Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Ethical systems and ways of moral reasoningThe debate over ethical issues arises because of the different methods ofmoral reasoningAccording to the 1st participant, an ethical egoist, it is what he wantsthat count; and whatever is of my best interest, and not whether it violates anycommandmentParticipant # 2, a deontologist, agrees with the ethical egoist, in thatpeople have the right to make private choices for their livesParticipant # 3, a utilitarian affirms that it is the consequence producedby the actions that determines what is right and wrong. In this case; will activeeuthanasia produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number?Participant # 4, a deontologist, a Roman Catholic, appeals the principle“You shall not kill” #4 disagrees with # 2.Participant # 5, the emotivist, teaches that the choices each participanthave made so far was just an expression of personal preference.Participant # 6, a relativist, who argues that there is no absolute standardfor right and wrong; what is moral depends on each situationParticipant # 7,a virtue theorist, argues that there is more than justmaking the right decision; the place of individual’s character cannot be neglectedEthical Systems1. Antinomianism (against or without the law)These are either theoretical or practical atheists.There are no universal principles. If there is no law then there can be nomoral judgment.What Corrie Ten Boom did was neither good nor bad; it was the appropriatething to doIn this case, decisions must be based on subjective, personal, pragmaticground, but not on any moral ground.Whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results aregood, then the lie is right.RelativismRelativism is the belief that there is no moral truth that applies to allpeople at all times.Cultural relativism: each person’s culture is the standard by which actionsare to be measured. (when in Rome do as a Roman). Although ethical standard isfrom one place to another, people are obligated to follow the norm of the cultureto preserve social order.Cognitive relativism. In this system, truth is always perspectival; thingsare true only relative to something else, and that is one’s cultureB.BehaviorismThis theory is popularized by B. F. Skinner, a psychologist who argues thatwhat we do is not the result of the decision we make; instead what we do isdetermined.Determinism is the belief that nothing happens either randomly or by choiceWhat we call choices is actually the result of some previous event: a cause.Our actions are not “decisions” but predispositions to behave in certainways as the result of physical causesBehavior is controlled by cause and effect, what behaviorist call stimulusand response.For Skinner, one’s social environment is very important, educational system,family structure, government policy, religious group, peer pressures and all otherinstitutions.We constantly receive positive reinforcement that mold our behavior.There is no room for ethics in this system. Moral responsibility ismeaninglessTherefore without human autonomy, ethics dissolves into the study of howsociety influences usAlthough society influences us as human, let’s note that these influence can

be resistedThere is no room for God in Skinner’s system . His world view understand theworld as a closed system.Everything that happens is explainable in terms of causes that occurswithin the systemNo divine power intervenes in the process. Nothing exist that cannot bediscovered through the scientific methodC.ExistentialismExistentialism is traced back in the 19th century and is assigned to SorenKierkegaard.According to Kierkegaard, there are three spheres of existence:Aesthetics: it seeks pleasure. It is sensual; it is self-centered; does notget involved and does not decide. (Jean Paul Sartre)Ethics: at this level, Kierkegaard followed Kant; it is a duty; a decisioncan always be justified rationally. The moral man can always cite the universallaw to justify his behaviorThe religious: there exist a sphere of existence that is higher than ethicsor moral; the ethical is suspended. There is a telos, a goal that is higher thanthe moral, in relation to which the moral norms are transcended.Kierkegaard bases his argument on Gen 22 where Abraham received the order tokill his own son and he obeyed. The Bible says that Abraham was declared righteousbut it was not on the basis of morality.What he did was immoral; a father must love and protect his son, never killhim. This is a universal ethical principleHow could Abraham be righteous? He was an exception.; and since it could notbe justified on moral ground, thus there must be a higher sphere; the religiousKant disagrees with Kierkegaard because he argues that ethical norms admitno exceptions; for they are universal. There is no excuse to violate a universallaw.For Kant Gen 22 was misunderstood, because it cannot be taken at falsevalue.For Kierkegaard the individual is greater than the universal. How couldAbraham justify what he did? Never on moral grounds. Supposing someone saw himwith a knife in hand and ask him; what are you going to do with a knife?What could he have said? “I heard the voice of God and I believe it was thevoice of God…” how could explain his actions to his son?Kierkegaard imagines in his book Fear and Trembling, 67.“When Isaac again saw Abraham’s face it was changed, his glance was wild,his form was horror. He seized Isaac by the throat, threw him upon the ground andsaid “stupid boy, doest thou then suppose that I am thy father? I am an idolater.Does thou suppose that this is God’s bidding? No, it is my desire! Then Isaactrembled and cried out in terror. ‘O God in heaven have compassion upon me. If Ihave no father upon the earth, be thou my father’ but Abraham in a low voice saidto himself, ‘O Lord in heaven, I thank Thee. After all it is better for him tobelieve that I am a monster rather than he should loose faith in thee. (ElmerDuncan, Soren Kierkegaard, 67).D.ETHICAL EGOISMEthical egoism is the theory thatthe morality of an act is determined by one’s self-interest.Actions that advance self-interest are moraland those that do not are not moral,The ethical egoist simply uses self-interest to make moral decisions, whichdoes not necessarily mean that the person is narcissistic.In addition to Participant #1, who made his moral decision about euthanasiabased strictly on his self-interest,many other contemporary examples illustrate the practice of ethical egoism.For example, medical doctors frequently make decisions based upon theirpotential exposure to medical malpractice suits.

In many cases, nothing is inherently wrong with the desire to avoidlawsuits.Another example is the concern that whistle blowers have of loosing theirjobs and are blacklisted from the industry.Its PrinciplesLooking out for others is self-defeatingWe know only our own needs and less ability to understand othersBeing concerned with the needs of others invade our privacyPeople find it demeaning to accept the help of othersIt is the only moral system that respect the integrity of the individualhuman lifeA person has only one life to liveEthics of altruism does not take seriously the life of the individual; forit must be sacrified for the good of othersAltruistic ethics does not take seriously the value of human lifeProblemsIt has no means of settling conflicts of interests without appealing toother systemsIt is an arbitrary ethical system which divides people into two groupsIndividual are only capable of acting in their self-interestThe Bible portrays self-interest for the sake of others.UTILITARIANISMUtilitarianism derives from utility or usefulnessThey will say that an act is good when it brings about the desired result.Thus act are good when they result in happiness, evil when they result inunhappiness.It normally seeks the greatest happiness for the greater number of peopleThis is a consequentialist system, for ethical truth is found in theconsequence of our actionsSome would argue for quantitative utilitarianism (J. Bentham) (what mattersis how much pleasure we will receive.Others for qualitative utilitarianism (J. S. Mill) he argues thatquantitative utilitarianism is not sufficient because it fails to recognize thathuman have higher and lower desire.Higher desires are those for the intellect and lower desires are based onour cultural biological needs and wantsAn ethical system build on consequences has some inherent problem1.Is it really possible to know the result. For the rightness or wrongness ofan action depends on something that is still future. And since the future isunknowable we are left in the air.2.There are no standard of judgment other than consequences, andevery consequence occurs after the decision. They do not tell us at what time inthe future we can judge. When will all the consequence be in?3.how can the results be compared? When we make a decision, onepath is chosen and others not. How do we know how things would have turn out havemade a different choice?4.Can we know the extend of consequences? What constitute thegreatest happiness for those affected by the decision?5.what happens to justice and other ethical virtues? Such asfairness, honesty, respect for life. these are not standards for good and evil;they are ethically significant only when they contribute to the happiness of thegreater number6.what about motive? Only the result count in this system.7.is morality dependant on the success of an action?Its appeal1.It is a relatively simple theory to apply2.It avoids the rigidity of deontology3.It does not appeal to divine revelation but rather appeal to non moral