the world, which are just as real as other kinds of facts. Others think that moral knowledge comes to us in a different way, perhaps through our intuition. Some argue that moral statements are a kind of moral cheer or emotion and don't actually mean anything more, while others think they have something to do with our beliefs and values. Some argue that moral statements are things which lead to certain kinds of behaviour and that we want others to agree with us and do the same thing. Ethical naturalism With the rise of modern science in the 17th century, a view of ethics emerged that tried to link morals with this new scientific knowledge. This was known as ethical naturalism, and was based on the idea that by observing the natural world we can deduce the correct moral order. The naturalist F. H. Bradley, writing in his book Ethical Studies (1876), believed that knowledge of our own place in society would lead to an understanding of our moral duties. He wrote: 'we have found the end, we have found self realisation, duty, and happiness in one — yes, we have found ourselves, when we have found our station and its duties, our function as an organ of the social organism.' Ethical rules in this formulation can be deduced by an understanding of our place and role in society. Naturalism is not a metaethical theory itself, but it gave rise to them. Metaethics describes a movement which challenged the kind of thinking found in naturalism and other theories. Metaethical thinkers propose quite different kinds of ways of thinking morally and here we shall note just three of them. The philosopher G. E. Moore criticised naturalism in his work Principia Ethica (first published in 1903). He held that moral judgements are not

• Key terms Naturalistic fallacy: G. E. Moore's claim that the concept of 'good' is indefinable and therefore not valid in philosophical discussion.

ph pi( is

based on scientific knowledge but an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. Being moral means doing things which bring about these good things. The idea that you can analyse in detail what these good things are is preposterous. Moore said: 'If I am asked "What is good?" my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter. Or if I am asked "How is good to be defined?" my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it' (Moore, 1993, p6). To try to define good is, for Moore, a naturalistic fallacy, because such a definition isn't possible. Good is indefinable. Moral judgements are not like scientific or mathematic judgements as the naturalists think. The way in which we understand what is moral, is through our intuition. Moore maintained we know by intuition that 'the most valuable things which we know or can imagine ... are certain states of consciousness, which may roughly be described as the pleasures of human intercourse and the enjoyment of beautiful objects' (p188).

the M

Err

Na we

tah€ n'

say are th bui wa arg ba y

hac

Th tur (15 mr

ab uni foi l tha it oth Mc

He: in We —n dec

Bey exe

Tools for examining ethical theories

ling

tant ,ond,

The intuitionist H. A. Prichard, in his 1912 article 'Does moral philosophy rest on mistake?', also thought that moral obligations presented themselves directly to our intuitions: 'This apprehension is immediate, in precisely the same sense in which a mathematical apprehension is immediate' (Prichard, 1949). He thought that reason worked through any factual information and then intuition weighs up the value of the different possible moral responsibilities and works out a moral course of action.

Emotivism

ag'. gs

ea ore, dues. Inds ne

iat r.

6),

ote ipia

•

Le in L. king e

lot ie

if be ry to

Don't underestimate the importance of understanding metaethics before you get to grips with the normative theories like those of the utilitarians and Kant:

Naturalists claimed that we can examine morals in the same way as we examine other features of the universe and intuitionists thought we have a special intuitive faculty which weighs up the moral knowledge and tells us the best course of action. Some metaethical thinkers rejected the possibility of moral knowledge entirely. In his book Language, Truth and Logic (1936), the emotivist A. J. Ayer argued that when we say a thing is wrong we are not making a factual statement at all. We are simply expressing a moral sentiment, a moral feeling or emotion that has no basis. People have different moral feelings about things, but none them are right, over an above the others. Another emotivist was C. L. Stevenson and in his book Ethics and Language (1945), he argued that while moral statements were not factual ones, they were based on something more than just expressing feelings. They actually had something to do with our fundamental beliefs and values, not just emotions, and described this belief in some way. This drift away from moral certainty among the metaethical thinkers turned with R. M. Hare who, writing in his books The Language of Morals (1952) and Freedom and Reason (1963), argued that moral language was much more important than just expressing an emotion or describing a belief. He argued that moral judgements were both prescriptive and universal. A moral statement prescribed a course of action that we should follow and that we would want others to agree with and follow. If I say that lying is wrong, I am implying that we should not lie. What is more, it is only sensible to prescribe things which are always right or wrong. In other words we can't say lying is wrong one day and right another day. Moral statements are universal, because they apply on all occasions.

Study tip

•

■

Does 'good' refer to something cognitive (factual) or noncognitive (non-factual)?

•

Ethical naturalism holds that good is factual. Moral facts can be analysed in terms of things like happiness, or doing God's will. For non-naturalists moral facts are unanalysable, like 'yellow' — they just 'are'.

■

Ethical non-cognitivism says that values are not about facts at all, but are about approval or disapproval (as in Ayer's emotivism), for example, or the will (as in Hare's prescriptivism).

Key terms Prescriptivism: the moral theory of R. M. Hare, that moral statements have a prescriptive quality about them (meaning that we want them to apply to others) and in that sense are universalisable (which Hare imports from Kant).

Tools for examining ethical theories

Here are some suggestions for questions to think about which are useful in unpacking ethical theories in particular. We can analyse theories in an attempt to try to make sense of them. Initially we can ask, what kind of family of theories does this fit into — normative, descriptive, or metaethical? If normative, is it teleological or deontological? Does it have absolutist or relativistic tendencies?

iition

Beyond these we can ask another set of helpful questions around the exercise of authority and judgement in the theory.

ay ore ch E-1 the

/I How is the theory oriented towards moral knowledge? How does the theory pose the question 'what should I do'? How can an action be determined to be right by the theory? What sort of character trait does the theory uphold? How does the theory resolve disagreement? To what extent does the theory offer specific moral guidance on given acts?

Study tip This information will help you to explore ethics and you may be able to use it effectively in the examination even though it is not required by the specification.

Chapter 1 Introduction to ethics I: what is ethics?

III Activity ■

El Is knowing right and wrong

different from other kinds of knowing? If so, in what way(s)? Does it make it a less reliable kind of knowledge? If so why, if not, why not?

•

Moore argues that we can't define moral things, and the way in which we get moral knowledge is through something called intuition. ■

Do you have intuitive feelings about moral situations — have you ever felt something was wrong or right intuitively?

■

If, when making a moral decision, your intuition tells you something different than my intuition, what should we do?

Are they:

Do things other than intuition have anything to do with moral decision-making? For instance, intelligence, instinct, experience, thoughtfulness?

■

expressing an emotive response

■

expressing a belief or attitude

■

expressing a moral fact

•

expressing something to guide behaviour and influence others?

Give reasons for your answer(s).

El When someone makes a moral

Should a 'proper' moral statement be one that applies to all situations?

statement which of these things is going on and which isn't?

eve boc 1

2 Ethics

Absolutist normative ethics

Descriptive ethics

Non-cognitivist theories

Relativism

Yot 1 Emotivism

Deontological

Natural moral law

Kantian ethics

Naturalism

Virtue theory

Teleological

Universal prescriptivism

Utilitarianism

Situation ethics

Egoism

Divine command theory

Intuitionism

You can ask these questions of an ethical theory to analyse the elements and workings of the theory in specific and applied ways. This should throw up useful pieces of information about the workings of the theory and its presuppositions, revealing areas of strength and weakness. We can also ask a number of questions to see if they seem to hold up. These are evaluative questions.

pre exa mi n

Chapter 1 Introduction to ethics I: what is ethics?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Teleological theories, according to which the consequences (or ends) of an act are the defining features of whether something is moral. Metaethics is concerned with the meaning of the language of ethics. When we use words like 'good', sometimes it is meant in a moral sense, but not always. Ethical naturalism holds that moral facts can be deduced from the scientific order of the world, like any other empirical fact. Intuitionists argue that we know moral things using intuition, and that moral facts are different from other kinds of facts. Emotivists argue that moral statements are expressions of emotion or belief. Prescriptivists think that moral statements encourage people to perform certain moral behaviours and imply a hope that others will do the same. In addition they hold that these statements are universal.