Discovering right and wrong 7th edition pdf

Ethics

LOUIS P. POJMAN Late of the United States Military Academy, West Point

JAMES FIESER University of Tennessee, Martin

Australia • Brazil • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States

Ethics

Discovering Right and Wrong

E IGHTH ED IT ION

✵

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall

learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to

current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product text may not be available in the eBook version.

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Printed in the United States of America Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2015

Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, Eighth Edition

Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser

Product Director: Paul Banks

Product Manager: Debra Matteson

Content Developer: Adrienne Zicht

Product Assistant: Michelle Forbes

Marketing Manager: Sean Ketchem

IP Analyst: Alexandra Ricciardi

IP Project Manager: Betsy Hathaway

Manufacturing Planner: Julio Esperas

Art and Design Direction, Production Management, and Composition: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.

Cover Image: © Elenathewise/ Fotolia

© 2017, 2012, 2009 Cengage Learning

WCN: 02- -

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.

Further permissions questions can be emailed to permissionrequest@cengage.com.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015951967

Student Edition: ISBN: 978-1-305-58455-6

Loose-leaf Edition: ISBN: 978-1-305-87543-2

Cengage Learning 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more than 125 countries around the world. Find your local representative at www.cengage.com.

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Cengage Learning Solutions, visit www.cengage.com.

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com.

200 203

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

About the Authors

Louis P. Pojman (1935–2005) was professor of philosophy, emeritus at the United States Military Academy and a life member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University. He received an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Union Theological Seminary/ Columbia University and a D.Phil. from Oxford University. He wrote in the areas of philosophy of religion, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy and is the author or editor of more than 30 books and 100 articles. Among these are Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (8/e 2017), Environmental Ethics (7/e 2017), Who Are We? (2005), and Global Political Philosophy (2003).

James Fieser is professor of philosophy at the University of Tennessee at Martin. He received his B.A. from Berea College, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from Purdue University. He is author, coauthor, or editor of 10 text books, including Socrates to Sartre and Beyond (9/e 2011), Ethical Theory: Classical and Con- temporary Readings (6/e 2010), A Historical Introduction to Philosophy (2003), and Moral Philosophy Through the Ages (2001). He has edited and annotated the ten- volume Early Responses to Hume (2/e 2005) and the five-volume Scottish Common Sense Philosophy (2000). He is founder and general editor of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Web site (www.iep.utm.edu).

iii

✵

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Contents

PREFACE vii i

1 What Is Ethics? 1

Ethics and Its Subdivisions 1

Morality as Compared with Other Normative Subjects 3

Traits of Moral Principles 6

Domains of Ethical Assessment 7

Conclusion 10

For Further Reflection 11

2 Ethical Relativism 13

Subjective Ethical Relativism 15

Conventional Ethical Relativism 17

Criticisms of Conventional Ethical Relativism 20

Conclusion 25

For Further Reflection 26

3 Moral Objectivism 28

Aquinas’s Objectivism and Absolutism 30

Moderate Objectivism 36

Ethical Situationalism 40

Conclusion 41

For Further Reflection 42

iv

✵

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

4 Value and the Quest for the Good 44

Types of Values 45

Foundational Nature of Values 50

The Good Life 55

Conclusion 58

For Further Reflection 59

5 Social Contract Theory and the Motive to Be Moral 61

Why Does Society Need Moral Rules? 63

Why Should I Be Moral? 67

Morality, Self-Interest, and Game Theory 69

The Motive to Always Be Moral 72

Conclusion 75

For Further Reflection 76

6 Egoism, Self-Interest, and Altruism 77

Psychological Egoism 78

Ethical Egoism 82

Arguments Against Ethical Egoism 87

Conclusion 91

For Further Reflection 92

7 Utilitarianism 93

Classic Utilitarianism 95

Act- and Rule-Utilitarianism 98

Criticism of Utilitarianism 101

Criticism of the Ends Justifying Immoral Means 106

Conclusion 110

For Further Reflection 111

8 Kant and Deontological Theories 113

Kant’s Influences 114

The Categorical Imperative 117

Counterexamples to the Principle of the Law of Nature 123

Other Formulations of the Categorical Imperative 125

The Problem of Exceptionless Rules 129

Conclusion: A Reconciliation Project 132

For Further Reflection 134

CONTENTS v

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

9 Virtue Theory 135

The Nature of Virtue Ethics 136

Criticisms of Action-Based Ethics 140

Connections Between Virtue-Based and Action-Based Ethics 146

Conclusion 153

For Further Reflection 154

10 Biology and Ethics 155

Moral Behavior in Animals 156

Morality and Human Evolution 161

What Is Left for Traditional Morality? 167

Conclusion 172

For Further Reflection 174

11 Gender and Ethics 175

Classic Views 177

Female Care Ethics 181

Four Options Regarding Gender and Ethics 186

Conclusion 190

For Further Reflection 192

12 Religion and Ethics 194

Does Morality Depend on Religion? 195

Is Religion Irrelevant or Even Contrary to Morality? 200

Does Religion Enhance the Moral Life? 205

Conclusion 210

For Further Reflection 211

13 The Fact–Value Problem 212

Hume and Moore: The Problem Classically Stated 213

Ayer and Emotivism 216

Hare and Prescriptivism 220

Naturalism and the Fact–Value Problem 227

Conclusion 230

For Further Reflection 231

14 Moral Realism and the Challenge of Skepticism 232

Mackie’s Moral Skepticism 234

Harman’s Moral Nihilism 238

vi CONTENTS

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

A Defense of Moral Realism 242

Conclusion 245

For Further Reflection 246

APPENDIX 247

GLOSSARY 251

INDEX 255

For more information on an alternate version of this book which contains classic and contemporary philosophical reading selections in the back of the book, please contact your Cengage Learning representative.

CONTENTS vii

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Preface

In 1977, Australian philosopher John L. Mackie published his famous book Ethics:Inventing Right and Wrong, in which he argues that the moral values we hold are inventions of society: “we have to decide what moral views to adopt, what moral stands to take.” The title of the present book Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, is both an acknowledgement of the importance of Mackie’s view and a response to it.

Morality is not purely an invention, as Mackie suggests, but it also involves a discovery. We may compare morality to the development of the wheel. Both are creations based on discoverable features. The wheel was invented to facilitate the transportation of objects with minimal friction. The construction of a wheel adheres to the laws of physics to bring about efficient motion. Not just anything could function as a good wheel. A rectangular or triangular wheel would be inefficient, as would one made out of sand or bird feathers or heavy stones. Ana- logously, morality has been constructed to serve human needs and desires, for example, the need to survive and the desires to prosper and be happy. The ideal morality should serve as the blueprint for individual happiness and social harmony. Human beings have used their best minds over millennia to discover those principles that best serve to promote individual and social well-being. Just as the construction of the wheel is dependent on the laws of physics, so the con- struction of morality has been dependent on human nature, on discoverable fea- tures of our being. It is in this spirit of moral discovery that Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong surveys the main theories of moral philosophy today.

The philosophical community experienced a great loss in 2005 with the death of Louis Pojman, the original author of this book, who succumbed to his battle with cancer. His voluminous writings—over 30 books and 100 articles— have been uniformly praised for their high level of scholarship and insight, and countless philosophy students and teachers have benefited from them (see www. louispojman.com for biographical and bibliographical details).

Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong was first published in 1990 and quickly established itself as an authoritative, yet reader-friendly, introduction to ethics.

viii

✵

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

In an earlier preface, Louis expresses his enthusiasm for his subject and his com- mitment to his reader:

I have written this book in the spirit of a quest for truth and under- standing, hoping to excite you about the value of ethics. It is a subject that I love, for it is about how we are to live, about the best kind of life. I hope that you will come to share my enthusiasm for the subject and develop your own ideas in the process.

Over the years, new editions of this book have appeared in response to the con- tinually evolving needs of college instructors and students. Throughout these changes, however, the book has focused on the central issues of ethical theory, which in this edition include chapters on the following 14 subjects, beginning with the more theoretical issues of (1) what ethics is most generally, (2) ethical relativism, (3) moral objectivism, (4) moral value, (5) social contract theory and the motive to be moral, and (6) egoism and altruism. The book next focuses on the influential normative theories of (7) utilitarianism, (8) Kantianism and deon- tology, and (9) virtue theory. Building on these concepts, the last portion of the book explores the more contemporary theoretical debates surrounding (10) biology and ethics, (11) gender and ethics, (12) religion and ethics, (13) the fact–value problem, and (14) moral realism and skepticism.

This newly revised eighth edition attempts to reflect the spirit of change that governed previous editions. As with most textbook revisions, the inclusion of new material in this edition required the deletion of a comparable amount of previously existing material. Many of the changes in this edition were suggested by previous book users, both faculty and students, for which I am very grateful. The most noticeable change is a new chapter on biology and ethics. Many minor changes have been made throughout for clarification and ease of reading.

MINDTAP

MindTap® for Pojman Fieser, Ethics, eighth edition provides you with the tools you need to better manage your limited time—you can complete assign- ments whenever and wherever you are ready to learn with course material spe- cially customized for you by your instructor and streamlined in one proven, easy-to-use interface. With an array of tools and apps—from note-taking to flashcards—you’ll get a true understanding of course concepts, helping you to achieve better grades and setting the groundwork for your future courses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preface to the fifth edition of this book lists the following acknowledge- ments, which I present here verbatim:

Michael Beaty, Sterling Harwood, Stephen Kershnar, Bill Lawhead, Michael Levin, Robert Louden, Laura Purdy, Roger Rigterink, Bruce

PREFACE ix

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Russell, Walter Schaller, Bob Westmoreland, and Mark Discher were very helpful in offering trenchant criticisms on several chapters of this book. The students in my ethical theory classes at the University of Mississippi and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for the past 20 years have served as a challenging sounding board for many of my arguments. Ronald F. Duska, Rosemont College; Stephen Griffith, Lycoming College; Arthur Kuflik, University of Vermont; James Lindemann Nelson, Michigan State University; Peter List, Oregon State University; Ann A. Pang-White, University of Scranton; Fred Schueler, University of New Mexico; Nancy A. Stanlick, University of Central Florida; R. Duane Thompson, Indiana Wesleyan University; Peter Vallentyne, Virginia Commonwealth University; and David A. White, Marquette University reviewed the manuscript for an earlier edition and provided guidance in revising this latest edition.

I thank Debra Matteson, Liz Fraser, and the rest of the talented editorial staff at Cengage for their expertise and good nature throughout the production of this new edition. Thanks also to the dozens of ethics instructors who completed an online survey about the text and made valuable suggestions for improvement. Finally, I thank Louis’s wife, Trudy Pojman, for her gracious encouragement with this project.

James Fieser August 1, 2015

x PREFACE

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

1

What Is Ethics?

S ome years ago, the nation was stunned by a report from New York City.A young woman, Kitty Genovese, was brutally stabbed in her own neighbor- hood late at night during three separate attacks while 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens watched or listened. During the 35-minute struggle, her assailant beat her, stabbed her, left her, and then returned to attack her two more times until she died. No one lifted a phone to call the police; no one shouted at the criminal, let alone went to Genovese’s aid. Finally, a 70-year-old woman called the police. It took them just two minutes to arrive, but by that time Genovese was already dead.

Only one other woman came out to testify before the ambulance showed up an hour later. Then residents from the whole neighborhood poured out of their apartments. When asked why they hadn’t done anything, they gave answers ranging from “I don’t know” and “I was tired” to “Frankly, we were afraid.”1

This tragic event raises many questions about our moral responsibility to others. What should these respectable citizens have done? Are such acts of omis- sion morally blameworthy? Is the Genovese murder an atypical situation, or does it represent a disturbing trend? This story also raises important questions about the general notion of morality. What is the nature of morality, and why do we need it? What is the Good, and how will we know it? Is it in our interest to be moral? What is the relationship between morality and religion? What is the rela- tionship between morality and law? What is the relationship between morality and etiquette? These are some of the questions that we explore in this book.

ETH ICS AND ITS SUBDIV IS IONS

Ethics is that branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to live, with the idea of the Good, and with concepts such as “right” and “wrong.” But what is

1

✵

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

philosophy? It is an enterprise that begins with wonder at the marvels and mysteries of the world; that pursues a rational investigation of those marvels and mysteries, seeking wisdom and truth; and that results in a life lived in passionate moral and intellectual integrity. Taking as its motto Socrates’ famous statement “The unex- amined life is not worth living,” philosophy leaves no aspect of life untouched by its inquiry. It aims at a clear, critical, comprehensive conception of reality.

The main characteristic of philosophy is rational argument. Philosophers clarify concepts and analyze and test propositions and beliefs, but their major task is to con- struct and analyze arguments. Philosophical reasoning is closely allied with scientific reasoning, in that both build hypotheses and look for evidence to test those hypoth- eses with the hope of coming closer to the truth. However, scientific experiments take place in laboratories and have testing procedures to record objective or empiri- cally verifiable results. The laboratory of the philosopher is the domain of ideas. It takes place in the mind, where imaginative thought experiments occur. It takes place in the study room, where ideas are written down and examined. It also takes place wherever conversation or debate about the perennial questions arises, where thesis and counterexample and counterthesis are considered.

A word must be said about the specific terms moral and ethical and the asso- ciated notions of morals and ethics. Often these terms are used interchangeably—as will be the case in this book. Both terms derive their meaning from the idea of “custom”—that is, normal behavior. Specifically, “moral” comes from the Latin word mores and “ethical” from the Greek ethos.

The study of ethics within philosophy contains its own subdivisions, and dividing up the territory of ethics is tricky. The key divisions are (1) descriptive morality, (2) moral philosophy (ethical theory), and (3) applied ethics. First, descriptive morality refers to actual beliefs, customs, principles, and practices of people and cultures. Sociologists in particular pay special attention to the con- crete moral practices of social groups around the world, and they view them as cultural “facts,” much like facts about what people in those countries eat or how they dress. Second, moral philosophy—also called ethical theory—refers to the systematic effort to understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories. It analyzes key ethical concepts such as “right,” “wrong,” and “permissible.” It explores possible sources of moral obligation such as God, human reason, or the desire to be happy. It seeks to establish principles of right behavior that may serve as action guides for individuals and groups. Third, applied ethics deals with controversial moral problems such as abortion, pre- marital sex, capital punishment, euthanasia, and civil disobedience.

The larger study of ethics, then, draws on all three of these subdivisions, connecting them in important ways. For example, moral philosophy is very much interrelated with applied ethics, and here will be a difference in the quality of debates about abortion and other such issues when those discussions are informed by ethical theories. More light and less heat will be the likely outcome. With the onset of multiculturalism and the deep differences in worldviews around the globe today, the need to use reason, rather than violence, to settle our disputes and resolve conflicts of interest has become obvious. Ethical aware- ness is the necessary condition for human survival and flourishing.

2 CHAPTER 1

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The study of ethics is not only of instrumental value but also valuable in its own right. It is satisfying to have knowledge of important matters for its own sake, and it is important to understand the nature and scope of moral theory for its own sake. We are rational beings who cannot help but want to understand the nature of the good life and all that it implies. The study of ethics is some- times a bit off-putting because so many differing theories often appear to contra- dict each other and thus produce confusion rather than guidance. But an appreciation of the complexity of ethics is valuable in counteracting our natural tendency toward inflexibility and tribalism where we stubbornly adhere to the values of our specific peer groups.

MORAL ITY AS COMPARED WITH OTHER

NORMATIVE SUBJECTS

Moral principles concern standards of behavior; roughly speaking, they involve not what is but what ought to be. How should I live my life? What is the right thing to do in this situation? Is premarital sex morally permissible? Ought a woman ever to have an abortion? Morality has a distinct action-guiding, or nor- mative, aspect, which it shares with other practices such as religion, law, and eti- quette. Let’s see how morality differs from each of these.

Religion

Consider first the relation between morality and religion. Moral behavior, as defined by a given religion, is usually believed to be essential to that religion’s practice. But neither the practices nor principles of morality should be identified with religion. The practice of morality need not be motivated by religious con- siderations, and moral principles need not be grounded in revelation or divine authority—as religious teachings invariably are. The most important characteristic of ethics is its grounding in reason and human experience.

To use a spatial metaphor, secular ethics is horizontal, lacking a vertical or higher dimension; as such it does not receive its authority from “on high.” But religious ethics, being grounded in revelation or divine authority, has that vertical dimension although religious ethics generally uses reason to supplement or complement revela- tion. These two differing orientations often generate different moral principles and standards of evaluation, but they need not do so. Some versions of religious ethics, which posit God’s revelation of the moral law in nature or conscience, hold that rea- son can discover what is right or wrong even apart from divine revelation.

Law

Consider next the close relationship between morality and law. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well-being, resolve conflicts of interest, and pro- mote social harmony, just as morality does. However, ethics may judge that

WHAT I S ETH ICS? 3

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

some laws are immoral without denying that they have legal authority. For example, laws may permit slavery, spousal abuse, racial discrimination, or sexual discrimination, but these are immoral practices.

In a PBS television series, Ethics in America, a trial lawyer was asked what he would do if he discovered that his client had committed a murder some years earlier for which another man had been wrongly convicted and would soon be executed.2 The lawyer said that he had a legal obligation to keep this informa- tion confidential and that, if he divulged it, he would be disbarred. It is arguable that he has a moral obligation that overrides his legal obligation and demands that he act to save the innocent man from execution.

Furthermore, some aspects of morality are not covered by law. For example, although it is generally agreed that lying is usually immoral, there is no general law against it—except under such special conditions as committing perjury or falsifying income tax returns. Sometimes college newspapers publish advertise- ments by vendors who offer “research assistance,” despite knowing in advance that these vendors will aid and abet plagiarism. Publishing such ads is legal, but its moral correctness is doubtful.

Similarly, the 38 people who watched the attacks on Kitty Genovese and did nothing to intervene broke no New York law, but they were very likely morally responsible for their inaction. In our legal tradition, there is no general duty to rescue a person in need. In 1908, the dean of Harvard Law School pro- posed that a person should be required to “save another from impending death or great bodily harm, when he might do so with little or no inconvenience to himself.” The proposal was defeated, and one of its opponents posed the ques- tion of whether a rich person, to whom $20 meant very little, be legally obliged to save the life of a hungry child in a foreign land? Currently, only Vermont and Minnesota have “Good Samaritan” laws, requiring that one come to the aid of a person in grave physical harm but only to the extent that the aid “can be ren- dered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others.”

There is another major difference between law and morality. In 1351, King Edward of England instituted a law against treason that made it a crime merely to think homicidal thoughts about the king. But, alas, the law could not be enforced, for no tribunal can search the heart and discover the intentions of the mind. It is true that intention, such as malice aforethought, plays a role in deter- mining the legal character of an act once the act has been committed. But, pre- emptive punishment for people who are presumed to have bad intentions is illegal. If malicious intentions by themselves were illegal, wouldn’t we all deserve imprisonment? Even if one could detect others’ intentions, when should the punishment be administered? As soon as the offender has the intention? How do we know that the offender won’t change his or her mind?

Although it is impractical to have laws against bad intentions, these inten- tions are still morally wrong. Suppose I buy a gun with the intention of killing Uncle Charlie to inherit his wealth, but I never get a chance to fire it (for exam- ple, suppose Uncle Charlie moves to Australia). Although I have not committed a crime, I have committed a moral wrong.

4 CHAPTER 1

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Etiquette

Lastly, consider the relation between morality and etiquette. Etiquette concerns form and style rather than the essence of social existence; it determines what is polite behavior rather than what is right behavior in a deeper sense. It represents society’s decision as to how we are to dress, greet one another, eat, celebrate festivals, dispose of the dead, express gratitude and appreciation, and, in general, carry out social transactions. Whether people greet each other with a handshake, a bow, a hug, or a kiss on the cheek depends on their social system. Russians wear their wedding rings on the third finger of their right hands, whereas Amer- icans wear them on their left hands. The English hold their forks in their left hands, whereas people in other countries are more likely to hold them in their right hands. People in India typically eat without a fork at all, using the fingers of their right hands to deliver food from their plate to their mouth. In and of them- selves, none of these rituals has any moral superiority. Polite manners grace our social existence, but they are not what social existence is about. They help social transactions to flow smoothly but are not the substance of those transactions.

At the same time, it can be immoral to disregard or defy etiquette. Whether to shake hands when greeting a person for the first time or put one’s hands together in front as one bows, as people in India do, is a matter of cultural deci- sion. But, once the custom is adopted, the practice takes on the importance of a moral rule, subsumed under the wider principle of showing respect to people.

Similarly, there is no moral necessity to wear clothes, but we have adopted the custom partly to keep warm in colder climates and partly to be modest. Accordingly, there may be nothing wrong with nudists who decide to live together in nudist colonies. However, for people to go nude outside of nudist colonies—say, in classrooms, stores, and along the road—may well be so offen- sive that it is morally insensitive. There was a scandal on the beaches of South India where American tourists swam in bikinis, shocking the more modest Indians. There was nothing immoral in itself about wearing bikinis, but given the cultural context, the Americans willfully violated etiquette and were guilty of moral impropriety.

Although Americans pride themselves on tolerance, pluralism, and awareness of other cultures, custom and etiquette can be—even among people from similar backgrounds—a bone of contention. A Unitarian minister tells of an experience early in his marriage. He and his wife were hosting their first Thanksgiving meal. He had been used to small celebrations with his immediate family, whereas his wife had been used to grand celebrations. He writes, “I had been asked to carve, something I had never done before, but I was willing. I put on an apron, entered the kitchen, and attacked the bird with as much artistry as I could muster. And what reward did I get? [My wife] burst into tears. In her family the turkey is brought to the table, laid before the [father], grace is said, and then he carves! ‘So I fail patriarchy,’ I hollered later. ‘What do you expect?’ ”3

Law, etiquette, and religion are all important institutions, but each has lim- itations. A limitation of religious commands is that they rest on authority, and we may lack certainty or agreement about the authority’s credentials or how the

WHAT I S ETH ICS? 5

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

authority would rule in ambiguous or new cases. Because religion is founded not on reason but on revelation, you cannot use reason to convince someone from another religion that your view is the right one. A limitation of law is that you can’t have a law against every social problem, nor can you enforce every desir- able rule. A limitation of etiquette is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what is vitally important for personal and social existence. Whether or not one eats with one’s fingers pales in significance with the importance of being honest, trustwor- thy, or just. Etiquette is a cultural invention, but morality is more like a discovery.

In summary, morality differs from law and etiquette by going deeper into the essence of our social existence. It differs from religion by seeking reasons, rather than authority, to justify its principles. The central purpose of moral phi- losophy is to secure valid principles of conduct and values that can guide human actions and produce good character. As such, it is the most important activity we know, for it concerns how we are to live.

TRAITS OF MORAL PR INC IPLES

A central feature of morality is the moral principle. We have already noted that moral principles are guides for action, but we must say more about the traits of such principles. Although there is no universal agreement on the characteristics a moral principle must have, there is a wide consensus about five features: (1) pre- scriptivity, (2) universalizability, (3) overridingness, (4) publicity, and (5) practica- bility. Several of these will be examined in chapters throughout this book, but let’s briefly consider them here.

First is prescriptivity, which is the commanding aspect of morality. Moral principles are generally put forth as commands or imperatives, such as “Do not kill,” “Do no unnecessary harm,” and “Love your neighbor.” They are intended for use: to advise people and influence action. Prescriptivity shares this trait with all normative discourse and is used to appraise behavior, assign praise and blame, and produce feelings of satisfaction or guilt.

Second is universalizability. Moral principles must apply to all people who are in a relevantly similar situation. If I judge that an act is right for a certain person, then that act is right for any other relevantly similar person. This trait is exemplified in the Golden Rule, “Do to others what you would want them to do to you.” We also see it in the formal principle of justice: It cannot be right for you to treat me in a manner in which it would be wrong for me to treat you, merely on the ground that we are two different individuals.4

Universalizability applies to all evaluative judgments. If I say that X is a good thing, then I am logically committed to judge that anything relevantly similar to X is a good thing. This trait is an extension of the principle of consistency: we ought to be consistent about our value judgments, including one’s moral judg- ments. Take any act that you are contemplating doing and ask, “Could I will that everyone act according to this principle?”

6 CHAPTER 1

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Third is overridingness. Moral principles have predominant authority and override other kinds of principles. They are not the only principles, but they take precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and legal ones. The artist Paul Gauguin may have been aesthetically justified in abandon- ing his family to devote his life to painting beautiful Pacific Island pictures, but morally he probably was not justified, and so he probably should not have done it. It may be prudent to lie to save my reputation, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When the law becomes egregiously immoral, it may be my moral duty to exercise civil disobedience. There is a general moral duty to obey the law because the law serves an overall moral purpose, and this overall purpose may give us moral reasons to obey laws that may not be moral or ideal. There may come a time, however, when the injustice of a bad law is intolerable and hence calls for illegal but moral defiance. A good example would be laws in the South prior to the Civil War requiring citizens to return runaway slaves to their owners.

Fourth is publicity. Moral principles must be made public in order to guide our actions. Publicity is necessary because we use principles to prescribe behav- ior, give advice, and assign praise and blame. It would be self-defeating to keep them a secret.

Fifth is practicability. A moral principle must have practicability, which means that it must be workable and its rules must not lay a heavy burden on us when we follow them. The philosopher John Rawls speaks of the “strains of commitment” that overly idealistic principles may cause in average moral agents.5 It might be desirable for morality to require more selfless behavior from us, but the result of such principles could be moral despair, deep or undue moral guilt, and ineffective action. Accordingly, most ethical systems take human limitations into consideration.

Although moral philosophers disagree somewhat about these five traits, the above discussion offers at least an idea of the general features of moral principles.

DOMAINS OF ETH ICAL ASSESSMENT

At this point, it might seem that ethics concerns itself entirely with rules of con- duct that are based solely on evaluating acts. However, it is more complicated than that. Most ethical analysis falls into one or more of the following domains: (1) action, (2) consequences, (3) character traits, and (4) motive. Again, all these domains will be examined in detail in later chapters, but an overview here will be helpful.

Let’s examine these domains using an altered version of the Kitty Genovese story. Suppose a man attacks a woman in front of her apartment and is about to kill her. A responsible neighbor hears the struggle, calls the police, and shouts from the window, “Hey you, get out of here!” Startled by the neighbor’s repri- mand, the attacker lets go of the woman and runs down the street where he is caught by the police.

WHAT I S ETH ICS? 7

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Action

One way of ethically assessing this situation is to examine the actions of both the attacker and the good neighbor: The attacker’s actions were wrong whereas the neighbor’s actions were right. The term right has two meanings. Sometimes, it means “obligatory” (as in “the right act”), but it also can mean “permissible” (as in “a right act” or “It’s all right to do that”). Usually, philosophers define right as permissible, including in that category what is obligatory:

1. A right act is an act that is permissible for you to do. It may be either (a) obligatory or (b) optional. a. An obligatory act is one that morality requires you to do; it is not

permissible for you to refrain from doing it. b. An optional act is one that is neither obligatory nor wrong to do. It is

not your duty to do it, nor is it your duty not to do it. Neither doing it nor not doing it would be wrong.

2. A wrong act is one you have an obligation, or a duty, to refrain from doing: It is an act you ought not to do; it is not permissible to do it.

In our example, the attacker’s assault on the woman was clearly a wrong action (prohibited); by contrast, the neighbor’s act of calling the police was clearly a right action—and an obligatory one at that.

But, some acts do not seem either obligatory or wrong. Whether you take a course in art history or English literature or whether you write a letter with a pencil or pen seems morally neutral. Either is permissible. Whether you listen to rock music or classical music is not usually considered morally significant. Lis- tening to both is allowed, and neither is obligatory. Whether you marry or remain single is an important decision about how to live your life. The decision you reach, however, is usually considered morally neutral or optional. Under most circumstances, to marry (or not to marry) is considered neither obligatory nor wrong but permissible.

Within the range of permissible acts is the notion of supererogatory acts, or highly altruistic acts. These acts are neither required nor obligatory, but they exceed what morality requires, going “beyond the call of duty.” For example, suppose the responsible neighbor ran outside to actually confront the attacker rather than simply shout at him from the window. Thus, the neighbor would assume an extra risk that would not be morally required. Similarly, while you may be obligated to give a donation to help people in dire need, you would not be obligated to sell your car, let alone become impoverished yourself, to help them. The complete scheme of acts, then, is this:

1. Right act (permissible) a. Obligatory act b. Optional act

(1) Neutral act (2) Supererogatory act

2. Wrong act (not permissible)

8 CHAPTER 1

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

One important kind of ethical theory that emphasizes the nature of the act is called deontological (from the Greek word deon, meaning “duty”). These theories hold that something is inherently right or good about such acts as truth telling and promise keeping and inherently wrong or bad about such acts as lying and promise breaking. Classical deontological ethical principles include the Ten Command- ments and the Golden Rule. The leading proponent of deontological ethics in recent centuries is Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who defended a principle of moral duty that he calls the categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.” Examples for Kant are “Never break your promise” and “Never commit suicide.” What all of these deontological theories and principles have in common is the view that we have an inherent duty to perform right actions and avoid bad actions.

Consequences

Another way of ethically assessing situations is to examine the consequences of an action: If the consequences are on balance positive, then the action is right; if negative, then wrong. In our example, take the consequences of the attacker’s actions. At minimum he physically harms the woman and psychologically trau- matizes both her and her neighbors; if he succeeds in killing her, then he emo- tionally devastates her family and friends, perhaps for life. And what does he gain from this? Just a temporary experience of sadistic pleasure. On balance, his action has overwhelmingly negative consequences and thus is wrong. Examine next the consequences of the responsible neighbor who calls the police and shouts down from the window “Hey you, get out of here!” This scares off the attacker, thus limiting the harm of his assault. What does the neighbor lose by doing this? Just a temporary experience of fear, which the neighbor might have experienced any- way. On balance, then, the neighbor’s action has overwhelmingly positive con- sequences, which makes it the right thing to do.

Ethical theories that focus primarily on consequences in determining moral rightness and wrongness are sometimes called teleological ethics (from the Greek telos, meaning “goal directed”). The most famous of these theories is utili- tarianism, set forth by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806– 1873), which requires us to do what is likeliest to have the best consequences. In Mill’s words, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”

Character Traits

Whereas some ethical theories emphasize the nature of actions in themselves and some emphasize principles involving the consequences of actions, other theories emphasize a person’s character trait, or virtue. In our example, the attacker has an especially bad character trait—namely, malevolence—which taints his entire out- look on life and predisposes him to act in harmful ways. The attacker is a bad person principally for having this bad character trait of malevolence. The respon- sible neighbor, on the other hand, has a good character trait, which directs his

WHAT I S ETH ICS? 9

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

outlook on life—namely, benevolence, which is the tendency to treat people with kindness and assist those in need. Accordingly, the neighbor is a good per- son largely for possessing this good trait.

Moral philosophers call such good character traits virtues and bad traits vices. Entire theories of morality have been developed from these notions and are called virtue theories. The classic proponent of virtue theory was Aristotle (384–322 BCE), who maintained that the development of virtuous character traits is needed to ensure that we habitually act rightly. Although it may be help- ful to have action-guiding rules, it is vital to empower our character with the tendency to do good. Many people know that cheating, gossiping, or overindul- ging in food or alcohol is wrong, but they are incapable of doing what is right. Virtuous people spontaneously do the right thing and may not even consciously follow moral rules when doing so.

Motive

Finally, we can ethically assess situations by examining the motive of the people involved. The attacker intended to brutalize and kill the woman; the neighbor intended to thwart the attacker and thereby help the woman. Virtually all ethical systems recognize the importance of motives. For a full assessment of any action, it is important to take the agent’s motive into account. Two acts may appear identical on the surface, but one may be judged morally blameworthy and the other excusable. Consider John’s pushing Mary off a ledge, causing her to break her leg. In situation (A), he is angry and intends to harm her, but in situation (B) he sees a knife flying in her direction and intends to save her life. In (A) he clearly did the wrong thing, whereas in (B) he did the right thing. A full moral description of any act will take motive into account as a relevant factor.

CONCLUS ION

The study of ethics has enormous practical benefits. It can free us from prejudice and dogmatism. It sets forth comprehensive systems from which to orient our indi- vidual judgments. It carves up the moral landscape so that we can sort out the issues to think more clearly and confidently about moral problems. It helps us clarify in our minds just how our principles and values relate to one another, and, most of all, it gives us some guidance in how to live. Let’s return to questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, some of which we should now be able to better answer.

What is the nature of morality, and why do we need it? Morality concerns discovering the rules that promote the human good, as elaborated in the five traits of moral principles: prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, public- ity, and practicability. Without morality, we cannot promote that good.

What is the good, and how will I know it? The good in question is the human good, specified as happiness, reaching one’s potential, and so forth.

10 CHAPTER 1

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional

content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Whatever we decide on that fulfills human needs and helps us develop our dee- pest potential is the good that morality promotes.

Is it in my interest to be moral? Yes, in general and in the long run, for morality is exactly the set of rules most likely to help (nearly) all of us, if nearly all of us follow them nearly all of the time. The good is good for you—at least most of the time. Furthermore, if we believe in the superior importance of morality, then we will bring children up so that they will be unhappy when they break the moral code. They will feel guilt. In this sense, the commitment to morality and its internalization nearly guarantee that if you break the moral rules you will suffer.

What is the relationship between morality and religion? Religion relies more on revelation, and morality relies more on reason, on rational reflection. But, religion can provide added incentive for the moral life for those who believe that God sees and will judge all our actions.

What is the relationship between morality and law? Morality and law should be very close, and morality should be the basis of the law, but there can be both unjust laws and immoral acts that cannot be legally enforced. The law is shal- lower than morality and has a harder time judging human motives and inten- tions. You can be morally evil, intending to do evil things, but as long as you don’t do them, you are legally innocent.