Ethics- Introduction

 

Metaethics

Types of Ethical Theories

1. Virtue Ethics

2. Consequentialist Ethics

3. Deontological Ethics

Legalism

 

 

Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism

“Fashion” Relativism

What Relativism is NOT Saying

Reasons In Support of Relativism

Ethnocentrism

Imperialism

Problems With Ethical Relativism

Problems with Absolutism

 

 

Ethics, you will recall, is that branch of Philosophy, which seeks to answer questions about right human conduct.  In this introductory lecture we will be examining types of ethical theories as well as the meta-ethical dispute between Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism.

 

Ethics ‑ trying to decide what to do.  Necessarily ACTION GUIDING.

 

Deals with questions like:

 

·         What is right or wrong; good or bad?

·         What should I do or not do?

·         What kind of life should I lead or avoid?

 

Sometimes called the practical philosophy, Ethics deals with practice, choosing what you are going to do or should do on the basis of reason, but more specifically, on the basis of moral reason.  When you wake-up in the morning it the first question that you must ask and answer, “What shall I choose to do today.”

 

Metaethics:

 

An ethical theory will tell you what you what you ought to do.  A Meta-ethical theory is a theory about ethical theories or the nature of ethics in general.  I want to turn now to two meta-ethical positions: (1) Types of Ethical Theories and (2) The Dispute Between Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism.

 

BTW:  I do not distinguish between “Ethics” and “Morality.”  I treat these and their related terms as synonymous.

 

Ethical Theories fall into 3 Major Categories:

 

  1. Virtue Ethics
  2. Consequentialist Ethics
  3. Deontological Ethics

 

All are concerned with providing moral reasons to guide actions.

 

1.     Virtue Ethics

 

Virtue Ethics: a category of ethical theories which see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not they are conducive to or flow from a good character;

 

Sometimes referred to as "Hero Ethics"

 

If familiar with mythology, most mythologies utilize the notion of “the hero.”  And that hero embodies everything which that society admires or esteems. Virtue ethics works by asking, “What would the hero do in this situation?” Or, if contemplating an action, one might ask, “Would the hero do this or avoid it?”  If the hero would do it, then you have moral reason to do it.  If the hero would avoid it, then you have moral reason to avoid it.

 

Additionally you might ask, “Would this act make me like the hero or not?  The is, is this action conducive to the formation of an good/heroic character?”  One should act in ways that are conducive to or flow from a good character, an ideal person.  One should avoid the things that are counterproductive to the formation of a good character.

 

Christianity can be viewed as an example of a Religious Virtue Ethics (though not, strictly speaking, a philosophical ethical theory). According to this view, Jesus is the ideal and we ought to be Jesus‑like, to do things that will help us be more Jesus-like and, generally, to do what Jesus would do.  What makes this religious and not philosophical/secular is that it rests on faith that Jesus is Divine.[1]

 

Virtue Ethics do not set a minimal standard below which one must not sink, but rather they set an ideal goal and make judgements relative to how close one approximates the ideal.  The moral imperative from this perspective is not “Don’t break the rule!” but rather “Strive for excellence!”

 

Virtue Ethics is very often employed in professional ethics (medical ethics- “how would an ideal doctor behave?”, or legal ethics- “how would an ideal lawyer behave?”, “what constitutes ‘action unbecoming a justice?’”  Also, Virtue Ethics concepts are often used to evaluate entire societies.  Opponents of capital punishment sometimes point out that the US is the only modern western nation to still employ the death penalty.  When this fact is offered as a criticism of the death penalty, the tacit premise is, “No civilized (i.e. virtuous) nation employs the death penalty.  Therefore, the implied conclusion is  “The US is not a civilized (i.e. virtuous) nation (less than Ideal, at least in this respect).  Another example would be when proponents of universal health care try to convince us of the moral correctness of their position by claiming “Any compassionate, enlightened (i.e. virtuous) society would guarantee minimal healthcare to all its citizens.”

 

Problems:

 

  1. What is this “ideal” character?”

 

  1. Where do these standards come from?   What does/could justify them?

 

Keep in mind that while this may be a weakness when trying to use virtue ethics to prescribe behavior for others, it is a moot point when assessing one’s own behavior on the basis of virtue (powerful when using personal convictions).  It is an excellent way of looking at your life and seeing if you are living your own life according to your own values.

 

  1. Is there one set of standards for all human beings? (Maybe there are different, competing  ideals.)

 

4.     Even should such standards exist and be justified, they will still only provide vague guidance as to specific behavior.

 

Imagine that I was tasked with giving you practical advice  on how you should drive your car.  One cannot very well know how one should drive one’s car merely by being told, “Well... be courteous, kind, forthright, etc.”  Often, we need specific action guiding rules. (e.g.  “Drive on the right side of the road.”)

 

Example: Aristotle He is a virtue Ethicist who attempts to answer these questions.

 

  1. Consequentialist Ethics

 

Consequentialist Ethics: a category of ethical theories which see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not they have good consequences.

 

If the action in question has good consequences, then you have moral reason to perform it.  If it has bad consequences, then you have moral reason to refrain from performing the actions.

 

Problems:

 

1. What are “good consequences?”

 

Pleasure, Knowledge, Freedom, Security, Happiness- these are all different good consequences, but in some cases they are incompatible.  Sometimes to give you the truth, I have to tell you something painful.  Alternatively, in order to provide you with security, I might have to reduce your liberty.  Which of these competing “good consequences,” if any, should we try to maximize and why?  When they conflict, which is more important and why?  And does any answer to that question presume a NON-consequential means of moral evaluation?

 

2. Consequences to whom or what?  (Myself alone? Everyone? Animals? The Environment? Possible but non-actual Future Generations?)

 

3. What about when getting good consequences requires violating rights, duties or other obligations?

 

Examples: Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  They are all consequencialists and attempt to answer these questions.

 

3.     Deontological Ethics[2]

 

Deontological Ethics: a category of ethical theories which see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not they accord with correct moral rules.  If a moral rule prohibits a particular action, then you have moral reason to refrain from doing it.  If a moral rule requires a particular action, then you have moral reason to perform it. And if no moral rule neither requires nor prohibits a particular action, then you may you do it if you wish, but If you would prefer not to, you may refrain from doing it.  In this case, it would appear not to be a moral issue at all.

 

Here the moral primitive is “Rule.”  (Christianity can also be looked at as a religious deontological ethical system- offered faith-based moral rules to follow: i.e. 10 Commandments.)  The basic idea is, keep the rules and you are doing what is right; break the rules and you are doing what is wrong. 

 

Remember that the concept of a rule can also be expressed through words like “Rights, Duties, Obligations, Responsibilities, Forbidden, Permitted.[3]  Anytime one talks about rights, one is saying that there are certain moral rules governing the behavior.  (I have a “right to property” = “The rule is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE MY STUFF!”)  Universal Human Rights suggest that all humans must be treated in certain rule-governed ways.  If not, one is doing something wrong.

 

Anytime one is talking about rights, duties or obligations you are talking in deontological terms.

 

Problems:

 

1.     What are the moral rules?

 

2.     Where do these rules come from?

 

3.     How do we come to know the rules?

 

4.     The view seems to presume that ethics can be spelled out entirely in terms of rules. But some question whether ethics can really be spelled out in terms of specific rules.  They contend that it is impossible to legislate or articulate certain rules that are going to cover all real and possible moral issues.

 

  1. All focus on the moral worth of the agent can be lost when the defense of a behavior was that the act came right up to the line, but technically did not cross it.

 

“Well honey, technically I wasn’t cheating because we were just corresponding on the internet and I never actually touched her or had intercourse with her...”

           

Also, this approach to ethics runs the danger of legalism.

 

Legalism- an obsession with the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. Certain religions have a tendency toward legalism (tell you exactly you must be done in certain situations).

 

Examples:  Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross; They are all deontologists and attempt to answer these questions.

 

In Sum

 

We tend to argue using all three positions.

 

Where these points of view converge, we have vast agreement in ethics.  Moral controversy happens most often when these viewpoints diverge.  (i.e. The action looks good from one perspective but bad from another.)  The claim that there is no widespread agreement in ethics is a myth supported by biased observation. Our attention is drawn to controversy, not to agreement.

 

We will be looking at Theorists/Purists.  Each advocates only one particular point of view.

 

Aristotle- Virtue

Epicurus, J. Bentham and J.S. Mill- Consequences

Immanuel Kant- Moral Rules

 

Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism

 

Ethical Relativism‑ is a theory which states there are no absolute principles by which to adjudicate (decide between) competing ethical systems.

 

Ethical Absolutism – is a theory which states that there are absolute principles by which to adjudicate competing ethical systems.

 

NB: Do not confuse the Meta-Ethical theory Ethical Relativism with the descriptive (Anthropological theory) Cultural Relativism.

 

Cultural Relativism: the view that different cultures have different ethical systems.

 

Exposition of Ethical Relativism

 

First some Non-ethical examples of systems of “relative” judgements:

 

“Fashion” Relativism

 

In order to get a handle on what ethical relativism commits one to, I think it's helpful to think about other systems of relative judgments. For instance, I think it's appropriate to think of fashion judgments as judgments which occur within systems and are true or false relative to the societies which generate and maintain these systems of fashion. For instance, there is such a thing as “fashion truth.”  Some things are fashionable and some are not, and if you care about being fashionable, you need to go out and find out what the fashion standards are.  So there is a “fashion truth” independent of what any single individual has to say about it.  Note then That relativism is NOT subjectivism.

 

But this “truth” depends on time, place and culture.  X is fashionable for them there then. Or Y is unfashionable for us here now.  When one claims the “X is fashionable.” one must always complete the thought (consciously or unconsciously) “...relative to Y.”  And what is fashionable relative to 1980’s America (say Miami Vice Jackets) may not be fashionable in today’s America. Fashion rules are created by culture and therefore only have jurisdiction for the culture that created them.  Fashionable means what is culturally accepted, endorsed or admired by the group, and these things change from time to time.  To make something fashionable you need a culture, not an individual.  And if you care about being fashionable, you have to go out and find out what the rules are (Mademoiselle, Glamour, G.Q., etc.) and conform your behavior accordingly.

 

We can likewise think of rules of etiquette and legal rules as systems of relative judgements.  Again, some things are polite, and some things are rude.  And if you care about being polite and wish to avoid being rude, you have to find out what the etiquette rules are and conform your behavior accordingly.  They exist independent of the individual.  But judgments of politeness or rudeness are always relative to some societal standards.  One would have to say” X is rude… for them there then.” or “Y is polite …for us here now.” etc. Nothing is absolutely polite or absolutely rude, nor is anything absolutely fashionable or absolutely unfashionable. Not even the little black dress 😊.

 

What relativism is NOT saying:

 

            1. Nothing is really fashionable.

           

Don’t be ridiculous.  Of course some things are fashionable, and others are not.  Just ask Elle or GQ.

 

            2. What’s fashionable for me may not be fashionable for you.

 

No.  If we belong to the same group, then the same fashion rules apply to us both.

 

            3.  Well, even though everyone else claims that this is not fashionable, it’s fashionable FOR ME.

 

No.  Fashion doesn’t work that way.  One misuses the term to think otherwise.  I cannot make something fashionable by sheer force of will or preference.  (see above).  Maybe you mean “I don’t care about fashion.” Or “I like to fly in the face of fashion.” but that’s not the same thing and doesn’t change the fact that if everyone in my group says “X” is not fashionable.” then X is not fashionable for me either.  So, if I DO CARE about being fashionable, then I have to find out what the fashion rules are for the group I belong to (independent of my individual likes or dislikes) and follow them.

 

Now, if I were to ask “Well I know that in the 80’s those jackets were considered fashionable, and today we do not consider them fashionable, but I want do know, who’s right?  Are they REALLY fashionable or not?” the Fashion Relativist would respond, “What a silly question.” 

 

They really are fashionable for the 80’s (not just “considered”) and they really are unfashionable for us (not just “considered”).  And there are no absolute standards by which to adjudicate competing fashion systems.  All fashion judgments must be made relative to some “Y.”  You can never say “X is fashionable” full stop.

 

The ethical relativist believes that ethics is just like fashion in this respect.  Ethical Rules, etc. are created by society and only have jurisdiction for the society which created them.  Further, there are no absolute principles to determine what is right and wrong.  There are such things as moral truths, but they are relative, depend on time, place and culture.  X is ethical, but only relative to some Y.

 

Now if you asked how in fact did these rules (fashion rules/ ethical rules) get created, well no doubt it would be an interesting investigation and we might have to do sociology, psychology, economics, marketing, pop culture studies, etc. to answer these questions.  But we need not do that investigation to know what happens to be fashionable/ ethical for a society.

 

The relativist does not say that one makes up the rules oneself. If one cares about being ethical, one must find out what the rules are and abide by the rules of the society, and one is bound by the same rules as others in that culture.

 

Reasons in support of Ethical Relativism:

 

1. Widespread moral disagreement.  No universally accepted way of resolving such disagreements.

 

2. Avoids Ethnocentrism.

 

Ethnocentrism: the unjustified use of your one ethnic group’s standards as the objective standards by which to judge others for no other reason than that they are one’s own.  On this view, all other cultures are judged to be advanced or primitive, civilized or savage, moral or immoral depending on how closely they approximate one’s own culture.

 

3. Avoids imperialism

 

Imperialism: the practice of one culture imposing its values, traditions, practices, etc. on another by force and coercion.

 

Traditional Philosophical Ethical Theories have been absolutist ‑ what is right is right regardless of culture.

 

Western colonizing cultures have often been imperialistic, trying to replace the native views, practices, customs, etc. that they encountered with their own because they believed that it was their responsibility job educate and civilize the native people.

 

This view is very much out of fashion today.  During the 20th Century, groundbreaking work was done in Anthropology.  Margaret Mead studied natives in Somoa; her work (now somewhat suspect) caused a big stir because, according to her findings, the Samoans had very relaxed views towards sex.  This contrasted sharply with the sexual mores of Americans in the 1950s. In addition to her empirical findings, she also advanced the philosophical/meta-ethical view that no culture’s morals are morally superior to any others because there are no absolute principles which to adjudicate competing ethical systems.  The proper/enlightened (cosmopolitan) thing to do, therefore, is to leave them alone and not to try to change them; accept their cultural beliefs and accept that they are different.

 

The view is NOT really that new however.  It goes back at least as far as the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras of Abdera (c. 485-415 b.c.),  who claimed that “Man is the Measure of all things.”[4]

 

Problems with Ethical Relativism:

 

1.     If true we could not criticize cross culturally.

But what if they are doing things that inhumane (i.e., Nazi's)? True relativists would say that cannot say that the Nazi's ought not to have acted as they did since according to their moral system, they were justified.  The most a relativist could say would be, ‘Well, that would be considered wrong in our culture.”  But this is an impossibly pale response to a moral outrage?

 

2.     If true could not criticize intra-culturally.

But what if the majority of the culture believes Slavery is permissible?  Moral reformers claimed that the majority was wrong and pointed to a “higher standard” to make their moral criticisms of their culture’s practices.  But this is precisely what relativism denies. i.e. the existence of such higher standards.  Note that if the majority of your culture claim X is fashionable, and you disagree, you are the one who is mistaken.  On a similar view of ethics, it would be the moral reformers who are making the incorrect moral judgements.

 

3.     If true we could not make sense of the notion of moral progress.

If relativism is true, we cannot say that we are progressing just changing.  Progress entails the idea of moving towards a goal, not merely evolving.  Fashion doesn’t “progress” in the strict sense.  If bellbottoms jeans came back in style this would not be “fashion regress” such that we’re “less fashionable” than we used to be.  However, if institutionalized slavery ever “came back” this would be moral regress. (We would be less moral than we used to be.)

 

4.     One seemingly cannot support the notion of Universal Human Rights and be a relativist.

 

5.     If one were committed to the position that Imperialism is (always) wrong and goes on to say that it was wrong when the Romans did it, The British, The Spanish, The Incas, The Aztecs, The Chinese, the Mongols the Japanese, etc., one is acting as an Ethical Absolutist, not as an Ethical Relativist.  So note, Absolutism does not entail Imperialism,  nor does it entail Ethnocentrism.  Indeed, one can oppose both of these positions, and oppose them “Absolutely” only AS an Absolutist.

 

6.     What do you mean by “culture?” – Are we now members of a global culture and therefore there should be some global moral laws or standards; are we members of sub-cultures?  What if my sub-culture says “X” and the dominant culture says “~X”?  It is not clear what one means by culture or how to define it?

 

Ethical Relativist claims that ethical rules arise from culture.  We literally dream this stuff up.  (Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong)

 

Ethical Absolutist claims that ethical rules are like science. There is an objectivity to ethics and that, like science, there are ethical facts which we discover and about which entire cultures can be wrong.

(Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong)

 

Problems with Ethical Absolutism

 

1. What are these supposed absolute standards?

2. How do you know that you are not just favoring your own ethnic preferences, but acting as if it were the ultimate standards (Ethnocentrism).

 



[1] Some Christians and Christian theologians may take issue with what I am saying here.  While I do not think they would take issue with the idea that Jesus is held up to be the perfect example, they would take issue with the notion that Jesus is merely held up to be the perfect example.  This view overlooks the key tenet of orthodox Christianity, that Jesus is divine, that is, He is God, and not merely to be imitated, but principally to be obeyed.  This is another feature which distinguishes Christianity as a religious ethic and not a philosophical one.

[2] From the Greek word for duty: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study of')

[3] It is a further question about whether these moral “rules” differ in scope and importance or not.  For instance, Kant maintains that there is an important difference between Prefect Duties, which correspond to rights, and Imperfect Duties, which do not correspond to rights.  W. D. Ross argues that “prima facie” duties have a different significance than do actual duties.

[4] Ancient sources report that this sentence, or something very close, opened his work Truth, a public declamation with which he presented himself to the public to potential pupils.