P. 1
Intro to Ethics PPT

Intro to Ethics PPT

|Views: 93|Likes:
Published by TonyMalaria

More info:

Published by: TonyMalaria on Jul 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODP, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/31/2012

pdf

text

original

Intro to Ethics By Spencer Edie and

Table of Contents
    

Ethics vs Morals Ethics Diagram Moral Cognitivism Moral Non-Cognitivism Moral Relativism

Societal Relativism Relativism

 Personal

Moral Absolutism

Table of Contents Continued
     

Moral Realism Duty Ethics – Deontology Kantian Ethics Divine Command Theory Consequentialism Utilitarianism
 Act-Based  Rule-Based

Ethics Diagram
Ethics
Moral Cognitivism Moral Absolutism Duty Ethics/Deontol ogy Virtue Ethics Moral Realism Moral NonCognitivism Moral Relativism Societal Relativism Personal Relativism

Consequentiali sm

Kantian Ethics

Divine Command Theory

Rule-based Utilitarianism

Act-based Utilitarianism

Morals VS Ethics

There is a definite, although vague distinction between Morality and Ethics, terms that are often used interchangeably but usually kept separate in most academic fields of Moral Philosophy. We will take the standpoint that for all intents and purposes, Morality falls as a category of Ethics. (along with things such as manners, aesthetics, defining the ‘good’, so on) ETHICS = What is a “good life”? MORALITY = How should I act towards others?

AXIOLOGY - THE STUDY OF VALUE
Ethics What is the ‘good life’? Morality How should we act towards others? Aesthetics Value of Beauty and Art Manners Prescriptions for cultural norms, habits of good taste

Moral Cognitivism
  

There are moral facts, and we can know them. Example: We know that murder is wrong. Strength: We have moral responsibility and can hold other people accountable for their actions. Weakness:How do we go about determining what those moral facts are. Underlying Assumption: See definition... Source

  

Moral Non-Cognitivism
 

There might be moral facts, but we cannot know them. Example: It may be true that murder is wrong but since we are stupid we cannot know if it is or not. Strength: There is no moral responsibility. Weakness: Could lead to apathy. Underlying Assumption: There are things we cannot know. Source

   

Moral Relativism

The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons. Example: Murder is not absolutely right or wrong. Strength: You are not obligated to do anything. Weakness: Could lead to apathy, cannot hold people accountable for their actions. Underlying assumptions: Read the definition. Source

  

 

Societal Relativism
   

Morals are relative to societies’ expectations and or standards. Example: Cannibalism is okay in remote tribes. Strength: It is pragmatic. Weaknesses: You cannot always hold certain societies accountable for their actions. How do you define what a society is? Underlying Assumption: It is in the definition. Source

 

Personal Relativism
  

What is moral is relative to each person. Example: Lying is not wrong to me. Strengths: You can decide what is right and wrong, you are not morally responsible for your actions. Weakness: Cannot hold other people responsible for their actions Source

 

Moral Absolutism

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Example: Lying is always wrong Strengths: Straightforward Weakness: How should we determine was is true and what is false? Source

   

Moral Realism
At least some moral claims actually are true. Example: It is true that stealing is wrong. Strength: We can have moral judgments Weakness: How do we determine what is true and what is false? Underlying Assumption: Moral claims are truly moral if they are composed of true facts. Source

Duty Ethics/Deontology

Judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Example: I have a duty to serve others, so it is morally right for me to do so. Strength: There are rules to follow. Weakness: Not all rules are explicit, just because something is a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. Underlying Assumption: One can know/define one's duties, because something is a rule makes it right. Source

  

Kantian Ethics

Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Example: It is good to be generous because if everyone did it then the world would be a better place. i.e. we can consistently will that everyone do it. Strength: If it can be universalized then it is true – makes things easier. It relies solely upon reason. Weakness: Does not take into account the circumstances in which the moral choice is made. Underlying Assumption: If it can be universalized then it is good. Source

 

Divine Command Theory
    

An act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God. Example: Murdering is wrong because God says it is wrong. Weakness: Not everything can be defined Strengths: Fairly Straightforward Underlying Assumptions: There is a God, God knows what's best Source

Consequentialism
 

Normative properties depend only on consequences. Normative: how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Example: Whether or not lying is wrong depends upon the consequences of your lying. Strength: Pragmatic Weakness: Does not take into account motivations of the agent. Underlying Assumption: The motivations of the agent do not matter Source

   

Act-Based Utilitarianism

Determined on a case-by-case basis, what is morally right to do is that which will maximize the amount of happiness for the most people, or minimize the amount of suffering for the most people. Example: You wouldn't tell an ax murderer where your best friend is if they asked you. Strength: Maximizes happiness. Weakness: Takes time to figure out what is right or wrong. Underlying Assumption: We can determine what the outcome will be. Source

   

Rule-Based Utilitarianism

There are certain rules which if followed tend to maximize happiness or reduce suffering, and what is morally right to do is that which will maximize the amount of happiness for the most people, or minimize the amount of suffering for the most people. Example: It usually is the case that killing someone will cause more unhappiness than happiness so don't kill people. Strength: Takes less time to consider your options. Weakness: Does not take into account the motivations of an agent. Underlying Assumption: The rules that we follow do tend to maximize happiness. Source

  

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior. Example: What would Mr. Andersen do? Strength: You don't have to think about life on a case by case basis. Weakness: The person you look up to could be leading you astray. Underlying Assumption: The person you look up to is worth emulating, a virtuous life leads to a good life. Source

   

Works Cited
"Deontology." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 May 2012. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology>. Gowans, Chris. "Moral Relativism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 09 Dec. 2008. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/>. Mastin, Luke. "Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy." Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy. 2008. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html>. Sayre-McCord, Geoff. "Moral Realism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 10 Dec. 2009. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/>. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/>. "Utilitarianism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 06 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism>. Van Roojen, Mark. "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 07 June 2009. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/>. "Virtue Ethics." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 06 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics>.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->