Ethics

WHY SHOULD I STUDY ETHICS?

Biological man needs

assistance of the mature
people to survive unlike many
animals (Monkeys).
Social perspective, we
need to conduct ourselves in a
manner that respects other
human beings for harmony in
society- to avoid treating human
beings as objects.

Spiritual or transcendental perspective,

man has intelligence and will that help one
to have freedom, know the truth, desire the
good and hence get towards an ultimate
end which is eternal happiness…
Philosophy • PHIL is both a study and
a practice
• PHIL means the ‘love of
wisdom’
• Wisdom is as wisdom
does
• The purpose of wisdom?

• http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~bgeis/philo/philosophy.html
A little ethics humor
 What is ethics?

• Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies free

human acts from the point of view of their moral
value (their goodness or badness) in relations to
mans ultimate end.

• Ethics is also termed as moral philosophy it involves

systematizing, defending and recommending
concepts of right and wrong behavior.
 General definitions of Ethics
-“Ethics is the area of Philosophy which studies
the moral life of man; that is, his human life as a
person, considered from the point of view of its
goodness or badness” (Debeljuh, p. 25)
-“Ethics may be defined as the science of the
moral rectitude of human acts in accordance with
the first principles of natural reason
“ (Mimbi, p. 25)
 LETS IMPROVE YOUR
UNDERSTANDING...
Ethics is like... Morality is like...
• understanding musical theory,  playing music, hitting the
reading music, understanding right notes, performing
technique

People can still play music

without musical theory
but.....you may/may not
make good decisions in a
musical arrangement or
performance
 LETS IMPROVE YOUR
UNDERSTANDING...
Ethics is like... Morality is like...
 understanding the basic  good driving – knowing and
principles of how our cars applying the rules of the road
work. (Ex. You get good in bad weather such as
traction because of the slowing down and allowing
friction your tires have with greater distance to stop the
the road and that in a car.
snowstorm this friction is
reduced) You can operate a car without
understanding the laws of
physics however you would
have difficulty in making good
decisions should dramatic
changes arise
 Definitions
Ethics and Morality
• Ethics – A branch of philosophy concerned with ways
of thinking philosophically about morality, and moral
judgment.
• Ethics is a set of rules that define right and wrong
conduct.

• Morality – Human conduct and character referring to

“those acts which it makes sense to describe as right
or wrong, good or bad.”
 What makes something an Ethical issue?

Content:
duties, rights, human welfare, suffering, character,
etc.

Perspective:
impartial, compassionate, etc.
 What is ethics?
(1) What makes an act morally right or wrong (a
question of conduct)?
(2) What makes a person or something good or
bad (a question of value)?
(3) How to draw the correct conclusion about what
we ought to do or what kind of person we ought to
be?
(1) and (2) are theoretical/conceptual questions
and (3) is a practical question about moral reasoning.
 Characteristics of Ethical Issues
• Moral disagreements are common (respect) Moral
issues are often controversial and open-ended. It is
often difficult to arrive at some consensus.

• How serious could people disagree with one

another? Could the disagreement be radical and
fundamental?

• People even disagree about what and how much

they disagree.
 Universally Binding

• Moral obligations, some philosophers maintain, are

universally binding and that is what gives them
their distinctive character.
 General moral principle…or not?
• Hurting a friend is wrong.
• The Bible says that thou shalt not kill.
• Shoplifting might get you into trouble.
• Stealing is ok.
• Helping others helps ourselves.
• Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.
• Honour thy father and thy mother.
 Structure of moral action
• Person  Action  Consequence
• Person: What makes a person morally good? Be
courageous, kind, and so on?
• Do the motive, character, and intention of the person matter in
deciding whether an action is right or wrong?
• Action: What makes an action morally right?
• Should the motive, character, or intention of the actor be taken
into consideration? Should it be solely determined by the
consequences?
• Consequence: What constitutes a good or bad
consequence?
 Moral Theories
• A moral theory consists of a set of moral
principles.
• These principles specify the conditions under
which an action is morally right or wrong, or
• What makes a person or something good or bad.

• They purport to guide our moral reasoning.

Sidebar: What is legal may not be
ethical/moral.
Ethical
Conduc
t

Unethic
LEGAL ILLEGAL
al
Conduct

Keeping money that someone dropped is legal

The death penalty
Smoking in public places is legal
Abortion
 Why a Code of Ethics?
►Deters unethical behavior
►Provides a support system for members
►Serves as an enabling document
►Acts as a basis for adjudicating disputes
►Enhances a profession’s reputation
►Acts as a source for public evaluation
►Aids with professional socialization

Frankel, 1989
 Main Branches of Ethics
There are a variety of theories related to ethics, but there is general agreement on Four main subject areas:
Meta Ethics/Analytical Normative Ethics Descriptive Applied ethics
Ethics Ethics/comparative ethics

-Explores meaning -Asks what behaviour/ -What do people think -Application of ethical
and use of ethical things is right/good is right? reasoning to difficult or
language. and wrong/bad. -Describes and controversial issues).
-origin and meaning of -How should people compares different - How do we take
ethical principles), act/ behavior? ways societies have moral knowledge and
-What do we mean -Decides how answered moral put it into practice?
by: good, bad, people ought to questions.
right, wrong? act and how they -Can be called moral -How do we apply
make moral sociology. ethics to work and
lives?
choices. e.g., Bioethics –
Euthenesia, abortion,
(Establishing norms
bribery, killing, etc
or moral principles
for guiding right and
wrong decisions or
conduct)
(Virtue, Utilitarianism,
Kant, etc)
 The Focus of Ethics
• Ethics as the Evaluation of Other People’s
Behavior
– We are often eager to pass judgment on others

• Ethics as the Search for Meaning and Value in

Our Own Lives

06/03/2025
 Ethics as the Evaluation of Other
People’s Behavior
• Ethics often used as a weapon
• Hypocrisy
• Possibility of knowing other people
• The right to judge other people
• The right to intervene
• Judging and caring
• Ethics as the search for the meaning of our
own lives
 Three major kinds of moral theories
• Consequence-based theories
• Deontological theories
• Virtue-based theories (approaches)
Classification of Ethical Theories
 The Basic Idea of Utilitarianism
Based on the results- happiness
The Greatest Happiness Principle:
“Actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness” –John Stuart
Mill

• Happiness = moral behavior

• Unhappiness = immoral behavior
 Jeremy
Bentham

 Morality is about
making the world
as happy as
possible
 JEREMY BENTHAM
 “Nature has placed
mankind under the
governance of two
sovereign masters:
pain and pleasure.

It is for them alone to point

out what we ought to do...”
 The Basic Idea of Utilitarianism
The Greatest Happiness Principle:
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness,
wrong as produce the
they tend to

reverse of happiness” –John Stuart

Mill

The greatest happiness of the greatest

number of people.
 Making Ethical Judgments in
Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism says that the Result or the

Consequence of an Act is the real measure
of whether it is good or bad.

• This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.

• Theories, like this one, that emphasize the

results or consequences are called
teleological or consequentialist.
 Ethical Egoism
• EE: each person ought to pursue his or her own
self interest exclusively ?
 Your happiness
• Thinking that your purpose in life is to look out
for yourself – there is no obligation to look out
for any one else – in fact, it would be morally
wrong
• Egotist: thinking that you’re the best thing
since sliced bread
Deontology – Non consequentialism
• Immanuel Kant
• Deontology: any ethical theory which prescribes
a moral duty or obligation to perform certain
moral acts because they have intrinsic moral
worth.
• For example deontologists might claim we have
a duty to be truthful regardless of the
consequences.
 Two types of Imperative

• Hypothetical imperative......
if you want this result, you should
do this.... G/F, SAT

• Categorical imperative......
you should do this (regardless of
your wants....)
Categorical imperative - Duty
 Immanuel Kant -Duty Ethics
The way to decide if something is your duty is if
you can generalize it. No individual should have
preferential treatment. I is we.

What would happen if everyone did this?

Apply this philosophy to stealing, cheating,

polluting, voting, suicide.
 Religious ethics
• 1. Devine Command theory
• Make it so...
 1. The Divine Command Theory
• We believe that God has told us to obey certain
rules of conduct

• No compulsion ------- freewill

2.The Theory of Natural Law
• Based on the ancient Greek
theory that everything has a place
and a purpose (teleo)
• (2 eyes, ears)

• The world is orderly and rational.

• Man has the means to
understand the order.
o There is a neat
hierarchy, with humans
conveniently situated a
top all other life
forms on the Earth.
 Ethical Subjectivism
The basic idea: our moral opinions
our feelings and
are based on
nothing more

People have different opinions, but

where morality is concerned, there
are no “facts,”, and no one is
“right.”
 Ethical Subjectivism
What is the basic thought behind ethical
subjectivism?
There are two distinct stages of subjectivism in
the history of modern ethics.
The first, proposed by David Hume in
1740, is what Rachels calls "simple
subjectivism."
This evolved into a second stage
called "emotivism," the proponent
of which is Charles Stevenson
(1944).
 Ethical Intuition
• We inherently know right from wrong.
• Cannot prove our moral intuitions are true; is
intuition the best way to go when it comes to
deciding a moral action?
• Is conscience part of intuition?
 Consistency
-Impartiality is important. You can’t apply one
set of standards to one person’s action but not the
same action performed by someone else.
Special Pleading—i e, a teacher with a really
strict tardy policy is late to class all the time.

Hypocrisy—NOT the same thing as relativism.

I hate thieves, but one of my best friends will steal

gum for me anytime I ask her.
 Relativism

• Relativists often say that widespread moral

disagreement proves that their view is true.
They say:
• 1. Different people have different beliefs about
morality.
• 2. Therefore, there are no objective facts about
morality
 Ethical (cultural) Relativism
• No such thing as right and wrong outside of the
values of the particular individual or given
society.
 Ethical Absolutism
• There is such a thing as right and wrong that is
universally applicable.
 Virtue Theory
(ethics of
Character)
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's
character and the virtues that one’s character
embodies for determining or evaluating
ethical behaviour

The roots of this theory lie in the works of Plato

and Aristotle

Virtue ethics place an emphasis on being

rather than doing.

Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics,

morality stems from the identity and/or
character of the individual, rather than being
 Aim of moral theories
MT’s theoretical aim is to discover those underlying
features of actions, persons, and other items of
moral concern that make them right or wrong,
good, or bad.

What makes an act right or wrong?

What makes a person good or bad?
What is the nature of moral and non moral value?

Thus MT’s focus is on developing moral principles.

 Moral Principles
MPs are general moral statements that purport to set forth
conditions under which an action is right or wrong or
something is good or bad.

One ought to keep one’s promises. [moral

principle]
I promised to paint my best friend’s living room
Saturday. [factual claim]
Therefore, I ought to paint my best friend’s living
room Saturday.
 Ethical Systems
• Based on consequence aim for maximum human
happiness.
• Based on principals present doing good as an
obligation.
• Based on care stress empathy and nurturing
relationships.

• Most people identify more strongly with one system.

• Does this have anything to do with our personality
types?
Socrates: We are discussing no small matter,
but how we ought to live
 Ethics & Good Health
• Ethics is like nutrition
– One studies bodily health, the other moral health
– Significant disagreement in both fields
– Still there is a significant common ground.
 Moral Health
The goal of ethical reflection is moral health.

Thus we seek to determine what will nourish our

moral life and what will poison it.
 Ethical argument pattern
(Generally) we appeal to a common moral
principal and then attempt to show that a
particular action falls under it.
 The most basic
form of deduction:
the syllogism

Major Premise All men are mortal

Minor Premise Socrates is a man
------------------- -------------------------
Conclusion Therefore, Socrates is mortal
 The most basic form of
deduction: the syllogism
Major Premise Most Human beings Keep their words
Minor Premise I am a….
------------------- -------------------------
Conclusion Therefore, I keep my words

Abortion is killing people

……………………………
Therefore, abortion is wrong

Truth?
Validity?
Soundness?
 Reason and Impartiality
Moral Reasoning
 We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how
powerful they might be.
 Our feelings may be irrational and may be
nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness,
or cultural conditioning.
 Our decisions must be guided as much as
possible by reason.
 Moral judgments must be backed by good
reasons.
 Morality requires the impartial consideration of
each individual’s interests.
 The morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.
 Reason and Impartiality
The Requirement of Impartiality
 Each individual’s interests are
equally important, and no one
should get special treatment.

 from within the moral point of view,

there are no privileged persons.
Therefore, each of us must
acknowledge that other people’s
welfare is just as important as our
own.”
 So morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual's
interest.
The morally right thing to do...
The Minimum Conception of Morality

 Morality is, at the very least,

the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is,
to do what there are the best
reasons for doing—while
giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual
affected by one’s decision.
 Ethical Decision Making Tests‡

1. REVERSIBILITY
2. PUBLICITY
3. HARM

‡ Based on handouts from the Ethics in BSE Retreat, “A Guide for Ethical Decision
Making” (Dr. Vivian Weil and Dr. Michael Davis)
 REVERSIBILITY
 Would I think this is a good choice if I where
among those affected by it?
 “Put yourself into the other person’s shoes”

 You bring up this issue, for example:

 As an employee … “I’m not a slave/robot” …
 As an employer … “I pay these people well” …
 As a colleague … “I work hard, others surf?”
…
 PUBLICITY
 Would I want or mind if this choice is
published in the newspaper?
 “Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente”
 “What the eyes don’t see is not heartfelt”
 You bring up this issue, for example:

 … early in the morning before the boss arrives

 … I toggle between e-mail & the task at hand
 HARM
 Does the action cause harm? Does it do
less harm than the alternatives?
 “El remedio es peor que la enfermedad”
 “The remedy is worst than the illness”
 You bring up this issue, for example:

 Does it interferes with other’s work?

 Some take advantage … others don’t!
 Ban the use of e-mail and Internet?
Baby Theresa.....Anencephaly

“An Infant with No Prospects”

 First Example: Baby Theresa
 Anencephalic infants: ‘babies without brains’
o Cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull are missing
o Have a brain stem, thus autonomic functions
(breathing, heartbeat, etc.) are possible
o Usually aborted in the US; otherwise, half are
stillborn and usually die within days
 The parents of “Baby Theresa” --an
anencephalic infant-- requested that her
organs be donated before her natural
biological death (otherwise, the organs would
not be usable).
Florida law prohibits this, and so she died
nine days later and her organs could not be
used.
Parental request: allow her organs to be
harvested to benefit other newborns.
Legal resolution: "Florida law does not allow the
removal of organs until the donor is dead."
Baby Theresa’s parents
volunteered her organs for
transplant. BUT. . .
 Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the
donor is dead.
 Baby Theresa died after nine days. Her organs
were too deteriorated to be harvested or
transplanted.

? Should she have been killed so that her organs

could have been used to save other children?
 (Thousands of infants need transplants each year.)
Surprisingly few ethicists sided
with the parents and physicians.
 “It just seems too horrifying to use people as
means to other people’s ends.”
 “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
 “What the parents are really asking for is,…‘Kill
this dying baby so that its organs may be used for
someone else.’
 Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”
What about Baby Theresa’s life?
? Isn’t being alive better than being dead?
 Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a life’: to carry
on activities and have thoughts, feelings, and
relations with other people.

In the absence of such things,

‘mere biological life’ is worthless.
 Moral arguments are arguments with a moral
judgment as the conclusion

The parents: ( benefit argument)

Transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs would benefit other

children without harming her.
If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we
ought to do so.
--------------------------------------
Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.
 Moral arguments are arguments with a
moral judgment as the conclusion

The Death is a Harm Argument

1. In all cases, causing the death of a person harms that person.
2. Transplanting the organs would cause the death of Baby
Theresa.
_________________________________________
Therefore, transplanting the organs would harm Baby Theresa
The Argument That We Should Not Use People as
Means
 It is wrong to use people as means to other
people’s ends.
 Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to
benefit other children.
\Therefore, it should not be done.
How is Baby Theresa being ‘used’?
? Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean?
Violating Baby Theresa’s autonomy?
 Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She has
no preferences about anything, nor has she ever
had any.
The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing
 It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
 Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to
save others.
\So, taking the organs would be wrong.
The Slippery Slope Argument
\If we accept any sort of
mercy killing, we will slide
down a slippery slope, and
in the end all life will be
held cheap. Where will we
draw the line?

\What about other disabled

people, the elderly, the
infirm, and other ‘useless’
members of society?
1:3 Jodie and Mary
 1.3 Conjoined Twins
• Siamese Twins
• Chang and Eng
• Born in 1811
• Travelled with the circus
• Married two sisters
• Fathered 21 children
• Died in 1874
 Second Example: Jodie and Mary
 Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen;
spines fused; one heart and one pair of lungs
between them.
 Without an operation to separate them, both twins
would die within six months.
 This would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
 The parents refused permission for the operation, but
courts okayed it.
 Jodie lived, and Mary died.
The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We
Can
\There is a choice: save one or let both die.

? Isn’t it plainly better to save one?

Not from the parents’ perspective.
Jodie and Mary

The Argument that we should save as many as

we can (Pro-separation)

1. By separating the twins we will be

saving as many lives as possible.
2. We should always save as many lives
as we can.
3. Therefore the twins should be
separated.
 Jodie and Mary

• Anti-separation:

• Mary is an innocent human being and the

separation will kill her.
• It's wrong to kill an innocent human being.
-------------------------------------------
• :. The twins shouldn't be separated.
The doctrine known as
consequentialism, and is hotly
debated among moral philosophers. The
idea that we should always act so as to
bring about the best outcome is very
attractive, but many have found it to be
very objectionable. See; chapters
Utilitarianism.
The Argument from the Sanctity of Human Life
 All human life is precious, regardless of age,
race, social class, or handicap.
 The prohibition against killing innocent humans
is absolute.
 Mary is an innocent human being.
\Therefore, she should not be killed.
 However. . .
 Mary would not be ‘killed’ during the operation but
merely separated from Jodie. Her death would
be due to her body’s inability to sustain her
life.
 Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill innocent
human beings. . .
o If the innocent human has no future because she is
going to die soon no matter what. . . AND. . .
o She has no wish to go on living (perhaps because she
has no wishes at all). . . AND. . .
o This killing will save others who can go on to lead ‘full
lives.’
Justice Robert Walker, who denied that Mary would be
killed by the operation.
He claimed, “She would die, not because she was
intentionally killed, but because her own body cannot
sustain her life.”

This reply rests on there being a moral distinction

between
killing and letting die.
The Latimer Case

A Child with No Further Prospects

 Third Example: Tracy Latimer
 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, killed by her
father with exhaust fumes while the rest of the
family were at church.
 Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs. and was
described as “functioning at the mental level of a
three-month-old baby.”
 Robert Latimer was sentenced to 10 years in
prison.
? Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? Wasn’t killing
her an act of mercy?
 Mercy or Murder?
12 year old Tracy
Latimer, killed by
her father in 1993

Quadriplegic and
severely mentally c
disabled, she
functioned at the
level of a three-
month old and was
in constant pain…
The Argument from the Wrongness of
Discriminating against the Handicapped

 Handicapped people should be given the same

respect and the same rights as everyone else.
 Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
\Therefore, killing her was wrong.
 The Latimer Case

• Argument against Latimer’s action:

• Killing Tracy was discrimination against the

handicapped.
• It is wrong to discriminate against the handicapped.
--------------------------------------
• :. Tracy's father did wrong: he shouldn't have killed her.
 The Discrimination Argument

To discriminate between two things with an action

is to treat those two things differently based on
some perceived difference between the things in
question.
Discrimination, in this general sense, is usually
not wrong, and in fact is necessary for survival. I
discriminate when I decide to eat the food on my
plate instead of my fork.
What is the difference, then, between
discrimination in the general sense
and wrongful discrimination against a
group?