ETHICS

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION

Section 1 What is this about?
All humans need to make decisions concerning the right thing to do. Most humans want to do what is good. It is good to do the right thing.
Often knowing what is the right thing to do, knowing what is right, and knowing what is good is not all that easy. Answers to the questions, "What is
the right thing to do?" and "What is the good ?" aren't obvious to many or universally agreed upon. Yet, humans need answers to these questions.
This text is concerned with a matter of considerable importance: the GOOD. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy which deals with the issue of the
GOOD. The question here is what is the GOOD? What is meant by the GOOD? The answer is needed so that humans will know how to live a
GOOD life. People need to know what the GOOD is in order to choose the GOOD. Ethics deals with theories of the GOOD. Ethical theories put
forth principles of the GOOD.
Related to the issue of the GOOD are matters that deal with morality and law and even etiquette. This text will touch on the questions to which
each human must have some answer:
Why be moral?
What should be my moral code?
======================================
Examples of situations requiring moral deliberation and ethical principles.

Question 1: A Friend of yours wants you to join his club and sponsors you for membership. Being a member of this club will greatly enhance your
career plans. However, once you are inducted, you realize that there is an unwritten rule that no minorities are allowed membership.
Would you quit the club?

Question 2: You meet some friends at a bar and find yourself seated beside a rather attractive person. during the course of the evening, you have an
enjoyable conversation and you promise to call that person to set up a date. When the person gets up to leave, you suddenly realize that he/she is
physically handicapped.
Do you still call for the date?

Question 3: You have just earned a degree in Chemistry. Your best job offer comes from a laboratory that does experiments in chemical warfare. You do
not agree with this practice, but you also realize that if you turn down the job, they will hire someone else who might do the job 'too well'.
Do You take the Job?

Question 4: Even though you have been dating for some time, you have have decided that though your partner is physically attractive there is no future
in the relationship. However, the person you are dating is obviously interested in continuing a relationship with you, and invites you back to their
apartment to spend the night in 'intimate' activity.
Do you spend the night with them?

Question 5: You have been friends with a couple for several years. Now they are involved in a messy divorce and child custody battle. One of them asks
you to testify on his/her behalf.
Do you agree to testify?

Question 6: When checking your mailbox one day, you discover a letter addressed to you from a legal firm in Florida. Inside is a letter explaining that
you have been identified as a herd owner in a cattle farm that is now in receivership in the state of Florida. The letter further informs you that now that
all accounts with creditors have been settled, the remaining proceeds from the sale of the herd are to be distributed among the shareholders. Enclosed is
a check, made out to you, for a substantial amount of money. You know that you are not the person for whom this check is intended, since you have
never invested in cattle or anything else. Upon reading the letter further, you discover that the funds due any unidentified herdowner will revert to the
state of Florida after the passage of 7 years. It has now been 6.5 years since the cattle were sold. This means if you send the check back the money will
most likely go to the state.
Do you cash the check?

Question 7: A close friend of yours comes to you and reveals that she is pregnant. Her partner does not know yet, and she is extremely upset. "This is
just not the time to have a baby" she says, "I'm thinking of having an abortion, but I'm not sure if it is the right thing to do." She assures you that she
and her partner tried to prevent becoming pregnant, but that it obviously did not work.
What would you tell her to do ?

Question 8: You're a West Point cadet bound by a strict honor code. You witness another cadet, who is also a friend, cheating on a test.
Do you turn them in?
========================================
What do ethicists do?
Study the concepts by which the historically important moral traditions articulate their systems, justify their values, legitimate their
principles, and approve and condemn actions.
Two meanings of "moral"
In all philosophical discussions, it is important and helpful to be clear. To put it the other way around, it is very often the case that philosophical
problems and disagreements occur because we are not careful in our use of words.
For example, when somebody says, "I was raised with good morals", what does this mean? How does the speaker want the listener to understand
him?
1. Moral versus morally bad
"I was taught by my parents (church, etc. that there are some actions which are wrong to perform, some desires which are wrong to have, some
goals which are wrong to aspire to; and some actions which I am obligated to perform, some desires which I ought to have, and some goals which
are noble and the mark of a good person."
If something like this is what you mean when you say "I was raised with good morals" then your comments are, like it or not, evaluative. The term
"good" or "right" imply that there are actions, desires, or goals which are, in some cases, "bad" or "wrong".
Another way of saying the same thing, or something very similar, is: "I am a morally good person." But in either case, the term "moral" is used in a
certain way, namely, to refer to a set of principles, values that you believe are either "right" or "good".
The opposite of being moral, in this sense, is being "immoral". This is easily seen when we take into consideration the context of the statements
above. Sometimes the statement "I have morals", or "I am moral" is said in defense -- when accused, for example, of doing something wrong, or
when your actions are criticized, or when you're told that you "shouldn't" do what you just did.
2. Moral versus non-moral
"I can't understand why at Wheaton College students are not allowed to dance; Dancing doesn't seem to be moral."
If I say of a certain behavior that it was a moral action, I may be simply categorizing it as the sort of action which can be evaluated morally. In other
words, I may not be saying that the action was the morally right thing to do -- only that is the sort of thing that requires moral consideration. For
example, I might contrast the choice between ordering chocolate chip ice cream or vanilla ice cream and that between investing my money
in Vicious, Inc. -- a company which is highly profitable but morally suspect, versus investing in Virtue, Inc. -- a company which is only moderately
profitable but socially responsible. In the first case, it is difficult to see a context in which deciding between flavors of ice cream would be a "moral"
decision. It doesn't seem that there is anything even remotely relevant at all -- morally speaking. In contrast, the choice between investing in the
highly profitable but morally suspect company and the virtuous but moderately profitable company is a morally challenging choice. It requires moral
reflection.
The opposite of being moral, in this sense, is being "nonmoral". We do not say of a dog that kills a person that the dog was acting immorally. We
say that the dog was nonmoral. Dogs, so far as we know, simply do not reflect at all. Furthermore, the choice between vanilla and chocolate chip is
not one that requires moral reflection. It might require some other sort of reflection, like "well, I've ordered the vanilla twice this week; I think I'll
change things up this week and go with the chocolate chip."

Most of human knowledge is non-moral. My car has 5 gears -- that's a non-moral fact. My hair is brown -- another non-moral fact. In the above
quotation, it seems to the speaker that dancing isn't something which is even in the same ball game as ethics. It's no more "ethical" or "unethical"
than choosing a red frame rather than a black frame for my new poster.
Two meanings of "ethics"
1. Ethics not the same as morality The term "ethics" is sometimes taken to mean the same thing as "morals", and sometimes it is taken to mean
something different. Many philosophers use the term "moral" is the same way that it is used in common language: the conduct or rules or values
that a person or community adhere to, believing these things to be in some sense obligatory.
These philosophers use the term "ethics" to signify the critical reflection of "morals". Ethics is a term generally reserved for the philosophical
reflection about the nature of the good life, of right action, of duty and obligation, etc. In this sense, ethics is a philosophical discipline, while
"morals" is not.
2. Ethics = Morality But in common parlance we speak of somebody's "ethics" or someone's "morals" interchangeably. We often describe
someone's action as unethical, and by this we mean to say that the action was ethically wrong, or morally wrong.
Section 3 The Three Levels of Abstraction
Three levels of abstraction: Theories, Principles, Judgments
The difference between normative ethics and metaethics highlights something about both ethics, and philosophy in general: there are varying
levels of abstraction in our reflection.
Webster's dictionary provides the following definition of abstraction:
"to consider apart from application to or association with a particular instance"
In other words, abstract and particular have to be understood in terms of one another. Perhaps it's best to begin with an example:
"I am feeling sad right now."
"Sad feelings often follow tragedies."
In the first statement, the speaker is not making an abstraction. That statement is quite specific, concrete, and particular. It refers to a particular
person, a particular feeling, and a particular time.
In the second statement, the speaker is abstracting from experience. One might ask the question: from what is s/he abstracting? And the answer is
clear: s/he is abstracting from himself (s/he's not talking about the feelings of a particular person), he is abstracting from a particular time, and he is
abstracting from a particular feeling, or a particular occurrence of a feeling. He's talking about sad feelings -- in general; about people -- in general;
and about the pattern of feelings and events -- in general.
Well, in ethics it is common to move between various levels of abstraction. We can make very specific, or particular statements, such as: it was
wrong for that man to lie to Congress. That is a judgment, not a principle, and certainly not a theory.
So, it is helpful to discern three levels of abstraction in ethics:
1. Theories
2. Principles
3. Judgments
The least abstract are ethical judgments. At the level of judgment, we look at particular acts, decisions, feelings, aspirations, etc. and evaluate
them. This is, I think, the most common type of ethical experience. It is here that we'll say, for example, that "Going through that red light was
morally permissible for John last Tuesday night, because ....", or "It was right that Mary took her mom's car away when she did, since ..." (Keep in
mind the distinction between morally permissible and morally obligatory.)
Ethical judgments almost always look above them for guidance. Usually we try to figure out what to do in particular circumstances by appealing
to ethical principles. For example, we might think: "It's important to be honest. OK, then, I won't cheat on this upcoming exam." Principles are rules
of behavior. Not just any rules, though. They not the same as etiquette, or prudence*. They are general statements about actions which folks ought
to do, or ought to avoid. There is a great deal of agreement in principles -- most cultures and most people agree that, for example, it's important to
tell the truth, to be kind, to be respectful of others, to avoid harmful manipulation, to live up to one's responsibilities to others, etc.
Many professions have detailed ethical codes of behavior. The AMA (American Medical Association), the APA (American Psychological Association),
among many others, have written documents specifying ethical principles which all doctors, or all psychologists, should follow. What you'll find in
these documents are statements about the principles that should guide behavior.
When people refer to "their morals", usually they are referring to their principles -- the moral codes by which they live their lives. Principles aren't
usually beliefs or commitments that "I make up for myself." They are far, far, far more often inherited. We learn them from our elders, from our
leaders, from our parents, from the texts and authors that influence us, from our ministers, etc.
But just as we refer to principles when we seek to figure out what we ought to do in particular circumstances, we look to theories tolegitimate,
refine, and critique principles. These are the most abstract, and they incorporate metaethical reflection. We will be looking closely at some ethical
theories soon.
*Prudence: skill; shrewdness; the use of reason to manage resources and risk. Though it might be true that folks ought to be prudent, that one have
a moral obligation to one's family and dependents to be prudent with one's money, prudence often refers to choices that has little to do with ethics.
Some ethicists (like Kant) argue that our ethical obligations require us sometimes to act in conflict with prudence. Here is a brief explanation of one
version of the position that ethics is nothing more than prudence:
The definitive statement of social contract theory is found in Chapters 13 through 15 of Hobbes's Leviathan. Briefly, Hobbes argues that the original
state of nature is a condition of constant war, which rational and self-motivated people would want to end. These people, then, will establish
fundamental moral laws to preserve peace. The foundation of Hobbes's theory is the view that humans are psychologically motivated by only selfish
interests. Hobbes argued that, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules.
Without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual
risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly,
these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are
enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk
from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us
if we violate these rules. Like rule-utilitarianism, Hobbes's social contract theory is a three-tiered moral system. Particular acts, such as stealing my
neighbor's lawn furniture, are wrong since they violate the rule against stealing. The rule against stealing, in turn, is morally binding since it is in my
interests to live in a world which enforces this rule.
Section 4. It's my opinion !
The "It's MY opinion -- how can you tell me what's right for me" syndrome, and other myths ...
1. "Well, it's true for me ...."
Many students have a difficult time seeing a distinction between the following two statements:
a. It's true.
b. It's true for me.
But there IS a difference, and it is important to see the difference, and most people see the difference when it comes to things like mathematics,
science, accounting, engineering, law, etc.
Here's the question: What does "for me" add to "It's true"? What I mean is, why would anyone say "It's true for me"? Let's say, for example, your
favorite physics teacher asks you to tell her what the rate of fall is for a body located approximately at the surface of the Earth. Let's say that you are
a student of physics and know with more certainty than that Bush is president, that bodies fall at 9.4 meters per second per second. If you write on
your exam that bodies fall at 9.4 mXsec2, your instructor would put an annoying red "X" next to your answer.

"But wait a darn minute, there, ma'am: it's true for me that bodies fall at 9.4 mXsec2!"
She would either laugh at and mock you, or tell you to read the text again, or something like that. Otherwise she wouldn't have a clue what you
meant. Does your statement mean that when you are near other physical objects, they fall at 9.4 mXsec2, but when you are not near them they
accelerate at a different rate? If you mean that, then your body or mind exerts some sort of force on these objects to control their rate of fall. But
clearly you don't mean that. If you did, then your teacher would be right to laugh at and mock you.
More than likely, what you mean is: "I believe that bodies fall at 9.4 mXsec2," in which case, your teacher would be right to point you in the direction
of your text.
In other words, "it's true for me" has nothing whatsoever to do with truth, and does not make your belief legitimate, justified, or deserved.
2. "Nobody can tell me what to believe ..."
What exactly is this a defense against? It seems that it might be claiming one of the following:
1. No one can force me to believe something I don't want to believe.
2. No one has the moral right to tell me what to believe.
3. No one has the intellectual right to tell me what to believe.
1. Well, no one can force you to believe something -- true enough. But what exactly does this mean? Perhaps it says something like this: No matter
how strongly someone else believes that I'm wrong, that will not cause me to believe otherwise. Or perhaps it means something like: No matter
what somebody does to me, they can't take away the strength of my character -- I will endure in my beliefs. Or maybe: No matter how badly
someone wants me to change my beliefs, I will refuse.
The first case, the suggestion is that my will cannot be forced. I can imagine cases in which this strength of will might be noble, even heroic. Saints
and martyrs come to mind. But small children also come to mind, and inexperienced adolescents, and stubborn husbands. In other words, this trait
might be a virtue, but it might be a vice, too. And so by itself, it does not recommend itself as a strategy.
2. On the face of it, it is not obvious that NO ONE has the moral right to tell me what to do. I can imagine a young cashier with sticky fingers, and his
boss or colleague or parent reprimanding him. I can imagine a Colonel in the army lecturing a cocky new Lieutenant on the issue of courage. The
Colonel has been there, done that, seen more, and faced more, and would seem to have the moral right to tell the Lieutenant what to think and how
to act. I can imagine a seasoned teacher lecturing a younger teacher on the virtues of being patient with students, or on being overly easy in
grading. And so, it seems that this claim needs to be justified.
3. This is the weakest position, and can't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. All you have to do is to imagine the relationship between someone
who is bright and inexperienced in something, and someone who is bright and experienced in that same thing. The latter does have the intellectual
right to tell the other what to believe -- at least in some situations. Indeed, it is one of the most maddening things to have someone who makes
unjustified and false claims about something about which you know well. Yes ... you DO have an intellectual right to correct him.
So, it seems that the claim that "nobody can tell me what to believe" is simply not true, or at least if it is true, it has to be justified and defended. It is
certainly not obviously true.
(This doesn't even touch upon the issue of social implication. Once my beliefs and actions effect other people, they no longer belong to just me -they are public. They automatically open themselves up to public scrutiny, and I do not have the same proprietary rights to them that I had when
they effected only me.)
3. "No one knows my situation better than me, and therefore no one can tell me how to live, and no one can judge me."
It is clear that being in a position to make a rational ethical judgment requires experience. It requires being "tuned in" to circumstances, and to the
details of the events which are morally relevant. It requires me to be observant, and to be able to tell the difference between things that are
important and things that are not important.
But I know first hand that I am not always the best one to determine the facts of the situation -- even though I'm in it! Sometimes I'll ask my friends
or people I respect for advice. In such cases I'll explain the situation that I'm in, and the other person will ask questions. When that other person is
really wise, their questions will help me to look at my own situation in ways I hadn't thought of. I'll become aware of facts that I hadn't noticed before.
For example, I might notice that somebody involved in the situation might have needs that I didn't even notice. There certainly have been times
when people have told me things and I misinterpreted what they said, or I didn't really pay attention. This means that in spite of the fact that the
experiences were mine, my reading of the situation may not be adequate, and my own assessment of the right thing to do is not necessarily ideal.
One of the discoveries of the 19th-century is that much goes on in human experience that is below the level of consciousness. This insight was
shared by Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. Marx realized that the struggle for economic power motivates political and cultural battles. He realized that
what may appear to be political or cultural or ethical struggles are only the outward manifestations of a battle for economic power and selfsufficiency. Now, his own reading of how this has played out in history may not be the most accurate, but his insight -- uncommon then -- has
become common sense today. The same may be said for Freud. Freud's "psychoanalytic" method focused on emotional realities which influence
human behavior and human consciousness "from below". He realized that events early in a person's life can shift one's emotional needs, and shift
the sorts of expectations and behaviors that a person has through out life. And these psychological influences are, he believes, are very difficult to
see. They are painful, and people often don't want to face them.
My point above is that my sense of my own self is not always accurate. My self-awareness is actually a challenge for myself. And these
"subterranean" realities filter my perception of the world, and can distort my interpretation of my own experience. Friends, family members,
teachers, priests, and psychologists can help us see more clearly -- to see ourselves more clearly, and to see the world more clearly.
All this contributes to the problems discussed above. It seems that the territory of my own moral experience is not just my own, and that the public
examination of my hopes and aspirations, beliefs and decisions, judgments and actions is both to my own advantage, and serve to make those
personal realities more ethically respectable.
Section 5. Moral Skepticism
Moral "skepticism"
Skepticism is an epistemological* position -- not a moral one. A skeptic believes that humans cannot have knowledge. There are radical skeptics
and there are moderate skeptics. If you are a radical skeptic you might think that no one ever can attain knowledge of anything. If you are a
moderate skeptic you might believe that most people cannot have knowledge of most things, even though some people might have knowledge of
some things.
You can also be a skeptic about one domain, but not about another. In other words, you might think that we can have knowledge about the physical
world, but we cannot have knowledge about moral reality, or spiritual reality. Thus, a moral skeptic is someone who thinks that knowledge of moral
reality is rare and difficult, or simply impossible.
Sometimes people think that skeptics believe that these realms aren't real at all. It is rather common to think that a religious skeptic feels safe in
denying the existence of God, or immortality. But this is not what the term means. Just as a religious skeptic does not say "there is no god", a moral
skeptic does not say "there are no objective moral values", or "there are no objective moral principles", or "there are no moral truths." Instead, a
moral skeptic says "we cannot have knowledge of moral values, principles, or truths."
*Epistemology: the study of human knowledge. Epistemology is the inquiry into the nature, kinds, and limits of knowledge.
Section 6. Moral Nihilism
Nihilism
Nihilism comes from the Latin word "nihil" -- which means, nothing. Nihilists assert that there are no moral values, principles, truths. A nihilist is not
the same thing as a skeptic, because although a nihilist will agree with the skeptic -- that humans cannot have knowledge about moral realities, not
all skeptics will agree with nihilists. A nihilist has a particular reason for being a skeptic -- we cannot know moral realities for the very simple reason
that there is nothing to know. But a skeptic may be a skeptic for other reasons. S/he may think that the problem lies not in the reality of moral values
or truths, but in our cognitional faculties. Let me suggest an analogy. Let's say I'm a physicist, and you suggest to me that God created the universe
through the "Big Bang." Well, I might say to you: sure, maybe some being created the universe through the BB, but I cannot know that. But I may
also say to you: No. There is no being called God, and there was no creation of the universe by this being. In the first case, my response was
skeptical, and in the second case my response was nihilistic. Skepticism often leads to nihilism, but it doesn't have to.

What do nihilists deny?

The meaning of life in general (we're here for a reason)

The meaning of my life (I'm here for a reason)

Moral principles (be honest, be kind, don't be violent, etc.)

Moral values (life, honesty, freedom, etc.)

Moral order of the universe (there is a plan ...)

Section 7. Emotivism
That moral responses and judgments have an emotional aspect is allowed by very different moral theories, and can hardly be reasonably denied.
The emotive theory, however, argues that the emotive element is the ultimate basis of appraisal. 'Reason' examines the situation to be
appraised, and discerns the alternatives for action. Reason, however, is inert; it cannot provide the equally necessary dynamic, action-initiating
component: only emotion can. The language of moral judgment expresses the speaker's emotion and evokes the hearer's.
The philosophy of mind and action on which the theory relies was enunciated clearly by Hume, and has had immense influence. It attracted
numerous twentieth-century philosophers with positivistic, non-cognitivist leanings. A distinction was made between analyses that equated
moral judgment with a 'report' on the subject's inner feelings (but thereby making moral disagreement enigmatic), and those that saw it as an
essentially emotive reaction, non-propositional expression analogous to exclamation (hence the nickname 'Boo! Hoorah!' theory). It was readily
claimed, in addition, that beliefs about the context of action, and disagreement over beliefs, entered essentially into moral deliberation and
dispute. In other versions, 'emotion' shaded into 'attitude' - basically 'approval' and 'disapproval'. Analyses on clear-cut emotivist lines tended to
be displaced (particularly under the influence of R. M. Hare) by 'prescriptivist' accounts.
In its simplest forms, the emotive theory omits (or dismisses) far too much of its subject-matter. Moral judgments are not in fact discrete
explosions of feeling: they have logical linkages. Emotions can be responses to already discriminated moral properties; and, crucially, they can
(and ought) themselves be judged morally appropriate or perverse. The theory cannot properly distinguish moral reasoning from rhetoric; nor
can it give an intelligible account of how a perplexed moral agent who lacks initially any definite, unambiguous reaction to a moral challenge
can think his way responsibly towards a moral position.
Notable among critics of that general theory of motivation which hinges on a dichotomy of reason-feeling or belief-desire - the theory from
which emotivism and other forms of non-cognitivism spring - are some late twentieth-century 'moral realists', e.g. Jonathan Dancy, in his Moral
Reasons (Oxford, 1993). R.W.H.
Section 8. Ethics and Science
The Place of Reason in Ethics
Isn't it obvious that ethics and science are opposites? Isn't it obvious that science is objective while ethics is subjective? Isn't it obvious that science
deals with facts, while ethics deals with opinions? Isn't it clear that science relies on evidence, while ethics relies on feelings?
In short, isn't the difference between science and ethics is that science is rational?
It's too simple, that's what. Simplistic, according to many ethicists.
Facts
Imagine a conversation between two people about, say, the ethical acceptability of doing research on primates which results in significant suffering
of the primates. (Suppose that the research results in the introduction of spinal tumors in the primates.) Joe believes that such research is morally
wrong under any circumstance, while Julia believes that such research is morally acceptable under certain circumstances.
Now, perhaps you have been in such an argument. Did you find yourself trying to convince the other person that your perspective was the better
one? Were you convinced that your position was correct? Of course you were! How did you try to convince the your opponent? How did s/he try to
convince you? Perhaps one of you used statistics -- that over 3 million animals die in the midst of human technological experimentation, or that
primates display very complex social behaviors, indicating a level of intelligence that rivals young human children.
If you ever have used statistics in your moral discussions with people, then you have appealed to "facts" to make your case. But wait a minute -that's what scientists do. Are facts, then, sometimes relevant to establishing moral responsibilities? Are there empirical realities which can provide a
sort of evidence for the superiority of one moral position over another? It seems so .... can you think of other cases?
Conceptual Clarity
"Conservatives? These fanatics are not conservatives. Robert Taft was a conservative. These Neanderthals are not Christians. Martin Luther King
was a Christian. What we're dealing with here are a bunch of half-baked, hard-core, fire-and-brimstone McCarthyites, racists, sexual hypocrites and
assorted flat-earthers and book-burners, and it's time society started labeling them as such. "
"The Democrats are literally bewitched by feminists, whose agenda is simple: teach women to hate their husbands, kill their children, and become
lesbians. A vote for the Democrats is a vote against family and for immorality."
Now, hopefully none of you would be persuaded by such "reasoning". You may, in the first case, be a bed-wetting liberal and reject the sort of
"rationale" offered here, and you may even, in the second case, be a loyal conservative, and still reject the "ad hominem" offered against the
Democrats. If in an argument about the ethical acceptability of research on primates, your opponent accuses people "like you" of ruining what's
great about America, then you might point out that that argument employs an invalid form of argument called an "ad hominem." In short, you might
suggest that your opponent fails to be rationally persuasive, because s/he fails to use standard logic. His argument might be confused. S/he might
use ambiguous language, or be "begging the question", or committing an equivocation.
Well, don't you want your own ethical position to be based on thought which is clear, and logic that is correct? How would you respond to somebody
who tries to convince you, against your own considered opinion, that it's wrong to use primates in medical experimentation, and whose logic is
riddled with holes?
Perhaps science and ethics are not as opposed to each other as people often think! (None of this is intended to persuade you that they are the
same, or that they use identical methods to obtain true beliefs. But it is intended to challenge those who believe that they have almost nothing in
common -- that they are just so different as to be incomparable.)
Section 9. Ethics and Law
Morality- rules of right conduct concerning matters of greater importance. Violations of such can bring disturbance to individual conscience and social
sanctions.
Law- rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions.
What is the relation of law to morality? They are not the same. You can not equate the two. Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just
because something is illegal it does not make it immoral.
Not all immoral acts are illegal.

Some immoral acts are legally permissible. Can you think of any?

Some immoral acts are legally obligatory. Can you think of any?
Not all illegal acts are immoral.

Some illegal acts are morally permissible. Can you think of any?

Some illegal acts are morally obligatory. Can you think of any?
You can probable think of many examples to support this view once you think about it.
Things that are illegal but are thought to be moral (for many)!
Drinking under age.
Driving over the speed limit.
Smoking marijuana.
Cheating on a tax return.
Splitting a cable signal to send it to more than one television.
=================================================

People do not think of themselves or of others as being immoral for breaking these laws.
Can you think of other examples??
=================================================
Things that are immoral (for many) but are not illegal.
Cheating on your spouse.
Breaking a promise to a friend.
Using abortion as a birth control measure.
People can not be arrested or punished with imprisonment or fines for doing these things.
Can you think of other examples??
=================================================
What is the relation of morality to law? Well, when enough people think that something is immoral they will work to have a law that will forbid it and punish
those that do it.
When enough people think that something is moral, they will work to have a law that forbids it and punishes those that do it repealed.
Chapter Two Moral Developments, Mores and Laws
Section 1. Why be Moral?
How are we to behave toward one another? Morality is a social phenomenon. Think about this. If a person is alone on some deserted island would anything that
person did be moral or immoral? That person may do things that increase or decrease the chance for survival or rescue but would those acts be moral or
immoral? Most of what we are concerned with in Ethics is related to the situation in which humans are living with others. Humans are social animals. Society
contributes to making humans what they are. For humans there arises the question of how are humans to behave toward one another. What are the rules to
be? How are we to learn of them? Why do we need them?
WHY BE MORAL?
Consider what the world would be like if there were no traffic rules at all. Would people be able to travel by automobiles, buses and other vehicles on the
roadways if there were no traffic regulations? The answer should be obvious to all rational members of the human species. Without basic rules, no matter how
much some would like to avoid them or break them, there would be chaos. The fact that some people break the rules is quite clearly and obviously not sufficient
to do away with the rules. The rules are needed for transportation to take place.
Why are moral rules needed? For example, why do humans need rules about keeping promises, telling the truth and private property? This answer should be
fairly obvious. Without such rules people would not be able to live amongst other humans. People could not make plans, could not leave their belongings behind
them wherever they went. We would not know who to trust and what to expect from others. Civilized, social life would not be possible. So, the question is :
Why should humans care about being moral?
REASONS: There are several answers.
Sociological: Without morality social life is nearly impossible.
Psychological:
People care about what others think of them. Reputation and social censure
Some people care about doing the right thing. Conscience
Theological: Some people care about what will happen after death, to their soul or spirit. For many religions there is an afterlife that involves a persons being
rewarded or punished for what they have done.
****************************
So, that is out of the way. We know that we should be moral and so should others and without some sense of morality it would be very difficult if not impossible
for large numbers of humans to be living with one another. Now to the questions that deal with the rules of morality and all the rules which govern human
behavior. First, some terms need to be clarified.
Mores- customs and rules of conduct
Etiquette rules of conduct concerning matters of relatively minor importance but which do contribute to the quality of life. Violations of such rules may bring
social censure. Etiquette deals with rules concerning dress and table manners and deal with politeness. Violations would bring denunciations for being, rude or
crude or gross. Friendships would not likely break up over violations of these rules as they would for violating rules of morality, e.g., lies and broken
promises! These rules are not just made up by a bunch of old British broads as one student once volunteered in class. But they are made up by people to
encourage a better life. In each society there are authorities on these matters and there are collections of such rules. Many books are sold each year to prospective
brides who want to observe the proper rules of decorum and etiquette. There are newspapers that have regular features with questions and answers concerning
these matters.
Etiquette deals with matters such as when do you place the napkin on your lap when you sit at a dining table? How long do you wait on HOLD on a telephone call
with someone with call waiting? Should you use a cell phone at the dining table? Should you have a beeper on or a cell phone on in class? In a movie theatre?
(check on the answers to these questions-Hint-There are books on etiquette and now you can also surf the internet the answers are out there!)
Morality- rules of right conduct concerning matters of greater importance. Violations of such can bring disturbance to individual conscience and social
sanctions.
Law- rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions.
So we have many rules and guidelines in relation to our behavior. In Ethics the focus is on the moral rules governing behavior. What principles are to serve as the
basis for those rules?
Section 2. Why not follow the law?
In attempting to do the right thing and lead a moral life why not just follow the laws? Well this has already been touched on in Chapter One but we can look at the
issue again.
Obey the law and you are doing the right thing. Well it is not that simple at all. There are times when some people think that in order to do the right thing morally,
the laws must be broken. There are deliberate violations of the laws based on a sense of moral obligation on the part of the lawbreakers. These acts are known as
acts of Civil Disobedience. What is the relation of law and what is legal to morality and what is thought to be good?
Laws are rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions. What is the relation of law to
morality? They are NOT the same. You can NOT equate the two. Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just because something is
illegal it does not make it immoral.
Not all immoral acts are illegal.

Some immoral acts are legally permissible. Can you think of any?

Some immoral acts are legally obligatory. Can you think of any?
Not all illegal acts are immoral.

Some illegal acts are morally permissible. Can you think of any?

Some illegal acts are morally obligatory. Can you think of any?
You can probable think of many examples to support this view once you think about it.
==============================================
Here are some examples of actions that are illegal but are thought to be moral (for many)!
Drinking under age.
Driving over the speed limit.
Smoking marijuana.
Cheating on a tax return.
Splitting a cable signal to send it to more than one television.
=================================================
People do not think of themselves or of others as being immoral for breaking these laws.
Can you think of other examples??

=================================================
Here are some examples of actions that are immoral (for many) but are not illegal.
Cheating on your spouse.
Breaking a promise to a friend.
Using abortion as a birth control measure.
People can not be arrested or punished with imprisonment or fines for doing these things.
Can you think of other examples??
=================================================
What is the relation of morality to law? Well, when enough people think that something is immoral they will work to have a law that will forbid it and punish
those that do it.
When enough people think that something is moral, they will work to have a law that forbids it and punishes those that do it repealed.
Well if the law is not the basis for morality or the moral guide where do people get their ideas about what is morally correct? This is the next topic.
Section 3. Sources of Ideas about Morality
If you reflect a moment on the question of how people become moral you will probably realize that a number of
factors come into play in the development of personal morality. Indeed you will probably think that people
become moral or learn about morality due to their involvement with:
Parents
Siblings
Friends
School
Religion
Media- television, films, videos, music, music videos
Advertising
How exactly each person develops their ideas about right and wrong is a subject studied by psychologists. This
type of study is part of what is known as Moral Psychology. One of the most famous of the psychologists who
does such studies is Lawrence Kohlberg. He has a theory of moral development based upon his research with
people from very young ages through the adult years.
His work confirms and expands upon ideas of others including an earlier theory by the American Philosopher,
John Dewey.
Section 4. Stages of Moral Development
People often think and many claim that morality is dependent on religion. Some claim religious morality is superior to secular morality. Some refer
to the nearly universal association of morality with religion on planet Earth as evidence in support of their claims. This is backwards!!
Religion is dependent upon and follows from morality and not the other way around.
Research is showing that morality is linked with and dependent upon both physical structures and functioning of the brain and on cultural
inheritances.
MORALITY results form both GENES and MEMES !!!
Neuroscience is finding the brain structures and functioning that make for the "ethical brain". How is this so? Humans are social animals and as
Aristotle put it zoon politikon. As such they have evolved in part due to a capacity to relate to others and have empathy and sympathy for others
that serves as the base for acceptance of basic rules of conduct needed to live with others in relative peace sufficient to support social or group life
and then the advantages of social life. Evolutionary Psychology is finding/hypothesizing the evolution of moral notions as an expression of the
hardwiring. The brain appears to have structures evolved and passed on through our genetic makeup (GENES) that provide for EMPATHY and
SYMPATHY and CONCERN for OTHERS. These each in some way enhanced survival ability for the social species of homo sapiens. Morality is a
result of and expression of those operations. Particular moral expressions or rules are enunciated and passed on as cultural inheritances and thus
MEMES.
The primatologist, Frans de Waal, was on of many who have argued that the roots of human morality lie in social animals such as the primates,
including apes and monkeys. The feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are necessary for the behaviors needed to make any
mammalian group exist as individuals living in the midst of others. This set of feelings and expectations of reciprocity may be taken as the basis for
human morality. Neuroscientists are locating that sense in mirror neurons in the brain.
Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are. Once thought of as purely spiritual matters, honesty, guilt, and the
weighing of ethical dilemmas are traceable to specific areas of the brain. It should not surprise us, therefore, to find animal parallels. The human
brain is a product of evolution. Despite its larger volume and greater complexity, it is fundamentally similar to the central nervous system of other
mammals.---Frans de Waals Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (1996)
Everywhere humans are found and where evidence exists of human culture there is evidence of a sense of morality. While the particular moral
rules may not be the same there is significant similarities and a commonalities in purposes served by moral codes. Morality is needed for human
community and humans demonstrate this world wide. There is evidence that all societies have morality. Is this because they could not exist without
some sense of how we are to behave? Human beings are social beings -they have language which is a social creation. Humans could not live in
groups without some sort of sense of how to behave in ways that enhances the survival of the group- hence sympathy and empathy are needed
and they are part of the basis for morality: a moral sense.
There is now the study of Evolutionary Ethics and part of that is James Rachels Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of
Darwinism (1990) and Frans de Waals Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (1996). Both claim that
coming to grips with our moral sense involves looking not toward heaven but rather toward our fellow members of the animal kingdom, particularly
the three great apes."--Tim Madigan
The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently of a just
public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects of habit, example,
instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the
conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise
or blame of his fellows as his sole guide, though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest
rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social
instincts, including sympathy, and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.-Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, "Conclusion"
In The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga (Dana Press: NY, 2005) the neuroscientist describes experimental evidence to support his claims that
the left hemisphere of the brain operates to unify the various systems within the brain and serves as an interpreter to fashion stories that become
the personal beliefs of each person. Humans need beliefs and belief systems to make sense of their sensory inputs. The human species reacts
to events and the brain interprets the reaction. Out of those interpretations there arise the beliefs by which people guide their actions. Some of the
beliefs lead to rules by which people will live. And so there emerges a a moral sense upon practical considerations. The left hemisphere
continually functions to interpret events and to create stories to accommodate the sensory and ideational inputs. Whenever there is information that
does not fit the self image created by the interpreter or the conceptual framework or belief system previously held and operative, then the interpreter
will create a belief to make sense of it in some manner or hold it in some way relation to previous information and beliefs. The human species has a
core set of reactions to challenges. Humans share similar reactions to situations. They share the evocation of empathy and sympathy. Humans
have mirror neurons that evoke this reaction. Other primate also have such mirror neurons. They appear to make a social life possible. Gazzaniga
holds that there exists some deep structure in the brain driving not only a certain common set of values as expressions of the evoked responses but
also the need to create cultural edifices or social constructs for moral codes. Thus religion evolves to satisfy that drive.

Religions may have begun from a instinctual reaction common to humans. It evolved into a social support system and system of rationalizations
(beliefs) that attempt to make sense of the individual responses to one another and to situations faced by all humans.
Gazziniga holds that there are neural correlates of the religious experience in the temporal lobes of the brain. Temporal lobe epilepsy has as one of
its symptoms a hyper religiosity.
Gazziniga holds for the possibility of a universal ethics for all humans based on the most basic of evocations shared by all humans. Current
research utilizing moral sense testing is producing interesting findings in support of the hypothesis of a genetic base for morality in humans.
For Gazzaniga humans want to believe, they want to believe in a natural order and they want a codification of their most basic empathetic
responses towards others. Gazzaniga wants science, as neuroscience to assist the human community to have what it appears to need and based
on the best information available.
So humans are hardwired and programmed for morality and religion rides in on that as a context in which the programming results in producing a
fuller expression. This in turn is culturally transmitted and thus the human impulse is most often being routed through religious institutions and
There is consideration given to the impact of looking at morality as rooted in the evolution of the species and in the neural
endowment of human brains
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, in Moral Minds (HarperCollins 2006) holds that humans are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural
circuits by evolution. This system in the brain generates instant moral judgments. This was needed in part because often quick decisions must be
made in situations where life is threatened. In such predicaments there is no time for accessing the conscious mind. Most people appear to be
unaware of this deep moral processing because the left hemisphere of the brain has been adept at producing interpretations of events and
information and doing so rapidly thus generating what may be accepted as rationalizations for the decision or impulse and response that is
produced rapidly by the brain without conscious attention even being possible.
Hauser has presented an argument with a hypothesis to be tested empirically. That process is underway . There is considerable support for it
already gathered in work with primates and in close examination of the works of and research now being conducted by moral philosophers as well
as by primatologists and neuroscientists.
Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally obligatory, permissible or
forbidden.
1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a
switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch
is ______.
2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child,
she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.
3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not
enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospitals waiting
room. If the surgeon takes this persons organs, he will die but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy
persons organs is _______.
If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1500
subjects around the world who responded to these dilemmas on our web-based moral sense test
[http://moral.wjh.edu]. On the view that morality is Gods word, atheists should judge these cases differently from
people with religious background and beliefs, and when asked to justify their responses, should bring forward
different explanations. For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they should go with pure self-interest, and
walk by the drowning baby. Results show something completely different. There were no statistically significant
differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90% of subjects saying that it
is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97% saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97% saying that
is forbidden to remove the healthy mans organs. . When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others
forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that can not account for the differences in play.
Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists.
These studies begin to provide empirical support for the idea that like other psychological faculties of the mind,
including language and mathematics, we are endowed with a moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments of
right and wrong, interacting in interesting ways with the local culture. These intuitions reflect the outcome of millions
of years in which our ancestors have lived as social mammals, and are part of our common inheritance, as much as
our opposable thumbs are.
Research in Neuroscience has proceeded so far as to call into discussion how humans are responsible for their
actions and the degree to which all ethical thinking or morality is merely post facto rationalizations for the near
automatic responses made to situations by the brain. READ: The Brain on the Stand by Jeffrey Rosen on recent
scientific work and its implications.
Morality may be rooted deep in the evolved workings of human brains with its mirror neurons and the operation of the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex.READ: Morality and Brain Injury by Benedict Carey. However, if you reflect a moment on the
question of how people become moral (GENES for brain structures and functioning) and how they then acquire the exact moral
precepts or rules (MEMES-moral codes and ethical principles) by which they live you will probably realize that a number of
factors come into play in the development of personal morality. Indeed you will probably think that people become moral or
learn about morality due to their involvement with:

Parents

Siblings

Friends

School

Religion

Media- television, films, videos, music, music videos

Advertising
How exactly each person develops their ideas about right and wrong is a subject being studied by psychologists. This type of
study is part of what is known as Moral Psychology. One of the most famous of the psychologists who does such studies is
Lawrence Kohlberg. He has a theory of moral development based upon his research with people from very young ages
through the adult years.
His work confirms and expands upon an earlier theory by the American Philosopher John Dewey.
The American philosopher and pragmatist, John Dewey , held that people progress through stages of moral development.
They start out making decisions with a focus on the self and gradually progress to a concern for self and for others as well.
Some reach a point where in thinking about what would be the morally correct thing to do might even reach a point where
concern for others and for principles would take precedence over the concern for the self. Dewey enumerated three basic
phases: pre-conventional, conventional , and post-conventional to describe the progression in moral thinking and focus.
Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, conducted a number of experiments and found that there are marked stages for
the development of moral thinking. The experiments have been repeated numerous times and his basic findings have been
duplicated. His research confirmed Dewey's basic idea. Kohlberg distinguished six distinct stages.

John Dewey

Stages of moral development

Lawrence Kohlberg

I. Pre-conventional : concern for self

I. Pre-conventional concern for self
II. Conventional: concern for self and others
II. Conventional concern for self and others
III. Post Conventional: concern for others
III. Post Conventional concern for others

1. Reward / Punishment
2. Reciprocity
3. Ideal Model -Conformity
4. Law and Order
5. Social Contract
6. Universal Principles

To understand each of these six stages read:

READ: Kohlbergs Theory by Robert N. Barger at http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm
Kohlberg used scenarios to elicit responses from his subjects concerning their thinking about what makes an act right or
wrong. He was less concerned with their answer as to what they would do or approve of in others as he was interested in their
reason for thinking as they did. Here is a simplification of his famous Heinz Scenario:
How would you solve the following scenario which Kohlberg used on his research subjects ?
A man named Heinz had a dying wife. The wife had an almost fatal disease.
The local druggist owned a $20,000 drug that could save her.
Heinz could not raise the money in time and he certainly did not have the cash to buy the
drug.
Heinz therefore made a decision and that night he broke into the drug store and stole
some of the medication.
Should Heinz have done that?
Why do you think that?
Kohlberg thought that fewer than 25% of people ever progress beyond the fourth stage and do so because of some event that
presses them to develop further.
Events can force a person to move further. The decision to have an abortion, to resist the draft or to assist your mother lying on
her death bed to die quickly and with less pain and suffering are the sorts of events for which individuals must come to face just
what it is that makes an action right or wrong. It is at those times and through those events that individuals come to learn what
their values are, who they are and what their moral rules will be. Consulting with friends and religious advisors about such
matters will bring much advice but leave the decision-making about the rules and the actions to the individual.
So human thinking concerning morality and what is the good changes over time as humans have more experiences and mature. What then is the outcome? What is
the idea humans arrive at concerning the moral good?
Well it should be no surprise to learn or realize that not all humans hold the same ideas about the good and some think that there is no possibility for all humans on
earth to hold common ideas about morality. Some believe that there is not and cannot be any ethical theory that would provide principles for determining moral
rules and codes that would be accepted by all human beings.
There are a variety of views that do not hold for any universal morality or universal ethical principles. They are variations on Relativism and that is the topic of
the next chapter of this text.
Chapter Three: Relativism
Section 1. Several Types
People develop their thinking concerning morality over time. They do so as a result of interactions with
individuals and social institutions. In different societies each with their own cultures there are different
ideas concerning how humans are to behave. Different societies and cultures have different rules, different
mores, laws and moral ideas.
In the twentieth century people became quite aware of these differences. The impact of this information
when coupled with the theories of the Existentialists and Pragmatists became quite significant in the realm
of Ethics. The Existentialists with their theory of radical freedom and human choice and responsibility
placed morality within the sphere of individual human decision-making. There were no essences before
existence of beings and there would be no rules before the existence of the beings who would make the
rules for themselves. The Pragmatists also departed from belief in absolutes and generalizations and any
universal criteria for judgment. For the pragmatists reality itself was not a given but a human construct and
reflective of the societys criteria for judgment concerning truth. So, it came to pass as a part of Post
Modernism that there would be a school or tradition of thought that would hold that all thinking about Ethics
was also subject to human decision making within a social framework. This school would hold that there are
no universal or absolute principles in Ethics to which all humans are to be subject.
Through the twentieth century many humans have come to accept a good deal of the relativistic
perspective. Relativism has entered into the thinking of many people, even people who would hold for
some absolutist ideas. Yes , there are people who hold inconsistent and contradictory ideas concerning
morality and ethics. How does this come to be?
First let us clarify some terms:
Cultural relativism
Descriptive ethical relativism
Normative ethical relativism
Cultural relativism describes the simple fact that there are different cultures and each has different
ways of behaving, thinking and feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation. There is an
enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim. It is well known by just about every human on the
planet that people do things differently around the globe. People dress differently, eat differently, speak
different languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have many different
customs.
This is a scientific theory well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists.
Descriptive ethical relativism describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the sense of morality: the
mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary from one culture to another. There is a great deal of information available to
confirm this as well. What is thought to be moral in one country may be thought to be immoral and even made illegal in another
country.
This is a scientific theory well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists.
Examples:

Moral in USA

Immoral in

Eating Beef
Drinking alcohol, Gambling
Women in school or business
Women wearing shorts, face uncovered
Or the reverse pattern
Immoral in USA
Killing newborn females
Female genital mutilation
Family kills a woman family member who is raped

India
Middle Eastern Islamic Countries
Afghanistan under the Taliban
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
Moral or Acceptable
China, India
Many African nations (It is female circumcision)
Somalia, Sudan

Can you think of other examples?

Normative ethical relativism is a theory, which claims that there are no universally
valid moral principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral
rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no
absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. The theory claims
that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics) is always relative. Each
culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for
morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and
will always be the case.
This is a philosophical theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence
gathered by cultural anthropologists, nor could science support a theory
about the past and future! It is a theory that has evidence against it. (see
next sections)
In the next section we will examine this theory and its implications and criticisms
closely for now consider the table below which shows the contrast between absolutism
and relativism.
Relativism

Cultural Relativism
Descriptive Ethical Relativism
Normative Ethical Relativism
no universal criteria
no absolutes not even tolerance
no criticism of majority
reduces to subjectivism
We should not make moral
judgements concerning other
individuals and societies.

Nihilism
-no moral principles exist

Absolutism
There are universal ethical principles that apply to
all humans.
There are absolutes.
There exists a moral core-without which
i.society will not flourish
ii.individuals will not flourish
A) there exist moral truths
B) Reason can discover truths
C) it is in our interest to promote them
We do and should judge other individuals and
societies with reason and with sympathy and
understanding.

Have you ever thought or heard and not challenged the idea that we should not make moral judgments of other people? Have
you ever thought that each person must make up his or her own mind about what his or her moral rules will be? Have you ever
accepted the idea that "Unless you walk a mile in the other man's moccasins, you can not make a judgment concerning him"?
Have you ever thought that while some act might not be morally correct for you it might be correct for another
person or conversely have you thought that while some act might be morally correct for you it might not be
morally correct for another person? Have you thought that each person must make up his or her own
morality?
Well, if you answered, "Yes" to any of the above you have relativistic ideas operating in your thought
system. Now you might ask yourself whether or not you really accept those ideas?
Do you believe that you must go out and kill several people in order to make the judgment that a serial killer is
doing something wrong? Do you really believe that you need to kidnap, rape, kill and eat several young men in
order to reach the conclusion that Jeffrey Dahmer did something wrong, morally wrong and horrible?
Do you think that killing newborn babies because they are females is wrong, even for the Chinese? Don't you
think that once the Chinese and Indians and Africans have a higher quality of life and are better educated that
they will and should stop doing those things that harm, kill or degrade women? If you do you have absolutist
ideas working in you as well.
How can you hold opposing ideas at the same time?
Let us begin to think more clearly about these matters.
Carl Wellman, "The Ethical Implications of Cultural Relativity," The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 60, Issue 7 (March 28, 1963): pp. 169184.
Let us move to some important distinctions.
Two Types of Moral Relativism : Cultural and Individual
Cultural Moral Relativism
It is common to hear the following type of statement: It's wrong for us to impose our morality on them, because they have a
different set of beliefs.
Rene Descartes, 17th-century French philosopher, notes in the following passage both the difference between the belief systems
of different cultures, and the apparent reasonableness of each one:
But I had become aware, even so early as during my college life, that no opinion, however absurd and incredible, can be
imagined, which has not been maintained by some on of the philosophers; and afterwards in the course of my travels I remarked
that all those whose opinions are decidedly repugnant to ours are not in that account barbarians and savages, but on the
contrary that many of these nations make an equally good, if not better, use of their reason than we do.-- From Discourse on
the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences
Abortion is illegal in Ireland. More than that, the belief that abortion is a horrible moral crime is widespread. In Japan, not only is

abortion legal, it is very frequently taken to be morally neutral. In answering the question: Is abortion morally wrong? the cultural
relativist says: In Ireland, yes -- abortion is wrong. In Japan, no -- it is not morally wrong.
Notice that the relativist does not say "In Ireland people believe that it's wrong, and in Japan people believe that it's not wrong."
No, his point is stronger than that. In Ireland, abortion IS morally wrong, while in Japan it is NOT morally wrong.
Individual Moral Relativism (also called Subjective Relativism, or simply Subjectivism)
If you are an individual relativist, you believe that moral obligations depend upon or are driven by beliefs, but you think that the
relevant belief is that of the individual moral agent, rather than that of the culture that the agent is from.
Again, note that the subjectivist doesn't merely say: Joe thinks that cheating on exams is morally acceptable when one needs a
good grade, while Mary does not think that cheating is ever morally acceptable. No, the subjectivist makes a stronger claim,
namely, that cheating IS wrong for Mary, but is NOT wrong for Joe.
Relativism and Moral Objectivity
According to moral relativism, whether an action/judgment/decision/choice is morally right or obligatory depends upon the belief
that that action/judgment/decision/choice is morally right or obligatory. Relativists do not claim that there is no source of
obligation nor that there are no acts that are morally wrong. Relativists often do claim that an action/judgment etc. is morally
required of a person. For example, if a person believes that abortion is morally wrong, then it IS wrong -- for her. In other words, it
would be morally wrong for Susan to have an abortion if Susan believed that abortion is always morally wrong. (It would also be
morally wrong, according to relativists, if Susan had an abortion when she believed that it was wrong for only her to have one.) In
short, relativists do not have to abandon the objectivity of moral judgments; but they do have to give up other key concepts, like
universalism; more on that later.
Let me repeat: relativism does not entail* that there is no objective obligation. A person can believe that moral obligations are
relative to a culture and at the same time believe that a person from that culture has a genuine obligation to abide by whatever
moral code that culture adheres to.
*Entail -- if A entails B, then, if A is true B must be true.
Section 2. Common Elements
What do both forms of relativism share?
There are two components to the relativist's position.*
1. Diversity Thesis
The Diversity Thesis is nothing more than the observation that not everybody agrees what the most important values are, or what obligations
humans have to one another, or what actions are forbidden by moral law, etc. In other words, the Diversity Thesis merely affirms that different
people believe different things about morality.
This thesis is, I think, obvious to everybody. It does not need to be argued for -- only described. There are two versions of this thesis.
First -- social diversity. Different cultures have different moral commitments. This version is obvious to anybody who has traveled abroad, or who
comes from an immigrant family. Perhaps somebody can share something from their own experience -- do you have a example of a moral principle
which is more closely adhered to than is popular in the states? Or can you think of a principle which is followed in the States that is not valued
highly in the place of your own origin?
Second -- individual diversity. Isn't it clear that even within a given culture there are a diversity of moral perspectives? Is there a single moral world
view among Irish Catholics? I can assure you that there is not. How about African Americans? Surely there are some who are liberal democrats,
and there are others who are conservative republicans. Alan Keyes, a candidate for president in the most recent election, is one of the most
conservative public intellectuals in the nation. Let's narrow down the cultural group -- Catholic moral theologians. This is a pretty small demographic
group. They are all male, mostly white, all Catholics, all trained in the same religious tradition, all having gone through the same type of academic
training. Still, there is a rich diversity of voices in that chorus of writers. There are some who believe that artificial birth control (the pill, condoms,
etc.) is contrary to God's law, while others among them believe that even active euthanasia is sometimes morally acceptable. Now that is diversity!
One might think that here, if anywhere, you'd find a great deal of unanimity [I've never been able to say that out loud!]. The members of this cultural
group share so much. Their experiences and commitments overlap deeply, and yet we find disagreement, argument, dissention.
Now, none of this, absolutely none of this, should lead one to think that ethical relativism is true. All it says -- thus far -- is that people disagree with
each other. In order for ethical relativism to be true, the dependency thesis needs to be true also.
2. Dependency Thesis
The Dependency Thesis is the more important of the two doctrines. It asserts that the validity of moral obligations, moral values, etc. depends upon
the beliefs of (a) moral agents (subjectivism), or (b) cultural groups.
The conclusion that is drawn, then, is: There are no universally valid moral principles, objective standards which apply to all people.
Let's look a bit closer at this thesis, for it is really the more important of the two. It says that whenever I am morally obligated to perform some
action, whenever I am morally forbidden to perform an action, or whenever I am called (by my moral commitments) to live out some virtue or other,
all this obligation is based on the belief that I am so obligated. The belief ground of my obligation is simply my belief. Let me rephrase -- the
dependency thesis asserts that moral obligation of any kind is grounded in the particular beliefs that I (or we) happen to hold.
So if you are a relativist, whether of the cultural or the individualist type, then you believe not only that people tend to disagree, but also that the
validity of their obligations rests on nothing more than the fact that they perceive themselves to be under those particular obligations.
This is as good a definition of relativism as any. And notice that it is a negative statement; it takes the form of a denial. And what it denies is a good
way of telling what it is opposed to: universal objectivism (or universalism, for short).
Section 3. What Relativism Opposes
The best definition of relativism takes the form of a denial. It is a rejection of two things.
First, relativism denies the existence of any moral obligation or moral principle or moral value which applies to all people at all times in all places.
This means that it is a rejection of "Universal Objectivism"; that is, it rejects that there are objective principles (etc.) that apply universally (i.e. to all
people).
Second, relativism denies that moral principles (etc.) are independent of the moral agent's (or community's) belief system. In other words, this is a
denial of "Moral Realism." This follows from the Dependency Thesis. The Dependency Thesis says that obligations derive from beliefs; the belief
that abortion is wrong causes abortion to be wrong. Realism is the philosophical doctrine that stuff exists whether or not we believe it exists. Snow
exists whether or not Mary believes snow exists. Moral realism holds that moral realities (right actions, obligations, values, etc.) do NOT depend
upon human recognition. Moral realism thus allows for people to be wrong in their beliefs.
Section 4 Not to be Confused with.....

Relativism is often confused with a number of distinct positions. It is important to keep these things in mind. I find that many students start out
thinking that they are relativists, only to discover that they are not -- some are skeptics, others are pluralists, still others are situationalists.
How do they differ?
Can you imagine a skeptic who is not a relativist? How about a relativist who is not a skeptic ?

Can you imagine a pluralist who is not a relativist? How about a relativist who is not a pluralist?
Can you imagine a situationalist who is not a relativist? How about a relativist who is not a situationalist?
==========================================================
Skepticism
Skepticism: from Chapter One, we know that skepticism is an "epistemological" position. It claims that we (or at least I) cannot know what our (or at
least my) obligations are, if there are any at all. Skepticism does not say anything about the moral universe - about whether there are moral
principles, obligations, virtues, etc. It speaks of our knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the moral universe. So the reason why relativists are not
(necessarily) skeptics, is because the relativist thinks s/he knows something about people's obligations -- a person's obligation is nothing more and
nothing less than what s/he believes her obligation is. If Susan believes that she is obligated to pay her parents back for all their care, by at least
being honest with them, then Susan really is obligated to be honest. The skeptic cannot claim that he (the skeptic) or she (Susan) can know what
her obligation is -- in fact, the skeptic holds that neither he nor Susan can know what Susan's obligation is.
Nihilism
This is the position that there are no moral values at all -- that there are no obligations, nothing to prohibit anyone from doing anything at all.
Nihilism is a denial of the entire realm of ethical reality. If you are a nihilist, moral conversation, moral arguments, have no point. They are absurd. A
moral nihilist would think that two people arguing about whether the President has an obligation to do what is best for the citizens, is simply silly. It
would be as pointless as an argument over whether cheese should have blond hair or red hair. Huh??? Makes no sense.
If you think that there is some function to ethical discourse, if you think that a person can be wrong, or a culture can be wrong about what they
believe, then you are not a nihilist.
A cultural relativist does believe (or ought to believe, if they are truly a cultural relativist) that a person can be morally mistaken. How? By being
mistaken about what his or her culture actually believes. For example, I can imagine a person in Ireland believing (incorrectly) that the Irish society
accepts abortion as morally permissible. If that person either had an abortion or encourage someone else to have an abortion, s/he would be
violating his/her moral obligation. Do you understand why?
Situationalism
As a reaction against objective and universal and absolutist approaches, situationalism argues that every situation is different.
Therefore, absolute rules are inappropriate because they are too inflexible. The only ethical "rule" is to love, which Christ said was the
greatest commandment. Love alone, because it has its own moral compass, can be trusted to know what to do in any situation. The Bible
may give us a record of what loving decisions looked like in concrete situations, but those decisions are not binding.
Example:

Joseph Fletcher's Situational Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966) is the most complete presentation of this view. Some form
of situationalism is usually held by liberal ministers and theologians.
Problems with situationalism

Situationalism's definition of love is unbiblical.

Biblical love by definition has moral content. The God who is loving is also morally righteous. Therefore, any conception of love that does
not involve absolute moral content is profoundly unbiblical.
Situationalism is excessively subjective. "Love" used in this way does not automatically know what to do. It may get us close to the
person and give us the motivation to meet his/her needs. But without objective truth, it cannot distinguish wants from needs, or know how
to meet those needs. This is why situationalism is essentially moral relativism.
Situationalism overlooks the important distinction between "right attitude" and "right action." While the Bible emphasizes the importance of
having the right (loving) attitude, it also emphasizes the importance of right actions. God still condemns wrong actions even when they
are done with the right attitude (see for example II Sam. 6:3-7).

Section 5. Pluralism and Realism

Realism
Realism is simply the opposite of nihilism -- it holds that it makes sense to speak of such things as obligations, and right actions, and that such talk
connects with a significant aspect of reality. Moral obligations are not myths, they are not just symbols, they are not merely verbal expressions, and
they are not just different types of psychological delusions. Furthermore, moral discourse is not fundamentally and intellectually mistaken -- the
result of some drastic conceptual error.
According to moral realists, the universe has lots of properties -- the universe has physical properties, it has conscious properties (after all, we are
conscious, and we are part of the universe), and it has moral properties. And those moral properties are just as real as the physical ones.
Furthermore, realists hold that the moral aspects of the universe are what they are independent of human opinion. Realists deny relativism,
because relativists think that obligations are rooted in human opinion. Realists think that people can simply be wrong or mistaken about what their
obligations are. Relativists cannot make sense of that.
Pluralism
Pluralism is the position that there are many (or at least more than one) moral values or sources of obligation. It is in contrast with the position that
requires that all values and obligations can be fit into nice tidy, neat little boxes, and so arranged that these things can never be in real conflict.
Conflict, in this position (let's call it "heirarchicalism"), is nothing more than the result of human limitation. -- our inability to see what our obligations
really are.
The film "A Few Good Men" concerned two enlisted marines who were on trial for murder or manslaughter or something. They pleaded "not guilty."
Not because they didn't do what they were accused of, but because they simply followed the order of their commanding officer. Their obligation is
always to do whatever their commanding officer tells them to do. Obeying orders is, in the military (in the movie) the consummate and ultimate
military virtue, and whenever this virtue seems to conflict with another of their perceived obligations, obeying orders always trumps the others.
According to this position, the conflict is really an illusion. It just seems like there is an irresolvable conflict, but in fact there is not, because following
an order is always the most important obligation one has. This would be an example of "heirarchicalism". Pluralism, in contrast, is the position that
there can be conflicts, because there are multiple real moral values, and these values are neither reducible to one another (in the way that fidelity to
one's spouse might be reducible to love) nor are they commensurable.
It might be tempting to see relativism and pluralism as the same thing. They are not. Pluralists do not need to believe, as relativists do, that values
are grounded in the beliefs of the people who hold them. Here are a few moral principles or values: autonomy, justice, well-being, authenticity, and
peace. A relativist will say that people are obligated to seek justice if and only if their society values justice, or if and only if this particular person
values justice. But a pluralist can believe that everybody ought to work for justice and peace, even though a person (or a society) may think that
they are under no such obligation.
Section 6. Relativism and Tolerance
Tolerance -- the ultimate obligation of the relativist?
Relativism and tolerance are very common in today's culture. Toleration is preached by every politically correct educator and politician. And it is a
centerpiece of the values of political liberalism. (By political liberalism I do not refer to "liberal democrats". I refer to the orthodox value of American

and Western European ideology of self-government, or government by representation.) America is the epitome of western political ideals because
we are a society of societies -- we do not share an ethnicity, a race, a religion, even a history. The only thing that binds Americans together is a
commitment to this particular political structure devised by Thomas Jefferson and the rest. France is France because everyone is French, speaks
French, and drinks cabernet sauvignon. England is England because everyone is English, is Protestant, speaks English with that great accent, and
drinks tea. America is America because a bunch of otherwise really different folks think that the best way to live is by organizing under a
constitutional democracy. By definition, then, we are a tolerant people. Or rather, if we are not tolerant, then we are failing to be Americans.
Tolerance is, again, one of the crown jewels of American culture.
The reason why we believe it is so important to be tolerant is because we are so profoundly aware of our own freedom. We wouldn't want to have
our own freedom limited, and this means that we think it would be wrong to limit the freedom of those with whom we disagree.
We then translate that respect for freedom, a respect which silently streams through our American veins, into a moral relativism. We make the leap
from the "Diversity Thesis" (again, owing to the fact that we share our neighborhoods and our political leaders with people who don't look like we do,
speak like we do, act like we do, and drink like we do) to relativism, without recognizing that we cannot go from here to there without something very
important -- the "Dependence Thesis." Nevertheless, the tolerance which began as a political necessity ends up being a moral absolute. A political
presupposition becomes the consequence of a metaethical commitment.
Let me make this argument in another way: Relativism seems to be obviously true to many people. It also seems obviously true to many of those
people, that since what is right for one group isn't right for another group, then we need to be tolerant of everyone. This recognition of moral
freedom is the only absolute value that relativists adhere to.
It shouldn't take much reflection to see the error here. Tolerance is NOT a value of relativism. Perhaps I should say it this way: if you are a relativist,
you certainly do not need to be tolerant of other people. Or rather, if you are a relativist, it is not inconsistent with your relativism to be intolerant of
those who disagree with you.
Again, (a) relativism does not lead logically to being tolerant of other cultures, and other moral perspectives, and (b) it always threatens to result in
intolerance. If you think that everyone should be tolerant of other opinions and beliefs and practices, then you are not a relativist.
Let me take a passage from Louis Pojman's article, "Who's to Judge?", in Virtue and Vice in Everyday Life (Sommers and Sommers: New York;
Harcourt Publishers 2001):
If morality simply is relative to each culture then if the culture does not have a principle of tolerance, its members have no obligation to be
tolerant...From a relativistic point of view there is no more reason to be tolerant than to be intolerant, and neither stance is objectively morally better
than the other.
Not only do relativists fail to offer a basis for criticizing those who are intolerant, but they cannot rationally criticize anyone who espouses what they
might regard as a heinous principle. If, as seems to be the case, valid criticism supposes an objective or impartial standard, relativists cannot
morally criticize anyone outside their own culture. Adolf Hitler's genocidal actions, so long as they are culturally accepted, are as morally legitimate
as Mother Teresa's works of mercy. If [cultural relativism] is accepted, racism, genocide of unpopular minorities, oppression of the poor, slavery, and
even the advocacy of war for its own sake are as equally moral as their opposites. And if a subculture decided that starting a nuclear war was
somehow morally acceptable, we could not morally criticize those people.
These are serious problems for relativism .... and there are more
Section 7. Problems
Normative ethical relativism is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says
that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding
on all men at all times. The theory claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics) is always relative. Each culture establishes
the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and
will always be the case. The theory claims not only that different cultures have different views but that it is impossible for there ever to be a single
set of ethical principles for the entire world because there are no universal principles that could apply to all peoples of the earth. The theory holds
that all such thinking about ethical principles is just a reflection of the power holders of a particular culture. So, each culture does and always will
make its own ethical principles. Any attempt of those from one culture to apply their principles to other peoples of other cultures is only a political
move and an assertion of power.
This is a philosophical theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists, nor could science support a theory
about the past and future! Further , it is a theory that has evidence against it.
In this section we will further examine this theory and its implications and criticisms. hy spend so much time and space on this. The theory is quite
popular in advanced technological societies that are progressive and somewhat liberal. It is a theory that precludes further consideration of a set of
principles that could serve as a basis for a moral order for the human species as it claims that none is possible and undercuts over two thousand
years of rational inquiry into the basis for a notion of the good. Whether it is Confucius in China or Socrates in Greece or Mill in England or Rawls in
the United States all ethical inquiry is deemed a mere relativistic exercise into social constructs.
Here is an example of the theory in this writing by Thane Doss of CUNY, Hunter with the notation of the claims that constitute the theory of
Normative Ethical Relativism marked by an asterisk (*) .
Example I:
At any rate, the underpinning of all this is that I expect that we all have the capacity and even some degree of recognition that ethics and morality
are social constructs*, and that therefore, it's not "morality" or "ethics" that one truly refers to in the about-to-shoot-someone situation. Generally, if
you've got time to think about it, you already know the position of society on what you're about to do. If you're a soldier, your culture (or someone
who hired you, if you're a mercenary) sent you there to shoot people, so you know you've got cultural backing*. If you're a criminal, you also know
your position, and you've made some calculations based on likely personal gain, kicks, probability of getting caught, etc. There really are no moral
questions at play.* If you're neither of these, it's likely that you're also not really free to sit down for long to mull things over, so you react and hope
that your reaction fits within accepted norms * of self-defense or defense of others as established by your culture.*
What underlies things is calculation of gain and loss, though, not some greater thing to be named "morality." * As an example, which may be faulty,
I don't believe that duelling was always illegal (it's here I could be wrong), though after a certain point in time it was in this country, anyway. Why
would there have been a time when the situation of two hot-headed men (as far as I know, women weren't involved in duels, though it'd be a neat
book if one could find some examples) choosing to try to murder one another would _not_ have been illegal, as just a rotten thing to train the kids
on and not a terribly good way to perpetuate the species? Well, if the alternative is getting all my buddies together to attack and try to kill all your
buddies, then as far as the culture and the personal well-being of a bunch of individuals goes, saying "Hey, if you guys really want to risk your lives
and the likelihood that those pistols are going to blow up in your own faces instead of firing accurately, go ahead and leave me out of it" makes a lot
of sense.
But in time, there is enough rule of law about to, at least often, prevent the whole "My buddies and I are going to kill you and your buddies" thing in
the first place, so allowing the duel is no longer a measure to keep all the buddies alive, and it can be declared illegal as a rotten way to bring your
kids up, etc. Same action--different times, different "moralities" [i.e. cultural considerations].*
Second, shorter example--it would be horrible--"immoral"--to knowingly kill an innocent man, wouldn't it? But there are anthropological reports of
the incredibly effective deterrence obtained by tribes that understood that if a member of tribe A killed a member of tribe B, some member of tribe A
any member except the killer--would be killed by tribe B. Every member of both tribes has a direct investment in keeping any member of his/her
tribe from killing anyone in another tribe, because any member could find him/herself to be the payback for the killing. There's not much killing
around as a result. As far as getting the results that people generally agree upon as desirable goes, this is far preferable from our capital
punishment system, which makes killing _more_ attractive to those already to disposed to murder and gives everyone else an incentive to just stay
out of the way. You may have to kill an innocent every now and then as a result of this approach to justice, but you have to choose your basis for
what you're going to call morality--is it better to have less murder overall, but kill an innocent every now and then, or is it better to have more murder
overall and only kill the guilty? (This is, of course,
the argument that the pro-capital punishment people make, too, but they don't look at the statistics and psychological studies to check their
assumptions about capital punishment as a deterrent.)

There really is no good or evil,* only what is human, and apparently among the things that is human is a tendency to create abstractions and treat
them as if they are concrete* , when a bit of analysis really would show that the meanings of those abstractions change considerably with time and
place.* (As long as this recognition of change is present, this is a very useful sort of behavior--one might compare it to scientific modeling.)
Rohit mentioned a million dogs a year being killed as an example a while back, apparently expecting a purely emotional response. I prefer cats
myself, but have nothing really against dogs. Of course, I have nothing against cows, either. But millions are killed yearly in this country, and yes, I
do eat some of them. I feel some guilt. I feel some guilt when I kill a cockroach, though. But the universe was not designed so that I could absorb
energy directly from a star. Even if I didn't eat animals, plants would have to die to keep me going. It is unfortunate that life depends on things dying,
but it does. That is neither good nor evil, though.* We don't call the cheetah evil for killing an antelope--we call it a cheetah.
People have more reasoning power, and indeed, they should apply their reasoning to their killing, but to say that applying this thing called "morality"
to killing is truly reasoning is quite questionable.* At best, it's like a small-angle approximation.
In most cases, going with what you call morality will keep you safely within the range of cultural acceptance for your specific time and place.* But
that's all that it really reflects--the cultural understandings that formed it.
Thane Doss, BMCC/Hunter (2001)
= = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
Why do people come to believe the normative ethical relativism? Consider four reasons that may account for the phenomenon.
Factors contributing to the popularity of the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism
1.It is obvious that moral rules and laws vary from country to country. Many people believe that laws that exist for other people in other countries
should not apply to within their own country. Traditions and customs are different around the world: what is wrong in one place might be right in the
other. So to some people it is true that there should not be a universal moral standard binding on all men at all times.
2. The decline of Religion in the Western Hemisphere and in advanced technological societies. As Nietzsche and Dostoevsky have noted, If god is
dead than all is permitted.
3. Increased sensitivity to peoples of different cultures and the need to avoid the evils of ethnocentrism. The desire to be tolerant and to appreciate
the values and beauty of a multi-cultural world.
4. The failure for most people to think that there could be a third alternative to moral absolutism (associated with religion) and cultural relativism.
Consider the question: Are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are moral duties relative to culture? Few can think of a third
alternative to these two choices. Finding absolutism untenable many simply accept the relativist position.
Philosophers have been attempting for centuries to develop that third alternative.
Consider Socrates. He could not accept the mythopoetic thought of his time as the basis for morality and neither could he accept the relativism of
Thrasymachus and other Sophists who taught and proclaimed that might makes right and accident makes might. The Sophists believed that each
society makes its own rules and there are no universal rules, no gods ruling over all and making rules.
This theory has become a very popular part of post modern times. It is a theory that manifests its influences in many parts of the culture. The
theme of tolerance and appreciation for other cultures and the inappropriateness of applying one standard from one culture to actions in another
culture is in evidence in the arts and in politics.
Example II:
Shortly after William Jefferson Clinton was first elected to the office of President of the United States her was an election of a school board in a
Florida county. The majority of the school board were now members of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political action group. The school
board voted that all public schools in the county would teach in all grades, as part of social studies, that the United States has a culture superior to
that of many others . This was to be supported by the claims that the United States held the values of freedom and equality most high, was a
democracy and provided for the welfare of many in need and a number of other claims. Both President Clinton and his wife , Hillary Rodham
Clinton, criticized the school board for their intolerance. They both proclaimed that the US does not have a superior culture but that all cultures are
equally valued and are to be equally respected. These proclamations are affirmations of doctrines of the post modern movement and are part of
the set of "politically correct" ideas currently popular. Nine months after this event a young citizen of the United States was arrested in Singapore
for acts of vandalism. Michael Fay confessed and was tried and found guilty and sentenced to a canning. At that time many people in the USA
were very upset with this situation. President Clinton wrote a letter to the president of Singapore and requested that the sentence be changed.
President Clinton wrote that the act of caning was barbaric. The president of Singapore was offended by the letter and upheld the custom and laws
of that land. How could President Clinton declare another countries practices or any countries practices as being barbaric if he believed that all
cultures are equally praise worth. The President was being inconsistent. He also criticized the people of China and the government for their
barbaric practices with regard to political and religious dissidents. When he later ordered the bombing in Bosnia and one of the planes bombed the
Chinese embassy, several nations, including the Chinese, called that act one of barbarism!
Three years after the criticism of the Florida school board action, Hillary Clinton attended an international conference on women in China. She
represented the USA. At that time she condemned the practices of China and India and a number of other countries and used harsh language in
doing so. How was she able to do that if she believed that all cultures are equal in value and no one can judge another? She too was being
inconsistent.
So, Normative Ethical Relativism is part of the cultural milieu. It is evidenced in the thinking of many and yet at the same time many of those who
espouse or accept this theory hold opposing views as well!
Problems and criticisms of the theory of normative ethical relativism.
1. According to the theory there are no universal moral criteria, there can be no absolutes not even that of tolerance. Therefore
the supporters of this theory cannot promote the theory with the claim that its acceptance will support tolerance for peoples of
other cultures because tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. It is only a good thing in those cultures where it is promoted. It
cannot be promoted for all peoples. If people are raised in a culture where it is thought to be a good thing to be INTOLERANT,
then that is what people should be. There have been and there are cultures in which people are raised to believe that they have a
superior culture and a right to use and abuse other people. So for that group of people tolerance is not a good thing. Normative
ethical relativism cannot be used to promote tolerance. It is a poorly thought out and confused notion of tolerance that leads to
the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism.
2. According to the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism each culture has its own ideas about ethics and morality. In each
culture the predominant view is correct because it is the predominant view. There are no principles that could override or take
precedence over the predominant view. Thus there can be no criticism of the moral views held by the majority of people in a
given society by any minority. This is so because the minority must always be wrong in virtue of the fact that it is the minority
view. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism cannot support or explain criticisms of the majoritys views by minorities. Yet
there have been such criticisms and many have led to moral reforms. Such reform cannot be accounted for by the theory.
3. If the theory applies to peoples of different cultures because they are raised in different social environments then it applies as
well to any peoples raised apart form other peoples. So it would apply within a culture and within a society wherever there are
isolated groups. Indeed the theory eventually supports a subjectivism in which each person raised differently from others must
make his or her own moral rules and those rules are equal in value and importance as any other set of rules. In this application of
the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism no one has the right to make moral judgments about another person, for each person
has the right to have his or her own morals.
4. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism runs counter to our ordinary experiences and concept of morality. Even people who
claim that they believe that the Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism is correct do make moral judgments concerning the
practices of people in other cultures. For example they do condemn female infanticide and genital mutilation and a number of
other practices, even practices that go back many centuries. It appears quite evident that there are certain acts which ordinary
people simply regard as being morally wrong no matter who is committing them.
5. Although there may be variations amongst the various cultures on this planet that does not mean that there are no points of
agreement or that there are no fundamental set of ethical principles that could be common to all. Take for example the rather

basic principle that there is a right to life and so killing is wrong. now there may be societies that permit the killing of a cheating
spouse or of unwanted children at birth. Still despite the differences there may be a common principle to the effect that an
unjustified killing is wrong. Then societies have differences over what constitutes the justification for the deliberate termination of
a life but not over the basic rule that killing is orally wrong.
6. The fact that societies differ concerning their views of morality and the principles upon which morality rests does not mean
that there is no possibility of there being a concept of the good that all humans could come to recognize and accept. There is
some support that it is the BRAIN as the basis for morality.
Read about the book and theory of The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga. In that book in the final, speculative section, ''The Nature of Moral Beliefs and
the Concept of Universal Ethics,'' Dr. Zanniga explores whether there is ''an innate human moral sense.'' The theories of evolutionary psychology point out,
Gazzaniga notes, that ''moral reasoning is good for human survival,'' and social science has concluded that human societies almost universally share rules against
incest and murder while valuing family loyalty and truth telling. ''We must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible,'' he concludes. (Sally
Satel, NY Times 6-19-05)
Research is showing that morality is linked with and dependent upon both physical structures and functioning of the brain and on
cultural inheritances.
MORALITY results form both GENES and MEMES !!!
Neuroscience is finding the brain structures and functioning that make for the "ethical brain". How is this so? Humans are social
animals and as Aristotle put it zoon politikon. As such they have evolved in part due to a capacity to relate to others and have
empathy and sympathy for others that serves as the base for acceptance of basic rules of conduct needed to live with others in
relative peace sufficient to support social or group life and then the advantages of social life. Evolutionary Psychology is
finding/hypothesizing the evolution of moral notions as an expression of the hardwiring. The brain appears to have structures
evolved and passed on through our genetic makeup (GENES) that provide for EMPATHY and SYMPATHY and CONCERN for
OTHERS. These each in some way enhanced survival ability for the social species of homo sapiens. Morality is a result of
and expression of those operations. Particular moral expressions or rules are enunciated and passed on as cultural inheritances
and thus MEMES (cf. Richard Dawkins work).
The primatologist, Frans de Waal, was on of many who have argued that the roots of human morality lie in social animals such as
the primates, including apes and monkeys. The feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are necessary for the
behaviors needed to make any mammalian group exist as individuals living in the midst of others. This set of feelings and
expectations of reciprocity may be taken as the basis for human morality. Neuroscientists are locating that sense in mirror
neurons in the brain.
Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are. Once thought of as purely spiritual matters,
honesty, guilt, and the weighing of ethical dilemmas are traceable to specific areas of the brain. It should not surprise us,
therefore, to find animal parallels. The human brain is a product of evolution. Despite its larger volume and greater complexity, it
is fundamentally similar to the central nervous system of other mammals.---Frans de Waals Good Natured: The Origins of
Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (1996)
Everywhere humans are found and where evidence exists of human culture there is evidence of a sense of morality. While the
particular moral rules may not be the same there is significant similarities and a commonalities in purposes served by moral
codes. Morality is needed for human community and humans demonstrate this world wide. There is evidence that all societies
have morality. Is this because they could not exist without some sense of how we are to behave? Human beings are social beings
-they have language which is a social creation. Humans could not live in groups without some sort of sense of how to behave in
ways that enhances the survival of the group- hence sympathy and empathy are needed and they are part of the basis for
morality: a moral sense.
There is now the study of Evolutionary Ethics and part of that is James Rachels Created from Animals: The Moral
Implications of Darwinism (1990) and Frans de Waals Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and
Other Animals (1996). Both claim that coming to grips with our moral sense involves looking not toward heaven but rather
toward our fellow members of the animal kingdom, particularly the three great apes."--Tim Madigan
The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and
consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused
through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies
may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence
on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide, though few
escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest rule. His conscience then becomes
the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including
sympathy, and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.-Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, "Conclusion"
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are, Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book Good
Natured. READ Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
In The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga (Dana Press: NY, 2005) the neuroscientist describes experimental evidence to support
his claims that the left hemisphere of the brain operates to unify the various systems within the brain and serves as an
interpreter to fashion stories that become the personal beliefs of each person.
Humans need beliefs and belief systems to
make sense of their sensory inputs. The human species reacts to events and the brain interprets the reaction. Out of those
interpretations there arise the beliefs by which people guide their actions. Some of the beliefs lead to rules by which people will
live. And so there emerges a a moral sense upon practical considerations. The left hemisphere continually functions to interpret
events and to create stories to accommodate the sensory and ideational inputs. Whenever there is information that does not fit
the self image created by the interpreter or the conceptual framework or belief system previously held and operative, then the
interpreter will create a belief to make sense of it in some manner or hold it in some way relation to previous information and
beliefs. The human species has a core set of reactions to challenges. Humans share similar reactions to situations. They share
the evocation of empathy and sympathy. Humans have mirror neurons that evoke this reaction. Other primate also have such
mirror neurons. They appear to make a social life possible. Gazzaniga holds that there exists some deep structure in the brain
driving not only a certain common set of values as expressions of the evoked responses but also the need to create cultural
edifices or social constructs for moral codes. Thus religion evolves to satisfy that drive.
Religions may have begun from a instinctual reaction common to humans. It evolved into a social support system and system of rationalizations
(beliefs) that attempt to make sense of the individual responses to one another and to situations faced by all humans.
Gazziniga holds that there are neural correlates of the religious experience in the temporal lobes of the brain. Temporal lobe
epilepsy has as one of its symptoms a hyper religiosity.
Gazziniga holds for the possibility of a universal ethics for all humans based on the most basic of evocations shared by all
humans. Current research utilizing moral sense testing is producing interesting findings in support of the hypothesis of a genetic
base for morality in humans.
For Gazzaniga humans want to believe, they want to believe in a natural order and they want a codification of their most basic
empathetic responses towards others. Gazzaniga wants science, as neuroscience to assist the human community to have what it
appears to need and based on the best information available.

So humans are hardwired and programmed for morality and religion rides in on that as a context in which the programming
results in producing a fuller expression. This in turn is culturally transmitted and thus the human impulse is most often being
routed through religious institutions and practices.
READ On scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behavior The Basis of Morality by Tim Madigan in Philosophy
Now athttp://www.philosophynow.org/issue51/51madigan.htm
There is consideration given to the impact of looking at morality as rooted in the evolution of the species and in the neural endowment of
human brains.
READ: Is the new neuromorality a threat to traditional views of right and wrong? by Cathy Young in reason on
line August/September 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, in Moral Minds (HarperCollins 2006) holds that humans are born with a moral grammar wired
into their neural circuits by evolution. This system in the brain generates instant moral judgments. This was needed in part
because often quick decisions must be made in situations where life is threatened. In such predicaments there is no time for
accessing the conscious mind. Most people appear to be unaware of this deep moral processing because the left hemisphere of
the brain has been adept at producing interpretations of events and information and doing so rapidly thus generating what may
be accepted as rationalizations for the decision or impulse and response that is produced rapidly by the brain without conscious
attention even being possible.
Hauser has presented an argument with a hypothesis to be tested empirically. That process is underway . There is considerable
support for it already gathered in work with primates and in close examination of the works of and research now being conducted
by moral philosophers as well as by primatologists and neuroscientists.
Marc Hauser and Peter Singer "Morality without religion" by, December,
2005 http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf
Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally obligatory, permissible or forbidden.
1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can
turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______.
2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will
survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.
3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time
to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospitals waiting room. If the surgeon
takes this persons organs, he will die but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy persons organs is _______.
If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1500 subjects around the
world who responded to these dilemmas on our web-based moral sense test [http://moral.wjh.edu]. On the view that morality is
Gods word, atheists should judge these cases differently from people with religious background and beliefs, and when asked to
justify their responses, should bring forward different explanations. For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they
should go with pure self-interest, and walk by the drowning baby. Results show something completely different. There were no
statistically significant differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90% of subjects
saying that it is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97% saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97% saying
that is forbidden to remove the healthy mans organs. . When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others
forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that can not account for the differences in play.
Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists.
These studies begin to provide empirical support for the idea that like other psychological faculties of the mind, including
language and mathematics, we are endowed with a moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments of right and wrong,
interacting in interesting ways with the local culture. These intuitions reflect the outcome of millions of years in which our
ancestors have lived as social mammals, and are part of our common inheritance, as much as our opposable thumbs are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Research in Neuroscience has proceeded so far as to call into discussion how humans are responsible for their actions and the degree to
which all ethical thinking or morality is merely post facto rationalizations for the near automatic responses made to situations by the
brain. READ: The Brain on the Stand by Jeffrey Rosen on recent scientific work and its implications.
Morality may be rooted deep in the evolved workings of human brains with its mirror neurons and the operation of the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex.READ: Morality and Brain Injury by Benedict Carey. However, if you reflect a moment on the
question of how people become moral (GENES for brain structures and functioning) and how they then acquire the exact moral
precepts or rules (MEMES-moral codes and ethical principles) by which they live you will probably realize that a number of
factors come into play in the development of personal morality. Indeed you will probably think that people become moral or
learn about morality due to their involvement with:

Parents

Siblings

Friends

School

Religion

Media- television, films, videos, music, music videos

Advertising
7. The theory is faulted and disproven and can not serve as an ethical theory to be used to resolve moral conflicts. There is nothing that can be universalized
according to this theory.
We do and should judge other individuals and societies with reason and with sympathy and understanding. But what is the basis for such judgment? What theory
of morality do we use when we do this? What are our ethical principles? More on this in the succeeding sections. .
We do and should judge other individuals and societies with reason and with sympathy and understanding. But what is the basis for such
judgment? What theory of morality do we use when we do this? What are our ethical principles? More on this in the succeeding sections.
====================================
If Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed and cannot provide for a basis for moral society for humans on planet earth, then what is to provide that
basis?
What would provide a basis for universal moral codes?
=======================================================
On Morality by Lowell Kleiman
If by "morality" we mean a code of conduct that is universally valid, then the basic issue in the study of ethics is, is there a universally valid
code of conduct? Are there rules of behavior that prescribe how a person should conduct him or herself in all places and all times? For example,
when anybody adds 2 + 2 the result should be 4. If any other answer is obtained, the person made a mistake. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, or 3 or
anything other than 4. To say otherwise reveals an ignorance of addition, not an alternative but equally valid code of mathematics.
The rules of mathematics are universally valid. The same rule, for example, 12 + 19 = 31, tells us how to add, whether we are living on
Long Island or Timbuktoo, in the late 20th century or the 4th century B. C. An Izbekustany peasant who counts 12 goats on this side of the pasture
and 19 goats on that side of the pasture, concluding that there are 32 goats in the pasture, makes the same mathematical error as an instructor at

in any college in the USA or in Japan who counts 12 students on this side of the room, 19 students on that side of the room, concluding that there
are 32 students in the room. That the peasant and instructor live several thousand miles apart, are brought up in different cultures, are of different
ethnic backgrounds, subscribe to different religious and political traditions, is irrelevant in determining the rights and wrongs of their behavior. The
only relevant considerations are whether they are using the correct rule and whether they are applying that rule in the correct way. For example, if
either instructor or peasant thinks that 12 + 19 = 32, then one of them does not know arithmetic, and the other does not know how to count.
The same is true of morality. Just as any proposed rule of addition that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of mathematics, so any
proposed rule of conduct that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of morality. For example, cultures that have practiced incest, ritual human
sacrifice, matricide, patricide, slavery or female sexual mutilation are immoral since their creeds are not universally valid. Clearly, mutilation, slavery
or any of these other modes of conduct are not valid in the USA or Canada or Japan or Peru or Iceland or Turkey or Nicaragua or Mexico, or any
part of any country or state that comprises the civilized world. Just as 2 + 2 does not = 5, so sexual mutilation does not = morality.
It may be objected that the argument above makes those of us who agree with it followers and proponents of Western Civilization, arbiters
of right and wrong. We are imposing our values on the rest of the world, or at least on those few countries, such as Libya and the Sudan where
slavery and mutilation are practiced. We are judging people by standards that are not their own; we are committing the "ethnocentric fallacy."
Perhaps we are. Perhaps we have no right to condemn killing, maiming, brutalizing and destroying when other people do these things.
Perhaps our beliefs about right and wrong are limited, provincial, naive, uninformed. Maybe slavery for others is not so bad after all; perhaps child
abuse for other people's children should be encouraged; murder in other societies condoned, rape in foreign countries commended. Perhaps we
must rethink our beliefs about right and wrong. Maybe we don't know the difference.
But if we don't know what we think we know, how can we be certain, how can anyone be sure, that aside from mathematics, there is no
universally valid code of conduct? If we don't know that incest was wrong among the ancients, then we don't know that it is wrong today. Aside
from the fact that the Egyptians who practiced incest lived many years ago, the act itself has not changed since then. Nor has rape, enslavement,
mutilation or murder. If we cannot condemn the acts of others, then neither can we condemn the same acts when performed by those among us.
And if we cannot condemn our own rapists and murderers, then rape and murder, and all the rest, are not just to be condoned for others, but
condoned for everyone. So there is a universally valid code of conduct, although it seems very different from what we naively take it to be. The
question is, which code is correct, the one that condemns ritual mutilation, or the one that condones it? To answer that question we must turn away
from the theories of normative ethics.
There are several manifestations of Normative Ethical Relativism as part of the legacy of Post Modernism in Existentialism, Pragmatism, and some
forms of Feminism .These will be examined in a later chapters.
Chapter Four : Ethical Theories
Section 1. The Problem with Ethics
If Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed and cannot provide for a basis for moral society for humans on planet
earth, then what is to provide that basis? What would provide a basis for universal moral codes ? If the theory
of Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed then what is the alternative. Can there be an ethics? Can there be a
basis for moral rule making? Since Socrates in the West and Confucius in the East, philosophers have sought that basis in
REASON. All humans have reason and if through the use of reason certain principles of ethics, the principle of the GOOD, can
be discerned or discovered, then all humans would have contact with the basis for the moral life that all cultures and societies
need. Plato believed he had found those principles. After him several others in the West have reached similar
conclusions concerning the existence of principles that might have universal application. Unfortunately, they
have not all agreed as to what those principles are.
There are some fundamental distinctions to be made in the approaches taken to thinking about the
GOOD. What makes something, an action, GOOD? Is it something in the act or in the intention behind the
act? Is it the result of the act or what is in the act itself?
The task of philosophers, indeed the task for all humans who wish to live together on planet earth with as little discord as
possible and with a sense of the value of life and the possibility of living a good life and a life marked by virtue is to find a set of
principles and a theory of the good that has the fewest problems with it that it can gain acceptance by rational humans around
the planet regardless of their ethnic and religious backgrounds.
So now we turn to what philosophers have been considering in pursuing that task.
Section 2. Intentions or Consequences
Consider:
There is a terrorist with a gun pointed at a group of innocent hostages being held by the terrorists. There is the
declaration that he will kill them. Someone nearby has a gun and points it at the terrorist and shots. The
would-be hero misses the target and kills one of the innocent hostages. Now is the act of the would-be hero
good or bad. Is it the intention behind the act or the result of the act that makes it good or bad?
If something is good is it good because of what it is or because of what it results in?
This question sets out a basic question in ethical inquiry and concerning which there are two major braches or
schools of thought. There are a number of ethical theories that can be categorized according to how they
address this question.
Here is another view of the same issue.
Intrinsic vs. instrumental value
Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good ``in and of itself,'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring
something else.
Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else
of value.
Something could have both an intrinsic and instrumental value.
Love is generally considered an intrinsic value.
Wealth is generally an instrumental value because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value.
Health is both an intrinsic value and an instrumental value.
Happiness, the nature of moral judgments, and the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value
Happiness
Happiness is not an easy thing to figure out!
It seems pretty clear to most people that happiness is an entirely subjective category -- unable to be so defined as to cover all people. It it quite
common to believe that it is impossible to say that there is some one thing, or even a group of things that will bring happiness to everybody. To the
contrary -- it seems obvious to most people that what makes one person happy might make the next person miserable. If there is anything that
seems to vary from person to person, it seems to be this thing called happiness.
According to utilitarians, happiness can be best understood in terms of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham is credited with bringing this modern
form of "hedonism" to popularity during the early 1800's. It is sometimes referred to as "quantitative hedonism", because Bentham argued that the
best way of settling on the best action in any given situation is to figure out what action will bring about the most happiness -- or the most pleasure.
All pleasure is, according to Bentham, qualitatively the same. In other words, there are no pleasures that are intrinsically more morally important
than any others. And this means that we distinguish between pleasures in terms of their amount. And as it suggests in the text, the amount can be
determined by looking at those pleasures in a few different ways. We'll see this in a document below.

The Nature of Moral Judgments

It is important to note something here: Bentham defines moral obligations in terms of pleasurable and painful consequences. He would reject the
following evaluation of an action:
Well, it's morally wrong, but because it increases pleasure more than pain, we ought to do it.
This would make no sense to him, because morally right wrong refer only to the maximization of utility. At this point, he's doing metaethics.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental goods
Utilitarians claim that there is one and only one thing that has intrinsic value or worth -- happiness (pleasure). All other things are good to the degree
that they contribute to this end. For example, going to the dentist is good only because it contributes, long term, to the health of my teeth, and
reduces, again long term, the pain that I will experience. "Intrinsic" value means that something has value in itself, or that we want it for its own sake
-- not because it can bring us something else. Bentham and Mill agree with ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, that happiness is that which has
intrinsic worth. The utilitarians also believe that nothing else has intrinsic worth.
So no we apply these last distinctions to the prior question of how do we determine what is the good or good about any action and we have the two
major groupings of ethical theories: consequential and instrumental and the non-consequential and intrinsic.
Section 3. Consequential or Non-Consequential
Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics
There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the source of value: consequentialist and nonconsequentialist.
A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that
action has. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism--``that action is best that produces the greatest good for
the greatest number'' (Jeremy Bentham).
A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on
properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences.
Libertarianism--People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.
Contractarianism--No policy that causes uncompensated harm on anyone is permitted (Pareto safety).
Consider these Definitions:
Teleology, Consequentialism, and Utility
Teleology
Telos is a Greek word for "end", or goal. Not end as in the "end of the road", but as in "the end which we seek." Teleological ethical theories are
theories which describe our responsibilities and obligations in terms of our attainment of certain goals, or ends. In other words, if you want to find
out what you ought to do, it is essential to understand what the ultimate goal of ethics is.
One religious, teleological theory suggests that the final goal of humanity is to love God, and to live a life of service to others. A different take on the
nature of our moral "end" is that the fundamental goal of human behavior is to be happy -- the task then, of course, is to spell out exactly what
human happiness consists in.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is a type of teleological theory -- consequentialist theories suggest that the moral value, the moral rightness or wrongness of an
act, is entirely a function of the consequences, or the results of that act. Like above, what sorts of consequences are morally good and what sorts
are morally bad need to be spelled out.
Both teleological and consequentialist theories are types of theories. They are not themselves theories for one very important reason -- they don't
specify what goals or consequences ought to guide moral judgments and actions. In other words, they are simply a couple of ways of categorizing
ethical theories.
Utility
In Chapter Six, we examine utilitarianism. This theory is both teleological and consequentialist. It is teleological in as much as it says that moral
experience is first and foremost about attaining a certain goal -- in this case, human utility (read: happiness). It is consequentialist in as much as it
says that the way to evaluate moral decisions and actions is to assess the consequences of (prospective) actions. If the consequences are good,
then the action is right (either morally permissible or obligatory). If the consequences are bad, then the action is wrong (impermissible).
In short, then, Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, which is a type of teleological theory.
READ:
Teleological Theories: Consequentialist Approach
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bfvaughan/text/lex/defs/consequentialism.html
Deontological Theories: Non-Consequentialist
Approachhttp://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bfvaughan/text/lex/defs/deontological.html
Philosophical Theories Based Upon
Principles and Utilizing Reason
Teleological Theories
Deontological Theories
Consequential
Non-Consequential
Egoism
Act Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Situation Ethics

Chapter Five: Teleological Theories Egoism

Kantian- Categorical Imperative

Rawl's Theory of Justice
Divine Command Theory
Natural Law Theory
A theistic
B. non- theistic
Post Modernism-Relativism
Existentialism
Pragmatism
Feminism

Section 1. What is it?

It ought to be made clear that "egoism" refers to two different types of theories. One theory is a psychological theory, and the other is an ethical
theory. These are not the same, and ought not be confused with each other.
What is a psychological theory?
This is not that easy to answer, because there is no single definition that adequately captures everything that different ethical theories do. But there
are a family of related things that psychological theories do.

They explain human behavior and human experience by offering explanations about motivation and cognition (the way we think and
process information).

They describe and explain patterns of emotional and cognitive development, from childhood to adulthood.

They describe and explain the construction of personal identity, by appealing to features of the social environment: family dynamics,
social structures, pressures and expectations, etc.

They articulate standards of emotional and behavioral normalcy and health. The DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders), lists a bunch of ways of measuring psychological health.

Mood disorders:
depression (both long term and short term, both
with mania and without mania); bi-polar disorder
Cognitive disorders:

delirium, dementia; multi-infarc dementia;

aphasia; agnosia

Anxiety related disorders:

adjustment disorder, obsessive-compulsive

disorder; panic disorder; post-traumatic stress
disorder; phobias

Substance disorders:

alcohol, various other drugs and substances.

Personality disorders:

histrionic, dependent personality disorder;

paranoia; schizoid personality disorder;
schizotypal disorder

They (sometimes) attempt to connect behavioral, emotional, and cognitive responses to physiological substrates. That is, some
psychologists focus on the neurological basis of disorders as well as normal psychological functioning.
Psychological egoism is a theory which is presumed (by its advocates) to be a scientific theory. It is not a theory about what people ought to do, or
about what we should do. It is not about values, or about obligations. It does not say that selfishness is good, or bad, or a virtue, or a vice. It does
not condemn it, nor does it praise it. Psychological egoists simply state how, in their opinion, all humans actually behave.
Ethical egoism is entirely different on the above issues. It does not remain neutral on the issue of self-interest. It suggests that human
behavior ought to be motivated in a particular way. Ethical egoists do not pretend to be speaking as scientists -- they are recommending a certain
type of response.
From the perspective of the psychological egoist, all people do act in a certain way -- selfishly; from the perspective of the ethical egoist, all
people should act in a certain way -- out of self-interest.
Section 2. Psychological egoism
What sort of a psychological theory is egoism?
First, psychological egoism is a theory about the nature of human motives.
Psychological egoism suggests that all behaviors are motivated by self-interest. In other words, it suggests that every action or behavior or decision
of every person is motivated by self interest. It also suggests that every action must be motivated by self interest. The doctrine of selfish motivation
is simply a natural law of psychology. Just as it is a natural law of physics that bodies tend to move toward one another in proportion to their masses
and at velocities inversely proportionate to their distances from one another, it is a natural law that all motivations are, ultimately, selfish.
Because psychological egoism states that every act of every person is motivated by self-interest, it is universal.
Because psychological egoism states that all motivations are, in the final analysis, selfish, it is reductive. That is, it reduces what seems to be a
plurality or a multiplicity of motives to a single kind.
In consequence, all motives are selfish motives. As MacKinnon states on p. 36: "If [people] sometimes act for others, it is only because they think
that it is in their own best interests to do so."
Objections to psychological egoism
Falsificationism
It is common, among psychologists, to think that psychology is a science. Even the word indicates this -- geology, physiology, endocrinology,
biology, meteorology, etc. Now what are the important features of a science? It's very common to think that provability, or appeal to facts are the
key. But this is very difficult stuff. The concept of provability is very slippery when you get into it in any detail, and most scientists have given up on
the notion that scientific theories can be proven to be true. Similarly, the notion of a "fact" is deeply problematic.*
One thing that philosophers of science, and many scientists themselves agree upon, is that if a theory is a genuine scientific theory, then even if it
cannot be proven (demonstrated without doubt to be true), then at least this must be so: the theory must be able to be falsified. In other words, we
must be able to set up some experiments by which to say, "well, if the theory "A" is true, then it is impossible for "Y" to occur." So, we experiment to
see if "Y" occurs when "A" says it cannot occur. And if it occurs, then "A" cannot be true, and we need to come up with a better theory. There must
be some type of evidence or argument that could count against it.
Now, if it is impossible for a theory to be refuted, if there is nothing that could count against it, then most scientists will not even bother to entertain it.
But for every act in which we are thinking about the good of another person, the psychological egoist can always reply that we act not, ultimately
because of the good of that other person, but because we get satisfaction out of it. It seems, in other words, that nothing could count against it, and
that it is therefore unrefutable (or irrefutable). Far from being a good thing, this is a bad thing. It is good for a theory to be strong, to be able to
withstand criticism -- but it is not a good thing if nothing can possibly count against it.
Every action is always motivated by self-interest -- that is the theory of the psychological egoist. And for every act that you throw their way, they can
always simply say, "yes, but since all motivations are simply forms of self-interest, the motive behind that act is also self-interest." This is circular
reasoning, or begging the question, and has no place in scientific theorizing. It is, in principle, non-falsifiable.
Being thankful and grateful
Although it seems easy for the psychological egoist to interpret all actions as motivated by self-interest, there are a couple of feelings that seem to
resist their interpretation.
When somebody does something for you that is unexpected, you feel a sense of gratefulness. Let's say a friend goes out of their way -- and gives
up something they wanted -- to help you. Generally, you feel thankful or grateful. Well, if you discovered later on that they got something out of it -- if
you discovered that their own interest was better served by doing you this "favor", then wouldn't you re-evaluate your feeling of gratefulness?
Wouldn't you feel less grateful, and a bit more suspicious of their motives? If everyone always acted out of self-interest, then what place would
feelings of gratefulness, thankfulness have?
One might say, "well, I'm still thankful, because my situation has improved." Sure -- but then you are not grateful to them. You may feel lucky that
their interest and your interest coincided, but that's not exactly the same as feeling grateful to them.
In summary, it seems as though the feelings we have of gratefulness and thankfulness -- directed toward people -- simply wouldn't make much
sense if every action of altruism were nothing more than a concealed action of self-interest.
The meaning of selfishness
James Rachels suggest that psychological egoists make a silly mistake, and that if one believes that people are genuinely altruistic, then you have
nothing to fear from the egoist. Rachels points out that it is precisely what we mean by unselfishness that we take joy out of doing something to help
others.
Why should we think that merely because someone derives satisfaction from helping others this makes him selfish? Isn't the unselfish man
precisely the one who does derive satisfaction from helping others, while the selfish man does not? If Lincoln "got peace of mind" from rescuing the
piglets,, does this how him to be selfish, or, on the contrary, doesn't it show him to be compassionate and good-hearted? (If a man were truly selfish,
why should it bother his conscience that others suffer -- much less pigs?) Similarly, it is nothing more than shabby sophistry to say, because Smith

takes satisfaction in helping his friend, that he is behaving selfishly..." [from "Egoism and Moral Skepticism",A New Introduction to Philosophy, ed.
Steven Cahn, New York: Harper and Row, 1971]
* Fact has an epistemological component (a claim about what I can know) and a metaphysical component (claim about what actually exists).
Sometimes fact is used to refer to actual existence -- the fact that the moon circles the earth (metaphysical claim), and sometimes it is used to refer
to publicly verifiable, shared experience (epistemological claim). According to the first way of using the term fact, IF it is true that God exists, then
the existence of God is a fact, whether or not we can actually know that God exists. According to the second way of using the term fact, If all
publicly available data points in the wrong direction of a theory (say, that the earth is flat), then facts change when new types of previously
unavailable evidence comes about.
Section 3. Ethical Egoism
I cannot help but conclude that Mother Teresa
would have done much more good for the poor
had she become something useful,
like a prostitute or a drug dealer, or better still,
a banker or the head of a multi-national corporation.
--Robert White, in The Diabolical Works of Mother Teresa
Ethical egoism is a normative theory. As previously indicated, it recommends, favors, praises a certain type of action or motivation, and decries
another type of motivation. It has two versions: individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. In the first version one ought to look out for
one's own interests. I ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this also contributes to my own interests. In the second version,
everybody ought to act in their own best interest, and they ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this also contributes to their
own interests.
Should's and shouldn'ts
Every ethical theory recommends certain actions, and prohibits others. In this case, ethical egoism recommends looking out for one's own (longterm) self-interest. It also says that we are morally obligated to avoid being concerned for others if by doing so it does not further out own interests.
Take any ethical situation you can think of -- any moral dilemma. View it from the perspective of the ethical egoist -- how different does it look than
from the perspective of ordinary ethical principles?
Think of the standard ethical principles -- truth-telling, generosity, non-maleficence (this means: do no harm), do not insult, fulfill your promises, etc.
From earlier documents, we know that ethical theories ground, or explain, or provide a theoretical explanation for principles. One very important
question we will continue to ask throughout this semester is: do the theories we are looking at do a good job of accounting for these principles?
Take "truth telling" as an example. The principle suggests that we should tell the truth, that we ought not deceive others. Ethical egoism explains
why this principle holds -- it explains the ground of our obligation. It explains the true meaning (I don't like that phrase, but I'll use it here for the
moment) of the principle. It suggests, ultimately, that the reason why we ought not lie is because if we do lie, that has a high probability of negatively
impacting my personal happiness. From the perspective of ethical egoism, that and that alone is the ground for the principle of "truth telling."
Is this satisfying? Does this match up with your own sense of the reason for telling the truth to people? Is this the only moral reason why you ought
to tell your friends the truth? Or are their other reasons, too? Are there perhaps better reasons why one ought to follow the principle of truth-telling?
Required Internet Readings

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a discussion of egoism.

The second is an article that argues that the Nike sweatshops in third world nations do far more good than Mother Theresa.
In this approach to ethics it is the consequence of the act that is the basis for determining its worth. One of the most basic of consequences is the
impact on people and one of the most basic of all values for determining whether something is good or not is the pleasure that it brings to
someone. Some think that emotional and physical PLEASURE is the ONLY basis for determining what is GOOD
Theories of the GOOD based on pleasure are termed HEDONISM
There are two popular theories of the GOOD based on pleasure. One is based on pleasure to one self. EGOISM
The other is based on the pleasure that results for all humans in the world. UTILITARIANISM.
A famous Egoist was Thomas Hobbes
ETHICAL EGOISM
An action is morally right if and only if it is to the advantage of the person doing it.
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL EGOISM
1. An altruistic moral theory that demands total self-sacrifice is degrading to the moral agent.
Objection: This is a false dilemma: there are many non-egoistic moral theories that do not demand total self-sacrifice.
2. Everyone is better off if each pursues his or her self-interest.
Objection: (a) This probably is not true in practice; and (b) True egoism isn't concerned with what will make everyone better off.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST ETHICAL EGOISM
1.
Provides no moral basis for solving conflicts between people.
2.
Obligates each person to prevent others from doing the right thing if it is not in accord with the subject's thinking..
3.
Has the same logical basis as racism.
4.
The egoist cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoist's interest.
5.
No one person can expect the entire worlds population to act in such a way as to produce the most benefit (pleasure) for that one person.
Section 4. Social Policy
What are the social consequences of ethical egoism? (We're no longer directly interested in psychological egoism.) What would the world look like if
we were all Ethical Egoists? What social and political policies be in an Ethical Egoist world? What forms of government? What economic systems?
What sorts of laws, and court systems? How would all these things compare to a Judeo-Christian culture?
Government: would we have democracy?
Would there be any social programs like welfare? Social security? Affirmative action? Would we regulate energy, or the distribution of healthcare?
Would health care be free? What about public schooling -- would grammar school be free, but high school not? What about college?
Economics: would there be laissez-faire capitalism?
So although we all know people who attempt to live their lives as egoists, they are not generally well liked. Being so totally focused on the self is
not likely to make someone many friends. Egoists can buy friends but most people avoid egoists as they are thought to be untrustworthy.
Egoism is not the basis for the moral foundation needed for social life. There are other options.
Section 5. Egoist Heroes and Heroines : Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead, and the heroes of 9/11
Heroes of Individualism and Capitalism
Ayn Rand -- the most popular and philosophically important egoist this century -- often expresses the egoist conception of morality in terms of
"heroism". But her conception of heroism is a decidedly "bourgeois"* one. The hero possesses virtues -- but the one virtue s/he possesses that is
most important is the virtue of selfishness.
Does this sound like a legitimate virtue? It makes sense if one believes that one ought to do whatever makes one happy. In The Fountainhead,
Rand's first best-seller novel, the hero is named Howard Roark. He is portrayed as the embodiment of individual strength, and resolve, dedicated to
the perfection of his craft -- architecture. His work is his life. Not money. Not fame. Not the love of another. Not helping others. He is inspired by
doing creative work, and thereby becoming valuable. His value is not, however, in what he has to offer others -- that is an accidental good. His
essential good, as portrayed by the author, is that he is single mindedly devoted to excellence and achievement in architecture. He overcomes the
obstacles put in his way by those who would see him fail. He overcomes corporate demands for mediocrity and profit, and for designing to please
the masses.

Rourk would never sacrifice his work for the benefit of a group. He would not sacrifice his inspiration for the benefit of society, or for another person.
His life's work is his greatest responsibility, his greatest challenge, his greatest desire, and his greatest obligation.
Is Rourk a hero in your eyes? Is he not the American ideal? Does he not stand for the very principles which make this nation great?
Rand also is the trumpet for those who are driven to create for money, or rather, she is the harshest critic of those who would put social, political,
and legal limits on others who would be capitalists, entrepreneurs, for the good of "society." Freedom to pursue one's inspiration -- wherever that
leads -- is the only obligation that society has to it's members. Those independent and strong enough to survive in the midst of freedom are her
great heroes.
Non-capitalist Heroes
How does Rourk compare to other heroes who have most recently captured American interest recently -- the NYC firefighters and police who
perished in the collapsing Twin Towers on September 11? Are these people Randian heroes? Are they ideal bourgeois citizens? My question is: do
you consider them heroes for the same reason Rand would consider a hero a hero? If not, do you believe that the Randian hero is satisfying? Or
are there obligations that humans have which are not expressed -- and even dismissed -- by Rand's hero?
Chapter 6. Teleological Theories : Utilitarianism
Section 1. What it is
The Basic Idea
To overcome the obvious defects of using Egoism as a moral guide Utilitarianism approaches the question of the GOOD from an opposing point of view. Instead
of that being the GOOD which serves one's own interest and provides for one's own pleasure, the utilitarians take that which produces the greatest amount of
pleasure (Physical and emotional) for the greatest number of people to be the GOOD. This is the principle of UTILITY.
The theory developed from an attempt to direct the lawmakers of England to consider the common good rather than the welfare of their social class when they
made laws. The GOOD is that which provides for the happiness of the greatest number of people even if it results in no happiness to the agent at all. In this
approach each human being has exactly the same worth as all other human beings. In this view the benefit of the action must be maximized:
When confronted by some situation and facing a choice or dilemma and when considering what would be the correct thing to do, what would be right, what would
be good, the utilitarian would :
1. consider the options available, however many there are.
2. calculate how much happiness would be produced were each of the options to be acted upon
3. determine which option produces the greatest resulting happiness
4. choose that option which does produce the greatest amount of happiness for he greatest number of people, the greatest utility.
Note: it is not a matter of making the majority (>50%) happy but the greatest possible number of people. So if there are three options, (a),(b),and (c) and (a)
makes 87% happy, (b) makes 76% happy and (c) makes 89% happy the utilitarian must choose to do (c). Choice (c) is the GOOD the others (a) and (b) are not
good.
READ: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/g.mccaughan/g/essays/utility.html
ACT and RULE Utilitarianism
There is a difference between rule and act utilitarianism. The act utilitarian considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the rule utilitarian
considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct . Why the two approaches? Consider the following case:
Someone goes to the doctor. The person is ill, experiences pain and dysfunction. The doctor performs a series of test and examinations. The person returns to the
doctor's office to learn of the results, the diagnosis and prognosis. The doctor is aware that the tests all show that the person has a disease that is incurable and life
threatening. In fact even under the most aggressive treatment option there is a survival rate of less than 15% for two years. The doctor is considering what would
be GOOD to tell the person. Should the person know the truth or should the person be told something other than the truth? Which is better? Which is the right
thing to do? What would be GOOD to do? The act utilitarian might calculate that in telling the truth there will be a great deal of pain and hardly any pleasure at
all The person will be upset, their family will be upset, the doctor will be upset in informing the ill person that there is nothing that the doctor can do to alter their
condition. The doctor's staff will be upset seeing the person come in for whatever treatment there may be. On the other hand if the doctor makes up a story
concerning the diagnosis and prognosis that is not true but that gives the ill person more time to enjoy life before the illness makes it obvious that the end is near,
well then the results are different. The doctor is not so upset in seeing the person, the doctor's staff is not upset . The family and friends of the person have some
more time with that person to enjoy things instead of being morose and depressed. So the ACT utilitarian might calculate that the GOOD is to lie.
The rule utilitarian would need to consider what would the long term consequences be if doctors were to lie to those who come to them and have life threatening,
incurable illnesses. The rule utilitarian might calculate that people would no longer be able to trust their doctors and this would break down the confidence they
need for their therapies to be effective. The RULE utilitarian might calculate that there is far more harm in lying and so the GOOD is to tell the truth.
The same result might obtain were there to be a consideration of cheating on an examination. The single act might produce a great deal of happiness for the
cheater, teacher, family and friends. The rule of cheating might produce quite the opposite result as society could no longer trust that the doctors, lawyers,
engineers, repair people etc.. really know what they are doing and deserve their position.
Section 2. The Principle
The Utilitarian Principle
We all know, by now, the difference between an ethical theory, and an ethical principle, right??
The theory defines the basic ethical terms, and provides the most general ways of interpreting ethical experience, obligations, the role of reason,
etc. Principles are general rules of conduct that emerge or derive from an ethical theory. Well, you've been reading about Utilitarianism as an ethical
theory, and we can state quite clearly what principle of behavior it requires:
Always act in such a way as to maximize the pleasure of the maximum number of those who can feel pleasure; always act in such a way as to
minimize the pain of the maximum number of those who can feel pain.
The Basic Idea
To overcome the obvious defects of using Egoism as a moral guide Utilitarianism approaches the question of the GOOD from an opposing point of
view. Instead of that being the GOOD which serves one's own interest and provides for one's own pleasure, the utilitarians take that which
produces the greatest amount of pleasure (Hedonism) (Physical and emotional) for the greatest number of people to be the GOOD. This is the
principle of UTILITY. Expand beyond the idea of pleasure to that of satisfying the interests of people and you have the more complete
development of the idea of what consequences of human action will determine the moral correctness of that act.
The theory developed from an attempt to direct the lawmakers of England to consider the common good rather than the welfare of their social class
when they made laws. The GOOD is that which provides for the happiness of the greatest number of people even if it results in no happiness to the
agent at all. In this approach each human being has exactly the same worth as all other human beings. In this view the benefit of the action must
be maximized:
When confronted by some situation and facing a choice or dilemma and when considering what would be the correct thing to do, what would be
right, what would be good, the utilitarian would :
1. consider the options available, however many there are.
2. calculate how much happiness would be produced were each of the options to be acted upon or how many interests of how many people would
be satisfied
3. determine which option produces the greatest resulting happiness or the greatest number of interests being satisfied for greatest number of
people
4. choose that option which does produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people or the greatest number of interests
being satisfied for greatest number of people, the greatest utility
Note: it is not a matter of making the majority (>50%) happy but the greatest possible number of people. So if there are three options, (a),(b), and
(c) and (a) makes 87% happy, (b) makes 76% happy and (c) makes 89% happy the utilitarian must choose to do (c). Choice (c) is the GOOD or the
morally correct choice while the others (a) and (b) are not good or would be morally incorrect choices.
READ: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/utility.html
ACT and RULE Utilitarianism

There is a difference between rule and act utilitarianism. The act utilitarian considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the
rule utilitarian considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct . Why the two approaches? Consider the following case:
Someone goes to the doctor. The person is ill, experiences pain and dysfunction. The doctor performs a series of test and examinations. The
person returns to the doctor's office to learn of the results, the diagnosis and prognosis. The doctor is aware that the tests all show that the person
has a disease that is incurable and life threatening. In fact even under the most aggressive treatment option there is a survival rate of less than
15% for two years. The doctor is considering what would be GOOD to tell the person. Should the person know the truth or should the person be
told something other than the truth? Which is better? Which is the right thing to do? What would be GOOD to do? The act utilitarian might
calculate that in telling the truth there will be a great deal of pain and hardly any pleasure at all The person will be upset, their family will be upset,
the doctor will be upset in informing the ill person that there is nothing that the doctor can do to alter their condition. The doctor's staff will be upset
seeing the person come in for whatever treatment there may be. On the other hand if the doctor makes up a story concerning the diagnosis and
prognosis that is not true but that gives the ill person more time to enjoy life before the illness makes it obvious that the end is near, well then the
results are different. The doctor is not so upset in seeing the person, the doctor's staff is not upset . The family and friends of the person have
some more time with that person to enjoy things instead of being morose and depressed. So the ACT utilitarian might calculate that the GOOD is to
lie.
The rule utilitarian would need to consider what would the long term consequences be if doctors were to lie to those who come to them and have
life threatening, incurable illnesses. The rule utilitarian might calculate that people would no longer be able to trust their doctors and this would
break down the confidence they need for their therapies to be effective. The RULE utilitarian might calculate that there is far more harm in lying and
so the GOOD is to tell the truth.
The same result might obtain were there to be a consideration of cheating on an examination. The single act might produce a great deal of
happiness for the cheater, teacher, family and friends. The rule of cheating might produce quite the opposite result as society could no longer trust
that the doctors, lawyers, engineers, repair people etc.. really know what they are doing and deserve their position.
Rule Utilitarianism (RU) has no rule other than UTILITY. Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or doesn't it produce HAPPINESS.
Utilitarians must maximize HAPPINESS. They must never accept unhappiness if they can minimize it .
Both ACT and RULE utilitarians must ASSUME NOTHING. They must actually poll or measure what act will produce the greatest utility.
The difference is that the ACT UTILITARIAN measures the consequences of a SINGLE ACT.
The RULE UTILITARIAN measures the consequences of the act repeated over and over again through time as if it were to be followed as a RULE
whenever similar circumstances arise.
NOTHING is right or wrong in itself for a utilitarian. NOTHING! It all depends on the consequences of the act, the results are what matters not the
act.
The idea behind Rule Utilitarianism is that whenever you are in a situation and have alternatives you calculate the utility to be produced by adopting
a course of action (rule) which would produce the greatest utility in the long run if it were followed every time that situation arose.
Let's consider the rule that states you must stop your vehicle at a red traffic light.
Situation: Pregnant woman in back seat. About to deliver. Water has broken. Contractions are 2 minutes apart. It is 4am. The vehicle is 2 miles from
the hospital. There are no other cars around. The RU would think if you were as a rule to break the law and go through that red light it would
produce more utility than not doing so and therefore would be the morally GOOD thing to do. So the RU RULE would be to go through red lights
whenever it is 4am and there is a pregnant woman in the back seat who is about to deliver and you are heading to the hospital.
Section 3. The Calculative Concept
A calculative conception of moral reason
Role and importance of reason in utilitarianism?
The task of reason is to CALCULATE the relative amount of pleasure and pain for the most number of people, presently and in the future, which
results from the prospective actions. The importance is that nothing else can serve as a guide to moral actions. Not feelings for feelings does not
provide such information. What is required to make a correct moral decision is analysis of the types of pleasures and pains, as well as the informed
prediction of the consequences of various actions. We've seen that, according to Bentham anyway, moral decision-making is nothing more than the
calculation of the consequences of prospective actions, and the analysis of the contribution toward happiness that such consequences have.
The elements to be measured are:
1. intensity
2. duration - if two pleasures are the same in intensity, but one lasts longer, then it's better
3. certainty - if when I am trying to figure out which of two actions I ought to follow, it is only possible that I get much pleasure as a
consequence of the first, but it is highly probable that I get pleasure from the second, then I ought to favor the second option.
4. propinquity - Bentham suggests that an action results in immediate pain is worse than an action whose pain is delayed.
5. fecundity - how likely is it that an action will have consequences which themselves will also have pleasurable consequences? An
education may not have immediately satisfying consequences, but it may allow for a lifetime of goods.
6. purity - simply put, an action A is more pure than action B if there are, say, 10 pleasures and no pains with action A, while there are 10
pleasures and 3 pains with action B. Action B has mixed results, and thus is less pure.
7. extent -- this refers to the number of people effected by the action. If an action effects 1,000 people, that has a greater "extent" than a
action which effects only 10 people.
Section 4. Objectivity in Calculations
Objectivity in ethics
Objectivity and subjectivity of utilitarian ethics
Utilitarianism suggests that ethics is subjective inasmuch as its foundation is human happiness and pleasure. This seems to be the heart of human
subjectivity, human consciousness, so in that way it ethics is, according to utilitarianism, very subjective.
But it is objective in two senses: first, it takes into consideration the real, empirical effects of one's actions. It asks such questions as:

What would be the effects of raising taxes of all tax payers by 2%?

What would the effect of police taking into custody and vigorously investigating all men that look of Arab ethnicity?

What would the effects be if I cheated on my math final exam?

And the answers to such questions have very definite, objective answers. Now we may not be able to know ahead of time what the answers are,
but we need to use all of our scientific and intellectual tools to make the best predictions that we can.
And we can do this. We do it all the time. It is precisely what we do when we take into consideration the effects or consequences that our actions
will have on other people. What becomes difficult is prediction of effects of actions that by nature effect lots and lots of people, in many different
areas. In other words -- social, political, and economic policies. At this point we need get help from economists, sociologists, politicians, physicians,
judges. etc.
And this is precisely the sort of debate and research that you see on C-Span!
Second, there does seem to be a degree of objectivity in pleasures we can tell what gives pleasure and pain by folks saying what gives them
pleasure and pain. It is pretty easy to figure out what brings pleasure to people -- you ask them! But there are other ways of knowing about what
brings people pleasure and pain. We can tell by watching people's behaviors. If a certain type of food is more popular in a restaurant, we can safely
say that that gives more people more pleasure than other items on the menu. This, again, is important information to have when setting public
policies, for enacting laws, for establishing taxes, for providing social benefits to different segments of the population, etc.
Section 5. Universal or Relative?
Universalism or relativism?
It might seem that, owing to the fact that pleasure and pain are subjective, utilitarianism is similar to subjective relativism.

Sure, it has a relativistic component to it, just as it has a subjective component to it. For example, what one group of people might find pleasurable
another group won't. British love their tea! Not everyone else does. What are the sources of enjoyment for urban New Yorkers? Are they the same
as Californians? I can attest to the fact that they are not.
When therefore, we are making a decision about an action, we need to consider what forms of suffering or pleasure will come to those it effects. As
was pointed out earlier, once we find out just how our actions will effect others, then our obligations will be perfectly clear. Our obligation is rooted
not in opinion, not in the fact that I happen to believe it's right -- it's not a function of a decision being "right for me." Instead, we have to do what is
best for the largest number of people, even if that negatively impacts us.
Let us distinguish between two forms of universalism:
1. All actions of type X are wrong for all people
2. All rational people ought to decide to do X, when they are under identical circumstances.
Utilitarianism is not universal in the first sense, but it is universal in the second sense.
Secondly, unlike relativism, one's obligation is not a function of what a culture happens to believe, but rather on what will objectively give pleasure
and pain to the largest number of people.
Section 6. Democratic Impartiality
A democratic ethical theory
Impartiality, Moral equality, and Democracy
According to utilitarianism, the only relevant thing to consider is pleasure and pain, right? Well, it doesn't matter whose pleasure and pain it is.
Utilitarian endorse the view that "all persons are moral equals and should be treated impartially. They treat persons impartially because identical
benefits count the same no matter who is the beneficiary: a benefit to a stranger counts as much as a benefit to a family member, or even to you.
This suggests that utilitarianism is NOT a theory of selfishness. It does NOT claim that every person ought to maximize their OWN happiness, or
maximize their OWN pleasure.
For this reason, utilitarianism is well suited for the establishment of public policy (see other sections in this chapter). In other words, it is precisely
what we elect our public officials to think through for us. We don't want them to be establishing policy so as to benefit themselves, right? In fact, one
of the greatest sources of disappointment and frustration we currently have in this country is that the political system is inundated with politicians
who are "in bed with" corporations who donate huge sums to their campaigns, in turn for political favors. The point here is that we are greatly
disappointed that our politicians aren't being utilitarian enough. They appear to many of us to be maximizing the utility not of the maximum number
of people, but of small groups of people -- what pundits and ideologues call "special interests."
Section 7. Insufficiencies: Problems
Bentham and Mill
Are all pleasures morally equivalent?
Jeremy Bentham established utilitarianism as a dominant ethical theory, and John Stuart Mill developed it during the middle and late 19th-century.
Though there are numerous ways in which Mill's version departs from Bentham's, there is one difference that is most important for you to keep in
mind.
Recall that for Bentham, all pleasures are of a single kind -- the only way in which one is more important than another is that it is either more
intense, longer, more immediate, etc. (review earlier document on the criteria by which to measure pleasure and pain).
According to Bentham, there is no pleasure that, morally speaking, is any better than another. Enjoying a Baskin and Robbins ice cream is no worse
or better than enjoying a Shakespearean sonnet. Buying a bunch of tickets for neighborhood kids go to a WWF smackdown is no worse or better
than bringing a priest to a hospital emergency room to bring relief to the dying.
Nor would there be any difference in the enjoyment of a meal than a pig's enjoyment of its meal. The enjoyment is the thing. To the degree that a
thing is pleasurable, to that degree it's good.
Mill, however, disagrees. Mill believes that there are some human faculties, some human powers and capacities that are somehow "higher", or
more noble, or dignified than others. He cannot accept the position that intellectual, rational pleasures are no better than the base pleasures we
share with other animals. Don't get me wrong -- he's NOT saying that the enjoyment of rational things is more intense, enduring, etc. than those
other things, for then he'd be no different than Bentham. He's saying that there is a difference in kind, not just a difference in degree, and that
however difficult it might be to articulate and conceptualize and express the difference between such pleasures and capacities, the difference
makes a moral difference.
The distinction Mill wants to make between different types of pleasures -- those which, in virtue of being more deeply human, are more noble -- puts
him in good company. This distinction is shared by many, many philosophers since the beginning of Western philosophical thought. This intuition is
held both by religiously minded thinkers, as well as secular thinkers -- the Stoics, for instance. For Plato, pleasure arising from living a virtuous life is
better than pleasure arising from a scurrilous life.
But this distinction provides some difficulties for Mill's own position -- it's a problem for any utilitarian. Why? What more is needed?
The Insufficiency of Utility
For Mill, as we've just seen, it is ultimately unsatisfying to think that all pleasures are, morally speaking, equal. He is persuaded that some pleasures
are better than others. This raises a difficult issue for any utilitarian:
By what criteria do you measure the relative goodness of different pleasures?
Do you see the problem? One virtue of utilitarianism is that it provides a criterion, a way of measuring the goodness and badness of actions.
Pleasure becomes the measure. Pleasure simply IS the way in which we can discern the difference between actions that are merely permissible
and actions that are obligatory, and actions that are forbidden. Pleasure becomes the final yardstick. It has the final say. It is that by which to
evaluate other things. But if Mill is right, then pleasure is no longer sufficient for this task; there has to be something else -- something by which to
evaluate the pleasures themselves. In other words, Mill's distinction between the elevated and the base pleasures requires us (or him) to figure out
some moral principle, or value that cannot be reduced to pleasure.
This criticism points to a particular weakness in utilitarianism. It doesn't kill it -- it doesn't necessarily mean that utility is morally irrelevant, or
unhelpful, or is entirely without merit. It does, however, point out that it may not be sufficient. It leads us (though Mill didn't see this clearly) to seek
some non-utilitarian property of pleasures by which to decide among the various pleasures that can accompany the enormous variety of human
pleasures.
PROBLEMS with the Theory:
1. It is difficult if not impossible to do the calculations required. How do you measure the happiness (pleasure) produced?
a. Not everyone will be able to measure their happiness.
b. One persons maximum happiness may not be the equal of another persons maximum.
c. Do the calculations range over 1 year, ten years, century, etc..? How long?
d. Do the calculations measure the happiness for a small group, entire country, the whole world?
e. Do they consider only humans or non-humans who are sentient beings (have awareness and feelings). Peter Singer is a world renown
philosopher and Utilitarian who includes all sentient beings. Non-Humans as well as humans can feel pleasure and pain and so to avoid speciesism
includes them in the calculations.
2. The theory can support opposing actions on different occasions as the correct or the good thing to do.
3. The theory cant really resolve conflicts in views, e.g.. Sometimes it supports lying, cheating, killing, stealing, etc... and sometimes not.
4. The theory can support doing horrible, heinous acts, as long as they produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people.
There is no act that is wrong in and of itself! Murder, lies, rape, child molestation, ..whatever can be the GOOD thing to do!
5. The theory treats all people as being equal. It does not take into consideration special relationships that exist between people, for example the
relationships of family members.

So what principles are to guide individual and collective action? What might fit the bill? What might provide this? What other moral concept can we
use that can help us to distinguish among the more or less valuable pleasures? We shall examine the theory of Immanuel Kant and some others as
well. Now after a few examples of utilitarian thinking we will examine approaches to determining right from wrong that does not consider the
consequences of the acts but the acts themselves and the intentions of the actors.
Section 8. Example: Christopher Reeve
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #020313 - 03/13/2002
Superman and Utilitarianism: Kindly Ignoring the Argument
In 1995, Christopher Reeve tragically injured his spinal cord in a riding accident. The actor, who once portrayed Superman, is a quadriplegic. His life is now
entirely dependent. Not only is Reeve unable to eat or wash or dress by himself, he can't even breathe by himself requiring technology and constant supervision to
stay alive.
Reeve wants to walk again. Stem cells torn from cloned embryonic humans, he believes, will heal his spine. And so Christopher Reeve has become a vocal
advocate of cloning and stem cell research.
On March 5, Reeve testified at the U.S. Senate. Echoing Jeremy Bentham, he made a thoroughly utilitarian argument in favor of cloning and embryonic stem cell
research. Reeve said, "Our government is supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number." This is, at best, a naive and, at worst, a dangerous argument
coming from a man in a wheelchair.
Jonathan Imbody, of the Christian Medical Association, pointed this out in a letter to the
WASHINGTON TIMES. Imbody wrote, "Sadly, Mr. Reeve did not seem to grasp the grim irony that severely disabled individuals like him would hardly fare well
in the utilitarian calculus of anticipated benefit for the most people. Spending limited healthcare resources on intensive and expensive therapies to benefit a few
would simply never pass the test. If public policy truly were reduced to 'the greatest good for the greatest number,' racism and exploitation would flourish,
eugenics would rule, and the fittest and favored would be released once and
for all from the burden of 'useless eaters.'"
Sound cold and calculating? It is! In utilitarianism cold calculations determine life and death. And if this were the utilitarian society Mr. Reeve advocates, he
wouldn't be here to make his arguments. He would have been taken off life support, and the millions spent to sustain him would have helped thousands of other
people with a better chance of being cured. And if money is to be used for the greatest number of people, medical help wouldn't go to people with spinal cord
injuries; it would go to the millions with cancer.
Thankfully we don't live in that kind of utilitarian society. We live in one that still retains the
dignity of life assured in the Christian worldview.
As Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops puts it, "Our government is not
supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Totalitarian governments are supposed to do that. Our government is supposed to protect the
vulnerable INDIVIDUAL from the rich and powerful who may find it expedient to forget his or her dignity."
So when your neighbors talk about all the emotional arguments by Reeve and others made for embryonic stem cell research, you can explain the irony -- that the
people making these arguments wouldn't be around to make them, if we embrace the worldview they advocate,
which cheapens human life. The funny thing about the secular worldview, as Mr. Reeve makes plain, is that the people advocating it can't live by it.
Chapter 7. Deontological Theories: Natural Law
Section 1. What is it?
Deontological Theories: The Non-Consequentialist Approach
In Normative Ethics the Deontological theories are those that maintain that ethical evaluations are rooted somehow in the action or some feature of the action
which would result in a duty or obligation. In this approach the consequences of the action is not generally considered to be morally relevant. Thus deontological
theories often are based on or generate a set of duties. Deon is from the Greek and means a duty or obligation.
What is the source of such duty? The various theories answer that question differently. It could be a deity, natural law, reason, a sense of justice or one sense of
self.
Section 2. Major Types
Here is a listing of the major types of theories of the good which generate or support a theory of duty.
Deontological Theories
Non-Consequential

Divine Command Theory

Natural Law Theory
A. theistic
B. non- theistic
Kantian- Categorical Imperative
Rawl's Theory of Justice

Section 3. Divine Command Theory

There are ethical theories that make reference to or depend upon the existence of a deity. Two are presented here in this
section. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. The first is Divine Command theory that is not used anywhere in the world by the major
organized religions. It is mistaken for the foundation of the moral theory of Judaism and Christianity and Islam but it is not so.
The Divine Command theory has too many problems with it to be used by large organized religions. It is used by small cults and
by those who are uneducated about what their own religion holds.
I. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY and Criticisms of it
The first is one that equates the GOOD with whatever the god or deity commands.
Socrates (469-399 BCE)was one of the first to question this theory. He asked whether we call the GOOD good because the gods have done it or whether they
have done it because it is GOOD. His question implies the possibility of the existence of a standard for the GOOD separate from the divine.
Religions often base their notion of morality on the character of their God claiming that (1) What is 'good' is good because God commands it and (2) people
cannot live moral lives unless they follow God's moral teachings. In Christianity (2) is often believed to be impossible until a person has had their sin dealt with by
God. Only then will they be in a position to want to do what God wills and be able to do it ('The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor
can it do so' (Romans 8:7)). However, this raises questions concerning the relationship between morality and God. If what is 'good' is good only because God wills
it is it not possible that one day God might say that what was previously known as 'bad' is now 'good'? Some might say that this would not happen because we
would know God was making something 'bad' good but this means we have an independent criteria by which we can assess God's morality. If this is the case then
we know what is right and wrong without God's intervention - so why bother with God (for more on this see The Euthyphro Dilemma)?- - - Stephen Richards
Many people claim that morality is impossible without the belief in a supernatural entity (god),, from which our sense of right and wrong ultimately
derives. And yet, Plato put a huge hole in this argument, back in the 4th century BCE. Think about this excerpt from Platos Euthyphro (Socrates is
speaking):
"Consider this: is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (Euthyphro, 10a)"
Euthyphros dilemma, as it has come to be known, is this:
Horn 1 - If the good is such because God says it is, then morality is arbitrary (e.g., God condoning all sorts of immoral acts in the Old Testament,
including: Genesis 34:13-29, Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Leviticus 26:29, Numbers 16:27-33, 21:3, 21:35, 31:17-18,Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, Joshua
6:21-27, Judges 3:29, etc., etc.).
Horn 2 - If the good is absolute, and God cannot do evil, then we dont need the middle Man to figure out what is good and what is not (e.g.,
we know that killing innocent children and women, ethnic cleansing, etc. are wrong, period).

Notice that this is not an argument against the existence of God, only about gods irrelevance to morality. Yet, if one cannot avoid either horn of the
dilemma, it is difficult to see what the point of religion ultimately is... by Massimo Pigliucci, at www.rationallyspeaking.org
In DIVINE COMMAND THEORY the GOOD is whatever the "god" commands. This means whatever and whenever and wherever. How does anyone know
what GOD COMMANDS? God tells them.
How? Directly or indirectly through some intermediary like a person or a written work.
Can the deity continue to issue commands after previous recordings?
Yes, the deity can update and change commands as the deity wishes.
There are many problems with this theory.
The religions of the West have rejected DIVINE COMMAND THEORY and instead hold for Natural Law Theory.
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY does not rest on scriptures. DIVINE COMMAND is DIVINE COMMAND.
People claim that GOD has COMMANDED them to do X
Therefore doing X is a morally good act.
X can be ANY ACT AT ALL.
ANY ACT AT ALL can be good if GOD COMMANDS it!!!
In DIVINE COMMAND THEORY there is NO GOOD or BAD by itself at all. There is only what GOD COMMANDS
GOD COMMANDS= GOOD
GOD FORBIDS= BAD
GOD GIVES NEW COMMAND
NEW COMMAND= GOOD
No one who accepts DIVINE COMMAND THEORY can question the commands of the deity or make a statement such as "I do not believe God would command
the things you stated here at all." because a person who accepts the DIVINE COMMAND THEORY accepts NO ACT as being GOOD or BAD except according
to what the deity commands.
According to DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

rape can be good

child molesting can be good

lies can be good

theft can be good

slaughter of thousands of innocent people can be good

All that matters is that the "god" commands it.
Scriptures can record what some people at some time thought god commanded them to do. Some people can follow what is written in those scriptures. That is not
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY. Why not? Because for those who believe in a deity or a god then GOD lives forever. GOD is alive. GOD keeps issuing
COMMANDS.
People hear the DIVINE COMMAND in 1205 1and 1776 and 1848 and on May 10, 2003 and on December 23, 2005 and so on and they follow it thinking the
command makes the act that is commanded the morally correct thing to do.
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY has so many problems that there are very few people on earth that use it and they tend to be fanatics, and mentally unstable
people. No organized religion actually supports DIVINE COMMAND THEORY because of all the problems with it and the threat it poses to organized religions.
Judaism and Christianity and Islam support NATURAL LAW THEORY and not DIVINE COMMAND.
Problems:
1. Is there a god or any deity?
2. Who knows what the commands of the deity are? Can anyone claim to have heard the command and respond to it?
3. The commands may need to be interpreted, but by whom?
4. If there are a few who claim to be designated by the deity or who are designated by some group to be the official recipients of the divine commands are humans
prepared to follow the commands of these designated recipients as if they were the commands of the deity?
5. If the deity commands or the designated recipients of the deity's commands do command that every human sacrifice the second born child on its third birthday
on an altar would that make human sacrifice a morally GOOD act?
See below for examples of persons who claim to have heard a deity or devil issue a command: GOD MADE ME DO IT
So there are several and severe problems with the Divine Command Theory. They account for the reasons why no major organized religion would use this theory
as the basis for morality.
Familiarize yourself with:

the basic criticism

Quinn's Defense for theists

Nielsen's criticisms
READ: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/divineco.htm
CHRISTIAN DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
For Christians the major ethicians were Augustine and Aquinas. For Augustine the end of human life is happiness. True happiness is achieved through the love of
God. One has a duty to love one's self and others for the love of God. For the Love of God one has a duty to obey the will of God.
For Aquinas human striving is for happiness and the good and that the ultimate good is God.
READ: http://members.aol.com/chinwuba78/christ.htm
Here is a simple version of the arguments and a counter argument based on the absurdity of accepting whatever a deity would command as being good just because
it was so commanded:
Argument for the Divine Command theory 1. God created the universe and everything in it, including human
beings.
2. If God created human beings, then God has an absolute claim on our
obedience.
3. If God has an absolute claim on our obedience, then we should
always obey God's commands.
4. Therefore, the Divine Command theory is true.
Argument against the Divine Command theory 1. If the Divine Command theory is true, then we should always obey
God's commands, no matter what they are.
2. If we should always obey God's commands, no matter what they
are, then we should do so even if God were to command us to
commit atrocities, such as to create as much pain among innocent
children as possible.
3. It is absurd to think that we should create as much pain among
innocent children as possible, even if God were to command us to
do so.
4. Therefore, the Divine Command theory is not true.

-------------------------------So there are several and severe problems with the Divine Command Theory. Here is another theory that in one of its forms involves belief in the existence of a
deity, god.
Section 4. Natural Law Theory
With this theory actions in conformity and support of natural laws are morally correct. A simple summary would be :
What Is Consistent with the Natural Law Is Right and What Is not in keeping with the Natural Law Is Wrong .
NOTE: This is NOT what is natural is morally correct and what is unnatural is morally wrong. The focus is on the natural LAWS
and not simply natural acts. Natural Law Theory supports doing unnatural deeds such as surgery for the sake of realizing a
restoration of health and the prolongation of human life which are each consistent with the natural drives of organisms: survival.
VIDEO at Natural Law Theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_vbogNT9oc
In this view humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason.
to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.

Thus, humans are morally obliged

Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for species to
survive and procreate. Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work against that law are
morally wrong. As an example consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy is morally wrong.
Two types of Natural Law Theory:
Natural Law Theory can be held and applied to human conduct by both theists and atheists. The atheist uses reason to discover
the laws governing natural events and applies them to thinking about human action. Actions in accord with such natural law are
morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong.
For the theists there is a deity that created all of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience to those laws and the
supplement to those laws provided by the deity is the morally correct thing to do.
For atheists there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable. For atheists
who accept this approach to act in keeping with the laws of nature is the morally correct thing to do.
What are the laws of nature that provide guidance for human actions? These would include: the law of survival, the natural
action for living things to maintain themselves and to reproduce, etc..
It is a major problem for this theory to determine what exactly those laws are and how they apply to human circumstances.
The Roman Catholic Church understands natural law to be immanent in nature; this understanding is in large part due to the
influence of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274A.D.), often as filtered through the School of Salamanca.
It understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps) and that the two
are inextricably linked. It describes human persons as being inclined toward the good. There are many manifestations of the good
that we can pursue, some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations
peculiar to the capacities of human beings.

Drunkness is wrong because it injures the health and worse, destroys one's ability to reason, which is fundamental to
man as a rational animal.
Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal.

Martin Luther King, Jr. invoked the natural law in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", stating that the man-made (positive) laws that
he broke were not in accord with the moral law or the Law of God (natural law).
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. In particular, his writings on freedom of the seas and just
war theory directly appealed to natural law. About natural law itself, he wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot
change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there
is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This the famous argument etiamsi
daremus (non esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology.
*******************************************************************

The theory also utilizes the Principle of the DOUBLE EFFECT whereby some morally incorrect result or evil is morally acceptable
provided that those who brought it about entered into actions with the only purpose(s) being to bring about some morally good
end. Thus, a surgeon is not morally blameworthy if a person dies under the care of the surgeon provided that the surgeon
performed the surgery following the standards of care with the sole intention of improving the condition of that person.
The theory also utilizes the Principle of the DOUBLE EFFECT:

*********************************
Application of the theories to one behavior: HOMOSEXUALITY
Under the Natural Law Theory two people of the same sex interacting to produce orgasms will be morally good or bad depending on whether or not such actions
are in accordance with natural laws or not.
Atheistic Natural Law Theory:
If there are species on earth in which members of the same sex physically interact to produce physical pleasure then homosexual couplings amongst humans would
be morally good. The purpose of orgasms would be more than to produce offspring.
PROBLEM: the physical record may not be all that clear and open to interpretation. There is evidence of same sex couplings in species other than human. How
many cases or species are needed to conclude that such behavior is natural among mammals and fulfilling a basic physical drive in a non-harmful manner to the
species is what is debatable.
Theistic Natural Law Theory:
God made Nature. God made the Natural Laws. God made humans. God gave humans reason by which they are to learn of the natural laws. God also provides
revelation concerning god's will and wishes. In the scriptures there are passages dealing with human matters and they are interpreted to have been given as a guide
for the moral life. So in addition to the physical universe which is provided for the study of humans there is also the word of god.
PROBLEM: The Sacred Scriptures of the world's religions need to be interpreted as to their meaning and application. Not all will agree as to what the best
interpretation might be. Consider the example below that is of great importance to a large number of people because depending on how certain biblical passages
are understood has grave implications for a large number of people who either are not heterosexual or who practice sexual actions other than for procreation.
There is a passage in the bible where Onan is condemned because he did not go into the tent of his dead brother's wife and have sex with her so as to produce more
children. (see two accounts below) . At that time it was the custom in the tribe that when a man died his brother would be responsible for his wife and take her as
another wife in order to continue the tribe. Onan went into the tent had sex with the dead brother's wife but pulled out of her and spilled his semen on the ground.
He was condemned for doing so.
PROBLEM:
A. Was Onan condemned for entering into sex for a purpose other than having children? If so then all sexual acts other than intercourse between a man and a
woman who are married and preparing to have children would be immoral. These acts would include: Premarital sex, extra marital sex, masturbation,
homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, use of birth control.
B. Was Onan condemned for not being willing to father children by his dead brother's wife? If so, then sexual acts entered into for a purpose other than procreation
would be morally acceptable.
There are many people who take each of these possible interpretations of the passage. Here are two commentaries.
Genesis 38:6-9 -- The sin of Onan:
This passage describes how Tamar's first husband Er was killed by God because he was wicked. Under ancient Jewish tradition, Er's brother Onan
was required to marry and engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar. Widows were not asked whether they wanted to remarry. In many cases, the
woman would have experienced the sexual activity as a form of rape -- something required by tribal tradition which they had to endure.
Similarly, nobody consulted the widow's brother-in-law about his wishes in the matter.
Their first son would be attributed to Er. Because any offspring would not be considered his child, Onan decided to use a common and relatively
ineffective contraceptive technique to prevent conception. He employed "coitus interruptus". That is, he disengaged from Tamar just before he
ejaculated, and "spilled his semen on the ground." (NIV) God was displeased at this action and killed Onan also -- presumably because he refused
to follow Jewish tradition.
This passage was used until recent decades by some Christian groups who maintained that Onan's sin was actually masturbation. The term
"Onanism" was coined as a synonym of masturbation. This interpretation is no longer in common use.
===============================================================
Onan was the middle of the three children of Judah, son of Jacob and father of the tribe which eventually produced both Kind David and Jesus. His older brother died without
producing an heir. In those days, it was customary for the younger brother to take his deceased brother's wife and provide that brother with an offspring. So, Judah, Onan's father,
ordered him to do such.
According to the account, Onan realized that his biological son, produced in this manner, would not be considered his own. If Onan provided his older dead brother with a son, that
child would inherit both the seat of chief of the tribe as well as the oldest's portion of the estate. It meant that Onan would be inferior to his own biological child. It also meant that
Onan would lose "financially."

The laws of inheritance in those days required that the older brother receive a double portion. This meant that if Onan provided his brother with an heir, Judah's holdings would be
divided four ways, with two fourths (or one half) going to this child while Onan would only receive one fourth. However, if Onan retained his status as oldest surviving son, the
inheritance would be divided three ways, with Onan receiving two of those thirds or about one and a half times more.
According to the scriptural account, Onan insured his failure by practicing the most ancient form of birth control known, premature withdrawal. For this, God struck him dead.
The account says that Tamar was the name of the wife and her dead husband committed some sin so grave that God killed him, although it doesn't specify the sin. Now, her
husband's younger brother commits a sin, with her, and he is struck down by God. This man sent to her to provide her dead husband with an heir, has sexual relations with her. He
pulls out before ejaculation, spills his seed on the ground and dies on the spot.
Section 5. Problems with Natural Law
PROBLEMS FOR NATURAL LAW THEORY
1. One of the difficulties for natural law theory is that people have interpreted nature differently? Should this be the case if as asserted by natural law theory, the
moral law of human nature is knowable by natural human reason?
2.How do we determine the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature? Traditional natural law theory has picked out very positive traits, such as "the
desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy mature human beings. But some philosophers, such as Hobbes, have found human beings
to be essentially selfish. It is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accord with human nature is morally
wrong. For instance, if it turns out that human beings (at least the males) are naturally aggressive, should we infer that war and fighting are morally right?
3. Even if we have certain natural propensities, are we justified in claiming that those propensities or tendencies should be developed? On what grounds do we
justify, for example, that we ought to choose the good?
4. For Aquinas, the reason why nature had the order it did was because God had put it there. Other thinkers, such as Aristotle, did not believe that this order was
divinely inspired. Does this alleged natural moral order require that we believe that there is a God that has produced this natural moral order? Evolutionary theory
has challenged much of the basis of thinking that there is a moral natural order, since on evolutionary theory species has developed they way they have out of
survival needs.
5 It is doubtful that one can infer moral principles forbidding adultery, rape, homosexuality, and so forth, either from biological facts about human nature or from
facts about the inherent nature of Homo sapiens.
6. Critics of natural law theory say that it is doubtful, however, that the inherent nature of Homo sapiens establishes laws of behavior for human beings in the same
way as it may establish laws of behavior for cats, lions, and polar bears. It is especially difficult because so much of human behavior is shaped by the environment,
that is, by deliberate and nondeliberate conditioning, training, and education.
7. Two philosophers (Aquinas and Aristotle) integral to the theory have different views about gods role in nature, which confuses the issue, especially when
trying to decipher if the theory relies on the existence of god.
8. The intrinsic nature of humans as it pertains to establishing laws of behavior may not be the same for animals, which presents difficulties within the theory.
9.. Human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment that one is exposed to, which includes social classes, education and upbringing, this opposes the
theory.
Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative
Section 1. Moral Evaluation
What is the object of moral evaluation?
Actions
Kant's philosophical project is to develop a systematic explanation of ethics -- an explanation of the ground or source of moral obligation, and of
how to figure out what our obligations are.
It is crucial to realize what Kant presupposes about ethics. He presupposes that there are some actions which are simply wrong, and there are
some actions that are obligatory. In other words, he presupposes that utilitarians are wrong to think that the only way of evaluating the rightness or
wrongness of actions is simply by looking at the consequences of those actions.
There are no consequences that can justify rape. There are no consequences that can legitimate the torture of an innocent child.
It is not the results of actions that are morally valuable, then -- it is the action itself that we should evaluate.
The Will
The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues.
Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for bad purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good. Not even happiness is not
intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional
good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will
remains.
Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one's
actions in a certain way. A shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge a child. Kant argues, "it is not sufficient
to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law." (Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals) There is a clear moral difference between the shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers and
the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty. Likewise, in another of Kant's carefully studied examples, the kind act of the
person who overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of the
person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. A person's moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature endowed them with
accidentally. The selfishly motivated shopkeeper and the naturally kind person both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters
to morality is that the actor think about their actions in the right manner.
What about natural gifts?
Often we praise people because they are nice, or smart, or generous, or because they possess some other inclination to act in accord with what the
moral law requires. But for Kant, if someone's natural inclination is in conformity with what duty requires, s/he is lucky, rather than good. Of course it
is better that one's own inclinations point us in exactly the same direction as what our responsibilities require of us -- but this is not the most morally
praiseworthy. It could be that such virtues could, under certain circumstances, be used for evil. Without a person having good intentions or a will to
to good what would otherwise be a good act or a virtue such a courage could turn into a what most reasonable people would think of as a bad thing
and an extremely bad thing.
The courageous bank thief is one example.
Section 2. Consequences
What about consequences?
Kant is not a Utilitarian
He believes that there are many actions which we ought not perform, even if they have good consequences. Some actions may, for instance,
accidentally benefit a lot of people -- it doesn't make any sense to say that their actions were morally good. Lucky, perhaps. But we would not want
to say that right actions are right in virtue of being lucky, right? Nor would we want to say that an action is wrong in virtue of being unlucky.
And utilitarians think that the proper way to evaluate actions is in terms of their consequences -- they don't care if an action is done happily,
resentfully, with anger, or out of spite. If it give more people pleasure than the other options, then it is morally good and that's all there is to be said.
For Kant, that is not all there is to be said.
Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most
happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. Kant has an insightful objection to moral evaluations of this sort. The essence of the

objection is that utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. If we allow utilitarian calculations to motivate our
actions, we are allowing the valuation of one person's welfare and interests in terms of what good they can be used for. It would be possible, for
instance, to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefits of others if the utilitarian calculations promise more benefit. Doing so would be the worst
example of treating someone utterly as a means and not as an end in themselves.
Another way to consider his objection is to note that utilitarian theories are driven by the merely contingent inclination in humans for pleasure and
happiness, not by the universal moral law dictated by reason. To act in pursuit of happiness is arbitrary and subjective, and is no more moral than
acting on the basis of greed, or selfishness. All three emanate from subjective, non-rational grounds. The danger of utilitarianism lies in its
embracing of baser instincts, while rejecting the indispensable role of reason and freedom in our actions.
Section 3. Happiness
What about happiness?
Happiness is not to be ignored when making decisions in life. It is not unimportant. Kant does believe that, all other things being equal, it is better to
be happy than to be miserable. And he wouldn't think that looking out for our own happiness is immoral. Looking out for people's happiness follows
from their intrinsic and infinite value as autonomous, free, rational beings.
But happiness is, by far, not the most important thing when making moral decisions. For pleasure that comes at the expense of someone's freedom,
of someone's life, is not worth it.
Kant believe that liers and cheats and abusers and exploiters don't have the moral right to be happy. Such happiness is undeserved.
According to utilitarians, there is a very close connection between human reason and happiness -- their calculative conception of reason is in the
service of happiness. That is its primary function.
But Kant believes that happiness is not the unique possession of human beings. Nor does he think that reason is the best way of achieving it. We
seem to be not particularly good at knowing what makes us happy. We seem to be not particularly good at knowing what makes others happy. The
function of reason is not, primarily, to make ourselves or others happy, but to live rightly, come what may.
Section 4. Moral Law
What is the "moral law"?
When Kant speaks about the moral law, he is essentially referring to that sense of obligation to which our will often responds. We all know the
experience -- we are sometimes pulled in a certain direction, not because we desire to act in that way, but in spite of our desire to act in the
opposite way.
This pull is toward that moral sense which Kant believes each of us has, in virtue of being rational and free. It is conscience. Actually, it is deeper
than conscience, because our conscience can be mistaken. Conscience arises because of certain structure of human consciousness -- it is the
structure of human reason and human will.
The moral law is not given to us from outside. Kant does not associate the moral law with what God commands. Nor with civil law. Nor with what
society recommends.
The moral law is nothing other than rational will -- the will which is entirely "devoted" to, or guided by impartiality and universality of reason.
The nature of reason itself is universal -- this is made most clear in logic, in mathematics, and in science. We look for universal laws by which the
universe is guided. Well, so in practical affairs of human moral existence.
Therefore, to obey the moral law is nothing else than to obey the basic structure and drive of human reason that is in each and every person, and
that is also the source of human freedom and autonomy.
The test of a genuine moral imperative -- the test of the moral law -- is that I can universalize it, that I can will that it become a universal law. This
"test" is what the Categorical Imperative is for -- to provide us a way to examine the rationality and therefore moral acceptability of an action.
The source of the moral law is US -- it is human nature, human freedom, human reason.
Section 5. Categorical Imperative
What is the "Categorical Imperative"?
The Categorical Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral actions and to make moral judgments. It is not a command to
perform specific actions -- it does not say, "follow the 10 commandments", or "respect your elders". It is essentially "empty" -- it is simply formal
procedure by which to evaluate any action about which might be morally relevant.
Since by nature (according to Kant) the moral law is universal and impartial and rational, the categorical is a way of formulating the criteria by which
any action can pass the test of universality, impartiality, and rationality. That is its only function.
It has several forms or expressions and you need to know the first two . Kant believes that these two forms of the CI are, ultimately, equivalent, and
that what one forbids the other forbids also. I suppose you might say that they are two ways of looking at the same "moral reality." How are these
two forms related? How are they equivalent? Well, they are equivalent because that which makes human beings intrinsically valuable (this is the
focus of the second expression of the CI) is reason and freedom, and it is precisely the demands of rationality (which is the precondition of freedom)
that provide the criteria for evaluating moral actions in the first expression of the CI. In other words, it is because other people have (universal)
reason and freedom that you should never treat them as merely means to your own ends, and it is that rationality which provides the criterion for
evaluation found in the first expression of the CI.
Both forms of the CI are intended to be expressions of the common, ordinary moral sense that we (most of us, anyway) have that there are some
actions that are simply wrong.
The CI is NOT the Golden Rule!!! Why not?
With the Golden rule you are to:
Act as you would have others act towards you.
The Golden Rule Around the World
The same essential golden rule has been taught by all the major religions (and philosophies) of the world going back approximately 3500 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HINDUISM (Vedic religion from c. 13th century BC)
Do not to others what ye do not wish done to yourself...
--This is the whole Dharma, heed it well.
The Mahabarata, cited in Das, 1955, p. 398.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ZOROASTRIANISM (c. 12th century BC)
Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5; in Mller, chapter 94, vol 18, 1882, p. 269.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JUDAISM (c. 10th? century BC)
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary; go learn it.
Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a, as cited in Glatzer, 1969, p. 197.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BUDDHISM (c. 6th century BC)
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JAINISM (c. 6th century BC)
In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief,
regard all creatures as you would regard your own self.
Yoga-Sastra, cited in Bull, 1969, p. 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFUCIANISM (c. 6th century BC)

Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
Confucius, Analects, 15:23, 6:28; Mahabharara, 5:1517,
in Confucius, The Analects, 1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CHRISTIANITY (c. 1st century AD)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Luke 6:13
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.
Matthew 7:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ISLAM (c. 7th century AD)
No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself.
The Sunnah (from the Hadith), publ. 1975.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gregory IX to French bishops concerning the attitude of Christians towards the Jews:
"Est autem Judis a Christianis exhibenda benignitas, quam Christianis in Paganismo existentibus cupimus exhiberi"
(Christians must show towards Jews the same good will which we desire to be shown to Christians in pagan lands)
In a Brief dated 6 April, 1233
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SIKHISM (c. 15th century AD)
Be not estranged from another for, in every heart, Pervades the Lord.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib, in Singh (trans.) 1963, p. 250.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BAH' (c. 19th century AD)
Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This is my command unto thee, do thou observe
it.
Bah'u'llh, The Hidden Words, Arabic 29
======================================================
Comparison
Golden Rule :
Act as you would have others act towards you.
Categorical Imperative: Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.
Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
Perhaps the following cases illustrate the difference in a very clear manner.
(1) The Masochist example: With the Golden rule a masochist or a sadist would be justified in causing or receiving pain. This is not what the Kantian Principle
would support.
(2) The Horny Martin Example: From Don Berkich:
" Some make the mistake of thinking that the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is but a badly worded version of the Biblical "Golden Rule"--Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.
The Horny Martin Example
Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The
woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a nice
dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And...
Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself,
with disastrous consequences.
Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative
are not extensionally equivalent. "
Section 6. Other Forms of the Categorical Imperative
What is the relationship between the two forms of the Categorical Imperative?
An imperative is a command. "Close the door!" "Brush your teeth!" "Study hard!" "Don't forget to button your shirt." According to Kant, however,
these commands are abbreviations.

"Close the door, so that your father can hear the game."

"Brush your teeth, so you don't get cavities."

"Study hard, so you can get a good job, and give your poor parents some peace."

"Don't forget to button your shirt, so your date doesn't think you're an idiot."
They are "hypothetical imperatives" -- Kant means that the commands depend upon the goals to be fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend
upon personal situations, particular human goals and desires and dispositions. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that apply only in particular
circumstances, for particular people who happen to have these desires, these goals.
The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal because all people, in virtue of being rational, would act in precisely the same way,
and impartial because their actions are not guided by their own biases, but because they respect the dignity and autonomy of every human being
and do not put their own personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.
Notice that the above is NOT a description of how everybody does behave -- as an ethical theory, it is concerned to describe how peopleought to
behave.
Kant is not condemning hypothetical imperatives. In fact, he agrees that these are the sorts of imperatives that we live by are hypothetical in nature.
But they are not moral. (They are not immoral -- they are non-moral.)
Section 7. Reasoning with the Imperative
What is the function of reason?
Reason has a lot of functions. It has a theoretical function (science, for example) and a practical function. We are interested in the practical function
-- practical in the sense that reason determines (along with emotions and desires) human behavior and choice. But the practical function can be
understood to have two parts -- as a "means-ends" function, and as the moral function. Kant, as it should be clear to you by now, does not equate
moral reason with the calculative reason of the utilitarians or the egoists. But he does not condemn this side of practical reason, either. It has its
proper place in human life, and it is an exceedingly important place. But calculation of means and ends must be supported with a different type of
reasoning -- moral reasoning.
And how does this side of human reasoning work? What is it's nature?
Human reason is principally constituted by the search for universality and necessity. This conception of reason shows Kant to be deeply and
profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment's pursuit of natural science. For Kant, this search for "natural laws" in science is
the crucial aspect, the constitutive element of rationality per se. And just as the discovery of universal laws is absolutely central to natural science,
so is the search for universal laws central to human morality. It is this aspect of reason which is at the heart of the demand for impartiality and

justice. When a Judge make his/her decision in applying the law, we hope and trust that s/he is not driven by his or her feelings, or passions, or
biases, or ambitions. No, we want the Judge to be rational -- to put aside those personal attachments which might influence his or her ability to
ignore such things as the color of your skin, or the shape of your body, or the spelling of your name, or the patterns of your clothing, or the length of
your hair. What matters is the law. What matters is the Judge's unbiased reason.
So it is in ethics as it is in law. The Categorical Imperative is devised by Kant to provide a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to
determine the right, the rational thing to do -- that is our duty.
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will. Those acts are morally praiseworthy that are done out
of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected, particularly the consequences to self. The only thing
GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a
manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people.
Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative.
Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
For Kant the GOOD involves the Principle of Universalizability!
Kant argues that there can be four formulations of this principle:
The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law
of nature."
The Formula of the End Itself: "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."
The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its
maxims."
The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of
ends."
Never treat a person as a means to an end.
Persons are always ends in themselves. We must never use or exploit anyone for whatever purpose.
Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason wanted to find a basis for ethics that would be based on reason and not on a faith in a
god or in some cold calculation of utility that might permit people to be used for the benefit of the majority. Kant thought
carefully about what it is that all humans would find reasonable as a guide for human conduct. People think it wrong to kill, lie,
steal, and break promises. Why is this so. Kant arrives at the idea that humans think these acts wrong because they cannot will
that others would do these things because it would mean the end of civilized life, perhaps even the life of the actor contemplating
the right way to behave. One can not will that people lie all the time for that would mean the end to human communications if
we could not trust what was said to be true most, if not all, of the time. Kant thought that there would be perfect and imperfect
duties.
Perfect Duty is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time.
e.g., no killing, no physically harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking promises
Imperfect Duties are those which we should do as often as possible but can not be expected to do always.
charitable, loving,

e.g., be

Section 8. Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

Who determines what the moral law requires?
The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.
It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.
And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have
different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.
For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to
choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the
life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our
dignity.
In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human
beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to
do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.
Section 9. Goodness vs Rightness
What is the relationship between "goodness" and morally "right" actions?
According to Utilitarians, rightness follows from goodness. What is "intrinsically good"? Pleasure. What about people? Are people intrinsically good?
Well, only insofar as they are the carriers and bearers of pleasure. One person's pleasure is as good as another's. An action is morally right
because it brings happiness -- because it has certain good effects. Right actions are right because they achieve something that is good.
For Kant, the roles are reversed. It is a person that is the source of value. A person is of infinite worth, and what a person has, what a person does,
what a person believes, what a person enjoys are all dependent upon the person's reason and the person's autonomy. Kant says that the virtues
themselves -- evenness of temper, patience, can be turned evil if they are used for evil.

For Kant, then, "goodness" follows "rightness." What is good is good because it is the expression of a rational will -- because it is achieved in accord
with the universal principles of reason.
Section 10. Problems
Problems with Kant's Theory
1. The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational, e.g., humans with brain
malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative coma.
2. The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties:
a. between two perfect duties
b. between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty
How would a person resolve a conflict between two perfect duties such as never tell a lie and avoid harming someone? What if telling the truth were to harm
someone?
How would you resolve the conflict between the perfect duty, say to keep a promise to pick your friend up with you auto at a certain time, and an imperfect duty,
say to stop on the way to pick up your friend in order to give CPR to someone, a stranger, and save that strangers life?
3. A clever person could phrase the maxim to be universalized in such a manner as to permit almost anything. By placing qualifiers on the maxim or
peculiar definitions on terms a clever actor could satisfy the categorical imperative and yet be acting in a manner otherwise not consistent with it.
What if someone were to promise to be faithful to his mate and not have sex with another woman. Then that person engages in oral and anal forms of physical
interaction leading to orgasm and yet thinks that the promise was not broken because the meaning of sex did not include those forms of interaction.
Chapter 9. Rawl's Theory: Justice as Fairness
Section 1. The Theory of Justice as Fairness
The first significant and unique contribution to the study of Ethics by an American has been that of John Rawls, a Professor of
Philosophy at Harvard University. He developed a Theory of the GOOD as Justice and Justice conceived as Fairness. His theory
was developed to assist a society in ordering its affairs. His ideas have influenced many lawmakers and Supreme Court decisions
in the United States. Among many examples are the laws for providing equal access to opportunities for minorities and the
disabled.
Rawls wants to use reasoning which all humans have to arrive at the principle of the GOOD. He is similar to Kant in this regard.
He wants to avoid the problems with Kant's theory and he wants to avoid providing any justification for morally outrageous
actions which could be justified on utilitarian principles. He wants to avoid the disadvantages of those approaches. His approach
places humans in a position wherein they view the moral dilemma or problem without knowing who they are in the
situation. What would rational beings decide was best in situations where not all the humans involved are equal in physical
conditions , social or economic circumstance? Rawls believes that humans would resolve the conflict or problem in such a way
that whoever was worst off would be not as bad off as they otherwise might be because the person making the decision does not
know whether they are gong to be in the position of the worst off.
The Maxi Min Principle is the Principle of the GOOD
MAXIMIZE Liberty (opportunities)
MINIMIZE Inequalities (differences, disadvantages)
The most widely discussed theory of distributive justice in the past three decades has been that proposed by John Rawls in his
seminal work, A Theory of Justice. (Rawls 1971) Rawls proposes the following two principles of justice:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle,
and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
(Rawls 1971, p.302)
First priority rule:
Rawls proposes these principles, along with the requirement that (1) must be satisfied prior to (2), and (2b) must be satisfied
prior to (2a). Principle (1) and Principle (2b) may also be thought of as principles of distributive justice: (1) to govern the
distribution of liberties, and (2b) the distribution of opportunities. Looking at the principles of justice in this way makes all
principles of justice, principles of distributive justice (even principles of retributive justice will be included on the basis that they
distribute negative goods).
To understand Rawls Theory there are three ideas that need to be understood. Here is a presentation of those three concepts
by Professor R.J. Kilcullen .
The Original Position -John Kilcullen
The main moral motivation for the Difference Principle is similar to that for strict equality: equal respect for persons. Indeed the
Difference Principle materially collapses to a form of strict equality under empirical conditions where differences in income have
no effect on the work incentive of people. The overwhelming opinion though is that in the foreseeable future the possibility of
earning greater income will bring forth greater productive effort. This will increase the total wealth of the economy and, under the
Difference Principle, the wealth of the least advantaged. Opinion divides on the size of the inequalities that would, as a matter of
empirical fact, be allowed by the Difference Principle, and on how much better off the least advantaged would be under the
Difference Principle than under a strict equality principle. Rawls principle however gives fairly clear guidance on what type of
arguments will count as justifications for inequality. Rawls is not opposed to the principle of strict equality per se, his concern is
about the absolute position of the least advantaged group rather than their relative position. If a system of strict equality
maximizes the absolute position of the least advantaged in society, then the Difference Principle advocates strict equality. If it is
possible to raise the position of the least advantaged further by inequality of income and wealth, then the Difference Principle
prescribes inequality up to that point where the absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.
Section 3. Discussion of Rawls
The Plight of the Poor in the Midst of PlentyJohn Rawls is best known as the author of a large book of 'grand theory', A
Theory of Justice, that changed the face and refreshed the spirit of political philosophy when it was published in 1971. He is also
the author of about forty scholarly articles, beginning with a chapter on ethics from his Princeton dissertation in 1951 and
culminating with a short piece on Hiroshima, published in Dissent on the 50th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons
against civilian targets. There is no one single main point of Rawl's A Theory of Justice, but one of its main points is
to try to move from equality to justice (hence justice as fairness) by measured steps that rational persons would
be able to embrace. In this regard it may be the most plausible theory of justice that doesn't depend on emotion,
upbringing, self-serving prejudice, class consciousness, and so on.
1) All theories of human action, social organization, morality rest on idealized or schematic persons and not real
individuals. They are not fully scientific in the contemporary sense but they are as close as you can get in morally
relevant contexts. Hence Rawls deals with representative persons and invests them with several qualities rationality, and reasonable self interest being two salient features. If that shoe can't fit the reader then there
would be no reason to read further as nothing else will be entirely agreeable thereafter.

2) Rawls does not advocate in any form the equal distribution of resources or their blind redistribution to the
disadvantaged. Everyone who has thought the matter through knows that these are socially wasteful
distributions. The idea behind Rawls' difference principle is to arrange before-hand (behind a veil of ignorance) for
a system of distribution of resources which will differentially reward the socially useful so long as it will always
also be to the advantage of the least well off. So. e.g. if we determine that a sanitation engineer is necessary to a
well ordered society because his/her activities will be to everyone's advantage we have reasonable grounds to
award him/her a disproportionate portion of the available pool of social wealth, and then so on down the line of
socially useful pursuits (we want to reward all socially useful activities, discourage the opposite and improve the
lot of those who may contribute little or even nothing). This we do theoretically beforehand so we can in the blind
determine what a 'just' distribution would be like. Then we are in position to criticize actual distributions that
substantially vary from the distribution we selected as 'unjust'.
Section 4. Problems with Rawl's Theory
PROBLEMS:
Because there has been such extensive discussion of the Difference Principle in the last 30 years, there have been numerous
criticisms of it from the perspective of all five other theories of distributive justice. Briefly, the main criticisms are as follows.
1. Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principle are unacceptable even if they do
benefit the least advantaged. The problem for these advocates is to explain in a satisfactory way why the relative position of the
least advantaged is more important than their absolute position, and hence why society should be prevented from materially
benefiting the least advantaged when this is possible. The most common explanation appeals to solidarity : that being materially
equal is an important expression of the equality of persons. Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have
over others, if they are better off materially. Rawls response to this latter criticism appeals to the priority of his first principle: The
inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do not result in unequal liberty. So, for
instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty,
even if they increase the material position of the least advantaged group.
2. The Utilitarian objection to the Difference Principle is that it does not maximize utility. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls uses
Utilitarianism as the main theory for comparison with his own, and hence he responds at length to this Utilitarian objection and
argues for his own theory in preference to Utilitarianism (some of these arguments are outlined in the section on Welfare-Based
Principles)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Welfare
3. Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty. For instance, the Difference
Principle may require redistributive taxation to the poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the
immoral taking of just holdings. (see Libertarian Principles)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Libertarian
4. The Difference Principle is also criticized as a primary distributive principle on the grounds that it mostly ignores claims that
people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions. Advocates of Desert-Based Principles argue that some may
deserve a higher level of material goods because of their hard work or contributions even if their unequal rewards do not also
function to improve the position of the least advantaged. They also argue that the Difference Principle ignores the explanations of
how people come to be in the more or less advantaged groups, when such explanations are relevant to the fairness of these
positions.
5. The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance may exclude some morally relevant information. the theory excludes in order to
promote rationality and is biased in favor of rationality.
6. Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles could permit or demand inequalities and
suffering in order to benefit the least well off.
7. Like Desert theorists, advocates of Resource-Based Principles criticize the Difference Principle on the basis that it is not
ambition-sensitive enough, i.e. it is not sensitive to the consequences of peoples choices. They also argue that it is not
adequately endowment-sensitive: it does not compensate people for natural inequalities (like handicaps or ill-health) over which
people have no control.
8. There is also the difficulty in applying the theory to practice. It is difficult if not impossible for people to place themselves
under the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to formulate what conduct would be required of them by the MAXI MIN
Principle.
9. Some question whether or not people are rational enough to assume the veil of ignorance and operate under the two
principles.
10. The theory was developed more to handle problems within society and there are difficulties in applying the principles to
individual decision-making involving specific others.
Chapter 10. Postmodernism : Pragmatism
Section 1. Postmodernism
During the Twentieth Century the advanced technological societies of the West and some in the East experienced a decline in the
number of people who practiced their religion regularly and accepted a morality based upon Natural Law Theory. There was a
decline in the belief that:
1.
there is a single reality and that humans can have knowledge of it.
2.
there is objective truth
3.
there are absolutes
This decline can be attributed to a number of factors:
1.
the increase in information about other cultures and their various practices, beliefs and values,
2.
advances in what science and technology could provide for humans in improvements in their basic living along with an
appreciation for material goods,
3.
the spreading influence of ideas from the existentialist and pragmatist movements
4.
the spread of democratic ideals
Post-Modernism then refers to a complex set of philosophical presumptions, most of which reject modern philosophical systems that promoted the idea of
rationality, positive science, advance of humankind and promotion of liberal values. The post modern critiques did not replace the idea and ideals and values of
the modern period with any alternate system. So , postmodernism is more often characterized by its opposition to modernism with its ambivalence or rejection of
the Enlightenment and its ideology. It thus derives from an anti-epistemological standpoint; anti-realism; opposition to transcendent arguments; rejection of truth
theories; rejection of categorical analyses; a critique of reason itself as a positive guide for the life of humans.
If Post-Modernism is represented in any positive manner it might might be characterized by gendered, historical, and ethno-centric definitions of truth, as well as
an insistence on the social construction of world views. However, the basic postmodernist movement is unfortunately but inextricably bound to factionalism and
centrisms of all sorts and supportive of primitive tribal, clan , and ethnic groupings and validations for all beliefs..
In the Post Modern view there are no absolutes of any kind and there are no universal truths nor universal criteria for beauty and nor are there universal principles
of the GOOD. Thus, there is a return of relativism in the sphere of morality. With that return there is also the threat of chaos which relativism spawns. As
reaction to this trend there is an increase in the numbers of people returning to religion and religious principles as the foundation for their moral lives. The fastest
growing religion in the world is Islam. Islam is increasing in its population through a birth rate higher than average and through conversions. Islamic

fundamentalism is growing in the number of adherents. Fundamentalists of Islam and of Christianity and Judaism are all declaring their condemnation of the
current state of moral decline and the rise of relativism and materialism.
In moral theory there have developed a number of traditions that extol alternatives to the teleological and deontological
approaches based upon reason and the belief that universal principles can be reached through the exercise of reason. In
contrast to the theories of modernism there are a number of traditions in moral theory that have features typical of the relativism
of the postmodern period.

The Pragmatists focused on the impossibility of reason reaching beyond the frailties of limitations of human reason.

The Existentialists called for an acceptance of the inescapable role of human emotions.

Feminist theoreticians have devised a number of approaches to ethics that have at least this much in common: the
denial of previous theories as being biased and deluded.
These are the three Post Modernist theories or movements that have impacted on ethical theorizing to be examined in the remaining chapters of this work.
Section 2. Pragmatist Ethic
Pragmatism
From: http://www.saint-andre.com/ismbook/P.html
William James credits Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914) with originating the movement by means of an article "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" published in
the Popular Science Monthly for January of 1878. Pragmatism is generally considered to be the first and only philosophical school of thought or tradition to have
emerged in North America. The term was originated by C.S. Peirce, who would later term his form of the new movement "pragmaticism" in order to distinguish
his ideas from those of the most famous exponents: William James and John Dewey. G.H. Mead and F.S.C. Schiller were lesser known members of this tradition
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when it flourished. The original formulation of pragmatism by Peirce applied to epistemology (the idea that
knowledge must be tested by its usefulness), but the concept was quickly extended by James. Pragmatism in ethics is a form of consequentialism as presented in
this work. The focus of pragmatism is on the resultant actions while utilitarianism emphasizes usefulness. Pragmatism, according to William James, is derived
from the Greek word pragma, which means action and serves as the basis of our English words practical and practice.(Greek pragma = "action" while Latin utilis =
"use"). Pragmatism established human needs and the practical interests of humans as the basis for judgment and evaluation. Pragmatism rejects any form of
absolutism and universality of thought. Pragmatism fosters a form of relativism. Pragmatism in ethics rejects the idea that there is any universal ethical principle
or universal value. It holds for ethical principles being social constructs to be evaluated in terms of their usefullness.
Pragmatic Ethics by Hugh LaFollette
READ: http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/pragmati.htm
For pragmatists the matter of ethics is approached practically. Our practices are our habits. In pragmatic ethics there is the
Primacy of Habits, which empower and restrict. They explore the Social nature of habits and the relation of habit to will. For
them Morality Is a Habit and being fallibilists, pragmatists know that no habits are flawless. They also hold that Morality is social
and that Changing habits for moral reasons is necessary.
Features of pragmatic ethics :

Employs criteria, but is not criterial

Gleaning insights from other ethical theories

Relative without being relativistic

Tolerant without being irresolute

Theory and Practice

Embracing a Pragmatist Ethic
A pragmatic ethic is not based on principles, but it is not unprincipled. Deliberation plays a significant role, albeit a different role
than that given it on most accounts. Morality does not seek final absolute answers, yet it is not perniciously relativistic. It does
recognize that circumstances can be different, and that in different circumstances, different actions may be appropriate. So it
does not demand moral uniformity between people and across cultures. Moreover, it understands moral advance as emerging
from the crucible of experience, not through the proclamations of something or someone outside us. Just as ideas only prove
their superiority in dialogue and in conflict with other ideas, moral insight can likewise prove its superiority in dialogue and
conflict with other ideas and experiences. Hence, some range of moral disagreement and some amount of different action will
be not be, for the pragmatist, something to bemoan. It will be integral to moral advancement, and thus should be permitted and
even praised, not lamented. Only someone who thought theory could provide final answers, and answers without the messy
task of doing battle on the marketplace of ideas and of life, would find this regrettable
Pragmatism insists both that theory is a necessary guide to any practice, and that what we discover in practice
must feed back into and modify our initial theories. William James stated the implication of this view for ethics
when he wrote "there is no such thing possible as an ethical philosophy dogmatically made up in advance."(2)
Ethical theories are invaluable cultural constructs, but as with other kinds of theory, even their most
fundamental features must be subject to modification when novel problems encountered in practice demand it.
Section 4. Problems with a Pragmatist Ethic
1. A pragmatic ethic is an ethic that is relativistic and as such cannot resolve conflicts between different groups who hold for different ideas of what is morally
correct.
2. Pragmatic ethics cannot resolve conflicts between individuals as the pragmatic test for the valuie of ethical principles can have different outcomes for different
individuals.
3. Virtues and values are social constructs for pragmatists and so there can be no cross cultural critiques.
4. Pragmatic ethics leads to subjectivism
Chapter 11. Existentialism
Section 1. What is it?
existentialism
A (mostly) twentieth-century approach that emphasizes the primacy of individual existence over any presumed natural essence for human beings.
Although they differ on many details, existentialists generally suppose that the fact of my existence as a human being entails both my
unqualifiedfreedom to make of myself whatever I will and the awesome responsibility of employing that freedom appropriately, without being driven
byanxiety toward escaping into the inauthenticity or self-deception of any conventional set of rules for behavior, even though the entire project may
turn out to be absurd. Prominent existentialists include Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Beauvoir, Sartre, and Camus.
Existentialism (Movement in ethics) Existentialism is an influential movement in 20th century philosophy
and especially ethics. Historically, existentialism was inspired by the supposed skepticism and nihilism of
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Existentialism takes its peculiar character from the fact that, even though it is
a form of individualism, it is also very much a kind of pessimism another major influence on existentialism
was Schopenhauer. According to Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), the leading philosopher of the movement,
existentialism takes its name from its guiding phrase, "existence precedes essence". This means that there is
no stable human essence or nature and thus that there are no intrinsic or natural human values (so that any
attempt at ethical naturalism is misguided and debased). Existentialism teaches that each person must simply
live his life and by so doing create his own values, almost as an afterthought. Although such a process of living
can be haphazard and lacking in self-direction, this fact does not seem to be a problem for the existentialists. In
fact, some existentialists even revel in the unplanned, irrational character of life and therefore could be
characterized as proponents of irrationalism or even nihilism. Existentialists are also extreme opponents

of eudaimonism, since they think that the quest for happiness is an indication of the "bad faith" of the
bourgeoisie.
Holding that there are no intrinsic values and that each person must choose and create values leads
existentialists to reject all theories of the good that are objective or absolute or universal.
Nietzsches anti Ethics
Nietzsche submits this idea of morality to radical critique. He believes both that the idea is philosophically insupportable and that
when we understand its genealogy, we will see that what actually explains our having it are profoundly negative aspects of
human life. Morality is an ideology. We can believe it only if we ignore why we do. Central to Nietzsches thought is a
fundamental distinction between the ideas of good and bad, on the one hand, and those of (moral) good and evil, on the
other. (Notice the title of Essay I.) The natural form ethical evaluation first takes, he believes is that of excellence or
merit. People who excel, who have merits we admire and esteem, thereby have a kind of natural nobility.
A. These are rank-ordering, rank-defining value judgments.
We naturally look up to, we respect and esteem, those with merit. He calls them knightly aristocratic values
B. The primary half of the pair is good. Bad is what is not-good. What is not worthy of esteem and respect.
C. The good features are naturally positive: they affirm and sustain life, vigor, strength, etc., e.g. openness, cheerfulness,
creativity, physical strength, agility, grace, beauty, vigor, health, wit, intelligence, charm, and friendliness.
On the other hand, the primary half of the good/evil pair is evil. The idea of evil is reactive. It comes from the negation of
good. Indeed, Nietzsche believes that it derives from negating good (natural merit). And the idea of moral good is simply the
negation of that negation. It is what is not evil. The original negation is due to resentmenta psychological process through
which the naturally weak suppress their anger at being slighted by the strong who consider them of little merit. Unable to
express their anger honestly, they suppress it to an unconscious level, in the dark workshop of the human psyche. It then
comes to be expressed not as personal anger, but in an alienated, impersonal form, namely, as moral indignation and
resentment. The strong who disrespect the weak are seen, by virtue of their disrespect, as deserving moral disapprovalas being
evil.
We can see how this process is supposed to work in Nietzsches parable of the lambs and the birds of prey . The birds see the
lambs as their natural inferiors, as meat. The lambs are angered by this, but cant do anything about it directly by expressing
personal anger. So they express their anger in an impersonal way. They reproach the birds; they hold them morally responsible
for what they lambs see as their evil conduct. They project the ideology of morality, which is just the impersonal expression of
their personal anger and hatred. Nietzsche is saying that morality is born in denial.
The problem from Nietzsches perspective is that, unlike the birds of prey, the naturally strong have been taken in by this
ideology. Through Judaeo-Christian religion, a priestly caste has taken over culture to such a degree that the ideology of
morality is now the dominant view. But in addition to being born in hatred and denial, Nietzsche believes both that the idea of
morality is philosophically insupportable (for example, in its assumption of free will) as well as one that has terrible consequences
for human cultureit is an ethic of weakness and illness that chokes off genuine human achievement.
G. J. Mattey U.C.Davis
Now we turn to a philosopher who was in no way delicate, but said that he wanted to philosophize with a hammer. Friedrich Nietzsche is a philosopher much
misunderstood in his own time and especially in the first half of the 20th century, when he was adopted by the Nazis as having given the theoretical basis to
National Socialism. This came about largely because his philosophy was distorted by his sister, who was married to a notorious racist activist. In the latter half of
this century, he has been rehabilitated and is now one of the hottest philosophers around. I will mention a couple of reasons for his current popularity in the course
of the discussion of his views.
One of the themes of the ethical theories of the Greeks was that moral goodness is a kind of healthy functioning of the human being. In Niezsche's view, the human
condition is one of profound illness. Its symptoms are to be found everywhere, but nowhere more prominently than in the world's religions. Eastern religions, such
as Buddhism, have as their ultimate goal emptiness, nothingness. They are nihilistic, seeking only release from life. Western religions, led by Christianity, are even
worse, according to Nietzsche. So hostile are they to life that they hold before us the promise of eternal torture. So the modern condition is one in which the
masses of people say "No" to life.
Nietzsche attempted to account for the modern condition through an explanation of its development. In the pre-human condition (compare Hobbes' state of nature),
people distinguished by their strength, vitality, courage form a kind of natural nobility or aristocracy. They get their own way through the exercise of power. (One
reason for Nietzsche's recent popularity is the widely-held view that power-relations are at the basis of all social institutions.) Even if he were to grant with Hobbes
that these noble ones were themselves vulnerable to sudden death, Nietzsche would say that they would laugh at the prospect, for putting a value on one's own life
is a later development.
Eventually the masses were subdued by the nobility and civil society began. A necessary condition of society is a system of exchange, which requires that values
be placed on things. Here is the origin of human rationality, in the reckoning of values and equivalences. The placing of things in equivalent categories is the basis
of the use of general concepts, which therefore is always practical, on Nietzsche's view.
Though now subdued, the human community could hardly have lost its animal instincts overnight. The discharge of the urges of power remains a necessity, but
bound by obligations and prohibitions, social man is unable to continue in his wild ways. The pent-up vitality must be directed somewhere, and the only place it
can go is inward. Thus the "human soul" is refined as the target of our own aggression. Thus the sickness of the modern human being is self-inflicted. We tear
ourselves down in the way a caged animal rubs its skin raw chafing at the cage which confines it.
The cure for this sickness is not to be found in the human race as it presently exists. The product is fatally flawed: we have made ourselves what we are, and there
is no turning back to the days before the rationality leveled the chief distinctions among us. The only hope is the development of a new form, an "overman," to go
beyond the rigid moral categories of good and evil which have grown up around, and are inextricable from, the human race. Incidentally, this shows why the Nazi
notion of the German (more broadly, "Aryan") people as a master race finds no basis in Nietzsche. Whatever their virtues or vices, the German people share in the
basic sickness of the modern human being. To this day, Nietzsche's readers identify themselves as the nobility, as the powerful ones to whom the categories of
good and evil do not apply. I suspect this is another reason for Nietzsche's popularity. But this distorts Nietzsche's meaning grotesquely.
PROBLEMS:
a.
Some people feel that the will to power advocated by Nietzsche encourages people to be callous and cruel, ignoring
humanity for the sake of gaining power.
b.
Theists argue that it is not the individual who obtains power according to to them; power is something dished out by God. It
is not up to man as to whether or not he will be powerful. Additionally, God gives rewards for following His ways, not as a result
of a power struggle.
c.
Theists can also argue that the will to power can be seen as merely a response to helplessness, as Nietzsche's method for
wishing to attain control of a life that is really left up to God.
Section 4. Problems with Existential Ethics
The most basic difficulties with an existential approach to moral decision making are:
1. Existentialist ethics promote individualist ethics and subjectivism.
2. Existentialist ethics cannot resolve conflicts between individuals or groups in terms of the basic ethical principles.
3. There are no absolute rules and no duties and no universalizing of morals.
4. The existentialist approach leads to a situation in which the only and most likely resolution of conflicts would be through a use of physical force.
Chapter 12. Feminism
Section 1. What is it?
Feminist Ethics

This theory is based on the assumptions that the world is male oriented, devised by men and dominated on a male emphasis on
systems of inflexible rules. The goal of feminist ethics is to create a plan that will hopefully end the social and political oppression
of women. It is believed that the female perspective of the world can be shaped into a value theory.
Omonia Vinieris (QCC, 2002) on the Feminist Theory of Care
It has been conventionally thought by traditional thinkers of ethics that the moral development of females is slow-paced and secondary to that of males.
Standard ethical attitudes entail hostile, aggressive, and masculine principles of authority, supremacy, and social order. Feminist opponents consider the latter to
incite the debasement of womens moral capabilities and to demoralize the conception of morality altogether. The ethics of justice is often the terminology used
to denote moral duty based on the masculine traits of reason and aloofness. Feminists strive for vindication by formulating a theory entitled the ethics of care
to counter its antithetical parallel, the manly principle, ethics of justice.
Ethics of care focus on the morality and integrity of women which primarily center on interpersonal relationships. Feminine values such as gentleness,
sympathy, and genuine caring are devalued and deemed irrelevant to the public world where self-rule and power thrive. Carol Gilligan, a feminist theorist and
psychologist, presumes that the morality of women is merely different from that concerning mens and that it is not at all inferior as her male counterparts claim it
to be. She profoundly opposes the theories of moral development devised her colleague, Kohlberg, who only confined his study to males. His study neglects a
womans ability to possess self-legislated ethical dogma.
Gilligan, in attempt to refute Kohlbergs philosophy, composes a scale to illustrate the different stages of a womans moral development. In the first stage,
the female is only concerned with herself as she is basically helpless and vulnerable and finds comfort in her seclusion. She steers clear of any type of relation
with others. In the second stage of moral development, she acquires an awareness of others around her and clings on to various personal contacts that she
develops. She feels a sense of responsibility and devotion to care for them. She essentially cares for and finds interest in the people she relates with. She is
naturally able to sacrifice herself for these people out of her innate goodness. Finally in the third stage, she masters equilibrium between the first two stages. She
exhibits self concern for herself and others. In order to essentially care for others, she must care for herself first, and perhaps the reciprocation of care between her
and different people is an indication that she cares for herself. This universal factor of ethical principle verifies a womans ability to control the moral principles
concerning her, as it also exemplifies the potency she holds in concurrently providing for others.
Gilligan further goes on to say that an ethics of care is an essential component of ideal moral thought. Children must be taught to value their hearts over
their heads (Gilligan) rather than disregard their natural emotions in fear of resorting to subjection which defies the traditional male-oriented ethics of justice.
In sum, women and children may exhibit more moral depth than men (Gilligan).
If women are to tolerate the impersonal and rational principles anchored in the ethics of justice they might as well become merciless, heartless brutes.
However, women are humane and acknowledge the fact that genuine impartiality requires emotive input in ethical reasoning and assessment. In order to judge
morally, we must identify emotionally with the individual to make sense of his or her motives that triggered their actions. Yet, masculine or traditional ethical
principles eschew the idea of involving emotion in moral judgment. Sarah Hoagland comments that traditional ethics undermine rather than promote individual
moral ability and agency because the direction of traditional ethics is impersonal and merely focuses on control and social organization. Thus it does not uphold
individual integrity as social organization is acquired through oppressive and authoritative means.
Unfortunately, feminists realize that in their own quest to incorporate their ethics of care principle into the canons of society, society is much too fixated on
the masculine tenets of competition and self-interest. An environment based on interfamilial relations and mutual communication is one where an ethics of care
ideology will be embraced by its people. Human emotional responses are now a low key supplement to traditionalist ethical principles, as sensitivity and kindness
were never equated with human goodness. Yet, it still seems that rationale and intellect overpower these feminine aspects in a male-dominated world.
Section 3. Problems with Feminist Ethics
PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY
1. Some philosophers argue that the ethic of care is based on traditional women's values in a quest for new virtues.
2. Beings other than women may not agree because humans often only understand what they can relate to. Thus ethics of care
could not serve to resolve conflicts involving people who do not relate to the orientation of caring.
3. Gender free morality may be impossible, according to Nel Noddings. Traditional philosophers believed that women were inferior
to men and female goddesses were involved in silence, obedience and service. These female roles can be shaped into an ethic of
care according to many women philosophers. In so doing ethics becomes gender based and the ethic of care would not be
applicable to those who are not of the female gender.
4. It is politically imprudent to associate women with the value of care. It relieves others of any sense or obligation of care.
5. The theory ultimately disempowers women. While women act based on caring non-females can act based on rights and duties
or utility or some other basic principle and avoid dealing with women because theirs is not an ethic of rights or duties and thus
they need not be afforded such.
6. A person cannot truly care for someone if she is economically, socially, and/or psychologically coerced to do so. So how would
the ethics of caring be exercised or realized by such persons?
7. Criticizes the inconsistency of modernism but hold inconsistent norms themselves.
8. Stresses the irrational. The Ethics of Caring is based on feelings and can be exercised despite evidence against continued
caring and even when continued caring produces harm for the care provider.
9. Feminists contradict themselves by relinquishing truth claims in their own writings. There are no rational arguments in support
of an ethic of caring that employs truth claims that can be verified.
10.Calls for behavior that is tailored to each individual situation. If this is the case, then there is no true theory of ethical behavior
because you are changing your view of what is acceptable and what is not to suit your needs at the time.
11.Feminist theories do not allow for the natural tendencies of men. They do to men exactly what they claim was wrongly done to
women for centuries.
12. Cared based approach clouds the basic moral code. Emotions and feelings make it easy to break any moral codes when the
person cares and doing so violates the codes.
Chapter 13. Relativism Reconsidered : Conclusion
Post Modernism and its Critics
These are three of many popular theories concerning the GOOD which hold for no single universal principle of the GOOD. Instead
they relate the determination of such a principle to be an exercise in POWER or self service which is put under a disguise of being
a rational exercise of an unbiased mind. What they have in common is a relativism. The need for societies to have a moral
foundation are not being served well by what are at their base appeals to power as the only basis for the resolution of
conflict. For these theories, morality collapses into self serving exercises.
What are we left with then?
Section 2. What is to be done?
People need some sort of a moral guide through life. Many may think that they can get by without one but chances are that they
are egoists and do have a principle which is guiding them. If it makes me feel good, if it makes me happy, if I like it and
can live with it then it is all right for me to do it. That may seem like an attractive principle by which we can make
decisions until one starts to think about it. As a guide for all people that principle would lead and does lead to many conflicts.
Review the problems with ethical egoism in chapter above covering that principle.
What is needed in a moral code is something that will enable humans to live with one another in an order rather than in chaos of
self-interested action.
Which of the many ethical principles is the best for human kind on planet earth or which is the one for me as a human living
amidst other humans ?
Section 3. Conclusion
REVIEW of the Principles of the GOOD

EGOISM- my own pleasure

UTILITARIANISM- utility- the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE- Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
NATURAL LAW What Is Natural Is Right and What Is Unnatural Is Wrong
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS- The Maxi Min Principle: MAXIMIZE Liberty (opportunities) MINIMIZE Inequalities (differences,
disadvantages)

EXISTENTIALISM- Will to Power

PRAGMATISM- Growth and Success: What works to solve problems

FEMINIST ETHICS- Caring

If a person is tempted to think that several of the theories could be employed in a single life the result would be a person who
would choose which theory to employ to support the decision of what that person was to do in a manner that would provide that
person with the outcome that the person most preferred. This approach is a consequentialist approach, which is centered on the
outcome for the decision maker. In other words the actual principle being used would be EGOISM! Thus someone who claims to
be using one principle on one occasion with one situation and then another principle on another occasion would be using that
which pleases that person and provides for the outcome desired by the person claiming multiple ethical principles. The key
factor is that such a person wants the outcome desired.
The CHOICE of a theory is based upon individual judgment but need not be arbitrary.
Each person considers the advantages and disadvantages and the strengths and weaknesses and
chooses consistent with that person's values.
The choice is, perhaps unfortunately, for most:

Non-arbitrary

Slow

Methodical

Agonizing

Promoting courage
Hopefully, by considering the various theories and examining how they would be applied to the various situations and dilemmas
involving medical practices and institutions each person will become more aware of their fundamental values and which of the
theories is most in keeping with what they think of as the good. Such a theory would then serve as a source of moral guidance.
People should have some principle by which they make their decisions as to what is the morally correct thing to do. At times
doing the morally correct thing will not make the actor happy except to know that they did what was right. It is only the Egoist
that thinks doing what is correct must always make the actor happy.
Well you may be correct in thinking that most people in the world are Ethical Egoists (EE) in that they think about what pleases
them first. But it may be time for humankind to grow up and mature and use reason and decide what each of us will live and die
for. What will be the principle of the GOOD used to make moral decisions? Do you want to make decisions with yourself at the
center or do you want to THINK and arrive at a principle consistent with your values that you will use to make moral decisions and
you will attempt to convince others to use as well so that there can be resolution to moral conflicts. EE lacks logic in that there is
no consistency or universalizability. It can not resolve moral conflicts as there is no agreed upon principle of the GOOD amongst
EE's in a conflict. RESULT: Power plays and violence. At the United Nations they operate with the principle of UTILITY in an effort to
resolve conflicts and avoid violence. There are other principles. The religious fanatics who employ tactics of violence and terror
such as the Islamicists use DIVINE COMMAND as their principle. The world community appears clearly unwilling to accept such a
principle as the basis for moral conflict resolution. What will the world use in a effort to avoid the violence?
So, which principle is it that we are to use direct our lives and to give it a meaning and a value through our choice? Each makes
the decision. In Philosophy the attempt is made to consider the principle that would serve best, the principle, which has the
fewest disadvantages, and hopefully to find a principle that is the best to meet the demands of the current world situation and is
correct as to setting humans on a path of conduct that serves the core values of the human community.
When people are confronted with their impending deaths they often review their lives. Few make judgments as to its worth
based on how much they own. Most people regard how they treated others and were treated by them as much more important
than possessions of material objects. Ones sense of morality is then seen in retrospect as one of the most important parts of a
persons life. Did I do the right thing is seen as more important than did I possess as much as I could have or was I as happy as I
could have been?
It is your decision as to which principles will guide your decisions. There is advice that others can and do give you but it is your
decision. Choose wisely. For Plato this was the whole point of Philosophy: to assist someone in choosing wisely, in choosing what
truly is the GOOD.