CHAPTER 3

ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Chapter Three describes, in brief, five categories or schools of ethics: Virtue Ethics,
Deontology, Teleology, Relativism, and Postmodernism. However, before you read
on please take the personal ethics inventory in Appendix B. Thereafter, please read
this chapter which will at that point have a great deal more meaning to you.
As you proceed through this Chapter, you will note that several readings have
been recommended. These readings are referenced in Appendix C. In that Appendix,
you will see primary and secondary readings for authors and, in some cases, a video
clip of the author speaking. The purpose of the readings in Appendix C is to provide a
rich background of ideas for the classroom, or seminar, or workshop from the various
schools of ethics mentioned in this Chapter and other parts of this book.

VIRTUE ETHICS

(RECOMMENDED READINGS: APPENDIX C – ARISTOTLE,

CONFUCIUS, HUME, NODDINGS, PLATO)

Virtue ethics is concerned with the character of the individual and not any particular
system of analysis or approach that she or he may use when facing an ethical dilemma.
The difficulty with understanding this school of ethics is that it does not provide a
list of ethically good actions with which to judge behaviour in a particular situation.
Indeed, it would be incorrect to view virtue ethics as a virtuous person carrying a
template of ethical values and principles to consult whenever facing an ethical
conundrum of dilemma. Lawrence Kohlberg (1981) called this the “bag of virtues”
approach to decision making. Rather, virtue ethics relates to predispositions of the
person’s character which have developed over time and resulted in virtuous habits of
action exemplifying a virtuous character. Such is not a list of ethical values which
are used as a checklist by the individual when facing an ethical scenario requiring a
decision. In that sense, St. Thomas More as portrayed in the movie “A Man for All
Seasons” (Bolt, 1990) is a good example of a character exhibiting Virtue Ethics. A
further example may be the Reverend Martin Luther King (1963a,b) who acted from
an interior belief and a deeply developed character manifested in both word and
deed. His sense of justice, brotherhood, and respect in the face of injustice and
violence directed towards himself and people of both colour and poverty in the
United States of America are renown. A third person who exemplified character
ethics is Martin Luther (Ganss, 1910) who when faced with a choice to recant certain
religious beliefs or face excommunication from the Catholic Church refused to
recant, and as a matter of personal conscience allegedly said to his inquisitors,
“Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God”.

21
CHAPTER 3

In all three of the above examples the individual’s virtuous character was shaped
by his may day-to-day decisions before the penultimate decision-making event.
Thus, in a sense, his decision regarding that event did not so much shape his
virtuous character as manifest it. Moreover, the virtuous nature of the individual’s
character is seen to involve the cognitive, affective, and relational aspects of the
individual. Hence, the decision results from the sum total of the individual’s
character, not a particular calculation in a particular set of circumstances. It is in
the doing – the acting out on an ethical matter that is where the ethical virtue of the
individual is revealed.
The above can be difficult to understand. Let us look at an example of what is
meant – using Virtue ethics when one says that a person is honest. Note that one
does not say that she or he acted honestly, but rather that she or he is honest. It is
the character that is at issue; hence, the reasons, including other involved aspects of
the personality. For example, the emotional reasons for the - action as understood
by the person - are crucial in making the determination of honesty. It is important
to note that one can exhibit honesty in some situations but not others. Further, in
virtue ethics the concept of phronesis or practical wisdom is crucial. What does
that term mean?
One can honestly want a particular result from an action which one initiates but
without practical wisdom, it may not be achieved. Practical wisdom comes with
experience and may be said to be synonymous, for our purposes, with being able
to choose amongst various possible decisions with a broad understanding of the
multifaceted and broad meaning of the decision to those affected including the self.
A decision made with practical wisdom is made with eyes wide open to all the
pre-existing elements, the contextual factors, and the consequences to those affected
with the decision. Unlike wisdom simpliciter, which does not necessarily consider
the impact of a decision on the ground in terms of the actual persons – including
the decision-maker – and relationships to and amongst persons and things, practical
wisdom exhibits maturity, deep consideration of culture, persons, and things, and
possible consequences with a close appreciation of the actual situation with the
temporal nature of the situation involved in the decision.
For those advocates of Virtue ethics, the belief is that if one lives a life of good
character which utilizes practical wisdom, one can achieve the goal, at least for this
school of thought, of personal happiness which is sometimes referred to as eudemonia
meaning that one flourishes according to the nature of being human (Hursthouse,
2007).
There are four classic or “cardinal” virtues: Prudence (wisdom), justice (fairness),
fortitude (courage), and temperance (self-control). These are evidenced in work of
Greek philosophers, most obviously in Plato (The Republic, 360 BCE). There are
also three well known “theological virtues” found in religions: faith, hope, and love.
Other virtues such as excellence, respect, promise keeping, honesty, and citizenship
are commonly described virtue and citizenship ethicists (such as Michael Josephson,
cited earlier). Beyond these, we might add the virtues that characterize the “type five
leaders,” identified and extolled by Jim Collins (2001), in Good to Great: humility
and determination.

22
 ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Some of the questions which a practitioner of virtue ethics may ask are:
Is this decision which I may take in concert with my fundamental and true
character?
If I make the proposed decision, how might that decision impact my view of
myself and my ethical character?
If I make the proposed decision would it be in accord with those persons that
I admire for their strength of character?
If I make the proposed decision how might it affect others sense of their own
ethical awareness?
There are many objections to Virtue ethics but the purpose of this book is not
to delve into the various objections – rather it is to provide brief descriptions of
the various schools of thought and then to encourage the reader to try applying the
concepts to various scenarios.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

(RECOMMENDED READINGS: APPENDIX C - CONFUCIUS, KANT)

The Deontological school of ethics may be summed up as saying “Do the Right
Thing!” It tells the person to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
Whistleblowers often say that although they were aware of the possible negative
consequences to themselves of telling the truth about an example of government
or corporate malfeasance, they were compelled from a sense of duty to report the
wrongdoing or misconduct to the public. The key point for the deontologist is
that what is at stake is one’s obligations to act in accord to ethical principles or
rules. Although one should do unto others as one would have them do unto them-
selves (the Golden Rule principle), it is important to realize that many people
would not necessarily want to be treated – say in a blunt fashion – as the decision
maker might want to be treated. The deontologist, in true Kantian fashion, would
supplement the Golden Rule principle with the Categorical Imperative principle
(meaning that it is necessary to always follow this same rule in ethical decision
making) which states that when I make an ethical decision it must be universally
applicable to all persons including the decision maker. Lastly, deontology
demands that ethical decision-making involves the “kingdom of ends”. That is, in
matters involving people, one decides with primary deference to people as ends
not means to my decision-making. Every person is seen as valuable per se and
not – as by a manipulator – simply a means to my ends or my organization’s
ends.
Perhaps one of the most famous whistleblowers was Jeffrey Wigand who told
the true story of big tobacco in the United States. Here is a transcript of an interview
with him on June 2, 2005, where he explains his conflicted sense of duty in deciding
whether or not to tell the truth to the public about the dangers of tobacco which
were know of, but denied by, big tobacco (Matthews, 2005).
Jeffrey Wigand became a household name when he told the truth about big
tobacco to “60 Minutes” back in 1995. His story was later made into the

23
CHAPTER 3

movie: “The Insider” [see Appendix F]. He talked to NBC’s David Gregory
about what it’s like to expose the truth.
DAVID GREGORY, GUEST HOST “HARDBALL:” Thanks for being
with us…. You were not in government. You were a high official in a tobacco
company.
Take me inside your own story. Describe that moment when you felt like,
“I can’t work within the system anymore. I can’t push my bosses to do what
I think is the right thing. I’ve got to go outside. I’ve got to try to expose this”.
Did you feel trapped? Describe that.
JEFFREY WIGAND: In a way, you do feel trapped. You feel a very deep,
inner conflict between your loyalties, your loyalty to your family, and supporting
and protecting your family, the supposed loyalty that you’re supposed to have
through the corporation that’s actually paying to you support your family.
And then you look at the hierarchy or the values, and you say, “Did those
loyalties outweigh the loyalty that one has or duty one has to public health
and safety?” And after considerable deliberation, I chose the pathway that
said that I had a duty and a moral obligation for the truth. And I owed that on
a hierarchy basis to public health and safety for the knowledge I gained while
in the tobacco industry that would save lives.
DAVID GREGORY: Why did you feel you had to go to the news media?
What wasn’t working by fighting on the inside?
JEFFREY WIGAND: The tradition and the process were so embedded that
I could never change it from the inside. Whether it was the violation of
lawyers vetting documents, or violation of rules of civil procedure with the
lawyers, or statements inside that we’re in a nicotine delivery business and tar
is the negative baggage, that we hook them young, we hook them for life.
First [problem] was the mantra outside: “No, nicotine is not addictive. Smoking
doesn’t kill. It hasn’t been proven, the targeting of children”. I mean, just the
outright misrepresentation of the fact that, when put in the right hands of the
public, under what we might consider the doctrine of consumer sovereignty,
consumers would make different choices.
And those choices were taken from them, particularly because the industry
wasn’t truthful and not only engaged in what I would say immoral activities
but most certainly approached the fringe of being illegal, if not fraudulent.
DAVID GREGORY: Let me interject one point here, Dr. Wigand. You
obviously felt the need at some point to put your face to this story…. Do you
sympathize with [others in a similar situation] wanting to be so secret?
JEFFREY WIGAND: Well, I have to say, in the beginning, I was secret.
From March of 1993 to August of 1995, I was secret. I worked under a code
name with the FDA. I worked secretly with the law firm representing ABC
News in a $10 billion lawsuit between ABC and Philip Morris. But ultimately,

24
 ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

I felt that I had the moral imperative that I had to do something with the
knowledge I had. And I chose to go to “60 Minutes,” because I believed that
they had the institution, they had the process to reach 30 to 40 million people
with the truth. And I trusted that entity to do that.
DAVID GREGORY: Is it a good process? Was the result good for you? Do
you feel good as a whistle-blower, or was it a painful episode in your life?
JEFFREY WIGAND: Well, there was pain in it. I mean, I can’t say there
was no pain. But as I look today, and I look back at what has happened and
what has changed as a result of my actions and those that helped and supported
me in what I chose to do, I think it’s made a change in the way tobacco is
viewed in the world today. And I have absolutely no regrets. And I would
most certainly do it again. I’m not so sure, if I went back to try do it again,
I could change the tapestry or the chemistry of the soup in any way, because
the alignment of stars, the support I got from both seen and unseen people,
was enormous in making it happen.
DAVID GREGORY: You feared for your life at various points, didn’t you?
JEFFREY WIGAND: Yes, we had to have bodyguards. The threats were
credible. They were directed towards my children. They weren’t always directed
towards me. We were provided two armed ex-Secret Service guards to protect
me 24/7. The school that I was teaching at the time put an armed sheriff ’s
deputy on the classroom door because of the threats. But in the end, no matter
what, the truth did come out. And I feel relieved that the truth did come out.
I wasn’t a bystander.
DAVID GREGORY: What changes now that Mark Felt has come out? What
changes for whistle-blowers in the future?
JEFFREY WIGAND: I don’t know what changes are — I mean, I would
like to you change the word “whistle-blower” and say it’s “truth-teller”.
I believe there is a need for people who cannot resolve and see harm being
done to do something. And I think Mark Felt [the FBI agent who secretly
spoke to reporters about the Watergate Hotel break-in which brought down
President Nixon] did it. I think Karen Silkwood [a worker in a nuclear facility
who spoke out against safety breaches and who later died in what some consider
to be a suspicious automobile accident] did it. I most certainly think Coleen
Rowley [a special agent for the FBI who spoke in public about mishandling
of pre 9–11 information by the FBI] did it. And there are lots of others who
have done it and have made the world a better place by telling the truth. I would
hope more people would do it.
DAVID GREGORY: Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, thank you very much for being
with us tonight, with the satellite delay from Montreal. Appreciate it.
Of course there are many other famous whistle blowers such as Peter Buxtun
(Reverby, 2009) who worked with the public health authority in the United States.

25
CHAPTER 3

He learned of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment where 399 poor African American
males were used as a sample in the testing, but where they were not given readily
available penicillin to treat the disease, and where the participants were not allowed
to be treated elsewhere for their disease. When authorities refused to act upon his
request for treatment for the participants, Mr. Buxtun went public with the experiment
to the disgrace of the public health authorities and all those involved.
Some of the questions which a practitioner of Deontological ethics may ask are:
– To whom or to what do I owe a duty in this decision?
– Does the proposed decision meet the Golden Rule condition?
– Does the proposed decision meet the Categorical Imperative condition?
– Regardless of the consequences, is there a principle which must be adhered to in
this case?
Whatever one may think of deontology as a school of ethical decision-making it
stands as a very persuasive school of thought and one which every person can relate
to in their life notwithstanding that much therein is subject to the interpretation of
the decision maker.

TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS

(RECOMMENDED READINGS: APPENDIX C - BENTHAM, MILL)

Everyone has said at one time or another, “Hey, go along with the idea – it’s in
everybody’s or almost everybody’s best interests”, or “you have to break a few eggs
to get a yolk”. Certainly in history, human beings have faced horrendous decisions
which they later have had to defend in a court of law or in the court of public
opinion.
In the famous English criminal law case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens in
1884 the yacht Mignonette set sail for Sydney to Southampton with a crew of four
when along its way it encountered a gale causing the crew to take to a lifeboat. The
criminal indictment, which resulted from the experiences of the survivors, reads, in
part, as follows.
On July 5, 1884, the prisoners, Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens, with
one Brooks, all able-bodied English seamen, and the deceased also an English
boy, between seventeen and eighteen years of age, the crew of an English
yacht, a registered English vessel, were cast away in a storm on the high seas
1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope, and were compelled to put into an
open boat belonging to the said yacht. In this boat they had no supply of water
and no supply of food, except two 11 pound tins of turnips, and for three days
they had nothing else to subsist upon. That on the fourth day they caught
a small turtle, upon which they subsisted for a few days, and this was the
only food they had up to the twentieth day when the act now in question was
committed. That on the twelfth day the remains of the turtle were entirely
consumed, and for the next eight days they had nothing to eat. That they had
no fresh water, except such rain as they from time to time caught in their
oilskin capes. The boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more

26
 ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

than 1000 miles away from land. That on the eighteenth day, when they had
been seven days without food and five without water, the prisoners spoke to
Brooks as to what should be done if no succour came, and suggested that
some one should be sacrificed to save the rest, but Brooks dissented, and
the boy, to whom they were understood to refer, was not consulted. That
on the 24th of July, the day before the act now in question, the prisoner
Dudley proposed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast who should
be put to death to save the rest, but Brooks refused to consent, and it was not
put to the boy, and in point of fact there was no drawing of lots. That on that
day the prisoners spoke of their having families, and suggested it would be
better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved, and Dudley proposed
that if there was no vessel in sight by the morrow morning the boy should be
killed. That next day, the 25th of July, no vessel appearing, Dudley told Brooks
that he had better go and have a sleep, and made signs to Stephens and Brooks
that the boy had better be killed. The prisoner Stephens agreed to the act, but
Brooks dissented from it. That the boy was then lying at the bottom of the boat
quite helpless, and extremely weakened by famine and by drinking seawater,
and unable to make any resistance, nor did he ever assent to his being killed.
The prisoner Dudley offered a prayer asking forgiveness for them all if either
of them should be tempted to commit a rash act, and that their souls might be
saved. That Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, went to the boy, and telling
him that his time was come, put a knife into his throat and killed him then
and there; that the three men fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four
days; that on the fourth day after the act had been committed the boat was
picked up by a passing vessel, and the prisoners were rescued, still alive, but in
the lowest state of prostration. That they were carried to the port of Falmouth,
and committed for trial at Exeter.
The question for the reader of the above is, “Do the ends justify the means?” The
simple response of teleology - although there is a much more nuanced response - is
“Yes”.
The classical nature of the teleological argument is more complex than the simple
answer stated above as the works of Jeremy Bentham (1996) and John Mill (1986)
attest. However, for the purposes of this book, the issue is that a decision should
be judged to be ethical if it is made with the intention to create the greatest good
or happiness for the greatest number of people. In that sense, the crew of the
Mignonette acted ethically.
More recently, the disturbing case of Uruguayan Air Force Flight #571 (Webley,
2010) displayed the ends to which some people will go to survive in that eating
dead fellow-passengers of the air plane crash was deemed by the survivors, an action
necessary to survive. One has to ask if the end – survival – justifies the means of
survival - becoming a cannibal. For the deontologist the answer seems to be yes
(Andes Incident Official Website - survivors’ interviews).
The utilitarian sees the ethical value of an act, or inaction as the case may be, in
the utility that is the happiness, to the greatest number of people. Therefore, the
decision-maker’s focus is upon the outcome or consequences of her or his action

27
CHAPTER 3

or inaction. In Act Utilitarianism one looks to the result of the action to determine
the utility; hence, the ethical aspect of the act. In Rule Utilitarianism, one looks to
whether or not the decision is in accord with the general rule of utility. References to
the two main proponents of classical Utilitarianism, Mill (1986; 2002) and Bentham
(1996) are in Appendix C for further study should the reader care to do so.
For the purposes of this book suffice to say that decision-makers in education
often face making decisions which are unfavourable to a minority such as the closure
of a local school due to very low enrolment - yet which is in the best interests of the
majority as the financial solvency of the school district may be at stake. Another
example in education is the elimination of certain programs such as second or third
language instruction or band trips due to a loss of funding for the school district.
The choices made by educational decision makers on how to address a loss of income
to their school district involves, often, a Utilitarian calculation and, of course, much
dismay on the part of some ratepayers.
Some of the questions which a practitioner of Teleological ethics may ask are:
– What will be the immediate consequences of my proposed decision with respect
to the matter at hand?
– What will be the long-term consequences of my proposed decision with respect
to the matter hand?
– How does the proposed decision relate to the general happiness of most of those
people affected by the decision?
– Does the proposed decision relate to this one instance or does it relate to a
general principle to be used in such decisions?
There is no doubt that Teleological ethical decision-making is fraught with
concerns. At its simplest, it does not consider the individual person’s hopes, fears,
concerns, circumstances, or thoughts, but rather considers people in aggregates, and
the ends – arguably of high utility to the majority of persons – may be seen to justify
the means. Yet, its use as an analytical tool is relevant to the decision making process.

RELATIVIST ETHICS

(RECOMMENDED READINGS: APPENDIX C –, BAUMAN, RORTY)

Ethical relativism is often encountered in schools and universities. It seems in

vogue to say that what is ethical in decision-making is determined by the culture,
the community, the past experiences of the decision-maker, by some group in power
that makes the rules, or simply by what works in the circumstances or the situation
at hand. Clearly, if that is the case, then there is no Archimedean point of reference
or touchstone upon which one can refer for eternal ethical principles which apply
in all cultures, for all people throughout time whether or not they realize such is the
case. Indeed, to many people it seems arrogant to make such a claim!
Einstein (1905) established that time is relative to the individual and how fast
she or he is travelling – consider the Twins Paradox (Nova, n.d.). Moreover, there
is no fixed unmoving point in space from which to measure a fixed distance as all
things are in motion. So too, relativists see ethics as being, depending upon the
sub-school of relativism, relative to the person, the community, its culture, time,

28
 ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

or situation. This position leads to some interesting paradoxes such as if one is an

ethical relativist, then how one cannot rationally argue against the Nazi’s treatment
of the Gypsies, gays, Catholics, and the Jews in Germany as such was accepted by
many as the culture of the time (Koonz, 2003). Hence the oft cited refrain, “who
are we to judge another culture from another time which made decisions under
conditions different from our own?” There are of course, many other more current
examples which cause great discomfort if one takes the ethical relativists position
to the extreme. Nevertheless, ethical relativism is rife in the classrooms in which
these authors have taught for over 30 years.
Some of the questions which a practitioner of relativist ethics may ask are:
– What would the proposed decision mean to the community’s opinion of me if
I made this decision?
– What should I do based on what the community thinks I should do?
– What is the short-term benefit that can be achieved by the proposed decision?
– What do other decision-makers do when they decide this kind of issue?
The reader will see from the questions above that some of the questions posed
by an ethical relativist are reasonable and may even be considered prudent. Indeed,
one should consider many of the relativist’s questions in considering an ethical
question but whether the answers to those questions should be definitive in making
a decision is certainly open to question.

POSTMODERN ETHICS

(RECOMMENDED READINGS: APPENDIX C – BAUMAN, RORTY)

What unites purposefulness, reciprocity and contractuality is that all three
imply calculability of action. They all assume that thinking precedes doing;
definition precedes the task; justification precedes the duty. The three attributes
presuppose action that is the outcome of rational decision-making, or at least
can be such an outcome if the actors put themselves to it…. I suggest, on the
contrary, that morality is endemically and irredeemably non-rational – in the
sense of not being calculable, hence not being presentable as following
impersonal rules, hence not being describable as following rules that are in
principle universalizable. The moral call is thoroughly personal; it appeals
to my responsibility, and the urge to care thus elicited cannot be allayed or
placated by the awareness that others do it for me, or that I have already done
my share by following to the letter what others used to do… We are not moral
thanks to society…. we live in society, we are society, thanks to being moral.
(Bauman, 1993, pp. 59–60)
During World War II, many citizens in Nazi Germany determined that the treatment
of the Jewish population - from its inception with the Nuremburg Laws of 1933 -
was inhuman. Indeed, many non-Jewish German citizens put their own lives and
the lives of their families in peril by hiding Jewish families. That action was
contrary to the laws of their country and the socially mandated view by the govern-
ment that Germany would be better off without Jews. How can one explain some
individuals’ sense of moral outrage and their moral impulse or urge to act contrary

29
CHAPTER 3

to the physical interest of their own family, the law, and the overt expression of the
society, in order to save others?
Following the war, some German citizens argued that they had not helped the
Jewish people due to their duty to follow the law as it had been created by legally
empowered and constituted authorities (Muller, 1991; Koonz, 2003). Others argued
that their first responsibility was to their own family’s safety. Others argued that
they had not done any of the killings; thus, they could not be held accountable for
what the State did during the war. They argued that although they did not agreed
with the State’s policy, they could not be seem as morally or ethically culpable as they
had did nothing to assist in its implementation. Others argued, in their defense, that in
the culture of the time in Germany, it was deemed socially acceptable and legally
correct, to turn-in Jews and not to assist them (Koonz, 2003; Goldhagen, 1996).
If ethics is culturally determined, and if there are no universal ethics or universal
ethical values, how can anyone judge another’s actions or inaction?
In the 21st century, Western society faces the postmodern condition, where many
suggest that it is passé to believe that one group, or society, or faith, has the sole
Truth, and further that to have believed in one Truth stems from a position of power,
or privilege which has caused minorities or the poor or the socially disadvantaged to
be marginalized, to be seen of little if any value, economically, socially, and whose
stories or narratives as of no significance.
Indeed, postmodernism suggests that the particularization of the context makes the
acceptance of a “grande narrative” and the “one best way” approach to truth or
ethical decision-making impossible, if not in itself, unethical. It is this deconstruction
of society’s fundamental understandings and narratives as these relate to underlying
assumptions and the harm which it is argued those assumptions have caused, as
evidenced by institutional and intellectual failures to stop the horrendous treatment
of the Other, which leads us into postmodern ethics.
Postmodern (Aylesworth, 2005) ethics is not based upon relativism, or the idea that
ethically, “anything goes”. Rather it is based upon a particular philosophical under-
standing, existentialism (Crowell, 2010). For many people it is implicitly assumed
that reason and logic can illuminate an understanding of ethical decision- making.
Indeed, it may be assumed that cognitive theories can open the door to systematic,
reasonable analysis and assist in choosing an ethical resolution to an ethical dilemma.
The assumption is that as rational people, albeit with emotions, it is possible for each
of us to select our own ethical values and principles and method of analysis, all of
which would compose our “bag of tricks,” and go out into the decision-making world
well armed to handle any ethical contingency. Postmodern ethics denies that this is
the case. It is the “why” of that denial that is the thorny rose of postmodern ethics.
Postmodern ethics views the search for universal ethical values and principles
as wrong-headed. It argues that the human condition is so ambiguous and full of
contingencies that one cannot determine in advance what ethical values or principles
may apply. Indeed, the continually changing, contextual nature of life makes it
impossible to have such ethical values. Moreover, to accept ethical values created
and offered by others, individuals, organizations, and churches, leaves one open to
becoming like some in Nazi Germany, subject to the agendas of those who would

30
 ETHICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

manipulate others for their own benefit, or the alleged benefit of the race, community,
or organization. What then does a postmodern ethic offer?
Postmodern ethics takes the position that before reason intervenes with its
analysis, its categories, its weighing of costs and benefits, its commandments given
by others, the individual exists in a world where she or he must make choices. It
is in the making of those choices that the individual exhibits an ethical sense, not
because of what she or he thinks, but rather by what she or he does. It is in the doing
and the acting that the person constructs - through one decision at a time - her or
his personal sense of ethics or morality. But how can someone who is not analyzing
and calculating make such decisions? Postmodernist argue that within every individual
is the urge or impulse to act ethically or morally. Bauman (1993) says, “it is the
primal and primary ‘brute fact’ of moral impulse, moral responsibility, moral intimacy
that supplies the stuff from which the morality of human cohabitation is made”
(p. 35). The individual’s responsibility to act is not derived from a code, or
prescribed ethical values, or principles but from the very fact that she or he exists
as a human being in relationship with the Other (individual). From this perspective,
if I use a calculation or analysis to determine whether or not I should act, I am
dehumanizing the other person and putting a false intellectual wall, a conceptual
precondition, between my very human urge to help another person and the humanity
of the other person who is in need.
It may be argued by some that the postmodern position is all fine and good, but
society must impose ethical codes to ensure the compliance of those in society with
the “good”. Postmodernists disagree with this view of the nature of being human.
They counter that society is moral because of the people in it not visa-versa (Bauman,
1993, p. 33).
The postmodern ethical position is the ethical or moral self-construction by the
autonomous individual who makes decisions from the primal urge to act in relation-
ship with the other. This primal urge merely exists within each individual and is not
contingent upon first applying reason. In that sense it is not reasonable (based upon
reason) per se.
At the core of postmodern ethics, according to Bauman (1993), are seven points:
1. Morality is ambivalent and thus no ethical code can be created to fit that
uncertainty;
2. Moral phenomena do not follow patterns to which one can apply preconceived
codes or ethical values or ethical principles;
3. Moral choices are rarely either good or bad. Often it is the choice between the
lesser of two evils;
4. When morality is viewed from a universal standpoint it precludes the individual
listening to her or his moral impulse or moral urge thus favoring other’s
agendas;
5. Morality is not a rational act; it precedes the act of thinking or calculating, or
obeying. Therefore, the autonomous self in a moral sense, is constructed through
the individual’s actions and choices;
6. Society’s ethical rules or morals assume that before one can act, or be with the
other person, one must have conceptual knowledge of that person and must be able

31
CHAPTER 3

to justify why one should be in relationship with that person or group. The post-
modernist argues that this is wrong-headed as it is fundamental to being human that
both individuals, just because they exist, need not justify legislatively, conceptually,
or with reason, the others existence nor the pre-cognitive urge to act morally or
ethically while in relationship. In other words, to be human is to exist, to be in
relationship, to act with the primal urge to be ethical, and to create an ethical
sense for the self through those actions. Moral action is inherent to the existence
of the individual who is created by the choices made by that individual; and
7. Postmodernist ethics is not relativism as it does not leave it up to the individual’s
society to decide the ethics or morality of the individual. Nor does it leave it up
to the individual to simply do whatever she or he may choose at any given
moment. Rather it calls upon the individual, in her or his solitude, to listen to the
existential urge to be in relationship with the other and to act in a human fashion,
with care.
Some of the questions which a practitioner of postmodern ethics may ask are:
– What is my immediate intuitive reaction to the ethical decision which I now
face?
– What is the moral urge which I feel when faced with this decision?
– Am I acting in a free of preconceptions and making a choice within that freedom?
– Am I prepared to act within the context of the situation knowing and under-
standing full well that this is my decision and that I alone am responsible for it
and all of the consequences which flow from it?
The reader will see from the questions above that whatever one may think of the
postmodern approach to ethics and hence ethical decision-making it does speak to
both freedom of choice and responsibility on the part of the decision maker. One
may also note that it leaves open the difficulty of arguing in the public square that
although one is empowered by statute and responsible to and accountable for one’s
decisions to the public, - responsibilities freely chosen by the decsion-maker - one is
ethically responsible only to the self and the urge which it engenders. Suffice to say
that not all agree with the postmodern analysis of ethics (Mason, 2001; Geuras, 2002).

A SIMPLE ASSESSMENT

All of us have certain tendencies with regard to which school of ethics we are most
comfortable using our lives. In that regard, as we mentioned earlier, we offer a
simple assessment of the reader’s ethical tendency in Appendix B, which is not
meant to be in anyway definitive but rather as an exercise in what one instrument
sees as the reader’s intuitively favoured school of ethics.

SUMMARY

This chapter has provided a brief introduction to five schools of ethics, Virtue Ethics,
Deontology, Teleology, Relativism, and Postmodernism. It has also offered the
reader an opportunity to assess which school she or he is most naturally associated
with in ethical decision-making.

32