A general introduction to Ethics

What are ethics?

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or
disposition. At their simplest, ethics form a system of moral principles. They affect how people make
decisions and lead their lives. Ethics are concerned with what is good for individuals and society and
cover the following:

how to live a good life

rights and responsibilities

the language of right and wrong

moral decisions - what is good and bad?

Our modern concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and culture. They are of
importance in debates on topics like abortion, human rights, medicine and professional conduct.
What is the difference between ethics and morality?
There is a fairly subtle difference between ethics and morality. Morals define personal character (and
are therefore effectively something we are born with), while ethics form a social system in which
morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behaviour expected by the
group or culture to which the individual belongs. Over many years, these have developed into systems
of law, medical ethics, business ethics, protocols of war etc. A very simple form of ethics is the idea of
a taboo. Taboos are forms of behaviour which societies generally find repellant and therefore refrain
from. These very often change over history as societies develop.
Are there universal moral rules?
One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging universal moral
rules that apply in all cultures and at all times. Moral absolutists believe the answer is yes, while moral
relativists believe the answer is no.
Moral absolutism
Some people think there are universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called
moral absolutism. 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.
In thinking of this kind, immoral acts - acts that break these moral rules - are said to be wrong in
themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of those acts.
Moral 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 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Religious views of ethics tend to be absolutist.
For example, in 2007 Pope Benedict XVI set out the absolutist position of the Catholic
Church as follows:
"Where God is absent - God with the human face of Jesus Christ - these
[moral] values fail to show themselves with their full force: nor does a
consensus arise concerning them.
I do not mean that nonbelievers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality; I

am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the
necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the
model of these values".

Many people disagree with moral absolutism:

Many of us feel that the consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are
relevant to whether that act is good or bad

Absolutism doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition

Different cultures have had different attitudes to issues like war

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 therefore dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable 'superrules' 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.
Many people disagree with moral relativism:

Many of us feel that moral rules have more to them than the general agreement of a group of
people - that morality is more than just a 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

Approaches to ethics
Philosophers nowadays tend to divide ethical theories into three areas: meta-ethics, normative ethics
and applied ethics.

Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral judgment. It looks at the origins and meaning of
ethical principles.

Normative ethics is concerned with the content of moral judgments and the criteria for what is
right or wrong.

Applied ethics looks at controversial real-life situations such as war, animal rights and capital
punishment

What use are ethics?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics do this. They argue that if a person realises that it would be
morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it. But human beings
often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head suggests a different
course of action.
However, ethics do provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

Ethics can provide a moral compass

Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters. Because
these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with
the flow.
But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in - they
offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems.
So ethics provide us with a moral compass, a framework that we can use to find our way through
difficult issues.

Ethics doesn't give right answers

Ethics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems.

Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer - just
a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear choices.
Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the
issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to their own conclusions.

Ethics can give several different answers

Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral ambiguity
hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they can't work out
what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right answer.
But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least worst
answers - and the individual must choose between them.
For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.

Ethics and people

Ethics is about the 'other'
Ethics is concerned with other people
At the heart of ethics is a concern about something or someone other than ourselves and our own
desires and self-interest.
Ethics is concerned with other people's interests, with the interests of society, with God's interests,
with "ultimate goods", and so on.
So when a person 'thinks ethically' they are giving at least some thought to something beyond
themselves.

Ethics as source of group strength

One problem with ethics is the way it's often used as a weapon.

If a group believes that a particular activity is "wrong" it can then use morality as the justification for
attacking those who practice that activity.
When people do this, they often see those who they regard as immoral as in some way less human or
deserving of respect than themselves; sometimes with tragic consequences.
Good people as well as good actions
Ethics is not only about the morality of particular course of action, but it's also about the goodness of
individuals and what it means to live a good life.
Virtue Ethics is particularly concerned with the moral character of human beings.

Searching for the source of right and wrong

At times in the past some people thought that ethical problems could be solved in one of two ways:

by discovering what God wanted people to do

by thinking rigorously about moral principles and problems

If a person did this properly they would be led to the right conclusion.
But now even philosophers are less sure that it's possible to devise a satisfactory and complete theory
of ethics - at least not one that leads to conclusions.
Modern thinkers often teach that ethics leads people not to conclusions but to 'decisions'.
In this view, the role of ethics is limited to clarifying 'what's at stake' in particular ethical problems.
Philosophy can help identify the range of ethical methods, conversations and value systems that can
be applied to a particular problem. But after these things have been made clear, each person must
make their own individual decision as to what to do, and then react appropriately to the
consequences.

Are ethical statements objectively true?

Do ethical statements provide information about anything other than human opinions and attitudes?

Ethical realists think that human beings discover ethical truths that already have an
independent existence.

Ethical non-realists think that human beings invent ethical truths.

The problem for ethical realists is that people follow many different ethical codes and moral beliefs. So
if there are real ethical truths out there (wherever!) then human beings don't seem to be very good at
discovering them.
One form of ethical realism teaches that ethical properties exist independently of human beings, and
that ethical statements give knowledge about the objective world.

To put it another way; the ethical properties of the world and the things in it exist and remain the
same, regardless of what people think or feel - or whether people think or feel about them at all.

Where do ethics come from?

Philosophers have several answers to this question:

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

Religion-based ethics - supernaturalism

Supernaturalism makes ethics inseparable from religion. It teaches that the only source of moral rules
is God. So, according to this view, something is good because God says it is, and the way to lead a
good life is to do what God wants.
The Greek philosopher Plato (228-348 BC) believed that ethics could not be derived from religion. He
raised the question:
"Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?"
From this viewpoint, if you accept that it is possible for something to be inherently good, then it seems
it is not necessary to appeal to the existence of God (and therefore organised religion) as the basis of
ethics and morals

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. 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.
For the intuitionist therefore:

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 realisation of the truth.

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.
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

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.

Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics look 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.

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.

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.

Theory of Knowledge Ethics - How Do We Know What is

Right and Wrong?
Only four men survived the ship wrecked Mignonette in 1884, floating for three weeks in the Atlantic
in a lifeboat. On the 19th day the captain Thomas Dudley suggested they drew lots to decide who
would be killed and eaten, but one man objected. On the 20th day Dudley told the others to look
away, offered a prayer and cut the throat of the cabin boy, aged 17, who was sick from drinking
seawater. They ate his body. Four days later they were rescued by another ship and the three
survivors were charged with murder in the law case The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
It is significant that murder and cannibalism could be argued to be reasonable in this case. On
utilitarian grounds the actions of Dudley are justified because they promote the greatest happiness of
the greatest number. However, using deontological ethical theories, murder is wrong in itself,
regardless of the consequences for others. If cannibalism is disgusting and our emotional response is
that what happened is intuitively wrong, we might ask ourselves if our disgust is reasonable? Would
we have done otherwise? Or could the case be put that Dudley acted rationally?
In TOK ethics, it is tempting to conclude that because there is no agreement about standards of right
and wrong, it follows that there is no knowledge in ethics. After all, individuals and cultures do not
have the same moral standards. However, our ethical judgements are just that - judgements. We can
make better or worse judgements in ethics and our task in TOK is to know the difference. Paul
Grobstein stated that: "there is no such thing as 'right', the very concept needs to be replaced with
'progressively less wrong.' " So although certain knowledge in ethics is hard to find, we can make
progress by arriving at moral judgements that are considered. So in your response to the case above,
ask yourself 'why do I think that?'

In ethics we are dealing with a plurality of truths. It'll be worth questioning the basis there might be for
ethical truth across cultures. What are good reasons for holding our moral beliefs? Pay close attention
to the words used to express moral viewpoints; we know that in the language or war, 'one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', and in the above case, 'one man's cannibalistic murderer is
another man's hero with superior survival instincts.'
Perhaps the challenge in TOK ethics is to look for what moral knowledge cultures might have in
common. Even the notion of right and wrong is shared across cultures, even if the standards to which
this approximates, differs. The idea of shared values is embodied in the idea of The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
So to conclude, tolerance of other people's views is a fundamental principle but it does not follow that
all moral views are of equal value. Freedom of speech and the right to express your own view is
essential, but there may be some moral views that are not as sound as others. The task of ethics is to
examine the grounds on which we hold our moral beliefs. How do we decide about the case above;
killing a person as a means to an end is objectionable, but the instinct to survive in extreme conditions
might demand we re-think our moral paradigms? It's for you to decide.
For more top tips for Theory of knowledge visit Elvira Vian's Theory of Knowledge student
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Elvira_Vian

R. M Hare, Essays in Ethical Theory, 1989

Four ethical 'isms'
When a person says "murder is bad" what are they doing?
That's the sort of question that only a philosopher would ask, but it's actually a very useful way of
getting a clear idea of what's going on when people talk about moral issues.
The different 'isms' regard the person uttering the statement as doing different things.
We can show some of the different things I might be doing when I say 'murder is bad' by rewriting that
statement to show what I really mean:

I might be making a statement about an ethical fact

"It is wrong to murder"

This is moral realism

I might be making a statement about my own feelings

"I disapprove of murder"

This is subjectivism

I might be expressing my feelings

"Down with murder"

This is emotivism

I might be giving an instruction or a prohibition

"Don't murder people"

This is prescriptivism

Moral realism
Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts or truths in the universe.
Moral statements provide factual information about those truths.
Subjectivism
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are nothing more than statements of a person's feelings or
attitudes, and that ethical statements do not contain factual truths about goodness or badness.
In more detail: subjectivists say that moral statements are statements about the feelings, attitudes
and emotions that that particular person or group has about a particular issue.
If a person says something is good or bad they are telling us about the positive or negative feelings
that they have about that something.
So if someone says 'murder is wrong' they are telling us that they disapprove of murder.
These statements are true if the person does hold the appropriate attitude or have the appropriate
feelings. They are false if the person doesn't.

Emotivism
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more than expressions of approval or disapproval.
This sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism a moral statement doesn't provide information about
the speaker's feelings about the topic but expresses those feelings.
When an emotivist says "murder is wrong" it's like saying "down with murder" or "murder, yecch!" or
just saying "murder" while pulling a horrified face, or making a thumbs-down gesture at the same time
as saying "murder is wrong".
So when someone makes a moral judgment they show their feelings about something. Some theorists
also suggest that in expressing a feeling the person gives an instruction to others about how to act
towards the subject matter.

Prescriptivism

Prescriptivists think that ethical statements are instructions or recommendations.

So if I say something is good, I'm recommending you to do it, and if I say something is bad, I'm telling
you not to do it.
There is almost always a prescriptive element in any real-world ethical statement: any ethical
statement can be reworked (with a bit of effort) into a statement with an 'ought' in it. For example:
"lying is wrong" can be rewritten as "people ought not to tell lies".