ETHICS

 It is a moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

  It is called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and
morally right and wrong.
 Is defined as a moral philosophy or code of morals practiced by a person or group of people.
An example of ethics is at the code of conduct set by a business. ... The standards that govern
the conduct of a person, especially a member of a profession.

I. WHAT ARE THE 6 STAGES of MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality

STAGE 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

STAGE 2: Individualism and Exchange

Level 2 – Conventional morality

STAGE 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships

STAGE 4: Maintaining the Social Order

Level 3 – Post-conventional morality

STAGE 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights

STAGE 6: Universal Principles

LEVEL AGE RANGE STAGE NATURE of MORAL REASONING

       
Level 1: Seen in preschool   People make decisions based on what is best for
Pre-conventional children, most Stage 1: themselves, without regard for others' needs or
  elementary school Punishment- feelings. They obey rules only if established by
  students, some Junior avoidance more powerful individuals; thy may disobey if they
  high school students, and aren't likely to get caught. "Wrong" behaviors
  and a few high school obedience are those that will be punished.
  Students    
       
       
      People recognize that other also have needs. They
    Stage 2: may try to satisfy others' needs if their own needs
    Exchange of are all met ("you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours")
    favors They continue to define right and wrong primarily
      in terms of consequences to themselves.
       
        
Level 2: Seen in a few older   People make decisions based on what actions will
Conventional elementary school Stage 3: please others, especially authority figures and
Good
Morality students, some Junior boy/girl other individuals with high status (ex. Teachers,
  high school students,   popular peers). They are concerned about
  and many high school   maintaining relationships, through sharing,
  students (Stage 4   trust, and loyalty, and they take other people's
typically does not
  appear   perspectives and intentions into account when
  until the high school   making decisions.
  years).    
       
       
      People look to society as a whole for guidelines
about right or wrong. They know rules are
    Stage 4: necessary
    Law and or keeping society running smoothly and believe
    Order it is their "duty" to obey them. However, they
      perceive rules to be flexible; they don't
      necessarily recognized that as society's needs
      change, rules should change as well.
       
       
Level 3: Rarely seen before   People recognize that rules represent agreements
Post-
conventional college or even Stage 5: among many individuals about appropriate
Morality extremely rarely seen Social behavior. Rules are seen as potentially useful
  in adults. contract mechanisms that can maintain the general social
      order and protect individual rights, rather than as
      absolute dictates that must be obeyed simply
      society's best interests can and should be changed.
       
       
      This stage is a hypothetical, "Ideal" stage that few
    Stage 6: people ever reach. People in this stage adhere to a
    Universal few abstract, universal principles (eg. Equality of all
    ethical people, respects for human dignity, commitment
    principle to justice) that transcend specific norms and
      rules. They answer to a strong inner conscience
      and willingly disobey laws that violate their own
      ethical principles.

Kohlberg’s and Piagets point of view:

STAGE 1: RESPECT for POWER and PUNISHMENT
A young child (age 1-5) chooses what to do – what is right – according to what he/she wants to
do and can do without getting into trouble. To be right, one ought to be obedient to the people
in power and, thus, avoid punishment.

STAGE 2: LOOKING OUT for #1

Children (age 5-10) are disposed to be EGOTISTIC or SELF-SERVING. They lack respect for others’
rights but may give to others on the assumption that they will get as much or even more in
return.

STAGE 3: “BEING a GOOD BOY” or “NICE GIRL”

In this stage, people (age 8-16) have shifted from pleasing themselves to pleasing important
others, usually parents, teachers, or friends. The seek approval and thus conform to someone
else’s expectations.

STAGE 4: LAW and ORDER THINKING

The majority of people (16 years old and older) have internalized society’s rules about how to
behave. They feel indebted to conform, no longer to just family and friends, but also to society’s
laws and customs. They realize that it is important to do one’s duty to maintain social order.

STAGE 5: JUSTICE THROUGH DEMOCRACY

In this stage, people understand the underlying moral purposes that are supposed to be served
by laws and social customs. Democracy is seen as social contract whereby everybody tries to
constantly construct a set of laws that best serves most people, while protecting the basic rights
of everybody. Respect for the law and a sense of obligation to live by the rules are present, as
long as rules were established in a fair manner and fulfill a moral purpose.

STAGE 6: DECIDING on BASIC MORAL PRINCIPLES by which you will LIVE YOUR LIFE and RELATE to
EVERYONE FAIRLY.
In this stage, rare people have evaluated many values and have rationally chosen a philosophy
of life that truly guides their life. Morally developed, the do not automatically conform to
tradition or others’ beliefs, and even to their own emotions, intuition, or impulsive notions
about right and wrong. They are tough enough to act on their values, and social control is
exercised through guilt associated with the rational reaction of conscience based on moral
principles.

II. OBSTACLES to MAKING the RIGHT DECISIONS

OBSTACLES
 Something that impedes.

RIGHT DECISIONS
 Are picking a choice among all the options which seem to be the right one

1. Ethical Subjectivism
 Ethical Subjectivism is not about what things are good and what things are bad. It also does not
tell how we should live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory about the
nature of moral judgments.

Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the
feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons.

It is a theory about the nature of moral judgments. Ethical subjectivism holds that individual
conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.

If Moral Subjectivism is correct, then two individuals may have different moral judgments on the
same situation and both of them may be right. Thus, Subjectivism fails to explain what is right
and wrong. feelings and emotions. Thus, Subjectivism leads us to inconsistent judgments

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there. There are no objective
moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true

Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach that moral statements describe how the
speaker feels about a particular ethical issue. Moral statements are just factual statements
about the attitude the speaker holds on a particular issue. So if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm
doing is telling you that I disapprove of telling lies. Some forms of subjectivism generalise this
idea to come up with:

Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude normal human beings hold
on a particular issue. And this may ultimately lead us to this conclusion about moral truths:
Moral judgements are dependent on the feelings and attitudes of the persons who think about
such things.

Good points of subjectivism

 Reflects the subjective elements of morality

It reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and opinions - indeed it can
cope with the contradictory moral views we often find ourselves wrestling with
 Reflects the evaluative elements of moral statements
Moral statements in everyday life make judgements ("lying is wrong"), factual statements ("cats
have fur") don't
 Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval
It reflects the communication of approval and disapproval that seems to go along with the everyday
making of moral statements
 May clarify what people are arguing about
Subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or wrongness of some issue to see
that the real dispute is not about objective truth but about their own preferences
 Reflects the persuasive intentions behind ethical discussions
Subjectivism may also enable people engaging in moral argument to realise that they are not
arguing about objective truths but trying to persuade their opponent to adopt their point of view.

Bad points of subjectivism

The problem with subjectivism is that it seems to imply that moral statements are less significant than
most people think they are - this may of course be true without rendering moral
statements insignificant.
 "If I approve of something, it must be good"
Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give information only about what we feel about
moral issues.
If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a person who genuinely approves of telling
lies says "telling lies is good" that moral statement is unarguably true. It would only be untrue if the
speaker didn't approve of telling lies.

So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to do to prove that lying is good is to show lots
of evidence that they do indeed approve of lying - perhaps that they tell lots of lies and feel
good about it, indeed are surprised if anyone criticises them for being a liar, and that they often
praise other people for telling lies.

Most people would find this way of approaching ethics somewhat unhelpful, and wouldn't think it
reflected the way in which most people talk about ethical issues.

 Moral statements seem more than statements about feelings

By and large if a person says something is wrong we usually get the message that they disapprove of
that something, but most of us probably think that the other person is doing more than just telling
us about their feelings.

 How can we blame people if moral truths are always subjective?

If moral statements have no objective truth, then how can we blame people for behaving in a way
that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is wrong" has no objective truth, then how can we justify punishing
people for murder?

One answer is that we can justify punishment for murder on the basis of the objective truth that
most normal people in society disapprove of murder. If we do this, we should not pretend that our
justification is based on anything other than the majority view.

2. Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by simply following our
feelings.

Ethical subjectivism has plenty of problems, the mere fact that we like something would make it
good, like the theory provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics like slavery, racism,
discrimination, drugs, and bullying that implications that are contrary to what we believe about
the nature of moral judgments.

3. Emotivism
Emotivism is an improved version of Subjectivism,. It is actually the most popular of non-
cognitivism that claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Most
judgments, according to Emotivisms, are not statements of fact but are mere expressions of the
emotions of the speaker. According to Emotivism, utterances (power, style, or manner of
speaking) in ethics are not fact-stating sentences, that is, they are not used to convey
(communicate) information.
 Emotivism claims that they have 2 entirely different purposes:
a. They are used as a means of influencing other individual’s
behavior
b. To express (not report) the speaker’s attitude.
Example:
a. If someone says “Stealing is immoral”, it is an attempt to stop you from doing the act. The
utterance is more likely a command – it is equivalent to saying, “Don’t do that”.
b. “Fair play is good” is not like saying “I approve of fair play”, but it is like saying “Hurrah for
fair play”.
c. “Gasoline costs P50 per liter” saying something that is either True or False, and the purpose
of our utterance , is typically, to convey information to the listener.

Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to many objections. This theory was developed by an

American Philosopher Charles L. Stevenson, one of the most influential theorists of ethics in the
20th century.

Emotivism falls down because it isn't very satisfying. Even (most) philosophers think moral
statements are more than just expressions of feeling. And it's perfectly possible to imagine an
ethical debate in which neither party has an emotion to express.

4. Evaluating Emotivism
Emotivism provides morality with insufficient explanations. It fails to distinguish moral
judgments from mere expressions of personal preference.

Example:
a. If someone tells us that a certain action is Immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is
no reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd (unreasonable).
b. To say, for example, that 'Murder is wrong' is not to put forward something as true, but
rather to express your disapproval of murder. Similarly, if you say that polygamy is wrong,
then on this view we should understand what you've just said as some- thing like 'Boo to
Polygamy!
c. If somebody utters that a particular act is wrong and it explains that it is because it does not
happen to fit his taste, than we also do not count his claim as legitimate ethical judgment.

Emotivism

Emotivism is no longer a view of ethics that has many supporters. Like subjectivism it teaches that there
are no objective moral facts, and that therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true.

Emotivists teach that:

 Moral statements are meaningless.
This means that the first half of the statement 'it was wrong to murder Fred' adds nothing to the non-
moral information that Fred has been murdered.
 Moral statements only express the speaker's feelings about the issue.
Later emotivists added this idea to Emotivism:
 By expressing the speaker's feelings about a moral issue moral statements may influence
another person's thoughts and conduct.
Moral statements are meaningless
Moral statements try to persuade people to do, or not to do, what the speaker approves or disapproves
of ©

In Emotivism a moral statement isn't literally a statement about the speaker's feelings on the topic, but
expresses those feelings with emotive force.

When an emotivist says 'murder is wrong' it's like saying 'down with murder' or 'murder, yecch!' or just
saying 'murder' while pulling a horrified face, or making a thumbs-down gesture at the same time as
saying 'murder is wrong'.

At first sight this seems such a bizarre idea that you might wonder if anyone had ever seriously thought
it. One of the great philosophers of the 20th century certainly did:

The reasons why some philosophers thought this are technical - they thought that ethical statements
could not be converted into statements that could be empirically tested, and thus failed the verifiability
criterion of meaning - which meant that they were meaningless.

Emotivism pays close attention to the way in which people use language and acknowledges that a moral
judgement expresses the attitude that a person takes on a particular issue. It's like shouting "hurray", or
pulling a face and going "ugh".

That's why this theory is called Emotivism, because it's based on the emotive effect of moral language.

Influence

Moral statements attempt to influence people

Later theories of Emotivism taught that it was about more than just an expression of emotion - the
speaker is also trying to have an effect on the person they're talking to.

The American philosopher C. L. Stevenson said that the major use of ethical judgements...

So when people disagree about an ethical issue, Emotivism makes it clear that each is trying to persuade
the other to adopt their attitude and follow their recommendations as to how to behave, rather than
giving information that might be true or false.

Emotivism versus Subjectivism

This version of emotivism gets round one of subjectivism's biggest problems. Consider this example:

When one subjectivist says lying is bad, they're giving the information that they disapprove of lying. If
another subjectivist says lying is good, they're giving the information that they approve of lying.
Since, according to the subjectivist view, both are reporting their own personal feelings, there isn't
actually anything that they disagree about.

But since people do sincerely disagree about moral issues, there must be more going on than pure
subjectivism allows, and this is included in Emotivism:

When an Emotivist says lying is bad they're giving the instruction "don't tell lies", while an Emotivist who
says lying is good is giving the instruction "do tell lies" - and we can see that there is a clear
disagreement between them.

Bad points of Emotivism

Emotivism says that moral statements just express our feelings ©

Emotivism has become unpopular with philosophers because the theory that led the Emotivists to think
that moral statements were meaningless has fallen from favour.

Less technically, if expressing moral judgements is really no more than expressing one's personal opinion
there doesn't seem any useful basis for arguing about moral judgements.

In practical terms, Emotivism falls down because it isn't very satisfying. Even (most) philosophers think
moral statements are more than just expressions of feeling.

And it's perfectly possible to imagine an ethical debate in which neither party has an emotion to
express.

Non-philosophers also think there is more to ethics than just the expression of an attitude or an attempt
to influence behaviour. They want a better explanation and foundation for shared standards of morality
than Emotivism can provide.

Simple Subjectivism entails that, one approves or disapproves of something when they say “something
is morally good or bad,” and nothing more. ... Emotivism does not interpret moral judgments as
statements that are true or false; it represents expressions of attitude, therefore, people cannot be
infallible.

III. STEPS or ELEMENTS of a MODEL for MAKING MORAL DECISIONS

MORAL DECISIONS
 It is a choice made based on a person's ethics, manners, character, and what they believe is
proper behavior. These decisions tend to affect not only our own well-being, but the well-being
of others. .

1. Gather the Facts

 In more complex cases, gathering the facts is the indispensable first step prior to any ethical
analysis and reflection on the case.

In examining a case, we want to know the available facts at hand, as well as any facts presently
not known but that need to be determined. We thus have to ask not only “what do we know?”
but also “what do we need to know?” in order to generate an intelligent ethical decision.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

The moral issues should be correctly stated in term of competing interests. It is these conflicting
interests that practically make a moral dilemma.

3. Identify the Principles that have a Bearing on the Case

4. List the Alternatives

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

6. Weigh the Consequences

7. Make Decisions