Lecture 2 (Part1): Ethical Concepts

and Ethical Theories: Establishing

and Justifying a Moral System

9/2020

1
 Overview
 Aims & requirements:
Providing students understandings about ethical concepts and some theories.
Requirements:
- Reading materials before the lecture
- Attending required
 Lecturing format:
 Content:
 Ethics and Morality
 Discussion Stoppers as Roadblocks to Moral Discourse
 Why Do We Need Ethical Theories?
 Integrating Aspects of Classical Ethical Theories into a Single
Comprehensive Theory
 Discussion: Importance of rules of conduct?
 Self-study: Utilitarianism
 Exercise: Describing core values and moral values.
 Reading material: Chapter 2, Textbook
1. Ethics and Morality
 Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are
terms having to do with “custom,”
”habit,” and “behavior.
 Ethics is the study of morality.
 This definition raises two questions:
 (a) What is morality?
 (b) What is the study of morality?
What is Morality?
 morality can be defined as:
a system of rules for guiding human conduct,
and principles for evaluating those rules.
Two points are worth noting in this definition:
 (i) morality is a system; and

 (ii) it is a system comprised of moral rules

and principles.
 moral rules can be understood as "rules of
conduct," which are very similar to "policies."
Rules of Conduct as “Policies”
 Policies range from formal laws to "informal,
implicit guidelines for actions" (Moor, 1999)
 Moor suggests that every act can be viewed
as an instance of a policy.
 There are two kinds of rules of conduct:
 Directives for guiding our conduct as individuals
(at the micro-level)
 Social Policies framed at the macro-level
Directives
 Directives are rules (of conduct) that guide
our actions and thus direct us to behave in
certain ways.
 Rules such as "Do not steal" and "Do not
harm others" are both examples of rules of
conduct that direct us in our individual moral
choices at the "micro-ethical" level (i.e., the
level of individual behavior).
Social Policies
 Other rules of conduct guide our actions at
the "macro-ethical" level by helping us frame
social policies.
 Rules such as "proprietary software should
not be copied" or "software that can be used
to invade the privacy of users should not be
developed" are examples of rules of conduct
that arise out of our social policies.
 A correlation between directives and social
policies (e.g., rules involving stealing).
Principles
 The rules of conduct in a moral system are
evaluated against standards called principles.
 For example, the principle of "social utility,"
which is concerned with promoting the
greatest good for the greatest number, can
be used to evaluate a social policy such as
"proprietary software should not be copied
without permission."
Principles (continued)
 The social-utility principle functions as a kind
of "litmus test" for determining whether the
policy pertaining to proprietary software can
be justified on moral grounds.
 A certain policy could be justified (on
utilitarian grounds) by showing that following
the rule for not allowing the unauthorized
copying of software would produce more
overall social utility (greater good for society).
 Figure 2.1: Basic Components of a Moral System

Rules of Conduct Principles of Evaluation

(Action-guiding rules, in the form (Evaluative standards used
of either directives or social to justify rules of conduct)
policies)

two types Examples include principles such

as of social utility and justice as
fairness

Rules for guiding the Rules for establishing

actions of individuals social policies
(micro-level ethical (macro-level ethical rules)
rules)

Examples include directives Examples include social policies such as:

such as:"Do not steal" and "Software should be protected“ and
"Do not harm others." "Privacy should be respected."
Figure 2.1 illustrates the different kinds of rules and principles that comprise a moral system.
What Kind of a System Is a
Moral System?
 According to Bernard Gert (2005,
2007), morality is a “system whose
purpose is to prevent harm and
evils.”
 In addition to preventing harm, a
moral system aims at promoting
human flourishing
Bernard Gert’s Scheme of a
Moral System
 Morality is a system.
 It is like a game, but more like an
informal game (e.g., a game of cards)
 It is public (open and accessible to all)
 It is rational (open to reason)
 It should be impartial (e.g., a “blindfold
of justice”).
 Table 2-1 Four Features of
Gert’s Moral System
Public Informal Rational Impartial
The rules are The rules are The system is The system is
known to all informal, not based on not partial to
of the like formal principles of any one group
members. laws in a legal logical reason or individual.
system. accessible to all
its members.
Deriving and Justifying the Rules
and Principles of a Moral System
 We have also seen that at the heart of a moral system are
rules for guiding the conduct of the members of the
system.
 But where, exactly, do these rules come from? And what
criteria can be used to ground or justify these rules?
 Arguably, the rules of conduct involving individual
directives and social policies are justified by the system’s
evaluative standards, or principles. But how are those
principles in turn justified?
 On the one hand, rules of conduct for guiding action in the
moral system, whether individual directives or social policies,
are ultimately derived from certain core values.
 Principles for evaluating rules of conduct, on the other hand,
are typically grounded in one of three systems or sources:
religion, law, or (philosophical) ethics.
 Figure 2-2: Components of
a Moral System
Grounds for justifying moral principles Religion Philosophy Law

Principles of Evaluation
Moral principles
and rules Rules of Conduct

Source of moral rules Core Values

Core Values
 The term value comes from the Latin valere,
which translates roughly into having worth or
being of worth.
 Values can be conceived as objects of our
desires or interests.
 Examples of values include very general
notions such happiness, love, freedom, etc.
 Moral principles are ultimately derived from a
society's system of values.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental
Values
 Philosophers distinguish between two types
of values: intrinsic and instrumental values.
 Any value that serves some further end or
good is called an instrumental value because
it is tied to some external standard.
 Automobiles, computers, and money are
goods that have instrumental value.
 Values such as life and happiness are intrinsic
because they are valued for their own sake.
Core Values
 Another approach to cataloguing values is to
distinguish core values, some of which may
or may not also be intrinsic values, from
other kinds of values.
 Moor (1998), for example, believes that
values such as life, happiness, and autonomy
are core values because they are basic to a
society's thriving and perhaps even to a
society's survival.
 Not all core values are also moral values.
Moral vs. Non-Moral Values
 Morals and values are are not necessarily
identical.
 Values can be either moral or non-moral.
 Reason informs us that it is in our interest to
promote values that promote our own
survival, happiness, and flourishing as
individuals.
 When used to further only our own self-
interests, these values are not necessarily
moral values.
Moral Values
 Once we bring in the notion of impartiality,
we begin to take the "moral point of view."
 When we frame the rules of conduct in a
moral system, we articulate a system of
values having to do with notions such as
autonomy, fairness, justice, etc., which are
moral values.
 Our core moral values are, in turn derived
from certain core non-moral values.
Three Schemes for Grounding the
Evaluative Rules in a Moral System
 The principles are grounded in one of three
different kinds of schemes:
 Religion
 Law
 Philosophical Ethics.
 Consider how a particular moral principle can
be justified from the vantage-points of each
scheme.
 Consider the rule of conduct “do not steal.”
Approach #1: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Religious System
 Consider the following rationale for why
stealing is morally wrong:
 Stealing is wrong because it offends God or
because it violates one of God's (Ten)
Commandments.
 From the point of view of institutionalized
religion, then, stealing is wrong because of it
offends God or because it violates the
commands of a supreme authority.
Approach #2: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Legal System
An alternative rationale would be:
 Stealing is wrong because it violates the law.
 Here the grounds for determining why
stealing is wrong are not tied to religion.
 If stealing violates a law in a particular nation
or jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be
declared to be wrong independent of any
religious beliefs that one may or may not
happen to have.
Approach #3: Grounding Moral Principles
in a Philosophical System of Ethics
 A third way of approaching the question is:
 Stealing is wrong because it is wrong
(independent of any form of external
authority or any external sanctions).
 On this view, the moral "rightness" or
"wrongness" of stealing is not grounded in
some external authoritative source.
 Does not appeal to an external authority,
either theological or legal, for justification.
Approach # 3 Continued
 Many philosophers and ethicists argue that,
independent of supernatural or legal
authorities, reason alone is sufficient to show
that stealing is wrong.
 They argue that reason can inform us that
there is something either in the act of
stealing itself or in the consequences that
result from this kind of act that makes
stealing morally wrong.
Approach # 3 Continued
 In the case of both law and religion, specific
sanctions against stealing exists in the form
of punishment.
 In the case of (philosophical) ethics, the only
sanction would be in the form of social
disapprobation (disapproval) and possibly
social ostracism. But there is no punishment
in a formal sense.
 External conditions or factors, in the form of
sanctions, are irrelevant.
 Figure 2-3: Components of a Moral
System: An Expanded View
Grounds for Justifying the Religion Philosophical Ethics Law
Moral Principles (Obedience to (Ethical Theory and Logical (Obedience to
Divine Command) Argumentation) (a legal system)

Moral Principles
Principles such as social utility, duty, obligation, etc.
are used as standards to evaluate and justify rules of conduct.
Moral Principles
Rules of Conduct
Moral rules are derived from basic moral values
(macro-level rules or policies such as "protect privacy“;
micro-level rules or directives such as "do not cheat").
Source of the
Moral rules Basic Moral Values
Moral values are derived from core non-moral values by
using the notion of impartiality. (Examples include
autonomy and respect for persons.

Core Non-Moral Values

Non-moral values originate from desires and typically
involve rational self interests. (Examples include:
survival, security, pleasure, etc.)
Ethicists vs. Moralists
 Ethicists study morality from the perspective
of philosophical methodology; they appeal to
logical arguments to justify their positions.
 Moralists often claim to have all of the
answers regarding morality.
 Many moralists also exhibit characteristics
that have been described as "preachy" and
"judgmental."
 Some moralists may have a particular moral
agenda to advance.
Ethicists and Moralists
(Continued)
 Ethicists, who use the philosophical method in
their analysis and investigation of moral
issues, must remain open to different sides of
a dispute.
 An ethicist’s primary focus is on the study of
morality and the application of theories.
 Ethicists approach the study of moral issues
and controversies by way of standards that
are both rational (based on logic) and
impartial (open to others to verify).
2. Discussion Stoppers as
"Roadblocks" to Moral Discourse
 Discussion stoppers can be articulated in
terms of the following four questions:
 1. People disagree about morality; so how can we
reach agreement on moral issues?
 2. Who am I/Who are we to judge others and to
impose my/our values on others?
 3. Isn't morality simply a private matter?
 4. Isn't morality simply a matter that different
cultures and groups should determine for
themselves?
Discussion Stopper # 1: People Disagree
on Solutions to Moral Issues

 People who hold this view fail to recognize:

 (i) Experts in other fields of study, such as
science and math., also disagree on what the
correct answers to certain questions are.
 (ii) There is common agreement about
answers to some moral questions.
 (iii) People do not always distinguish between
"disagreements about factual matters" and
"disagreements on general principles" in
disputes involving morality.
Discussion Stopper # 2: Who am
I to Judge Others?
 We need to distinguish between:
 “Persons Making Judgments” and
“Persons Being Judgmental,“ and
 “Judgments Involving Condemnations”
vs. “Judgments Involving Evaluations”

 Also, we are sometimes required to

make judgments about others.
Discussion Stopper # 3: Ethics is
Simply a Private Matter
 Many people assume that morality is
essentially personal in nature and that
morality must therefore be simply a
private matter.
 “Private morality" is essentially an
oxymoron or contradictory notion.
 Morality is a public phenomenon (Gert).
Discussion Stopper # 4: Morality is Simply
a Matter for Individual Cultures to Decide

 According to this view, a moral system is

dependent on, or relative to, a particular
culture or group.
 There are some very serious problems with
this view, which is called ethical relativism.
 To understand the problems inherent in this
position, it is useful to distinguish between
two positions involving relativism: cultural
relativism and moral relativism.
Discussion Stopper #4
Continued - Cultural Relativism
 At the base of cultural relativism is the
following assumption:
 (A) Different cultures have different
beliefs about what constitutes morally
right and wrong behavior.
 This assumption (A) is essentially
descriptive in nature.
Cultural Relativism Continued
 Although Assumption A (the view that
different groups have different conceptions
about what is morally right and morally
wrong behavior) is widely accepted, some
social scientists have argued that the
reported differences between cultures have
been greatly exaggerated.
 Other social scientists have suggested that all
cultures may possess certain universal core
moral values.
Cultural Relativism Continued
 Even if Cultural Relativism (assumption A) is
true, does it logically imply the further claim?
 (B) What is morally right or wrong for
members of a culture or group can be
determined only by that culture or group.
 Note that (B), unlike (A), is a normative
claim. Also note that to move from (A) to (B)
is to move from cultural relativism to moral
relativism.
Moral Relativism
 Moral relativism asserts that no universal
standard of morality is possible because
different people have different beliefs about
what is right and wrong.
 From this inference, relativists appear to
further suggest that, in matters of morality,
anything goes.
 But this principle of reasoning is problematic
because it is essentially incoherent and
inconsistent.
Moral Relativism Continued
 Does it follow that individuals who reside
outside a particular culture can never make
any judgments about the behavior of those
who live within that culture?
 Consider that in many tribes in West Africa a
ritual of female circumcision is still practiced.
 Although this practice has been a tradition for
many generations, some females living in
tribes that still perform this ritual on teenage
girls have objected.
Moral Relativism Continued
 Assume that the majority of residents in that
culture approve of female circumcision.
 Would it be inappropriate for those who lived
outside of West Africa to claim that the
treatment of young women in those tribes is
morally wrong simply because they are not
members of the particular culture?
 If we embrace that view, does it follow that a
culture can devise any moral scheme it
wishes as long as the majority approve it?
 Table 2-2 Summary of Logical
Flaws in the Discussion
Stoppers
Stopper #1 Stopper #2 Stopper #3 Stopper #4
People disagree on Who am I to judge Ethics is imply a Morality is simply a
solutions to moral others? private matter. matter for individual
issues. cultures to decide.
__________________ __________________ _________________ ___________________
1. Fails to recognize 1. Fails to distinguish 1. Fails to recognize that 1. Fails to distinguish
that experts in many between the act of morality is between descriptive and
areas disagree on key judging and being a essentially a public normative claims about
issues in their fields. judgmental person. system. morality.
2. Fails to recognize 2. Fails to distinguish 2. Fails to note that 2. Assumes that people
that there are many between judging as personally-based can never reach
moral issues on which condemning and morality can cause common agreement on
people agree. judging as evaluating. major harm to some moral principles.
others.
3. Fails to distinguish 3. Fails to recognize 3. Assumes that a
between that sometimes we are 3. Confuses moral system is moral because
disagreements about required to make choices with a majority in a culture
principles and judgments individual or decides it is moral.
disagreements about personal
facts. preferences.
3. Why Do We Need
Ethical Theories?
 Ethical theories can guide us in our
analysis of moral issues involving cyber-
technology.
 Is there a simpler, alternative scheme
that we could use in our moral
deliberations?
 Why not simply follow the "golden rule"
or follow one's own conscience?
Following the Golden Rule
 No one one would ever object to the spirit
the golden rule: "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you."
 This rule assumes that whatever I am willing
to accept that you do unto me, you would
also be willing to accept that I do unto you.
 Suppose that if I were a programmer I would
be willing to give away my software programs
for free. Does it follow that I should expect
others to do the same for me?
Following your Conscience
 On the face of it, the notion of following one's
conscience seems like a reasonable maxim.
 But it is also a dangerous principle or rule for
grounding one’s choices for acting morally.
 Consider that the 9/11 terrorists might been
following their individual consciences.
 Because conscience is very subjective, it
cannot provide grounds for moral deliberation
that are both rational and impartial.
The Structure of Ethical
Theories
 An essential feature of theory in general is
that it guides us in our investigations.
 In science, theory provides us with some
general principles and structures to analyze
our data.
 The purpose of ethical theory, like scientific
theory, is to provide us with a framework for
analyzing moral issues.
 Ideally, a good theory should be coherent,
consistent, comprehensive, and systematic.
The Structure of Ethical
Theories (Continued)
 To be coherent, the individual elements of
the theory must fit together to form a unified.
 For a theory to be consistent, its component
parts cannot contradict each other.
 To be comprehensive, a theory must be able
to apply broadly to a wide range of actions.
 And to be systematic, the theory cannot
simply address individual symptoms peculiar
to specific cases, while ignoring general
principles that would apply in similar cases.
Case Illustration: The "Bork
Bill"
 Judge Robert Bork was nominated for
the Supreme Court.
 Reporters went to a video store to find
out what kinds of movies Bork rented.
 Congress was incensed and passed the
Video Protection Act (Bork Bill).
 The Bill was neither comprehensive nor
systematic.
4. Integrating Aspects of Classical Ethical
Theories into a Single Comprehensive Theory :
Four Ethical Theories

 Consequence-based
 Duty-based
 Contract-based
 Character-based
 Table 2-3 Four Types of
Ethical Theory
Type of Theory Advantages Disadvantages
Consequence-based Stresses promotion of Ignores concerns of justice
(Utilitarian) happiness and utility for the minority population

Duty-based (Deontology) Stresses the role of duty and Underestimates the

respect for persons importance of happiness and
social utility
Contract-based (Rights) Provides a motivation for Offers only a minimal
morality morality
Character-based (Virtue) Stresses moral development Depends on homogeneous
and moral education community standards for
morality
 Moor’s Ethical Framework of Just
Consequentialism: A Two-Step Strategy

1. Deliberate over various policies from an impartial point of view to determine whether they
meet the criteria for being ethical policies. A policy is ethical if it:
a. does not cause any unnecessary harms to individual groups
b. supports individual rights, the fulfilling of duties, etc.
2. Select the best policy from the set of just policies arrived at the deliberation stage by ranking
ethical policies in terms of benefits and justifiable (harms). In doing this, be sure to:
a. weigh carefully between the good consequences and the bad consequences in the
ethical policies and
b. distinguish between disagreements about facts and disagreements about principles
and values, when deciding which particular ethical policy should be adopted.
(Knowledge about the facts surrounding a particular case should inform the
decision-making process.)
Review questions
 1. What is ethics, and how can it be
distinguished from morality?
 2. What is meant by a moral system?