Ethics – Module 1
1.1.2 Definition of Morality / Ethics
What Is Morality?
Before investing yourself in the study of an
academic subject, it would be useful to first
have some idea of what you are getting
yourself into. One way—sometimes the
best—to gain such an understanding is by
considering a definition. When you open
your trigonometry text or chemistry
handbook, you’ll likely be given, very early
on, a definition of the area you are about to
study. So, as your teacher, I would seem to
have a duty now to present you with a
definition of morality.
Even if we want to we just simply can’t.
There is no widely agreed-on definition of
morality. The absence of a definition does
not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
(After all, no one has yet been able to offer
informative definitions of literature, or life,
or art, and yet we know a great deal about
those things.) Indeed, we can get a good
sense of our subject matter by doing these
four things:
1. being clear about the difference
between conventional and critical
morality;
2. distinguishing the different branches of
moral philosophy and their central
questions;
3. identifying starting points for moral
thinking; and
4. contrasting morality with other
normative systems, including religious
ones.
1.1.3 Conventional and Critical Morality
Conventional Morality
Suppose you take sociology or an
anthropology course, and you get to a unit
on the morality of the cultures you’ve been
studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns
of behavior to be found in the cultures, their
accepted ideas about right and wrong, and
the sorts of character traits that these
cultures find admirable. These are the
elements of what we can call conventional
morality—the system of widely accepted
rules and principles, created by and for
human beings, that members of a culture or
society use to govern their own lives and to
assess the actions and the motivations of
others.
Conventional morality can differ from
society to society. The conventional morality
of Saudi Arabia forbids women from publicly
contradicting their husbands or brothers,
while Denmark’s conventional morality
allows this. People in the United States
would think it immoral to leave a restaurant
without tipping a good waiter or bartender,
while such behavior in many other societies
is perfectly OK.
Critical Morality
When we talk about morality in this course,
we will be referring to moral standards that
are not rooted in widespread endorsement,
but rather are independent of conventional
morality and can be used to critically
evaluate its merits.
It’s possible, of course, that conventional
morality is all there is. But this would be a
very surprising discovery. Most of us
assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a
moral view is not a guarantee of its truth.
We could be wrong on this point, but until
we have a chance to consider the matter in
detail, I think it best to assume that
conventional morality can sometimes be
mistaken. If so, then there may be some
independent, critical morality that
(1) does not have its origin in social
agreements;
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs,
irrationality, or popular prejudices; and
(3) can serve as the true standard for
determining when conventional morality has
got it right and when it has fallen into error.
That is the morality whose nature we are
going to explore in this course.
1.1.4 The Branches of Moral Philosophy
We all know that there are lots of moral
questions. So it might help to impose some
organization on them. This will enable us to
see the basic contours of moral philosophy
and also to better appreciate the
fundamental questions in each part of the
field, you are about to study.
There are three core areas of moral
philosophy:
1. Value theory
• What is the good life?
• What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
• How do we improve our lot in life?
• What is happiness, and is it the very
same thing as well-being?
2. Normative ethics
• What are our fundamental moral duties?
• What makes right actions right?
• Which character traits count as virtues,
which as vices, and why?
• Who should our role models be?
• Do the ends always justify the means, or
are there certain types of action that
should never be done under any
circumstances?
3. Metaethics
• What is the status of moral claims and
advice?
• Can ethical theories, moral principles, or
specific moral verdicts be true? If so,
what makes them true?
• Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
• Do we always have a good reason to do
our moral duty?
1.1.5 Moral Starting Points (part 1)
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is
knowing where to begin. Some skeptics
about morality deny that there are any
proper starting points for ethical reflection.
They believe that moral reasoning is simply a
way of rationalizing our biases and gut
feelings. This outlook encourages us to be
lax in moral argument and, worse, supports
an attitude that no moral views are any
better than others. While this sort of
skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t
regard it as the default view of ethics. We
should accept it only as a last resort.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly
plausible ethical assumptions, claims that
can get us started in our moral thinking. The
point of the exercise is to soften you up to
the idea that we are not just spinning our
wheels when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints
that can guide us when thinking about how
to live. Here are some of them:
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune
from moral criticism. The law does not
have the final word on what is right and
wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions
that are legal, or customary, are
sometimes morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone
has some mistaken ethical views, and no
human being is wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a
good thing. Friendships add value to
your life. You are better off when there
are people you care deeply about, and
who care deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the
impossible. Morality can demand only so
much of us. Moral standards that are
impossible to meet are illegitimate.
Morality must respect our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility
than adults. Moral responsibility
assumes an ability on our part to
understand options, to make decisions
in an informed way, and to let our
decisions guide our behavior. The fewer
of these abilities you have, the less
blameworthy you are for any harm you
might cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good.
Any moral theory that treats justice as
irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is
important that we get what we deserve,
and that we are treated fairly.
1.1.5 Moral Starting Points (part 2)
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification. The default position in ethics is
this: do no harm. It is sometimes morally
acceptable to harm others, but there must
be an excellent reason for doing so or else
the harmful behavior is unjustified.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally.
People who are alike in all relevant respects
should get similar treatment. When this fails
to happen—when racist or sexist policies are
enacted, for instance—then something has
gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical
consideration. How well-off we are is
important. But it isn’t the only thing of moral
importance. Morality sometimes calls on us
to set aside our own interests for the sake of
others.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or
emotional pain is bad. It may sometimes be
appropriate to cause such extreme
suffering, but doing so requires a very
powerful justification.
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in
power can get away with lots of things that
the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t justify what
they do. That a person can escape
punishment is one thing—whether his
actions are morally acceptable is another.
12. Free and informed requests prevent
rights violations. If, with eyes wide open and
no one twisting your arm, you ask someone
to do something for you, and she does it,
then your rights have not been violated—
even if you end up hurt as a result.
There are a number of points to make about
these claims.
• First, this short list isn’t meant to be
exhaustive. It could be made much
longer.
• Second, we are not claiming that the
items on this list are beyond criticism.
We are only saying that each one is very
plausible. Hard thinking might weaken
our confidence in some cases. The point,
though, is that without such scrutiny, it
 is perfectly reasonable to begin our
moral thinking with the items on this list.
• Third, many of these claims require
interpretation in order to apply them in
a satisfying way. When we say, for
instance, that equals ought to be treated
equally, we leave all of the interesting
questions open. (What makes people
equals? Can we treat people equally
without treating them in precisely the
same way? And so on.)
A morality that celebrates genocide, torture,
treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is,
depending on how you look at it, either no
morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any
morality worth the name will place some
importance on justice, fairness, kindness,
and reasonableness.
1.2.2 Other Normative Systems
We can also better understand morality by
contrasting its principles with those of other
normative systems. Each of these represents
a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we
should not break.
There are many such systems, but let’s
restrict our focus to four of the most
important of them: those that govern the
law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
The fact that a law tells us to do something
does not settle the question of whether
morality gives its stamp of approval.
Some immoral acts (like cheating on a
spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts
(like voicing criticism of a dictator) are not
immoral. Certainly, many laws require what
morality requires and forbid what morality
forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that
shows that morality is something different
from the law. That a legislature passed a bill
is not enough to show that the bill is morally
acceptable.
Etiquette
We see the same imperfect fit when it
comes to standards of etiquette. Forks are
supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but
it isn’t immoral to set them on the right.
Good manners are not the same thing as
morally good conduct. Morality sometimes
requires us not to be polite or gracious, as
when someone threatens your children or
happily tells you a racist joke. So the
standards of etiquette can depart from
those of morality.
Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the
standards of self-interest. Think of all of the
people who have gotten ahead in life by
betraying others, lying about their past,
breaking the rules that others are following.
It’s an unhappy thought, but a very
commonsensical one: you sometimes can
improve your lot in life by acting immorally.
And those who behave virtuously are
sometimes punished, rather than rewarded,
for it. Whistleblowers who reveal a
company’s or a government official’s
corruption are often attacked for their
efforts sued to the point of bankruptcy, and
targeted for their courageous behavior.
Though the relation between self-interest
and morality is contested, it is a plausible
starting point to assume that morality can
sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-
being, and that we can sometimes improve
our lot in life by acting unethically.
Tradition
Finally, morality is also distinct from
tradition. That a practice has been around a
long time does not automatically make it
moral. Morality sometimes requires a break
with the past, as it did when people called
for the abolition of slavery or for allowing
women to vote. And some nontraditional,
highly innovative practices may be morally
excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a
foolproof test of its morality.
1.2.3 Morality and Religion
The Presumed Connection between Morality
and Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are
inseparable: People commonly believe that
morality can be understood only in the
context of religion. Thus the clergy are
assumed to be authorities on morality.
When viewed from a non-religious
perspective, the universe seems to be a
cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and
purpose.
The Divine Command Theory
The basic idea is that God decides what is
right and wrong. Actions that God
commands are morally required; actions
that God forbids are morally wrong, and all
other actions are permissible or merely
morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive
features.
• It immediately solves the old problem of
the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not
merely a matter of personal feeling or
social custom. Whether something is
right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is
right if God commands it and wrong if
God forbids it.
• The Divine Command Theory explains
why any of us should bother with
morality. Why shouldn’t we just look out
for ourselves? If immorality is the
violation of God’s commandments, then
there is an easy answer: On the day of
final reckoning, you will be held
accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with
the theory.
• Atheists would not accept it, because
they do not believe that God exists.
• But there are difficulties even for
believers. One can be skeptical and ask,
is a conduct right because the gods
command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right? This is a question of
whether God makes the moral truths
true or whether he merely recognizes
that they’re true.
First, we might say that right conduct is right
because God commands it. But this idea
encounters several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is
mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the
wrong reasons for moral principles.
The second option has a different drawback.
• In taking it, we abandon the theological
conception of right and wrong. When
we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we
acknowledge a standard that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness
 exists prior to God’s command and is the
reason for the command.
1.2.4 God and Morality (part 1)
Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the
relationship between morality and God.
Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there
no morality if there is no God?
Ultimately, Stephen will argue that
morality and God's commands are
distinct, even if there is a God and she
commands moral things. However, in
this first video, Steve considers why you
might like the view that morality just is
God's commands.
1.2.4 God and Morality (part 2)
Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the
relationship between morality and God.
Specifically, he asks: is morality the same
thing as the commands of God? Is there no
morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks
the answer to both these questions is 'no'.
He argues that, if you believe God exists and
that we should follow his commands *for
certain reasons*, then you should *not*
think that morality just is whatever God
commands.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 1
There is no widely agreed-on definition of
morality. The absence of a definition does
not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
What we can do is to get a good sense of
our subject matter by doing two things:
• 1.Being clear about the difference
between conventional and critical
morality
• 2.Distinguishing morality with other
normative systems.
Conventional Morality
• the system of widely accepted rules and
principles, that members of a culture or
society use to govern their own lives.
Critical Morality
• It refers to the moral standards that are
independent of conventional morality
and can be used to critically evaluate its
merits.
Three core areas of moral philosophy
Value theory
Normative ethics
Metaethics
Moral Starting Points
1.Neither the law nor tradition is immune
from moral criticism.
2.Everyone is morally fallible.
3.Friendship is valuable.
4.We are not obligated to do the impossible.
5.Children bear less moral responsibility
than adults.
6.Justice is a very important moral good.
7.Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification.
8.Equals ought to be treated equally.
9.Self-interest isn’t the only ethical
consideration.
10.Agony/suffering is bad.
11.Might does not make right.
12.Free and informed requests prevent
rights violations.
Other Normative Systems
• We can also better understand morality
by contrasting its principles with those
of other normative systems.
• Other normative systems also represent
a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we
should not break but are different from
morality.
• There are many such systems, but let’s
restrict our focus to four of the most
important of them: those that govern
the law, etiquette, self-interest, and
tradition.
The Divine Command Theory
• The basic idea is that God decides what
is right and wrong.
• Actions that God commands are morally
required; actions that God forbids are
morally wrong, and all other actions are
permissible or merely morally neutral.
Module 2 – Ethics
2.1.1 Moral Reasoning - Intended Learning
Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be
able to:
1. support your moral judgement with
sufficient reason, and
2. determine the minimum conception
of morality.
2.1.2 Moral Reasoning in Ethical Issues
Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good
reasons; and second, morality requires the
impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.
Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is
tempting to assume that we just know what
the truth is, without even having to consider
arguments on the other side. Unfortunately,
however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they may be. Our
feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the by-products of prejudice,
selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we
must let our feelings be guided as much as
possible by reason. This is the essence of
morality. The morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the
arguments. Of course, not every reason that
may be advanced is a good reason. There
are bad arguments as well as good ones, and
much of the skill of moral thinking consists
in discerning the difference.
The first thing is to get one’s facts straight.
The facts exist independently of our wishes,
and responsible moral thinking begins when
we try to see things as they are.
Next, we can bring moral principles into
play. In our three examples, a number of
principles were involved: that we should not
“use” people; that we should not kill one
person to save another; that we should do
what will benefit the people affected by our
actions; that every life is sacred; and that it
is wrong to discriminate against the
handicapped. Most moral arguments consist
of principles being applied to particular
cases, and so we must ask whether the
principles are justified and whether they are
being applied correctly.
The rote application of routine methods is
never a satisfactory substitute for critical
thinking, in any area. Morality is no
exception.
The Requirement of Impartiality
Almost every important moral theory
includes the idea of impartiality. This is the
idea that each individual’s interests are
equally important; no one should get special
treatment. At the same time, impartiality
requires that we do not treat the members
of particular groups as inferior, and thus it
condemns forms of discrimination like
sexism and racism.
2.1.3 The Minimum Conception of Morality
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum
conception: Morality is, at the very least, the
effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—
that is, to do what there are the best
reasons for doing—while giving equal weight
to the interests of each individual affected
by one’s action.
This paints a picture of what it means to be a
conscientious moral agent. The
conscientious moral agent is someone who
is concerned impartially with the interests of
everyone affected by what he or she does;
who carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications; who accepts principles of
conduct only after scrutinizing them to make
sure they are justified; who will “listen to
reason” even when it means revising prior
convictions; and who, finally, is willing to
act on these deliberations.
As one might expect, not every ethical
theory accepts this “minimum.” This picture
of the conscientious moral agent has been
disputed in various ways. However, theories
that reject it encounter serious difficulties.
This is why most moral theories embrace
the minimum conception, in one form or
another.
2.2.1 Skepticism in Morality - Intended
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, you should be
able to:
1. identify the sources of skepticism or
doubt in morality; and
2. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the skeptical arguments of egoism
and relativism.
2.2.2 Two Types of Egoism - Pyschological
Egoism and Ethical Egoism
We respond differently when there is a
“crisis.”
We have duties to others simply because
they are people who could be helped or
harmed by what we do. If a certain action
would benefit (or harm) other people, then
that is a reason why we should (or should
not) perform that action. The common-
sense assumption is that other people’s
interests count, from a moral point of view.
Some people believe that we have no duties
to others. On their view, known as Ethical
Egoism, each person ought to pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. This is the
morality of selfishness. It holds that our only
duty is to do what is best for ourselves.
Other people matter only insofar as they can
benefit us.

Ethical Egoism claims that each person
ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively. People ought to be self-
interested and that our neighbors ought not
to give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a
claim about morality, or about the way
things should be.
Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts
that each person does, in fact, pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. People are
self-interested and that our neighbors will
not give to charity. Psychological Egoism
makes a claim about human nature, or
about the way things are.
2.2.3 Ethical Egoism: Ayn Rand's Argument
In this video, you will learn about Ayn Rand
argument in support of Ethical Egoism.
2.2.4 Cultural Relativism
Different Cultures Have Different Moral
Codes
The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the
bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of
course, did not do that—the Greeks
practiced cremation and regarded the
funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to
dispose of the dead. The Eskimos lived in
small settlements, separated by great
distances, and their customs turned out to
be very different from ours. The men often
had more than one wife, and they would
share their wives with guests, lending them
out for the night as a sign of hospitality.
Moreover, within a community, a dominant
male might demand—and get—regular
sexual access to other men’s wives. The
women, however, were free to break these
arrangements simply by leaving their
husbands and taking up with new partners—
free, that is, so long as their former
husbands chose not to make too much
trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of
marriage was a volatile practice that bore
little resemblance to our custom.
Cultural Relativism
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different
moral codes. Therefore, there are no
universal moral truths, the customs
of different societies are all that exist.
The following claims have all been made by
cultural relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral
codes; that a certain action is right, then
that action is right, at least within that
society.
2. There is no objective standard that can
be used to judge one society’s code as
better than another’s. There are no
moral truths that hold for all people at
all times.
3. The moral code of our own society has
no special status; it is but one among
many.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other
cultures. We should always be tolerant
of them.
5. The moral code of a society determines
what is right within that society; that is,
if the moral code of a society says it is.
The Cultural Differences Argument
1. Different cultures have different moral
codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in
morality.
3. Right and wrong are only matters of
opinion, and opinions vary from culture
to culture.
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
1. We could no longer say that the customs
of other societies are morally inferior to
our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of
our own society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into
doubt.
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite
rightly, about the danger of assuming that
all of our practices are based on some
absolute rational standard. They are not.
Some of our customs are merely
conventional—merely peculiar to our
society—and it is easy to lose sight of that
fact. Cultural Relativism begins with the
insight that many of our practices are like
this—they are only cultural products.
The second lesson has to do with keeping an
open mind. As we grow up, we develop
strong feelings about things: We learn to see
some types of behavior as acceptable, and
other types as outrageous.
Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for
this kind of dogmatism. Realizing this can
help broaden our minds. We can see that
our feelings are not necessarily perceptions
of the truth— they may be due to cultural
conditioning and nothing more.
Many of the practices and attitudes we find
natural are really only cultural products.
2.2.5 Ethical Relativism
In this video, you will learn about Ethical
relativism or moral relativism. It is the view
that ethical or moral values and beliefs are
relative to the various individuals or
societies that hold them. Thus, according to
the ethical or moral relativists, there is no
objective right and wrong.
Summary / Key Takeaways Module 2
Reason and Impartiality
• Moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons; and second, morality
requires the impartial consideration of
each individual’s interests.
Moral Reasoning
• If we want to discover the truth, we
must let our feelings be guided as much
as possible by reason.
• This is the essence of morality. The
morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.
The Requirement of Impartiality
• Almost every important moral theory
includes the idea of impartiality.
• This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one
should get special treatment.
• Impartiality requires that we not treat
the members of particular groups as
inferior, and thus it condemns forms of
discrimination like sexism and racism.
The Minimum Conception of Morality
• Morality is, at the very least, the effort
to guide one’s conduct by reason—that
 is, to do what there are the best reasons
for doing—while giving equal weight to
the interests of each individual affected
by one’s decision.

Skepticism in Ethics

• Ethical Egoism claims that each

person ought to pursue his or her own
self-interest exclusively.
• Psychological Egoism, by contrast,
asserts that each person does in
fact pursue his or her own self- interest
exclusively.

Cultural Relativism

• Main Idea: “Different cultures have

different moral codes. Therefore, there
are no universal moral truths, the
customs of different societies are all that
exist.