WHAT IS ETHICS

 The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores)from which the adjective

moral is derived is equivalent to ethos.
 Etymologically, ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is done by the
human being in general or a society in particular.
 Ethics,  generally speaking is about matters such as the good thing that we should
pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in w/c we could or
should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are. Ethics as a
subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values w/ particular
and special significance to human life.

Morality and Ethics

This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral,
amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the
word “not” when applied to the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be ambiguous. One might
say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of
ethics; on the other hand, one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the
act of lying would be an unethical act.
            Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to refer to
specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is
sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls
short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such
as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning”, w/c suggest a more rational aspect. The term “ethics”
can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal
ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledge as an intellectual discipline belonging
to philosophy.  However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as
ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable
ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics”
Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms “moral” and
“ethics” and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to
make that distinction. Ordinary conversation present as much less rigid distinction between these
terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to occupy ourselves here
with the question how different thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this course,
we will be using the terms “ethical” and “moral” (likewise, “ethics” and “morality”)
interchangeably

BRANCHES OF ETHICS

Normative Ethics - The largest branch, it deals with how individuals can figure out the correct
moral action that they should take. Philosophers such as Socrates and John Stuart Mill are
included in this branch of ethics.
Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties and judgments
such as if truth values can be found and the theory behind moral principals.
Applied Ethics - This is the study of applying theories from philosophers regarding ethics in
everyday life. For example, this area of ethics asks questions such as "Is it right to have an
abortion?" and "Should you turn in your friend at your workplace for taking home office
supplies?"
Moral Ethics - This branch questions how individuals develop their morality, why certain
aspects of morality differ between cultures and why certain aspects of morality are generally
universal.
Descriptive Ethics - This branch is more scientific in its approach and focuses on how juman
beings actually operate in the real world, rather than attempt to theorize about how they should
operate.
Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral and ethical dilemmas is never easy especially when
any choice violates the societal and ethical standards by which we have been taught to govern
our lives.

 LAW - It is supposed the law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines,
Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in country’s criminal
and civil codes. The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that
are posited or put forward by an authority figure that require compliance.
 RELIGION –

Does Morality Depend on Religion?

by James Rachels
(Chapter 4 of Rachels, The Elements of Morality 6th ed)
“The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment”.
Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative (1947)
“I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.”
Musashi Miyamoto, at Ichijohi Temple (CA. 1608)
 

1.  The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion

In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Judge Roy Moore of
Gadsden, Alabama, for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Such a
display, it said, violates the separation of church and state. The ACLU may not have
liked Moore, but Alabama voters did. I 2000, Moore successfully campaigned to
become chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, running on the premise to
“restore the moral foundation of law.” Thus the “Ten Commandments Judge became
the most powerful jurist in the state of Alabama.
Moore was not through making his point, however. In the wee hours of July 31, 2001,
he had a granite monument to the ten Commandments installed in the Alabama state
judicial building. This monument weighed over five thousand pounds, and was
anyone entering the building could not miss it. Moore was sued again, but the people
were behind him: 77% of Americans thought that he should be allowed to display his
monument. Yet the law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed a court order to
remove it, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary fired him, saying that he had placed
himself above the law. Moore, however, believed that he was putting God above the
law.
Few people, at least in the United States, would find this remarkable. Among western
democracies, the U.S. is an unusually religious country. Nine out of ten Americans
say they believe in a personal God; in Denmark and Sweden, the figure is only one in
five. It is not unusual for priests and ministers to be treated as moral experts. Most
hospitals, for example, have ethics committees, and these committees usually include
three types of members: healthcare professionals to advise about technical matters,
lawyers to handle legal issues, and religious representatives to address the moral
questions. When newspapers want comments about the ethical dimensions of a story,
they call upon the clergy, and the clergy are happy to oblige. Priests and ministers are
assumed to be wise counselors who will give sound moral advice when it is needed.
Why are clergymen regarded this way? The reason is not that they have proven to be
better or wiser than other people - as a group, they seem to be neither better nor worse
than the rest of us. There is a deeper reason why they are regarded as having special
moral insight. In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People
commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion. So
because the clergymen are the spokesmen for religion, it is assumed that they must be
spokesmen for morality as well.
It is not hard to see why people think this. When viewed from a nonreligious
perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and
purpose. In his essay, A Free Man’s Worship, written in 1902, Bertrand Russell
expressed what he called the scientific view of the world:
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were
achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs,
are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no
intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave;
that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday
brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar
system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitable be buried
beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite beyond
dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to
stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of
unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
 
From a religious perspective, however, things look very different. Judaism and
Christianity teach that the world was created by a loving, all-powerful God to provide
a home for us. We, in turn, were created in his image, to be his children. Thus the
world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in which God’s
plans and purposes are realized. What could be more natural, then, than to think that
morality is a part of the religious view of the world, whereas the atheist’s world has
no place for values?
 

2. The Divine Command Theory

In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is
conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down rules that we are to obey. He does not
compel us to obey them. We were created as free agents, so we may choose to accept
or to reject his commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must
follow God’s laws. This conception has been elaborated by some theologians into a
theory about the nature of right and wrong known as the Divine Command Theory.
Essentially, this theory says that morally right means commanded by God and
morally wrong means forbidden by God.
This theory has a number of attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem
about 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, wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command
Theory suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother
with morality. Why not forget about ethics and just look out for oneself? If
immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, there is an easy answer: On the
day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems for the theory, Of course, atheists would not
accept it, because thy do no believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for
believers. The main problem was first noted by Plato, the Greek Philosopher who
lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.
Plato’s writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates and one or
more interlocutors. In one of these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion
concerning whether right can be defined as that which the gods command. Socrates is
skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right? This is one of the most famous questions in the
history of philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that one good
test of a person’s aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he can grasp its force
and point.
 
The point is that if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are
caught in a dilemma. Socrates question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are
two things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.
 

3. First, we might mean that right conduct is right because God commands
it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be
truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that
God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither
good nor bad. It is God’s command that makes truthfulness right.

 
But this leads to trouble, for it represents God’s commands as arbitrary. It means that
God could have given different commands just as easily. He could have commanded
us to be liars, and then lying, not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted
to reply: But God would never command us to lie. But why not? If he did endorse
lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his command would
make it right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God
commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command it than its
opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is arbitrary.
Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced
to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful
and all-knowing, but the he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that good and bad
are defined by reference to God’s will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. What
could it mean to say that God’s commands are good? If X is good means X is
commanded by God then God’s commands are good would mean only God’s
commands are commanded by God, an empty truism. In 1686, Leibniz observed in
his Discourse on Metaphysics:
So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will
of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and
all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally
praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?
Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two options, we seem to be stuck with
consequences that even the most religious people would find unacceptable.
 
Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a different problem, which is
equally troublesome. In taking this option, we have abandoned the theological
conception of right and wrong - when we say that God commands us to be truthful
because truthfulness is right, we are acknowledging a standard of right and wrong
that is independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to and independent of
God’s command, and it is the reason for the command. Thus, if we want to know why
we should be truthful, the reply Because God commands it does not really tell us, for
we may still ask But why does God command it? and the answer to that question will
provide the underlying reason why truthfulness is a good thing.
 
All this may be summarized in the following argument:
 

4. Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right
actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them
because they are right.

2. If we take option (a), the God’s commands are, from a moral point of
view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered
meaningless.

3. If we take option (b), then we will have acknowledged a standard of right

and wrong that is independent of God’s will. We will have, in effect,
given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

4. Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary, and give

up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of
right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological
conception of right and wrong.

5. From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God’s

commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.

6. Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and

wrong that is independent of God’s will must be accepted.

 
Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right
and wrong because it would be impious no to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they
believe in God, they should say that right and wrong are to be defined in terms of his
will. But this argument suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the contrary, the
Divine Command Theory itself leads to impious results, so that a devout person
should not accept it. And in fact, some of the greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274), rejected the theory for just this reason. Thinkers such as
Aquinas connect morality with religion in a different way.
3. Religion and moral issues
Some religious people will find the preceding discussion unsatisfying. It will seem
too abstract to have any bearing on their actual moral lives. For them, the connection
between morality and religion is an immediate, practical matter that centers on
particular moral issues. It doesn’t matter whether right and wrong are defined in
terms of God’s will or whether moral laws are laws of nature: Whatever the merits of
such theories, there are still the moral teachings of one’s religion about particular
issues. The teachings of the Scriptures and the church are regarded as authoritative,
determining the moral positions one must take. To mention only one example, many
Christians think that they have no choice but to oppose abortion because it is
condemned both by the church and (they assume) by the Scriptures.
 
Are there, in fact, distinctively religious positions on major moral issues, which
believer are bound to accept? If so, are those positions different from the views that
other people might reach simply by trying to reason out the best thing to do? The
rhetoric of the pulpit suggests that the answer to both questions is yes. But there are
several reasons to think otherwise.
 
In the first place, it is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures.
Our problems are not the same as the problems faced by the Jews and the early
Christians many centuries ago; thus, it is not surprising that the Scriptures might be
silent about moral issues that seem urgent to us. The Bible contains a number of
general precepts, such a the injunctions to love one’s neighbor and to treat others as
one would wish to be treated oneself, that might be thought relevant to a variety of
issues. But worthy as those precepts are, they do not yield definite answers about
exactly what position one should take concerning the rights of workers, the extinction
of species, the funding of medical research, and so on.
 
Another problem is that in many instances the Scriptures and church tradition are
ambiguous. Authorities disagree, leaving the believer in the awkward position of
having to choose which element of the tradition to accept and which authority to
believe. Read plainly, for example, the New Testament condemns being rich, and
there is a long tradition of self-denial and charitable giving that affirms this teaching.
But there is also an obscure Old Testament figure named Jabez who asked God to
enlarge my territories (I Chronicles 4:10), and God did. A recent book urging
Christians to adopt Jabez as their model became a best-seller.
 
Thus when people say that their moral views are derived from their religious
commitments, they are often mistaken. In reality, something very different is going
on. They are making up their minds about the moral issues first and then interpreting
the Scriptures, or church tradition, in such a way as to support the moral conclusion
they have already reached. Of course this does not happen in every case, but it seems
fair to say that it happens often. The question of riches is one example; abortion is
another.
 
In the debate over abortion, religious issues are never far from the center of
discussion. Religious conservatives hold that the fetus is a human being from the
moment of conception, and so they say killing it is really a form of murder. They do
not believe it should be the mother’s choice whether to have an abortion, because that
would be like saying she is free to commit murder.
 
The key premise in the conservative argument is that the fetus is a human being from
the moment of conception. The fertilized ovum is not merely a potential human being
but an actual human being with a full-fledged right to life. Liberals, of course, deny
this - they say that, at least during the early weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is
something less than a full human being.
 
The debate over the humanity of the fetus is enormously complicated, but here we are
concerned with just one small part of it. Conservative Christians sometimes say that,
regardless of how secular thought might view the fetus, the Christian view is that the
fetus is a human being from its very beginning. But is this view mandatory for
Christians? What evidence might be offered to show this? One might appeal to the
Scriptures or to church tradition.
 
The Scriptures. It is difficult to derive a prohibition of abortion from either the Jewish
or the Christian Scriptures. The Bible does not speak plainly on the matter. There are
certain passages, however, that are often quoted by conservatives because they seem
to suggest that fetuses have full human status. One of the most frequently cited
passages is from the first chapter of Jeremiah, in which God is quoted as saying:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I
consecrated you. These words are presented as though they were God’s endorsement
of the conservative positions: They are taken to mean that the unborn, as well as the
born, are consecrated to God.
 
In context, however, these words obviously mean something quite different. Suppose
we read the whole passage in which they occur:
 
Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I
knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to
the nations.
 
Then I said, Ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a
youth. But the Lord said to me,
 
Do not say I am only a youth for to all to whom I send you you shall go, and
whatever I command you you shall speak. Be not afraid of them, for I am with you to
deliver you, says the Lord.
 
Neither abortion, the sanctity of fetal life, nor anything else of the kind is being
discussed in this passage. Instead, Jeremiah is asserting his authority as a prophet. He
is saying, in effect, God authorized me to speak for him; even though I resisted, he
commanded me to speak. But Jeremiah puts the point more poetically; he has God
saying that God had intended him to be a prophet even before Jeremiah was born.
 
This often happens when the Scriptures are cited in connection with controversial
moral issues. A few words are lifted from a passage that is concerned with something
entirely different from the issue at hand, and those words are then construed in a way
that supports a favored moral position. When this happens, is it accurate to say that
the person is following the moral teachings of the Bible? Or is it more accurate to say
the he or she is searching the Scriptures for support of a moral view he or she already
happens to think is right, and reading the desired conclusion into the Scriptures? If
the latter, it suggests an especially impious attitude - an attitude that assumes God
himself must share one’s own moral opinions. In the case of the passage from
Jeremiah, it is hard to see how an impartial reader could think the words have
anything to do with abortion, even by implication.
The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific judgment about the
moral status of fetuses occurs in the 21st chapter of Exodus. This chapter is part of a
detailed description of the law of the ancient Israelites. Here the penalty for murder is
said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a
miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid by her husband. Murder was not a
category that included fetuses. The Law of Israel apparently regarded fetuses as
something less than full human beings.
Church Tradition. Even if there is little scriptural basis for it, the contemporary
church’s stand is strongly antiabortion. The typical churchgoer will hear ministers,
priests, and bishops denouncing abortion in the strongest terms. It is no wonder, then,
that many people feel that their religious commitment binds them to oppose abortion.
But it is worth noting that the church has not always taken this view. In fact, the idea
that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception is a relatively new
idea, even within the Christian church. St. Thomas Aquinas held that an embryo does
not have a soul until several weeks into the pregnancy. Aquinas accepted Aristotle’s
view that the soul is the substantial form of man. We need not go into this somewhat
technical notion, except to note that one implication is that one cannot have a human
soul until one’s body has a recognizably human shape. Aquinas knew that a human
embryo does not have a human shape from the moment of conception, and he drew
the indicated conclusion. Aquinas’s view of the matter was officially accepted by the
church at the Council of Vienne in 1312, and to this day it has never been officially
repudiated.
However, in the 17th century, a curious view of fetal development came to be
accepted, and this has unexpected consequences for the church’s view of abortion.
Peering through primitive microscopes at fertilized ova, some scientists imagined that
they saw tiny, perfectly formed people. They called the little person a homunculus,
and the idea took hold that from the very beginning the human embryo is a fully
formed creature that needs only to get bigger and bigger until it is ready to be born.
 
If the embryo has a human shape from the moment of conception, then it follows,
according to Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s philosophy, that it can have a human soul
from the moment of conception. The church drew this conclusion and embraced the
conservative view of abortion. The homunculus, it said, is clearly a human being, and
so it is wrong to kill it.
However, as our understanding of human biology progressed, scientists began to
realize that this view of fetal development was wrong. There is no homunculus; that
was a mistake. Today we know that Aquinas’s original thought was right - embryos
start out as a cluster of cells; human form comes later. But when the biological error
was corrected, the church’s moral view did not revert to the older position. Having
adopted the theory that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception,
the church did not let it go and held fast to the conservative view of abortion. The
council of Vienne notwithstanding, it has held that view to this day.
Because the church did not traditionally regard abortion as a serious moral issue,
Western law (which developed under the church’s influence) did not traditionally
treat abortion as a crime. Under the English common law, abortion was tolerated even
if performed late in the pregnancy. In the United States, there were no laws
prohibiting it until well into the 19th century. Thus when the U.S. Supreme Court
declared the absolute prohibition of abortion to be unconstitutional in 1973, the Court
was not overturning a long tradition of moral and legal opinion. It was only restoring
a legal situation that had always existed until quite recently.
The purpose of reviewing this history is not to suggest that the contemporary
church’s position is wrong. For all that has been said here, its view may be right. I
only want to make a point about the relation between religious authority and moral
judgment. Church tradition, like Scripture, is reinterpreted by every generation to
support its favored moral views. Abortion is just an example of this. We could just as
easily have used shifting moral and religious views about slavery, or the status of
women, or capital punishment, as our example. In each instance, people’s moral
convictions are not so much derived from their religion as superimposed on it.
 
The various arguments in this chapter point to a common conclusion. Right and
wrong are not to be defined in terms of God’s will; morality is a matter of reason and
conscience, not religious faith; and in any case, religious considerations do not
provide definitive solutions to the specific moral problems that confront us. Morality
and religion are, in a word, different. Because this conclusion is contrary to
conventional wisdom, it may strike some readers as anti-religious. Therefore, it
should be emphasized that this conclusion has not been reached by questioning the
validity of religion. The arguments we have considered do not assume that
Christianity or any other theological system is false; these arguments merely show
that even if such a system is true, morality remains an independent matter.

CULTURE –

Cultural Relativism  holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the
bounds of the culture itself.
How is culture defined?
What if someone told you their culture was the internet? Would that make sense to
you? Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics shared by
groups of people. Given this, someone could very well say that they are influenced by
internet culture, rather than an ethnicity or a society! Culture could be based on
shared ethnicity, gender, customs, values, or even objects. Can you think of any
cultural objects? Some cultures place significant value in things such as ceremonial
artifacts, jewelry, or even clothing. For example, Christmas trees can be considered
ceremonial or cultural objects. They are representative in both Western religious and
commercial holiday culture.
In addition, culture can also demonstrate the way a group thinks, their practices, or
behavioral patterns, or their views of the world. For example, in some countries like
China, it is acceptable to stare at others in public, or to stand very close to others in
public spaces. In South Africa, if you board a nearly empty bus or enter a nearly
empty movie theater, it is regarded as polite to sit next to the only person there. On
the other hand, in a recent study of Greyhound bus trips in the US, a researcher found
that the greatest unspoken rule of bus-taking is that if other seats are available, one
should never sit next to another person. Numerous passengers expressed that “it
makes you look weird”. These are all examples of cultural norms that people in one
society may be used to. Norms that you are used to are neither right nor wrong, just
different. Picture walking into a nearly empty movie theater when visiting another
country, and not sitting next to the only person in the theater. Another person walks
up and tells you off for being rude. You, not used to these norms, feel confused, and
anxious. This disorientation you feel is an example of culture shock.
Cartoon showing two people in an empty movie theater. One person is saying "you're
a jerk" to the person who sat far away from him.
What is cultural relativism?
Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country, such as dried squid or fried
crickets and think of it as weird and gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism! That
means you use your own culture as the center and evaluate other cultures based on it.
You are judging, or making assumptions about the food of other countries based on
your own norms, values, or beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is smelly” or “people
shouldn’t eat insects” are examples of ethnocentrism in societies where people may
not eat dried squid or insects.
Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried crickets. The man
who is being offered the crickets says "um, I think I'll pass."
Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one hand, ethnocentrism can lead to negative
judgments of the behaviors of groups or societies. It can also lead to discrimination
against people who are different. For example, in many countries, religious minorities
(religions that are not the dominant religion) often face discrimination. But on the
other hand, ethnocentrism can create loyalty among the same social group or people
in the same society. For example, during the World Cup or Olympics, you may tend
to root for your own country and believe that the players or teams representing your
country are much better. National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.
To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to yours, we can
use the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a
culture to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we
should try to understand cultural practices of other groups in its own cultural context.
For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ” one should instead
ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or
grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional cuisine
and have been eaten for thousands of years as a healthy food source!
Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried crickets. The man
who is being offered the crickets asks to know more about them.
Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be abused and misinterpreted.
If one culture behaves one way, does that mean all cultures can behave that way as
well? For example, many countries and international organizations oppose the act of
whaling (the fishing of whales) for environmental reasons. These environmental
organizations say that there are not many whales left and such fishing practices
should be stopped. However, other countries argue that whaling is a cultural practice
 that has been around for thousands of years. Because it may be part of a country’s
oceanic culture, this country may say that such a cultural practice should not be
opposed based on cultural differences, say, by an inland country that does not
understand. Who gets to define what a moral cultural behavior is? Is whaling
immoral? Two different cultures may have very different answers, as we saw in the
above example. Another more extreme instance would be female genital cutting in
some parts of the world. Locally, it is argued that the practice has cultural roots, but
such a practice has raised concerns among many international human rights
organizations.
Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures and societies, we
should think about their customs in a way that helps us make sense of how their
cultural practices fits with their overall cultural context. For example, having several
wives perhaps makes economic sense among herders who move around frequently.
Through such an understanding, polygamy makes cultural sense.



 SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the
individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is
the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a
decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim
that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or
wrong.

ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
            The basic thought of Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions
are based on our feelings and nothing more.  On this view,  there is no such thing as
“objective” right and wrong.
Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.

o 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.

o Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the

speaker holds on a particular issue
o 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:

 o 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:

o 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

o 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

o moral statements in everyday life make judgements ("lying is wrong"),

factual statements ("cats have fur") don't

Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval

o 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

o 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

o 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

I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more than feelings.

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"
 o Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give information only
about what we feel about moral issues.
o 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.
o 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 criticizes them for being a liar, and that they often
praise other people for telling lies.
o 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

o 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?

o 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?
o 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.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM- “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all
our action are always already motivated by self-interest.”  This theory that describes
the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not
direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an
underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interest, and all
our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.
 Ethical egoism
o   Ethical egoism   differs from psychological egoism in that it does not
suppose all our actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical
egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interest, as
the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to
others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
o thical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their own self-
interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests.
It is thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how
people ought to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is quite different
from psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are ultimately
self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that
purports to describe a basic fact about human nature.
Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 - 1790).
 Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 - 1790).
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to promote the
general good. This argument was made famous by Bernard Mandeville
(1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam Smith
(1723-1790) in his pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth of
Nations."
In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals single-mindedly
pursue “the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires” they
unintentionally, as if “led by an invisible hand,” benefit society as a
whole. This happy result comes about because people generally are the
best judges of what is in their own interest, and they are much more
motivated to work hard to benefit themselves than to achieve any other
goal.
An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that it doesn’t really
support ethical egoism. It assumes that what really matters is the well-
being of society as a whole, the general good. It then claims that the best
way to achieve this end is for everyone to look out for themselves. But if
it could be proved that this attitude did not, in fact, promote the general
good, then those who advance this argument would presumably stop
advocating egoism.
Prisoner's Dilemma
Another objection is that what the argument states is not always true.
Consider the prisoner’s dilemma, for instance. This is a hypothetical
situation described in game theory. You and a comrade, (call him X) are
being held in prison. You are both asked to confess. The terms of the deal
you are offered are as follows:
If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six months and he gets 10 years.
If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six months and you get 10 years.
If you both confess, you both get five years.
 If neither of you confesses, you both get two years.
 
Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is confess.
Because if he doesn’t confess, you’ll get a light sentence; and if he does
confess, you’ll at least avoid getting extra prison time. But the same
reasoning holds for X as well. According to ethical egoism, you should
both pursue your rational self-interest. But then the outcome is not the
best one possible. You both get five years, whereas if both of you had put
your self-interest on hold, you’d each only get two years.
The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in your best interest to pursue
your own self-interest without concern for others. Sacrificing your own
interests for the good of others denies the fundamental value of your own
life to yourself.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism
This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn Rand, the
leading exponent of “objectivism” and the author of "The Fountainhead"
and "Atlas Shrugged." Her complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral
tradition, which includes—or has fed into—modern liberalism and
socialism, pushes an ethic of altruism. Altruism means putting the
interests of others before your own.
 
This is something people are routinely praised for doing, encouraged to
do, and in some circumstances even required to do, such as when you pay
taxes to support the needy. According to Rand, no one has any right to
expect or demand that I make any sacrifices for the sake of anyone other
than myself.
Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn Rand, smiles and
stands outdoors with her arms folded, in front of the Grand Central
building, midtown Manhattan, New York City.
 Ayn Rand, 1957. New York Times Co./Getty Images
A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there is
generally a conflict between pursuing your own interests and helping
others. In fact, though, most people would say that these two goals are not
necessarily opposed at all. Much of the time they complement one
another.
For instance, one student may help a housemate with her homework,
which is altruistic. But that student also has an interest in enjoying good
relations with her housemates. She may not help everyone in all
circumstances, but she will help if the sacrifice involved is not too great.
Most people behave like this, seeking a balance between egoism and
altruism.
 More Objections to Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This is because it
goes against certain basic assumptions that most people have regarding
what ethics involves. Two objections seem especially powerful.
Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving
conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a
company wants to empty waste into a river; the people living downstream
object. Ethical egoism advises that both parties actively pursue what they
want. It doesn’t suggest any sort of resolution or commonsense
compromise.
Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A basic
assumption made by many moral philosophers—and many other people,
for that matter—is that we should not discriminate against people on
arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or ethnic
origin. But ethical egoism holds that we should not even try to be
impartial. Rather, we should distinguish between ourselves and everyone
else, and give ourselves preferential treatment.
To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of morality. The
golden rule—versions of which appear in Confucianism, Buddhism,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—says we should treat others as we
would like to be treated. One of the greatest moral philosophers of modern
times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that the fundamental principle
of morality (the “categorical imperative,” in his jargon) is that we should
not make exceptions of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t
perform an action if we cannot honestly wish that everyone would behave
in a similar way in the same circumstances.

Model for Ethical Decision Making

1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying
the facts of the case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts
is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a
case, we want to know the available facts  at hand as well as any facts currently not known but
that need to be ascertained.  Thus one is asking not only “What do we know?” but also “ What
do we need to know?” in order to make an intelligent ethical decision.
2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests or goods. It’s these conflicting
interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented ia a
______versus _________ format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding in a particular
ethical dilemma. For example, in business ethics there is often a conflict between the right of a
firm to make profit and its obligation to the community. In this case, the obligation pertains to
the environment
3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE

 In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are central to
the conflicting positions being taken. It is critical to identify these principles, and in
some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily
than others. Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may
be other principles that speak to the case that come from other sources.  There may be
constitutional principles or principles drawn from natural law that supplement the
biblical principles that come into play here.  The principles that come out of your
mission and calling are also important to consider.

4.  LIST THE ALTERNATIVES


o Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma
involves coming up with various alternative courses of action. Although
there will be some alternatives that you will rule out without much
thought, in general the more alternatives that are listed, the better the
chance that your list will include some high-quality ones. In addition, you
may come up with some very creative alternative that you had not
considered before.

5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PRINCIPLES

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral principles that
have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this point, since the
principles will eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to
see if there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberations.  If a clear decision
is not forthcoming, then the next part is the model that must be considered. At the least, some of
the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.
6, WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES
  If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the consequences of the
remaining available alternatives is in order.  Both positive and negative consequences are to be
considered. They should be informally weighed, since some positive consequences are more
detrimental than others.
7. MAKE A DECISION

 Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made. Realize

that one common element in ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless
solutions to them.  Frequently the decision that is made is one that involves the least
number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.