Ethics: Culture, Rules and CommunitiesEthics is the branch of philosophical inquiry dealing with questions regarding the nature of the good and the right, conceptions of happiness, what constitutes our moral obligations and prohibitions, and how to achieve the good life. It seems clear, then, that ethics is important because people live their lives based on what they believe to be worthwhile, what they believe to be morally right or reprehensible, and all of this to achieve the good life, a life fit for the dignity and value of a human being. One of the most popular distinctions made regarding ethical theories is that between relativism and absolutism (or objective ethical theories). Ethical Relativism is, generally, the conviction that there is no such thing as absolute good or bad, primarily because different people in different cultures, or different people occupying different positions within a culture, have (or think they have) justifications for varying beliefs. (Remember that there is a distinction between ethical relativism and cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is a descriptive theory indicating that, in fact, different cultures hold with different ethical theories or principles. But the fact that different people do hold with a variety of positions is NOT the same thing as saying that these differences indicate that all these different people and cultures are right. An ethical relativist claims that the distinctions between cultures indicates that, in fact, all the different people and cultures are right in their beliefs regarding ethics.) Ethical absolutism or objectivism, on the other hand, is generally the position that there is something (an ethical principle or principles, perhaps, or a command of some sort) that can be known to be true, and that serves as the foundation or guiding rule for determining right and wrong, good and bad. Among ethical theories, four of them are both very popular and very important in the history of human thought. One of them, virtue ethics, is espoused by Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, medieval philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and contemporary philosophers such as Michael Oakeshott, Michael Sandel, and Alasdair MacIntyre. Virtue theory/virtue ethics is a position in which one contends that the culture in which one lives has a significant influence and is the determining factor in what is considered to be good or bad. But this is certainly not all, especially since all theories could conceivably be characterized in this way. What the virtue theorist tends to point out is that it is not only the consequences of actions that matter in a consideration of the action's moral worth, it is also the character of the agent that makes a difference in determining which actions count as good, and which ones count as bad. The virtue theorist is thus a teleologist (a theorist who contends that the results of actions are essential in determining their moral worth), but the virtue theorist also argues that our characters must be developed in a certain way in order for us to live a good life, and perhaps even to know what a good life is. Virtue theories are not rule-based theories. That is, virtue ethicists do not provide a rule or a list of rules such that, if you follow them, it automatically follows that you are counted among the virtuous. Virtue is something well beyond the simple act of following rules. A second type of theory, the one developed by Immanuel Kant, is called deontology. A deontological ethical theory opposes teleological theories since the deontologist contends that it is not the results of actions that are the determining factor in an assessment of their moral worth. It is instead, for the deontologist, that the moral worth of actions is determined by the intent behind them. But don't let this characterization fool you. It is NOT the intent to produce good actions that counts for the deontologist. It is the intent to act not only according to the moral law, but also to act out of respect for it. For the deontologist, the ultimate moral law is determined in a (supposedly) purely rational manner, consisting of the recognition that all rational beings are always to be treated as ends (intrinsically valuable) and not as means to an end (as only instrumentally valuable, as things). This rule is called the categorical imperative, and Kantian ethics is a duty-based ethical theory. Kantian ethics is complicated at first (nearly everyone has trouble understanding it when they first begin to read it and think about it), but in the long run, the theory does make sense, and you will most likely find that there are many elements of it with which you do agree, and perhaps by which you also live your life. A third type of major ethical theory is Utilitarianism, first developed by Jeremy Bentham, but refined and revised in its most popular form by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians hold that an action is good if its results are good, and a good action is defined as one that produces happiness. Happiness, for the Utilitarian, is pleasure. Unhappiness is pain. The Utilitarian theory, however, does not imply that any sort of pleasure is as good as any other. Mill argued that there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, and that the higher (intellectual) pleasures are superior to the lower (physical) ones, and that human beings ought to and will prefer the higher over the lower pleasures. His justification for this claim is -- to put it bluntly -- lame. The Utilitarian's principle of morality is called the Principle of Utility. It is sometimes also called the "greatest happiness principle." This principle generally means that happiness is a good, and more happiness is even more good, so the requirement of the principle of utility is that one should create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Notice that this does not mean just the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is a theory including also non-human animals in its calculation of the morality of an action. It is one of the only theories of ethics that speaks to the concerns of all sentient beings, and not just or only of human beings. Mill's justification for the principle of utility generally does not fare much better, however, than his justification for the distinction and preference for different types of pleasure. But even for all that, Utilitarianism has been and continues to be a very popular theory. A fourth theory, contractarian ethics,
is one that is very familiar. It is sometimes considered a theory of
"morals by agreement." Part of the idea behind contract theory (some of
you may recognize this term as it applies to theories of government and
their justification) is that conceptions of right and wrong, good and
bad are created within the framework of a social structure and are
justified and upheld by the agreement of those who are to be held to
rules. Contractarianism is a problematic theory in a number of ways
(but probably no more problematic than other theories), and is
especially prone to the criticism that people agreeing that a certain
action or rule is right or good is no proof that it actually is so.
Nonetheless, contractarianism makes sense in its own way, and is
consistent with the contractarian conception of political systems. Contract theorists tend to put forth theories of human
nature to explain how moral systems and political systems arise, and
the way in which they are properly to be conceptualized and maintained.
Thomas Hobbes held the position that all human beings are essentially
self-interested (notice that this is different from selfishness), and
that the way in which morality and government will be understood is
influenced by that view. John Locke, however, held that although people
can be self-interested, they are naturally cooperative and social
beings. This view influences the way in which Locke conceptualizes and
argues for his version of moral laws of nature and the justification of
limitations on government power. A contemporary contractarian, John Rawls, developed a refined version of social contract theory that has in some ways over-shadowed, but it has certainly not replaced, the traditional theories of Hobbes and Locke. What you will see in this
section of the course is a variety of ethical theories, a number of
rules of morality characterizing those theories, and discussion of the
arguments and problems of theory and application. It might be simple to
tell you that one of these theories is better than the others, but to
tell you that is beyond the scope of our concerns in this course. It is
up to you to decide which theory you will follow, to identify the
theory that you actually do follow, and to take into consideration the
benefits and liabilities of adherence to any of them. There are more ethical theories to which we will turn in this course, and all of them as well as those in this brief overview, may prove useful to you in formulating positions for ethics bowl competition and in deciding for yourself what is right and good. If you are looking for some background information on ethics as a branch of philosophical inquiry with some important information for application in this course, please go to the following:
|