Teleological ethics strengths and weaknesses

Philosophy Writing Reflection

Introduction to

Ethical Theories A Procedural Approach

Introduction to

Ethical Theories A Procedural Approach

Douglas Birsch Shippensburg University

For information about this book, contact: Waveland Press, Inc. 4180 IL Route 83, Suite 101 Long Grove, IL 60047-9580 (847) 634-0081 info@waveland.com www.waveland.com

Cover photo: Shutterstock.com /Lynda Lehmann

Copyright © 2014 by Douglas Birsch

10-digit ISBN 1-4786-0670-3 13-digit ISBN 978-1-4786-0670-3

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For my ethics students past, present, and future

and for my daughters, Kathryn and Jocelyn

Contents

Preface xiii

1 Beginning to Think about Ethics 1Ethical Questions 1 Ethical Theories and Moralities 3 Moral Agents 5 Moral Significance and Moral Equality 6 A Shared Ethical Presupposition 8 A Legitimate, Secular, Rational Morality 8

Morality Based on Society 8 Morality Based on Happiness 9 Morality Based on the Unconditional Good 10 Morality Based on the Intrinsic Moral Value of Individuals 11 Morality Based on the Universal Human Goal 12

Two Contrary Views 12 Conclusion 14 Questions for Review 14 Notes 15

2 Ethical Relativism 16The Starting Point—Humans Are Social Beings 16 Morality and the Law 17 Different Moralities in Different Societies 17

vii

viii — Contents

Descriptive Relativism 18 Ethical Relativism 18

The Anthropological Version of Ethical Relativism 20 The Common Version of Ethical Relativism 22

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 23 The Ethical Relativist Ethical Procedure 24 Two Cases for Evaluation 25

Academic Dishonesty 25 Unauthorized Copying of Software 26

Strengths and Weaknesses of Ethical Relativism 28 Descriptive Relativism 28 Social Success 29 Clarity, Simplicity, and Intuitive Correctness of the Theory 30 A Final Weakness: Inadequate Support 33

Conclusion 34 Questions for Review 35 Additional Assignments 36 Notes 36

3 Emotivism 37The Starting Point: People’s Emotional Reactions 37 Emotivism 38

Descriptive and Emotive Meanings 39 Two Aspects of Ethical Expressions 40 Making Moral Evaluations with Emotivism 41

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 43 An Emotivist Ethical Procedure 43 Two Cases for Evaluation 44

Academic Dishonesty 44 Unauthorized Copying of Software 46

Strengths and Weaknesses of Emotivism 47 Moral Disagreement 47 Moral Certainty 48 Stevenson’s Ideas about Language 49 A Final Weakness: Any Action Can Be Ethical 50

Conclusion 51 Questions for Review 52 Additional Assignments 53 Notes 53

4 Ethical Egoism 54The Starting Point: People Are Self-Interested 54 Ethical Egoism 56 Moral Significance and Moral Equality 58 The Ethical Egoist Ethical Procedure 59

Contents — ix

Two Cases for Evaluation 62 Academic Dishonesty 62 Unauthorized Copying of Software 66

Strengths and Weaknesses of Ethical Egoism 69 Happiness 69 Certainty about the Ethical Evaluations 69 Living Successfully 71 A Final Weakness: Moral Significance 72

Conclusion 73 Questions for Review 74 Additional Assignments 75 Notes 75

5 Utilitarianism 76The Starting Point: Happiness 76 Act Utilitarianism 77

Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism 77 Bentham’s Utilitarian Calculations 79

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 82 Rule Utilitarianism 83 The Act Utilitarian Ethical Procedure 85 Two Cases for Evaluation 87

Telling a Lie 87 Unauthorized Copying of Software 90

Strengths and Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism 94 Happiness 94 Observations and Calculations 94 Confidence in Moral Evaluations 97 A Final Weakness: Unreasonable Moral Demands 98

Conclusion 99 Questions for Review 100 Additional Assignments 101 Notes 101

6 Immanuel Kant’s Theory 103The Starting Point: Unconditional Good 103 Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Theory 104

The Moral Law 106 The Categorical Imperative: The Formula of Universal Law 107 The Categorical Imperative: The Formula of the End in Itself 109

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 112 The Kantian Ethical Procedure 113 Two Cases for Evaluation 114

Telling a Lie 114 Unauthorized Copying of Software 116

x — Contents

Strengths and Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics 117 An Unconditional, Universal, and Permanent Morality 117 The Focus on Moral Rules 118 Following the Moral Law is Rational 121 A Final Strength: Moral Equality 122

Conclusion 123 Questions for Review 123 Additional Assignments 124 Notes 125

7 Moral Rights Theory 126The Starting Point: The Intrinsic Value of Persons 126 Moral Rights 128 Moral Rights as Claim-Rights 129

Parts of Claim-Rights 130 An Adaptation of the Theory of Claim-Rights 130

Basic Rights 131 The Right to Life 132 The Right to Security of Person 133 The Right to Liberty 135 The Right to Property 137 The Right to Privacy 138 Are Basic Rights Equally Important? 140

Who Has Moral Rights? 140 Justifying Moral Rights 141 Moral Significance and Moral Equality 143 The Moral Rights Ethical Procedure 143 Two Cases for Evaluation 144

Telling a Lie 144 Unauthorized Copying of Software 146

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Moral Rights Ethical Theory 147

An Unconditional and Universal Morality 147 Intrinsic Value of Persons 148 Focus on the Essential Aspects of Persons 150 A Final Strength: Moral Equality 151

Conclusion 151 Questions for Review 152 Additional Assignments 153 Notes 153

8 Aristotle’s Ethical Theory 155The Starting Point: The Human Good 155 Aristotle’s Theory 156

Moral Virtues 158

Contents — xi

Immoral Actions and Passions Not Related to Excess or Deficiency 161

Intellectual Virtues 162 Excellence, Character, and Action 162

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 163 The Aristotelian Ethical Procedure 164 Two Cases for Evaluation 165

Telling a Lie 165 Unauthorized Copying of Software 166

Strengths and Weaknesses of Aristotle’s Ethical Theory 168 A Teleological Theory 168 Character, Virtues, and the Good Life 170 A Theory Consistent with Human Life 172

Conclusion 173 Questions for Review 174 Additional Assignments 175 Notes 175

9 Feminine and Feminist Ethics 177The Starting Point for Feminine Ethics: Relations between People 177

Carol Gilligan and Feminine Moral Language 178 Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development 178 Carol Gilligan’s Levels of Moral Development 179 Criticisms of the Kohlberg/Gilligan

Approach to Moral Reasoning 180 Nel Noddings’ Ethics of Care 182

Ethical Caring 182 The Ideal Picture of a Caring Person 185 The Limits of Ethical Caring 185

Moral Significance and Moral Equality 187 An Ethical Procedure Consistent

with Noddings’ Approach 187 Two Cases for Evaluation 189

Telling a Lie 189 Unauthorized Copying of Software 191

Strengths and Weaknesses of Noddings’ Ethics of Care 192

Focus on Relations 192 Special Treatment for the Cared-For 193 Effective Ethical Action 194

Concluding Thoughts on Feminine Ethics 196 Feminist Ethics 196 Conclusion 199 Questions for Review 200 Additional Assignments 201 Notes 201

xii — Contents

10 The United Nations Human Rights Morality 203A Morality with a Different Source 203 The United Nations and Its Objectives 204 The United Nations Charter and Human Rights 205 The United Nations Universal

Declaration of Human Rights 206 Political Rights 206 Economic and Social Rights 207 Third-Generation Human Rights 207 Status of the Universal Declaration 207

The United Nations Rights as Moral Rights 208 The Elements of Human Rights 209

The Justification of the Universal Declaration’s Rights 211

Human Rights Covenants, Conventions, and Additional Treaties 213

Additional Human Rights Treaties 215 Effectiveness of the United Nations

Morality and the Human Rights Laws 216 The United Nations 216 The International Criminal Court 218 Regional Human Rights Organizations 219 Nongovernmental Organizations 220

Conclusion 221 Questions for Review 222 Notes 223

Appendix One: Cases Used in the Text 225

Appendix Two: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 229

Glossary 235 Index 239

Preface

Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach is an introduc- tion to some of the main ethical theories that have been developed in Western philosophy. It is designed as a textbook for any ethics course that requires knowledge of ethical theories, including introduction to ethics, ethical theories and problems, contemporary moral issues, business eth- ics, computer ethics, environmental ethics, health care ethics, and media ethics. It provides the theoretical framework and the procedures neces- sary to solve moral problems in a wide variety of areas.

Chapter 1 identifies and explains the concepts needed to understand ethics and ethical theories. In addition, it discusses the attempt by West- ern philosophers to create a legitimate, secular morality. Chapter 1 also introduces the eight theories investigated in the text.

Strategy and Organization This text investigates eight ethical theories using a purposeful and

orderly approach. The theories included are ethical relativism, emotiv- ism, ethical egoism, utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, the moral rights ethical theory, Aristotle’s ethical theory, and Nel Noddings’ feminine approach to ethics. The strategy is purposeful because each chapter’s goal is to arrive at a procedure that will allow someone to solve particular moral problems.

The text’s approach is orderly in that each chapter utilizes the same progression or sequence.

• Each chapter begins with a discussion of the ethical theory’s start- ing point for a legitimate morality. This starting point identifies the

xiii

xiv — Preface

focus of the theory and usually leads to a moral rule or principle that differentiates between good and bad, or right and wrong. Iden- tifying the starting point helps people understand the theory as well as recognize how it differs from other theories.

• The second section of each chapter summarizes the theory itself, including a discussion of the reasoning and conclusions that are crucial to it.

• The third part identifies the theory’s view of morally significant actions and beings, and its view on moral equality.

• The fourth section presents and explains the theory’s procedure for solving moral problems.

• The next section illustrates the procedure for solving moral prob- lems by applying it to two cases. One of these cases is either a situa- tion involving a person committing academic dishonesty or someone telling a lie, while the other case involves a person mak- ing an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted software program. The latter case was selected for inclusion in every chapter because vio- lating copyright laws is arguably the most common example of law breaking in American society, whether photocopying books or arti- cles, or copying CDs, DVDs, MP3s, or software. Consistent use of a case that so clearly involves violating the law will highlight the dif- ference between legal and moral judgments. Moreover, it will make the procedural discussions more relevant and perhaps more inter- esting. The three cases selected for in-depth discussion involve everyday issues rather than social/political issues like capital pun- ishment, physician-assisted suicide, and war. This decision was motivated by the thought that most readers would find the every- day moral problems more relevant to their lives. However, the “Additional Assignments” section of each chapter provides an assignment related to a sociopolitical issue.

• The next-to-last section in each chapter discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the particular theory.

• Every chapter ends with a short summary of its main points. • All chapters are supplemented by questions for review and addi-

tional assignments.

The final chapter investigates the international human rights moral- ity articulated in the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Variations of the human rights morality are widely used in today’s world, not only by the United Nations but also by a variety of other associations and organizations. These include associations of nations, such as the European Union; national governments, such as the United States; international organizations, such as the International Crim- inal Court; and nongovernmental organizations, such as Amnesty Inter-

Preface — xv

national. This chapter’s organization is different than the others because its purpose is to summarize the history of the United Nations’ version of the human rights morality and briefly discuss how it is used in the world. This chapter helps establish the idea that morality can be more than something that is learned in an ethics class or a set of personal rules to guide one’s life. It can also be a practical tool to regulate the behavior of nations and help the world become more peaceful and more economi- cally and socially successful.

The text contains two appendices. Appendix 1 contains the three cases that are used for in-depth application of the ethical procedures. Appendix 2 provides the text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is discussed in Chapter 10.

The Ethical Theories The text includes extended discussions of eight answers to the ques-

tion: how should people live? These answers are identified in relation to ethical theories or sets of related ideas that explain how people ought to live. Most of the ethical theories in the book provide moral rules or princi- ples. These rules and principles can act as guides to ethical conduct and can be the foundation for creating ethical procedures that can be used to solve ethical or moral problems.

One thesis of this text is that there are different ethical theories and different sets of moral rules because moral philosophers begin from dif- ferent ethical starting points. If, for example, one philosopher asserts that ethics and the search for a legitimate set of moral rules must be based on the beliefs of an actual society, while another thinker claims that ethics and a legitimate set of moral rules must be grounded in particular peo- ples’ emotional reactions, one should expect those philosophers to arrive at very different ethical theories and sets of moral rules. The eight ethical theories in this book originate from eight different starting points. Ethical relativism begins with the fact that humans are social beings. Emotivism starts with people’s emotional reactions. Ethical egoism is grounded in the fact that almost all people are self-interested. Utilitarianism originates with the idea that all persons want to be happy. Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory commences with the concept of the unconditional good. The moral rights theory is predicated on the intrinsic value of persons. The founda- tion for Aristotle’s ethical theory is the human good. Finally, Nel Nod- dings’ feminine approach to ethics begins with the idea that ethics must be connected to relationships between people.

Another thesis of this book is that, based upon a particular ethical theory’s procedure, there will be a correct solution to a moral problem. Therefore, it attempts to refute the widely held opinion that there are no correct solutions to moral problems. Different theories produce different moral rules and principles, which lead to different ethical procedures,

xvi — Preface

and which may produce contrasting solutions to moral problems. How- ever, while different theories may lead to contrasting solutions, for a par- ticular ethical theory and its specific ethical procedure there is a correct solution to a moral problem.

The eight ethical theories discussed were chosen for two main rea- sons. First, most of them are commonly found in other introductory texts. The exceptions to this are the moral rights theory and Nel Noddings’ feminine approach. The discussion of the moral rights theory proved nec- essary because it is an important preliminary for the final chapter’s pre- sentation of the United Nations human rights morality. In addition, the moral rights theory is very similar to Kant’s ethical theory, which is one of the most important ethical theories. Many students, however, find Kant’s terminology and approach abstract and difficult. Including the moral rights theory allows students to investigate a theory that is similar to Kant’s, but which uses more familiar language and is easier to under- stand for many students. Nel Noddings’ approach to ethics was included because it provides a thought-provoking challenge to the more traditional ethical theories found in the text. Moreover, many introductory ethical theories texts are beginning to include a feminine ethical orientation and I regard Nel Noddings’ approach as the clearest and most comprehensive.

The second reason for choosing these eight theories is that I have suc- cessfully presented all of them in the classroom. This book is primarily meant to be a textbook and I hope that it will be a successful one. There- fore, I have limited the selection to ethical theories that students have actually found interesting and understandable.

The ethical theories in this book are all secular in nature. The book was intended to discuss theories that could conceivably appeal to anyone. In contrast, religious moralities are compelling only to those people who have accepted the relevant fundamental religious beliefs. Also, this text focuses on reasoning and procedures, while the acceptance of fundamen- tal religious beliefs seems ultimately to be a matter of faith and not solely a product of reason. For these reasons, religious moralities such as the Divine Command Theory were excluded.

Ways to Use this Book Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach can be used in

one of two main ways. First, the material can be assigned at the beginning of the course to provide students with the vocabulary, concepts, ethical theories, moral rules, and procedures needed in order to evaluate moral issues and problems. Instructors using it for a more specific applied course, such as media ethics, may want to employ the text in this way in order to prepare students for the discussion of moral problems related to the media. Those instructors may choose to cover only certain chapters and theories. In media ethics, for example, most media-related issues and

Preface — xvii

cases are discussed in relation to self-interest (ethical egoism), the benefit and harm to those affected (act utilitarianism), human rights (moral rights theory), and the goals or purposes of those involved (teleological ethics, such as Aristotle’s ethical theory).

A second strategy for using the book is to discuss Chapter 1 and then pair each subsequent chapter and ethical theory with the investigation of a particular moral issue or problem. The instructor might choose as the complementary issues the sociopolitical problems presented in the addi- tional assignments. For example, the discussion of utilitarianism might be paired with the issue of whether people have an obligation to donate their money and time to charities. As another example, the investigation of the moral rights theory could be illustrated with an exploration of the abortion issue. Whichever strategy is used, my goal is to make your class- room experience a successful one.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank all the people at Waveland Press who helped

bring this book to fruition, especially my editor, Laurie Prossnitz. Debi Underwood did the prepress composition and Peter Lilliebridge was the typesetter. Diane Evans first contacted me about publishing with Wave- land and provided invaluable guidance at the beginning of the project. Neil Rowe has provided support and advice. At Shippensburg Univer- sity, a special thank you is due to Dr. Charles Loucks, who did the initial editing of the manuscript. Janice Reed, our department secretary, pro- vided assistance in many ways. At home, my wife Ellen read parts of the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions about the content.

Beginning to Think about Ethics

 Ethical Questions How should I live my life? This is a question many people ask them-

selves. It is an important question for many of them because they want to live good lives. They understand that they have only one life to live and they want to live it well. Ethics, in one sense, is an intellectual disci- pline that assists us in answering the question about how one should live his or her life. Yet, someone might ask how an intellectual discipline can help a particular person answer such a personal question. Many moral philosophers believe that an understanding of ethics can assist people in answering the question because they claim that there is one basic answer that is appropriate for everyone. For example, some philos- ophers argue that the ethical way for people to live is to try to create more happiness than unhappiness for everyone affected by their actions. As people go about their lives, they ought to keep this guideline in mind and always try to follow it. The answer would be appropriate for every- one and thus it could help any individual answer the question about how to live. Can thinkers who study ethics really produce a convincing answer to the question about how to live? Many philosophers believe they have answered the question and this book will explore some of those answers.

The intellectual discipline of ethics has many aspects. Moral philoso- phers investigate morally significant actions, choices, decisions, values, beliefs, commitments, and other important aspects of moral life. They hope to learn how we ought to make morally significant decisions, as well as what decisions we should make. These thinkers explore whether

1

2 — Chapter One

all people in precisely the same situation should make the same decision, or whether there is something about individual people that should lead them to decide differently. They also strive to learn about life in general. For example, they want to know if there is one good life that we should all be living. Moral philosophers seek to understand the nature of moral obligation and moral responsibility. For example, when is a person obli- gated to do something, and when is it simply good to do something, but not an obligation? When can a person be held morally responsible for an action, and what follows such attributions of moral responsibility? Moral philosophers also investigate distinctions between morally significant and morally insignificant actions, as well as between morally valued and unvalued beings. The many aspects of ethics make it a challenging and interesting discipline.

In a broader sense, ethics is the investigation into how people ought to live.1 In this sense it is not an intellectual discipline, but rather an exploration that anyone can undertake, and many people do, whether or not they realize it. People who have thought about how to live their lives are already involved in ethics in this sense. Moral philosophers believe that this everyday investigation can be improved by studying the intel- lectual discipline. People’s thinking about how to live their lives is sometimes incomplete, inconsistent, or simply muddled. Exposure to ethics as an intellectual discipline would clarify their thinking, accord- ing to moral philosophers.

What should I do in this situation? A person’s life is made up of countless actions, choices, decisions, commitments, dilemmas, problems, and so on. Many thinkers believe that ethics is a source of guidance with particular decisions and problems, as well as assisting with the general question about how to live. One strategy is to take the general moral posi- tion and then investigate how best to apply it to a particular decision or problem. As stated earlier, some moral philosophers believe that the ethi- cal way for people to live is to try to create more happiness than unhappi- ness for everyone affected by their actions. This general position can be applied to specific cases or issues. For example, if Maria is trying to decide whether to lie or tell the truth to John in a particular situation, she should think about which action would produce the greatest happiness for her, John, and anyone else who would be affected. She should con- sider the potential outcomes of lying and determine whether the lie’s con- sequences would actually produce more happiness for the people affected by it. If it did, then it would be the right thing to do. Can the application of a general ethical principle produce a convincing answer to the question of what to do in a particular situation? Again, philosophers believe their investigations have produced rules or guidelines that help people determine the right thing to do in particular situations. This book will discuss these guidelines and create procedures based upon them that can be used to decide what is ethical in a particular case.

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 3

What is the purpose of ethics? If ethics is the intellectual discipline that assists us in answering the question about how to live, then its purpose is to answer that question. Many people want the question answered because they want to live well and for their lives to be praiseworthy. If, however, they are to live well and their lives are to be praiseworthy, they must live successfully with other people. Thus, we can say that a more specific purpose of ethics is to help us live successfully with other people.2

Living well also means having successfully decided what to do in most of the difficult situations that one has faced. Therefore, another more specific purpose of ethics is to resolve difficult situations or solve moral problems. For example, the situation mentioned earlier presents a moral problem. Maria wants to know if lying to John is the right thing to do. This is an example of the kind of specific moral problem that ethics should enable people to solve. Of course, there are other problems of greater conse- quence. Assume that an unmarried college student has become pregnant. She believes that having a baby at this time will ruin her life and make all her goals impossible to achieve. What is the right thing for her to do? Should she have an abortion, give birth to the baby and put it up for adop- tion, or keep the baby and change her life goals? Ethical problems need solutions and ethics should provide them. An essential feature of this book is that it provides ethical procedures for solving specific ethical problems.

Where should thoughtful people start their investigation into how to live? Moral philosophers are usually orderly people. They try to start at the beginning or as close to the beginning as one can get. One way to begin is to learn some of the basic terms and concepts that moral philoso- phers use. These terms and concepts have been discussed by various thinkers for thousands of years. People who have not studied ethics have a little catching up to do.

 Ethical Theories and Moralities Moral philosophers, like people in other disciplines, create theories.

A theory is a set of related ideas that explains something. For example, most scientific theories explain some natural phenomenon or group of phenomena. An ethical theory provides a set of related ideas that explains how people ought to live. Many important ethical theories have been developed during the history of Western civilization, including those of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. These theories address a wide range of moral concepts, but some com- mon concentrations are what kind of beliefs people should have, how they should act toward others, how they should make ethical decisions, and what or who has moral value.

In addition to a general explanation about how to live, most ethical theories provide moral rules, principles, standards, guidelines, beliefs, or values. These rules, principles, and so on serve as guides to moral con-

4 — Chapter One

duct. Different theories may produce different moral rules, principles, standards, guidelines, beliefs, or values. For example, one theory may endorse the moral rule that it is always wrong to lie, while another may support the rule that a person should lie only when that lie creates more happiness than unhappiness for those affected. The term morality can be used to indicate a set of rules, principles, standards, guidelines, beliefs, or values that inform people about how to live. A morality can be endorsed by a particular theory, group of people, or even an individual. In most cases, an ethical theory creates a morality, which in turn guides the people who follow that theory. The morality can be said to be composed of moral rules, using the term moral rules to include rules, principles, standards, guidelines, beliefs, commitments, and values that inform people about how to live.

In this text, the ethical theories studied all produce secular or nonreli- gious moralities. These moralities are the product of reason and do not involve religious faith or beliefs that are specifically religious or spiritual. Secular moralities are crucial for philosophers who believe that there is one correct answer to the question about how to live. Because people believe strongly in different religions, it is extremely unlikely that they would all accept one religious answer. Therefore, if one morality is to be accepted by everyone, it should be based on reason, not religious faith.

Ethical theories produce moralities, or sets of moral rules, that have two important aspects. First, these moralities can be supported or justi- fied by reasoning or arguments. Specific moral rules also can be sup- ported or justified by reasoning or arguments. Therefore, moralities are subject to reason and are not arbitrary. This rational nature of moralities is one of their important features and will be discussed further in a later sec- tion. Another important aspect of moralities is that they support, endorse, or justify certain actions and condemn or reject others. Moral philoso- phers refer to this as the “prescriptive nature” of moralities. Moral rules “prescribe” certain actions and condemn others. Given a complete moral- ity, individuals would know what they should and should not do. If one is to understand moralities, he or she must understand that they are ratio- nal and prescriptive.

Moral philosophers divide ethics into two parts: theoretical ethics and applied ethics. The study of ethical theories and their concepts, principles, and procedures can be called theoretical ethics. While engaged in theoret- ical ethics philosophers might investigate which morality people ought to endorse and use. They would attempt to understand the concepts, moral rules, and procedures related to that “legitimate” morality. The moral rules and procedures developed in theoretical ethics can be applied to eth- ical problems to generate solutions. The application of moral concepts, rules, and procedures to specific cases or general issues is referred to as applied ethics. Some people think that there are no right answers or cor- rect solutions in ethics, but this is incorrect. If a particular theory is

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 5

applied consistently, it will generate a correct answer or a limited range of correct answers. While different theories may produce conflicting answers to a moral problem, there is a correct answer for a given theory. An impor- tant thesis of this text is that if we understand the ethical theories, we can identify procedures for solving moral problems, and by correctly using those procedures we arrive at solutions to moral problems.

 Moral Agents Who asks and tries to answer the question about how to live? Who

ought to try to live a good life? Who looks for moral rules and tries to live by them? At first glance, the answer would seem to be people. People wonder about how to live. People think about rules and sometimes decide to live by some of them. A more precise answer, however, is that the investigation into how to live and the actual attempt to live a good life are the province of moral agents. Moral agents are beings who can partic- ipate fully in the ethical life because they are autonomous and rational. The term “ethical life” refers to many things, but a few aspects of what moral agents do when they participate in the ethical life can be elabo- rated. They understand the difference between right and wrong and decide whether or not to act ethically. They understand and apply many other ethical concepts, such as moral obligation. They act and are held responsible for their actions.

In relation to moral agents, the word autonomous means being able to originate or generate actions. Such actions come from the agent and are not the causal product of some external force. In the previous sentence, “are not the causal product” means that the action was not directly caused by external forces. External forces may influence the actions of autonomous beings, but they do not directly cause them. The agents, themselves, are the causes of their actions.

Moral agents are not only autonomous, but also rational. Being ratio- nal means being able to think, which includes being able to formulate, understand, and evaluate ideas or concepts. The capacity to formulate, understand, and evaluate ideas or concepts requires the ability to use a natural language or a typical human language with a grammar and semantics. Therefore, many philosophers believe that the capacity to understand and use a natural language is evidence that a being can rea- son. An adult human being with the appropriate intellectual develop- ment can be considered the paradigm example of a moral agent because he or she is both autonomous and rational.

Being autonomous and being able to reason allow a moral agent to participate fully in the ethical life. Moral agents can understand moral rules, formulate them, evaluate them, and decide whether or not to act upon them. They can identify consequences and evaluate them to deter- mine if they benefit or harm people. Because they have these capacities,

6 — Chapter One

moral agents are, under certain circumstances, held responsible for their actions. When someone is held responsible or accountable for an action, he or she is usually considered to have caused it and can be praised, criti- cized, rewarded, or punished for it. Moral responsibility and moral praise and criticism are important topics in ethics.

 Moral Significance and Moral Equality Moral agents must make determinations about moral significance.

Moral significance is the importance or relevance of something in relation to the ethical way to live, act, choose, decide, or believe. People must decide what actions, choices, decisions, and beliefs are morally important or relevant. Different theories determine moral significance in different ways. For example, some philosophers believe the correct way to live is to try to create more happiness than unhappiness for everyone affected by their actions. Thus, if an action produced happiness or unhappiness for someone, it would be morally significant; whereas if it created no happi- ness or unhappiness for anyone, it would have no moral significance. This consideration could, of course, be extended to determine the moral significance of beliefs, decisions, choices, commitments, and so on. This is only one example of how the moral significance of actions is determined; other theories use different methods.

Moral agents who are trying to act ethically must also make determi- nations about what beings are morally significant.3 To say that a being is a morally significant being means that it or its interests should be taken into consideration by moral agents who are trying to act ethically. In the previous example, the moral choice relates to whether actions produce happiness or unhappiness for those affected. Therefore, any beings, such as human beings, that could be made happy or unhappy would be mor- ally significant. If, for example, a human being did not have the capacity for happiness and unhappiness, such as a person in a permanent coma, then that particular person would not be morally significant. We could not, however, kill such a comatose person because doing so might cause unhappiness for others. If there are creatures, such as ants, that do not have the capacity to be happy or unhappy, then neither they nor their interests (if they have any) need to be taken into consideration by persons trying to act ethically.

Traditionally, most people have not used the “capacity for happiness” criterion as the marker for moral significance. Going back in history, we find examples where people seem to have thought that only people like themselves should be taken into consideration. For example, only citizens of my nation, or proponents of my religion, or members of my gender, or people with my skin color and cultural background should be consid- ered. Today, such narrow attitudes are condemned. For example, if a per- son believes that the interests of men should always take precedence over

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 7

women’s interests merely because they are men, the person is a sexist. The more common and reasonable view today is that all—and only— human beings should be taken into moral consideration. Gender, race, and ethnicity are irrelevant; only being a human being matters. Therefore, people who use this criterion consider other humans or their interests when they are trying to be ethical, but are not directly concerned with nonhuman animals.

Some moral philosophers, however, disagree with the position that only human beings are morally significant. For example, the contempo- rary philosopher Peter Singer has argued that there is no morally relevant fact about human beings that gives them a superior moral status. He claims that all sentient beings, those capable of having sensations, should be given moral consideration. Pain is an example of a sensation, so there- fore Singer states that any being that can feel pain should receive moral consideration. The kind of being is irrelevant; the primary consideration is the experience of pain. Singer asserts that this position is consistent with act utilitarianism, an ethical theory that will be investigated in Chapter 5.

The designation as morally significant beings includes two other possi- bilities. One option is that there is only one morally significant being in the world: a particular individual, me. This view stems from the ethical theory called ethical egoism, which is explored in Chapter 4. Another idea is that only rational beings are morally significant. Again, “rational beings” is used in the sense that they are “able to reason.” This position is consistent with Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, which is the subject of Chapter 6. Because each criterion for moral significance is associated with a different ethical theory, each has its supporters. This debate over which beings should receive moral consideration is an important controversy in ethics.

Related to questions about moral significance is the issue of moral equality. Moral equality is the idea that certain beings ought to receive equal consideration for their identical moral interests. For example, if all and only human beings are morally significant simply because they are human beings, then all human beings are moral equals. This implies that if two human beings have the same interest, they should receive equal moral consideration with regard to the satisfaction of that interest. If two people are starving and you have food to spare, you should divide it between both of them since they are moral equals. In this view, that only human beings are morally significant, nonhuman animals would be mor- ally inferior. Their interests would not require consideration. If only human beings have moral significance and nonhuman animals have none, then if you had food to spare and a person and a dog were starving, you should give all the food to the human being. Moral equality is an important issue because it helps people understand how to treat others. Also, a theory that endorses moral equality for human beings prevents prejudiced attitudes like racism and sexism.

8 — Chapter One

Many philosophers believe that ethical theories can help us under- stand how to live and solve specific moral problems. The preceding sections have discussed a few of the basic concepts in ethics that are neces- sary in order to understand ethical theories. The next sections initiate a closer look at the ethical theories discussed in this text.

 A Shared Ethical Presupposition Ethics, as an intellectual discipline, is possible because most moral

philosophers share a presupposition that thinkers, using reason, can cre- ate a legitimate, secular morality. Since this legitimate morality is the product of people using reason and does not involve religious faith, it is a rational, secular one. Ethical claims or conclusions, including moral rules, can be supported by compelling reasons; they are not arbitrary. There should be a relevant reason or reasons for making a particular ethical claim, reaching a moral conclusion, or endorsing a certain moral rule. The reasons can be evaluated and accepted or rejected, and in turn, the claims, conclusions, and moral rules can be accepted or rejected. Thus, people can use reason to arrive at conclusions about how to live. They can think in a clear and orderly way about how to live and their deliberations can be productive.

For example, philosophers who subscribe to the “happiness view” believe that we can support our moral conclusions with reasons related to happiness and unhappiness. The fact that teasing Maria makes her unhappy is, at first glance, a reason to conclude that such teasing is wrong. Yet, philosophers must be certain that they have the facts correct or the conclusion will be wrong. They must be certain that they have con- sidered all the happiness and unhappiness related to the action. Reason must also be used in weighing considerations of happiness and unhappi- ness against each other.

 A Legitimate, Secular, Rational Morality While most moral philosophers share the presupposition that think-

ers, using reason, can create a legitimate, secular morality, many different ethical theories exist. One reason for this is that the moral philosophers who constructed the theories started with different ideas. One vital differ- ence among moral philosophers concerns the proper source for a legiti- mate morality. There are many different possible sources for a legitimate morality and each of them leads to a different ethical theory.

Morality Based on Society One position is that a legitimate morality should be based on a society.

Philosophers who hold this view often see morality as a social institution designed to help a society function successfully. A society creates a moral-

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 9

ity which endorses certain actions and forbids others. The morality is com- posed of rules, principles, values, and beliefs that specify and clarify which actions are ethical and which are not. If citizens act based on one of soci- ety’s moral rules, they have acted ethically, while if they break one of these rules, they have done something wrong. Thus, the social rules establish right and wrong. This view is investigated in Chapter 2, which is about ethical relativism.

Why would someone endorse this view? One reason is that people want to live well and it seems easier to do so in a successful society. If the members of a society all follow the same morality, the society will be more harmonious and presumably more successful. People will be familiar with what to expect from others and they will know what they should and should not do. A harmonious and successful society will be a better place to live than an unsuccessful one. Another reason is related to the defi- ciency connected with laws. Laws, in the sense of rules of conduct estab- lished by governments or legislative bodies and associated with a criminal justice system, help society function, but they cannot by themselves ensure smooth functioning. Too many occasions arise when people’s bad actions are not unlawful, as in the case of lying. There are also many situations where the law does not serve to inhibit undesirable actions because people are not afraid of being caught and punished, such as with many petty offenses. For a society to function effectively, it requires laws and morality. Therefore, morality is a social institution necessary for a successful society. This social morality is the only legitimate one; any others are misguided.

Morality Based on Happiness A second possible source for a legitimate morality is the happiness

and unhappiness produced by actions and decisions. What is happiness? The common theme in dictionary definitions is that happiness is a state of pleasure, contentment, or joy. Two aspects of happiness might be identi- fied. First, people experience pleasant emotions, such as joy, when they are happy. Second, when people are happy, they are content or satisfied with what they are doing. They are doing something that they prefer to do. This aspect of happiness is related to “preference satisfaction.” When people’s preferences are satisfied, they are usually happy. Of course, this approach is not only concerned with happiness, but unhappiness as well. Happiness is considered good and unhappiness is bad. If an action has made someone happy, then that action is good, while if an action has made someone unhappy, then it is bad.

There are two ethical theories that can be related to happiness and unhappiness. Both assume that if an action produces only happiness, it is good; whereas if only unhappiness results, it is bad. If both happiness and unhappiness are produced, a thinker must determine if there is more of one than the other. If there is net happiness, then the action is good, while a bad action produces net unhappiness. The difference

10 — Chapter One

between the two is that the theory of ethical egoism focuses only on the happiness and unhappiness of a particular individual, while utilitarian- ism takes into consideration the happiness and unhappiness of everyone affected by the action. Ethical egoism is investigated in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 discusses utilitarianism.

Why would someone argue that a legitimate morality should be based on happiness and unhappiness? One possibility is to begin with the idea that if something exists that everyone wants, then it ought to be considered good. Conversely, if something exists that no one wants, then it should be considered bad. Everyone wants to be happy and therefore happiness is good. No one wants to be unhappy and therefore unhappiness is bad. Peo- ple clearly identify different things as making them happy and unhappy. In relation to happiness, for example, some want money, or fame, or good health, or friends, and so on. The common element, however, is that they all want to be happy. Since this is the common element in the way people live, it ought to be the focus and starting point for a legitimate morality. The study of ethics involves thinking about happiness and unhappiness. There are two variations on this line of reasoning that lead to ethical ego- ism and utilitarianism, which will be investigated in separate chapters.

Morality Based on the Unconditional Good Another source for a legitimate morality is the unconditional good.

The goodness of some things depends upon the circumstances or situa- tion. For example, it would be good for Maria, a student who wants to achieve academic success, to spend time studying her American history textbook if she is to be tested on the material tomorrow. If, however, she had a mathematics test rather than the history exam, it would be bad to spend her time on history and not prepare for the mathematics test. Some moral philosophers have argued that morality is not like this; it is based on a good that does not depend on circumstances or situations. They claim that the foundation of morality is the unconditional good, which leads to an unconditional morality. If an unconditional morality exists, then the moral rules composing that morality must be followed without exception. The moral rules must be followed without exception because otherwise whatever motivated the exception would be the ultimate moral factor. This view, that the legitimate morality is based on an uncondi- tional good, is investigated in Chapter 6, which develops a variation of Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory.

Why would a person take this approach? One reason that the uncon- ditional good would be a superior foundation for morality is because it would be permanent and universal. It would apply in all situations, time periods, and places. People would not have to determine how their par- ticular situations affected the moral outcome. They would not have to continually investigate the good to determine if or how it had changed over time. Nor would they have to learn new moral rules when traveling

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 11

to another part of the world. Therefore, if there were such a thing as the unconditional good, it would be a superior foundation for morality and ought to be the starting point for ethics.

Another possible reason why morality ought to be based on an unconditional good begins with the idea that a morality states how peo- ple ought to act. Some thinkers point out that people are rational beings and then argue that for people to act in harmony with their nature as rational beings is unconditionally good, whereas acting contrary to their nature is unconditionally bad. Because people are rational beings, there is an unconditional good related to that rationality which ought to be the source of their morality.

Morality Based on the Intrinsic Moral Value of Individuals A fourth source for a legitimate morality is the intrinsic moral value

of individuals. Many thinkers assume that people have an intrinsic moral value. Something that has intrinsic moral value has value in itself, not because it is valuable as a means to accomplish some end. Things that are valuable as a means to an end are said to have instrumental value. Money has instrumental value because we can use it to purchase things we want. It is the means to acquire possessions. Intrinsic moral value can be regarded as being short for—or even synonymous with—“ought to be taken into consideration for its own sake by moral agents who are trying to act ethically.” If Maria has intrinsic moral value, then when John acts, he should take her into consideration for her own sake. She is valuable and he must consider her in that way. More broadly, people should live in a way that respects beings with intrinsic moral value. One way to create an ethical theory that ensures that people will be treated with respect is by focusing on moral rights. A person’s essential aspects could be identi- fied and protected with moral rights. It would then be unethical to violate one or more of a person’s moral rights. This moral rights theory is investi- gated in Chapter 7.

Why would someone adopt this approach to ethics? The main sup- port for this view is a strong belief in the basic claim that there are beings with inherent or intrinsic moral value. If a person believes, for example, that human beings have an intrinsic worth or that they are more valuable than other beings, then he or she will be sympathetic to this position. Sometimes this view simply seems intuitively correct to people. Other people provide reasoned support for this view by pointing out character- istics or qualities of human beings that make them more valuable than other beings. A person might think, for example, that rational beings are superior to other beings because rationality is the most important capabil- ity that a being could have. Of course, this claim would need to be sup- ported with an argument concluding that rationality was the ultimate capability. Based upon either kind of support, this is a popular view with many nonphilosophers.

12 — Chapter One

Morality Based on the Universal Human Goal The fifth source for a legitimate secular morality is the universal

human goal. Some thinkers claim that everything has a goal, purpose, or end for which it is fitted. For example, Aristotle believed that the goal, purpose, or end of a horse is to run swiftly. A good horse is one that accomplishes that goal by running swiftly, while a bad horse runs slowly. Aristotle thought that human beings also had a goal, purpose, or end, which will be covered in Chapter 8’s discussion of virtue ethics. Thus, a good human being is one who successfully accomplishes this goal, pur- pose, or end, while a bad human being is unsuccessful.

Why would someone adopt this view? The main reason for support- ing this approach to ethics is that the person believes that everything has a goal, purpose, or end for which it is fitted. Why, however, would some- one believe that everything has a goal, purpose, or end for which it is fit- ted? Aristotle seems to have thought that this was the way the universe was structured. Everything has a purpose and we can know this to be true when we examine and understand the world. Today, most people who support this view do so for religious reasons. They believe that an all-powerful God has ordained a goal, purpose, or end for everything, which is consistent with a divine plan. The divine plan can be conceived as the overall goal, purpose, or end, and in order to accomplish this plan everything must have a role in it. The role that a thing is intended to play is its specific purpose. Thus, everything has a purpose and it is good if it is successfully accomplishing that purpose. If everything has a specific purpose consistent with the divine plan, then human beings have a divine purpose or goal, and a good person is one who successfully accomplishes that goal, while a bad person is unsuccessful. If someone endorses this religious justification, he or she will produce what is ulti- mately an ethics grounded in faith in God as well as reason. Thus, it will not be a completely secular ethics.

 Two Contrary Views Two positions that do not produce moralities based solely upon ratio-

nal considerations are investigated in Chapters 3 and 9. One view held by a minority of moral philosophers is that a legitimate morality should be based on something about particular individuals. This view is held by thinkers who reject the common presupposition that ethics is rational. If ethics is not rational and does not involve equality, then it must function without reasoning or thinking. Therefore, it must originate with some- thing nonrational, such as emotions or intuitions. For example, good and bad would relate to the emotions of particular people. If witnessing or perhaps even thinking about someone stealing a book from a store gives Maria a bad feeling, then stealing the book is wrong. An example of this view is the theory called emotivism, which is discussed in Chapter 3.

Beginning to Think about Ethics — 13

Why would a thinker take this approach? While a more accurate and comprehensive answer to this question appears in the third chapter, the basic reason is that the thinker believes that ethics is not rational in the sense that ethical judgments do not describe possible facts and therefore cannot be based on objective reasons. Some philosophers have held this view because it seemed to them that ethics was concerned not with the way the world is, but rather with the way people felt it ought to be. The “world” is the complete collection of facts. Reason can allow us to describe and even understand the facts. For example, it is a fact that Phil- adelphia is a city in Pennsylvania in the United States. Ethics, however, is not about the facts that make up the world. It is about the way people want things to be or feel they are. When John states, “Abortion is wrong,” he is not describing a fact, but instead is expressing his feelings about abortion. Moral expressions are opinions or feelings about the way some- thing ought to be. Feelings are often irrational since a person may feel a certain way even if it is not rational for him or her to do so. Since ethics is not about the facts, it must be about peoples’ feelings and a legitimate morality should be consistent with this view.

A second approach that does not produce a traditional secular ratio- nal morality, and the final theory discussed in the text, locates the source of moral conduct and the moral model in the ultimate human relation- ship. During the twentieth century, certain female critics of traditional moral theories observed that human relationships are an essential aspect of life. They argued that moral good should be understood in the context of human relationships. According to them, the ultimate human relation- ship and the moral model is “ethical caring.” When a person has the opportunity to care for another and proceeds to do so, that person has acted ethically. One thinker who has developed a theory grounded in ethical caring is Nel Noddings, and Chapter 9 investigates her view.

Why would someone adopt this view? Some thinkers have claimed that traditional ethical theories have focused on a view of the moral agent as an isolated, autonomous, rational decision maker. The moral agent uses his or her reason to apply the legitimate morality to the case and generate the correct moral decision. The primarily female critics of traditional moral theories claim that this picture of moral agents does not accurately reflect human life as it is lived. People are not essentially iso- lated decision makers, but instead are primarily people who are in rela- tionships with other persons. While traditional ethical theories state that the specific relationship you have to a person, such as being a friend or sibling, is not morally relevant, the female critics of traditional moral the- ories assert that the nature of the relationship is morally crucial. Life is essentially lived within relationships and ethics therefore should be focused on relationships. Accepting this premise, the moral model should be the ultimate relationship, which is ethical caring. People who want to be ethical must act on the opportunity to care for others.