I.

Metaethics

Metaethics ponders on the basis of all ethics which is morality itself and whether it is
objective or subjective. A moral standpoint that supposes morality is objective and judges an
action based on its intent whether its consequence is good or bad is called “Moral Realism”. On
the other hand we have a moral standpoint which supposes there are no moral facts and that
there is no action that is inherently bad would be the antithesis that is “Moral Antirealism”.
These two are the major conflictions found in metaethics.

“Moral Realism” has varying degrees of adherence to moral facts which is used as the
distinguishing factor between these “relatives” of this views. Moral absolutism is the black and
white view which admonishes any ill intent as an evidence against the outcome of an action,
whether the result is good or bad. Moral relativism views things in gray and opts for multiple
views on which is moral, perhaps the best phrase to describe it is “It Depends”.

“Moral Antirealism” acknowledges the fact that morality has no definite source and is
only based on the most pervasive standard of morality which is not free from faults. Borne out
of this view is the concept of moral subjectivism which puts the judgement of morality in the
hands of the person who does them. A moral antirealist is both the judge and the judged.

II. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It revolves around the set of questions
that arise when considering how one should act, morally speaking. In Normative ethics there are
three common types, namely: Teleological, Deontological and virtue ethics

Teleological ethics – “The end justifies the means” as the famed philosopher Machiavelli
would say. Teleological ethics supposes that if a goal is morally important enough, any method
of achieving it is acceptable.

Deontological ethics – “The end does not justify the means” the morality of an action
should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather
than based on the consequences of the action.

Virtue ethics – In virtue ethics there are Virtues and Vices, where actions are considered
to be virtuous or a sinful based on a system that classifies which is which based on the polar
nature of actions.

III. Utilitarianism

Holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of
people. The ultimate basis of an actions’ ethicality is the result “The end justifies the means”. A
utilitarian view has a teleological nature in a sense.
IV. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

“Focus on being a good person and the right actions will follow effortlessly” there no
guidelines and categorical imperatives needed but why? Eudaimonia, a state of flourishing and
happiness. Aristotle recognized that by being a good person happiness becomes a by-product.

V. Kant and categorical imperatives

The Kantian ethics proposes the same adherence to the truth that an Inquisitor for the
Holy Roman Empire has towards heretics during the dark ages. Lying is a sin regardless of the
purpose behind it because lying hinders the autonomy of another human being.

VI. Justice

Rawls holds that justice as fairness is the most egalitarian, and also the most plausible,
interpretation of these fundamental concepts of liberalism. He also argues that justice as
fairness provides a superior understanding of justice to that of the dominant tradition in modern
political thought: utilitarianism.

This is for the fact that a utilitarian decision ay sacrifice one’s satisfaction for many
where justice should hold everyone at equal grounds.

Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of resources. Often contrasted
with just process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice
concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and
the social sciences.

VII. Deontology

Its name comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Actions that obey these rules
are ethical, while actions that do not, are not. This ethical theory is most closely associated with
German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. His work on personhood is an example of deontology in
practice. Kant believed the ability to use reason was what defined a person.

From an ethical perspective, personhood creates a range of rights and obligations

because every person has inherent dignity – something that is fundamental to and is
held in equal measure by each and every person.

VIII. Aristotle’s teleological ethics

Teleology is the study of the ends or purposes that things serve, and Aristotle’s
emphasis on teleology has repercussions throughout his philosophy. Aristotle believed that the
best way to understand why things are the way they are is to understand what purpose they
were designed to serve. For example, we can disassemble a clock and perceive it in parts but we
may never see how they actually work without putting them together. Aristotle’s emphasis on
teleology implies that there is a reason for everything.
IX. Bioethics

What is the right thing to do and the good way to be? What is worthwhile? What are our
obligations to one another? Who is responsible, to whom and for what? What is the fitting response to
this moral dilemma given the context in which it arises? On what moral grounds are such claims made?

Bioethicists ask these questions in the context of modern medicine and healthcare. They draw
on a pluralistic plethora of traditions, both secular and religious, to spawn civil discourse on contentious
issues of moral difference and others on which most people agree. Bioethicists foster public knowledge
and comprehension both of moral philosophy and scientific advances in healthcare. They note how
medical technology can change the way we experience the meaning of health and illness and,
ultimately, the way we live and die.

X. Business ethics and social responsibility

business ethics is an umbrella term about the way businesses make decisions and apply their
values to those decisions across the board – meaning, the way they consider the impact of their
decisions on stakeholders, both internally to the firm and externally on society.

The theory of social responsibility is built on a system of ethics, in which decisions and actions
must be ethically validated before proceeding. If the action or decision causes harm to society or the
environment then it would be considered to be socially irresponsible.

Moral values that are inherent in society create a distinction between right and wrong. In this
way, social fairness is believed (by most) to be in the “right”, but more frequently than not this
“fairness” is absent. Every individual has a responsibility to act in manner that is beneficial to society and
not solely to the individual.

XI. Catholic sex ethics

Issues of sexual morality, always significant ones in the Christian tradition, are among the most
vital topics of debate and concern within the Roman Catholic Church today. The content of official
Roman Catholic teaching in sexual matters is generally well known. The official teaching rests on the
view that the innate purpose of the sexual faculty is twofold: procreation and love union. Every sexual
act must be open to procreation, and must be expressive of love. This is the church’s basis for
condemning masturbation, contraception, sterilization and homosexual acts.

XIII. Natural Law Theory

Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic
values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and
wrong are inherent in people a Natural law holds that there are universal moral standards that are
inherent in humankind throughout all time, and these standards should form the basis of a just society.
Human beings are not taught natural law per se, but rather we “discover” it by consistently making
choices for good instead of evil. nd are not created by society or court judges.
XIV. Rights Theory

Rights theory maintain that there are things we cannot do against individuals because they are
holders of moral rights. A right defends an interest that should not be frustrated. If an interest is
defended by a right, it should not be thwarted even if doing so might be good for other reasons.

Two or more individuals may have conflicting rights that cannot all be satisfied. But this does not
mean that they do not have rights. What it entails, though, is that the satisfaction of one right may take
priority or override the satisfaction of another, or that we should just try to maximize the rights that are
respected if that is possible. This means we should try to enforce the rights of animals living in the wild,
at least when doing so doesn’t entail that the rights of other wild animals are violated. And if this isn’t
possible, we should look for solutions that would make it possible that more, and the most important,
rights are safeguarded.

XV. Mary’s Room Thought Experiment

Mary's Room is a thought experiment that attempts to establish that there are non-physical
properties and attainable knowledge that can be discovered only through conscious experience. It
attempts to refute the theory that all knowledge is physical knowledge.

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a
black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of
vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on
when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for
example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this
produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the
lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... What will happen when Mary is
released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or
not?

In other words, Jackson's Mary is a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the
science of color, but has never experienced color.